What has happened to the RTS genre?

[gigastar]

EA bought it and murdered it beyond recognition. Thankfully,a friend of mine in college plans on returning the genre to it's former glory...In about 5-10 years.

If you want a quicker solution, EA's new dedicated RTS developer (Victory Games) is supposed to announce the next C&C game possibly at the Spike VGA. And unlike Twilight it wont be an 8 month rush job, because its been a year and a half since we heard anything about it.

 

[gigastar]

Ok you want RTS? Rome Total War (old), Medieval Total War 2 (oldish), Empire Total War and Napoleon Total War (new), Shogun Total War (brand new), otherwise there's SC2. Yep, that's about it, get ust to it.

I love how some people know thier genres. All of the Total War games fall under the '4X [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X]' genre label. SC2 is a true RTS, but when other RTS games have been at the forefront of the genre for over a decade its game style is just not for some people.

 

[Pearwood]

It seems as if RTS has become a much more competitive, elitist affair, everything is neurotically balanced out, a lot of online RTS communities are very hostile to newcomers or less competent players, more so than others - though nothing has changed there, but elitism seems to be built into game mechanisms this time.

Making an RTS game is pretty much the same as making an MMO without the temptation of a constant income from each subscriber. Two massive series dominate the entire genre, C&C and -craft and the fans of those series have had years to get better and better. Elitism is just something that happens when a game is based almost entirely around direct 1v1 competition.

As a side note - I love your avatar.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

and smart fire means the siege tanks actually do something now.

Funny that you should pick that specific example, since siege tanks were way better in BW on account of being cheaper, having noticably higher damage, costing less supply, being better supported by the rest of the Terran race and having far fewer and weaker counters. If only mech in SC2 were as good as the original, I might actually play Terran...

That may be true. However, I was referring more to the case of the smart fire in SC2 siege tanks. In BW, up to 4 tanks could potentially target the same zergling, and end up overkilling it to the max. Although SC2 tanks don't have the raw power of their predecessors, they are MUCH more efficient, splitting their fire to do maximum damage, as well as not "overkilling" one unit with 12 times more shots than necessary.

In truth, I vastly prefer the SC2 tanks. They may not be as cheap, and more supply heavy, but the number required to turn a ground engagement, is to me, much less than what BW tanks demanded.

 

[WaffleCopters]

I havent played many RTS's in a while, but ive found that the more recent ones seem to feel like less of a game then the older.

 

[blackdwarf]

i think it is because it just won't work well on the console and we know that a pc exclusive isn't the most profitable way. sure there are exceptions, but most of the time, RTS's don't sell well. that is the main reason for it. it is a shame, but shit happens.

 

[Darkf0rge]

DOW II is the truest form of the table top game that has ever existed, people seem to miss this point. DOW was just a typical rts clone.

and DOW II is actually my favourite RTS of all time, although I would rather call it a real time tactical game.

It's called evolution and just because it doesn't has base building doesn't mean it's dumbed down, the base building actually still exists but it's put on the units themselves as upgrades.

I only really refer to multi-player though, the single player game isnt very good imo, but competitive gameplay is what these games should be about, a CPU opponent will never match a real intelligent player.

Starcraft 2 is just the same old tired crap imo, and actually play's drastically different from the competitive game for the most part. I for one am glad we have developers like Relic pushing the genre forward.

 

[Extragorey]

Thank you for this thread, I thought it was just me.
I've played relatively recent RTS games (...Dawn of War and Company of Heroes, pretty much...) and I just can't get into them. Probably because I find the vast variety of units and technologies too much to take in without investing lots and lots of time in them. Both games were kind of fun, but ultimately it was too frustrating having no idea what I was meant to be doing or how to do it.

But Age of Empires I & II (III was disappointing) were some of my favourite childhood games - in which I still occasionally play multiplayer to this day.
And Rise of Nations - I picked up that game straight away! It was great fun, and easy to get into but appropriately difficult to master. And I still play it quite regularly with my friends.

So what HAS happened to the RTS genre? It must have evolved into something else, but what? And why?

 

[Reveras]

Oh I miss you Metal Fatigue... I really do.

 

[Kvaedi]

Age of Empires I and II...my favorite games of all time. The first video game I ever played was Age of Empires, and now years later I have the Rise of Rome disc in my computer right now. To me, these two games are the peak of the RTS. I don't see a way they can be improved upon, besides graphically. They're challenging, require thinking, and are fun to play still despite massive advances in video games. Oh, and I learned more history from those two games than any class I ever had, that was cool too.

 

[Ovoon]

Command And Conquer, Age of Empires, Rise of Nations, Warcraft 2, and many others. I grew up with these games and I absolutely love them. I love the resource based, traditional RTS. They never get old.


The genre didn't die exactly, but it is suffering. Starcraft 2 was excellent though.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Im still impressed but the Shogun one that based AI behavior on the Art of War, but who needs anything more than Starcraft and Dawn of War? Greedy little person, you

 

[ZephyrFireStrom]

I'm not amazed yet certainly annoyed at the fact that not one of you has even mentioned Z the game. It was a very fun RTS game and just like Stubbs the zombie though no in genre, they both were swept under the rug as unsung legends of gaming. Those two games had massive potention for something seriously awesome. Z did get a sequal however with placement of buildings and what not it still failed to take off. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying their changes were bad, I actually enjoyed them.

Now for another game that hasn't been mentioned that I also enjoyed very much and is also an unsung legend of RTS gaming, Populous: The Beginning. Unlike many RTS games where you're some unseen figure sending many faceless meat bags and metal death traps to their inevitable doom hoping they take the enemy with them, Populous puts you into the world as a shaman. Although not as deep as RPG games I think it's quite clear that you're this shaman when you reach the last stage after seeing your shaman rise to the heavens, you're now able to assist your follows from the sky by raining hell on the enemy safely on your cloud.

Supreme Commander puts in you a giant metal suit of mass construction. Or destruction if you roll that way. I don't want to get into SupCom 2 because personally I find that to be extremely disappointing compared to it's predecessors. There are many other unsung legends of the RTS genre, the kind of RTS games that laid the foundation for the current generation of RTS games.

Now for some hard truth that I'm sure many of you would find offensive so if you like anything made by Blizzard, ignore this part. Unfortunately for you people Blizzard spits out games that would make a lot of profit with very little effort, hell they've been spitting out games left right and center for the past few years now(Not Sure If Actual Fact. Haven't Done Research.) I'll start with SC2. When I first got it I was hoping for something more other than the usual cartoony mass a single type of unit send that army across the map and watch them destroy everything. Well I was both disappointed and slightly amused that I could no longer send one type of unit no matter how hard I tried. Infact I had to send two types.

Now you maybe thinking "Oh okay this guy is just trolling." Or "Supreme Commander was exactly the same, it's the same for most RTS games." Or maybe even both. The second comment is true and sad though the main reason being is that AI has become far too predictable. I've yet to find AI that can outsmart me more than twice (I've been taken off my high horse quite a few times by AI on some harder difficulties but I think it's only because of their damage and aiming increases and what not, not actually smarter computers.)

I have found that AI is the problem for why the RTS genre is going to hell. Well that and developers are severely lacking creativity or their publishers just want to capitalize on an awesome series.

I've just made a sudden realization. If Blizzard has been spitting out terrible games for some time now just for money because let's be honest here Blizzard thralls(Talking about slaves here.) wouldn't know quality if it came up and slapped them in the face through a screen. With EA doing exactly the same, does that mean Blizzard and EA are run by the same people? Or are they attempting a merge to become one massive vacuum that sucks in all of your cash while giving back terrible games? Or am I just tired and over thinking things again.

Looking at how messy this comment is I'm going to have to say the third one.

 

[Awexsome]

I generally like RTS games, but often HATE the online portion of them. I'll take endless skirmish modes against AI over online anyday. Probably because in general I see "micro" as a flaw in the whole genre. When the idea is "Strategy" I feel like a poor RTS makes you micro-manage every little unit's action in order to do well.

My favorite part is deciding which unit to build, how many, where to send them, how to attack... but after I set up the units and attack... the less I have to do that doesn't have to do with the battle's overall strategy, the more fun it is. Things in RTS where you can like, continually chip a superior unit's health away if you micro a small one in and out of it's range is major design flaw if you ask me.

 

[SarcasmoPope]

RTS is a shit genre because I suck at them.
Seriously though I like Total War. I would play Empire Total War again if I could be bothered re-learning. I liked C&C3 as well.
Not really into much else though.

 

[Rhatar Khurin]

In short, consoles happened, you cant make rts games for consoles, it just doesn't really work so publishers decided to just make more fps games.

I had commander and conquer red alert on the PS1

 

[Nexoram]

Are you getting RTS mixed up Action RTS (MOBA, Dota etc.) because Starcraft 2 actually has a great community, no elitism. As for the game balancing, that's a real need for an RTS game as any imbalances that can get abused just make the game unplayable.

But I still do wish Westwood was still here, Red Alert 2 is still my favourite game of my younger years.

 

[endtherapture]

I definitely got bored of traditional "base building" RTS's like C&C and Age of Empires. Sure there were some tactics but a lot of the time it was just a race up to the top of the tech tree and then throwing troops at enemy bases.

This is why I got into RTT games more when you had a limited amount of troops and you had to use them in the best way possible. Also I enjoyed Total War games more because of the fusion between turn based and real time. I also thought the Battlezone games were interesting with the fusion between action and RTS.

On topic...does anyone remember the Commando games? They were sick, really hard to play, I'd love if that franchise got resurrected.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Spoiler

I'm not amazed yet certainly annoyed at the fact that not one of you has even mentioned Z the game. It was a very fun RTS game and just like Stubbs the zombie though no in genre, they both were swept under the rug as unsung legends of gaming. Those two games had massive potention for something seriously awesome. Z did get a sequal however with placement of buildings and what not it still failed to take off. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying their changes were bad, I actually enjoyed them.

Now for another game that hasn't been mentioned that I also enjoyed very much and is also an unsung legend of RTS gaming, Populous: The Beginning. Unlike many RTS games where you're some unseen figure sending many faceless meat bags and metal death traps to their inevitable doom hoping they take the enemy with them, Populous puts you into the world as a shaman. Although not as deep as RPG games I think it's quite clear that you're this shaman when you reach the last stage after seeing your shaman rise to the heavens, you're now able to assist your follows from the sky by raining hell on the enemy safely on your cloud.

Supreme Commander puts in you a giant metal suit of mass construction. Or destruction if you roll that way. I don't want to get into SupCom 2 because personally I find that to be extremely disappointing compared to it's predecessors. There are many other unsung legends of the RTS genre, the kind of RTS games that laid the foundation for the current generation of RTS games.

Now for some hard truth that I'm sure many of you would find offensive so if you like anything made by Blizzard, ignore this part. Unfortunately for you people Blizzard spits out games that would make a lot of profit with very little effort, hell they've been spitting out games left right and center for the past few years now(Not Sure If Actual Fact. Haven't Done Research.) I'll start with SC2. When I first got it I was hoping for something more other than the usual cartoony mass a single type of unit send that army across the map and watch them destroy everything. Well I was both disappointed and slightly amused that I could no longer send one type of unit no matter how hard I tried. Infact I had to send two types.

Now you maybe thinking "Oh okay this guy is just trolling." Or "Supreme Commander was exactly the same, it's the same for most RTS games." Or maybe even both. The second comment is true and sad though the main reason being is that AI has become far too predictable. I've yet to find AI that can outsmart me more than twice (I've been taken off my high horse quite a few times by AI on some harder difficulties but I think it's only because of their damage and aiming increases and what not, not actually smarter computers.)

I have found that AI is the problem for why the RTS genre is going to hell. Well that and developers are severely lacking creativity or their publishers just want to capitalize on an awesome series.

I've just made a sudden realization. If Blizzard has been spitting out terrible games for some time now just for money because let's be honest here Blizzard thralls(Talking about slaves here.) wouldn't know quality if it came up and slapped them in the face through a screen. With EA doing exactly the same, does that mean Blizzard and EA are run by the same people? Or are they attempting a merge to become one massive vacuum that sucks in all of your cash while giving back terrible games? Or am I just tired and over thinking things again.

Looking at how messy this comment is I'm going to have to say the third one.

Er, hang on. First off the OP is wondering why RTS games used to be good back in the 90s but have all but disappeared now. You can't then hold up 90s RTS games in defense of the genre. Especially, and I mean especially, Z. That game invented the f*cking 'zerg rush'. Play any mission you like, if you play it as a typical RTS game the AI turtles in and is impossible to dislodge. Start building your cheapest troopers and just march them at the enemy base straight off the bat you win in <5 minutes. Z was awful. A lot of 90s RTS games deserve praise, Total Annihilation (obviously), KKND, Red Alert, hell even Warcraft 2. But Z? Sorry fella, but just no.

OT - There are still good titles out there, Sins being the one that most easily springs to mind, but as a lot of people have said consoles cannot do RTS games well. Those that attempt to (C&C3:Tiberium Wars, for example) suffer badly due to the clumsiness of the controls and the lack of hotkeys. I can see why, having played these attempts, non-PC gamers would become frustrated and disinterested with the genre. And I think PC developers are put off trying their hand at the genre because of the perceived stranglehold Blizzard has on the market.