What has happened to the RTS genre?
- Thread starter MammothBlade
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Haha yeah the Undead were awesome, but done right and the Orcs were unstoppable, once you've got the plan down pat they would be able to destroy anything.Shanicus said:
And I always loved having my hero specialise as an assassin. With a high enough assassination ratio not even titans could stand in your way.
Dawn of War 2 took ideas from Company of Heroes, another high rated rts by THQ. The graphics and gameplay are great, but its personal preference when it comes to base building. Its smaller scale, but that doesn't make it "worse" by any means. Yea I can see why people prefer the larger battles and bases, but that doesn't mean DoW2 is a bad game. "disappointing"? Well 90% of games are because people have weird expectations they want things to reach. People don't want good games, they want good games made specifically for THEM.
Also there's tons of good rts games that come out, its just a lot of people make terrible ones. And consoles aren't killing it, its just never been a front runner as far as game genres go, its more of a niche for gamers because the micromanagement is boring/hard sometimes for most people. Starcraft 2, as much as I love it, is unplayable for me online because of this. UNPLAYABLE. (yes go hurr durr you suck all you want) This kind of kills it for some people.
Also there's tons of good rts games that come out, its just a lot of people make terrible ones. And consoles aren't killing it, its just never been a front runner as far as game genres go, its more of a niche for gamers because the micromanagement is boring/hard sometimes for most people. Starcraft 2, as much as I love it, is unplayable for me online because of this. UNPLAYABLE. (yes go hurr durr you suck all you want) This kind of kills it for some people.
What happened with the RTS gentre ? Stagnancy mostly. Stuck in Starcraft and C&C for a long time the RTS genre became a lot less dynamic and while it's certainly there's something like Starcraft 2, at the same time. It's not really pushing the RTS genre, it's not challenging a lot of the old Norms and notions of older RTS genres. Certainly some do, like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. (company of heroes being my favorite RTS btw) and they're doing well.. But not.. Starcraft well.
At the same time a lot of divergence has happened.. Some went a lot less Strategy towards micromanagement, thus we got stuff like Dota.. and well starcraft 2 i suppose. On the other hand we got the super heavy simulation class of strategy games. Which is all good and dandy.
Trouble is.. Not a lot actually bother with the inbetween area. And it could probably flourish quite well, i mean i don't think RTS as a whole is something wholly unpalpatable for the masses.. Buut. It needs to throw away some of it's sillier conventions (Hey, my guys with rifles are blowing up that tank !.. and my tank firing large shells can't harm the infantry. Brilliant !) Which rather make it hard to get into RTS games because things are not rather working by a more transferrable logic.
I mean that's why stuff Call of duty and battlefield and such are so succesfull. You don't need to accept a whole series of odd conventions, guns shoot and people die, rockets are explodey and also kill people, whereas with some RTS games it seems you need to delve deep into things to even get a decent understanding.
So am i saying to dumb things down ? No. What i am saying is cut the stupid things out and assess well.. What is actually strategy in a strategy game. Is it clicking an awful lot of times ? Is it managing a front tactically, assesing where to place your infantry and armour ?
A more honest discussion needs to be going on, and one where we try not to just attack different RTS games but rather come forth with a greater plan on how to jolly well get this sorted out and encourage publishers to put some effort into the RTS genre once more.
But it is going to require some people to perhaps swallow a bitter pill or two. Otherwise i think this state of affairs might continue for a bit longer.
I mean i'd look to Company of Heroes for at least a good idea of what this could possibly mean. But it doesn't and shouldn't mean that every RTS game should be like Company of Heroes, then we just end up with FPS conditions... aaand we don't want that either.
At the same time a lot of divergence has happened.. Some went a lot less Strategy towards micromanagement, thus we got stuff like Dota.. and well starcraft 2 i suppose. On the other hand we got the super heavy simulation class of strategy games. Which is all good and dandy.
Trouble is.. Not a lot actually bother with the inbetween area. And it could probably flourish quite well, i mean i don't think RTS as a whole is something wholly unpalpatable for the masses.. Buut. It needs to throw away some of it's sillier conventions (Hey, my guys with rifles are blowing up that tank !.. and my tank firing large shells can't harm the infantry. Brilliant !) Which rather make it hard to get into RTS games because things are not rather working by a more transferrable logic.
I mean that's why stuff Call of duty and battlefield and such are so succesfull. You don't need to accept a whole series of odd conventions, guns shoot and people die, rockets are explodey and also kill people, whereas with some RTS games it seems you need to delve deep into things to even get a decent understanding.
So am i saying to dumb things down ? No. What i am saying is cut the stupid things out and assess well.. What is actually strategy in a strategy game. Is it clicking an awful lot of times ? Is it managing a front tactically, assesing where to place your infantry and armour ?
A more honest discussion needs to be going on, and one where we try not to just attack different RTS games but rather come forth with a greater plan on how to jolly well get this sorted out and encourage publishers to put some effort into the RTS genre once more.
But it is going to require some people to perhaps swallow a bitter pill or two. Otherwise i think this state of affairs might continue for a bit longer.
I mean i'd look to Company of Heroes for at least a good idea of what this could possibly mean. But it doesn't and shouldn't mean that every RTS game should be like Company of Heroes, then we just end up with FPS conditions... aaand we don't want that either.
As to be expected the ppl don't seem to have a clue what they are talking about when it comes to rts.
As a Hardcore fellow rts enthusiast, i MUST really recommend Sc2.
tbh the bottom line in rts's revolve around balance between the races. and blizzard has shown to be the only company remotely trying to balance the multiplayer aspect of their games to that of what progamers demand. Really games that are made by Relic are no where near to the competetiveness of
games like starcraft as they seem try to make them into a rpg type game then a real rts. Yes i have played both warhammer and warcraft/starcraft. but relic seems to really not care about balance then the playerbility of the game. Obvious in the general defenseavbility of the brits in COH: OF and the implemantation of the kangaroo and perfect accuracy of PIAT's and wermacht's total dominace of infantry at vet 3. Hate all you want other poster but the truth it is young Obiwan.
As a Hardcore fellow rts enthusiast, i MUST really recommend Sc2.
tbh the bottom line in rts's revolve around balance between the races. and blizzard has shown to be the only company remotely trying to balance the multiplayer aspect of their games to that of what progamers demand. Really games that are made by Relic are no where near to the competetiveness of
games like starcraft as they seem try to make them into a rpg type game then a real rts. Yes i have played both warhammer and warcraft/starcraft. but relic seems to really not care about balance then the playerbility of the game. Obvious in the general defenseavbility of the brits in COH: OF and the implemantation of the kangaroo and perfect accuracy of PIAT's and wermacht's total dominace of infantry at vet 3. Hate all you want other poster but the truth it is young Obiwan.
And if you'd stuck around you'd see patches fixing that.. And Veterancy 3 for infantry is only a problem if you let it be. But eh, easier to blame the game than yourself, isn't it ?