What killed strategy games like Wargame?
>Chess is popular
>mobas are popular
>TW is popular
But these multiplayer focused titles aren't. Sure, there are couple of big names like AoE or SC2 but that's it.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
What killed strategy games like Wargame? >Chess is popular. >mobas are popular. >TW is popular
normies hate think
>Wargame
>Think
>Mfw
Who would have guessed that picture would have been so prophetic.
AoE and SC2 are RTS, Wargame and TW are RTT.
>But these multiplayer focused titles aren't
There's your problem. For the most part, most people who play RTS games prefer single player.
Even for SC2 which I think is generally considered one of the big multiplayer RTS games, I remember reading a while back that according to Blizzard most of its players hadn't even touched multiplayer.
RTS games have the problem where if you don't start playing and mastering literally day one of release any multiplayer experience is just getting dunked on by meta obsessed autists over and over again which just kills any multiplayer community dead.
Time spend doesn't equal competence.
More importantly, RTS games have the problem that they're not fun to lose at.
More annoying thing is when devs artistically balance the game around multigays taking the fun out of singleplayer in the process
People focus way too much on SC2 being a “asiaticclick” game but ignore that it blows every other RTS out of the water release in the last 10 years in non-competitive content. It has the long, robust SP, it has the custom games, and it has that really good co-op mode.
I fricking wish CoH3 was that robust.
it's every game, Riot has said multiple times that most people don't actually play league normal/ranked matches, they literally just play vs bots.
pvp tards hate hearing it but it turns out most ppl don't play video games to elevate their blood pressure.
love listening to compstompers act like theres no way anyone could possibly enjoy playing against other people. like they are proud to just go through the motions
that guy didnt say that though.
But Eugene are pretty good guys
Warno gets updated often and Steel Division 2 still gets regular updates and DLC despite being out for years and rarely having more than 1000 players at the same time
i like their games, but they could've done some things differently to increase the playerbase without changing the gameplay.
massive mismanagement by Eugen killed wargame/steel division/warno from being popular with the masses.
Wdym
massive strikes from workers in eugen because eugen wasnt paying them making all their good devs leave. somehow losing the ability to make games called 'wargame' and losing their most well-known game. promising mapmaking/decent modding abilities for each of their new games and then not following through, so then youre stuck playing the same 20maps forever. there's more, but i got into Eugen's games at the end of steel division: normandy '44s lifespan and only know the basics.
Good, frick normies.
TW is niche. It just has no competitors so it owns most of the consumer base for that type of game. Very small playerbase that grew due to Warhammer.
All I remember from wargame is the OTOMAGIC.
It kills air.
It kills ground.
It kills tanks.
And it kills ships.
Too fast, doesn't really lend itself well to realistic tactics, but at the same time too obtuse for mainstream players.
Wargame only has multiplayer going for it which is a problem when Wargame multiplayer is fricking dogshit.
WARNO will surpass it once AG is out
Isn't that game with a unit bias towards NATO?
The first 2 Act of War games were their best, anyway.
>Isn't that game with a unit bias towards NATO?
hahahahahahahaha
Don't laugh, that's what I've heard in vst once.
/vst/ is full of PACTonlys that feel oppressed when their units don't win in every situation imaginable. NATOonlys on reddit are the same way.
I don't get it, so is NATO broken or not?
considering NATO equipment is outright better IRL (see: ukranian war), probably
Ah, I see.
I'm a massive PACT-homosexual and I can say that soviets are not worse than USA.
Meme-nations being good in game is funny, but it's better than having 3.5 pre-set historical divisions.
World in Conflict
Its real time
GiantGrantGames solved this maybe a year ago.
He gathered actual research, actual player data and found that 80% of RTS players have literally never touched multiplayer, and of the 20% that have 10% have tried competitive MP only a few times and instead play co-op MP.
RTS games have been developed wrong, as a joke, for nearly 20 years.
There are so many fundamental reasons why people prefer SP to MP in RTS games, but there's almost no point discussing them because every RTS conversation will get dominated within minutes by competitive multiplayer fans who reject the possibility (perhaps because they consider internet arguments a continuation of RTS games???)
just bought it, is it a bad game?
should i refund?
lack of PVE coop
average IQ going down
anti war
I only know why I'm not playing anymore.
>no map editor
You want me to play rice fields and wonshit harbor til I die? Ideally maps should be randomly generated, but having more options would be enough to not get bored in 100 hours.
And yeah, I've bought warno cuz they promised to add map editor later, but gameplay is much worse than wgrd it's unreal, historywank and mechanics from steel division are awful.