/thread
WC3, as good as it was, effectively killed innovation and risk taking from competitors, and the RPGfication of its mechanics allowed for ASShomosexualS to become popular, then SC2's aggressive push for esports influenced other companies to shift their development in pursuit of the esports golden goose, which never caught on, causing them to abandon their games (DoW3 and Grey Goo come to mind)
RTS: play by yourself, when you lose, there is no one to blame but yourself
MOBAS: play with others, when you lose, blame everyone else, never a need to look inward
it's no wonder why the mOBA genre took over the RTS genre
RTS requires a time investment and autism to be good at, it was popular in the 90s because that was the gaming market then, after the turn of the millennium, it became increasingly normalised and the newcomers got filtered by RTS, publishers realised they could make more pandering to normalgays and whipped their devs into making games for them.
>RTS requires a time investment and autism to be good at,
Fake and gay. All games require.
It's just exscuses of the RTSbabs.
Reality is RTS were never good, they just happen to exist when MOBAswere not yet invented.
lol. faker is complete shit compared to some of the best rts players. lol is simply a kindergarten tier competition, even dota is more competitive. rts is by far the hardest genre of all, not even a comparison, mechanically, strategically, nothing comes close
Gatekeepig has never kept anyone out of playing video games, people aren't that fragile.
Normal gays were going to start playing vidya and nobody was gonna stop them.
rts was never actually popular. there were titles that sold well and had fanbases that claimed to like rts games, but only a fraction of them actually did. just look at Ganker threads where there are always multiple people whose suggestions to "fix" rts games is to make them turn based.
Rts doesn't need fixing. Forged alliance is right there. Last I checked the community client works perfectly. The only way to fix forged alliance would be a faithful remake that lets it use more cores properly so it doesn't throttle the game speed when I have a 400 ASF dogfight.
this is what I mean by people saying they were rts fans but not actually liking rts. how many of the people playing the games were using it as sim city? how many players never bothered to use hotkeys? it's like saying you are a boomer shooter fan but you only played single player and don't know how to bunny hop.
And?
Do you pin any 'cred' on being a fricking """""""gamer"""""""?
Nobody gives a shit. In a market, they are all consumers. In a community, they associate with like-minded individuals - of which there are plenty.
5 months ago
Anonymous
the point is that no developer can make a game that will please rts fans because these people never actually liked rts. that survey proves it by showing that the most popular game modes are the ones where you are barely interacting with the core mechanics.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>the point is that no developer can make a game that will please rts fans because these people never actually liked rts.
And yet plenty did. Amazing.
5 months ago
Anonymous
When MOBAs didn't exist.
If LoL existed back then nobody would by your stinking RTS in 1999.
Simple truth that broke RTS fans.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>When MOBAs didn't exist.
Irrelevant, mobas aren't a replacement for single player rts. >If LoL existed back then nobody would by your stinking RTS in 1999.
Silly conjecture.
Post age 🙂
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Irrelevant
Very relevant you can track RTS fall into nothingness with DotA and LoL release.
>Silly conjecture.
That is the fact. There were no LoL and DotA in the year 1999.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Very relevant you can track RTS fall into nothingness with DotA and LoL release.
No, you can't. They were falling into nothingness way before mobas. >That is the fact. There were no LoL and DotA in the year 1999.
Again, irrelevant.
And again, post age.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>They were falling into nothingness way before mobas.
Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2. And ding dong it was released after LoL. You can cry and scream at gamers as hat "LoL is not a real RTS game" but they just ignore your autism and play better games. Simple as.
Such autists like you indeed were in Blizzard HQ whol laughed at MOBAs, and continued pandering to asiaticclicking mechanics. imagine how much they bit their elbows after LoL success. LooooooooL.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2.
Because RTS players didn't want another shitty asiaticclick, which SC2 was. You proved my point for me.
Blizzard jumped in thinking they'd make Starcraft but bigger and more esporty but it had nowhere near the organic growth as SC1 did.
lol
lmao
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Because RTS players didn't want another shitty asiaticclick, which SC2 was
Yeah and they flocked to LoL.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Source?
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2
6 figure playerbase for a decade is flopping? It probably still has 100k daily players.
5 months ago
Anonymous
What is this reasoning? People won't buy RTS games that appeal to casuals because casuals don't like RTS, as you can see from this survey showing most people who played it are casuals?
People who answer MOBAs are Westwood widows that never engaged the multiplayer features of RTS games thus they hold a grudge against people who do/did.
People who answer SC2/Koreans are people who tried MP but got filtered and dropped it.
The real answer is you. The people in here right now that abandoned the genre and could be making threads about upcoming RTS games like Homeworld 3 or Tempest Rising or playing current games like AoE, C&C mods, etc, but instead prefer to blame everyone else to the point that you actually start these pathetic threads.
This isn't an argument about why RTS games are shit, it's about why RTS games are dead. If there was a market there would be games, both good and bad. RTS players from the 90s abandoned the genre entirely. Take Dota for example. It got so popular that Valve straight up bought it and it competed with several clones. Why isn't the same happening to RTS games? Why aren't the players flocking to some of the good mods and games out there and causing gamedevs to invest money in the genre? I know why. It's because they'd rather b***h, take the "I'm an oldgay" cred and then go back to play some other genre.
It's exactly the same reason why arenashooters died. The playerbase simply abandoned the genre.
>Why aren't the players flocking to some of the good mods and games out there
Because they aren't good
Demand for RTS games are not being met because developers cannot make good RTS games
Arena shooters are different, they are dead because there is no demand
Innovation is overrated, execution is what matters. 90% of the new rts that come are innovating, you're just moronic and a nonplayer lol, they died because they're shit. Doesn't matter how OOOH SHINY NEW INNOVATION NEW ORIGINALITY something is when it's shit.
the consumer for games being shit and lack of innovation
Literally yes. Devs stopped trying because consoomers buy their games no matter what. So why bother being innovative when you can have shit like GTA5 online for 10+ years and shit upon shit sequels and even when new IPs are dogshit like Cyberpunk, Starfield, and Diablo 4/Immortal they still make a bazillion dollars.
Plenty of people play old RTS games. There was a big empire of war thread recently when the devs updated it to 64 bit. The problem is that modern RTS games are shit compared to old ones.
I'm not looking forward to homeworld 3 and its focus on characters. Not to mention the "roguelike" elements they love yapping about.
Actually modern RTS game, WH Total war has largest playerbase among current RTS genre. And it's popularity driven by SP campaign that is far as possible from the "classic" asiaticclicking RTS design.
>There's no market for casual single player RTS games,
WH Total War says otherwise.
TW is not RTS
Its a turn based strategy and RTT hybrid.
Get your fricking definitions right.
And full single player RTS died long ago, since creating content for them is financially unfeasible.
So any successful ones do exactly that, separate the strategic elements to overmap, and let you battle with your toys in real time (usually autoresolved)
I guess the men of war games aren't RTS either then.
5 months ago
Anonymous
yeah now you're figuring it out. neither is sins of a solar empire or dawn of war 2 or stronghold or cossacks.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Pretty sure Cossacks and Stronghold have unit production and resource extraction and even base building. So they are RTS.
Dawn of War 2 is very borderline RTS, since they have no extra buildings (replaced with research of unlocking tiers) but they still use passive resource collection, plus they still have unit production.
asiaticclick and fast apm rotte execution of precalculated builds while multitasking micro of units makes the RTS games devoid of strategy.
Whats a strategy game devoid of strategy? Nothing.
The clear answer is introducing macro commands. Instead of having to memorize build orders and micro workers around to maximize resource harvesting because you clicked faster, make it an automated task that the player has to program into his units with conditional rules. The real challenge will be not to out-click your opponent, but to counter the rules they have currently set up for their units, which you must counter-counter by setting up even better rules. If an RTS game can't basically play itself aside from intelligent orders ordained by the player, then it's not real strategy.
Or like just maybe cut the shit loose and leave it to the campaign map like in Rome total war.
And maybe make time not be a factor.
But that would require some thinking, and developing strategms of a sort and using your mind to think trough moves in advance.
>And maybe make time not be a factor.
You mean have the construction of buildings and units rely solely on resources instead of resources + build times?
No not at all.
Making time not a factor means you do not gain any advantage when issuing commands after 1 or 2 or 3 seconds compared to someone that issues commands after 200ms or 250ms or 300ms.
I do though
[...]
it's just a useless feature for people who play rts wrong. if you are zoomed out looking at the whole map then you are falling behind on things you need actual precision for.
[...]
what is strategy according to you?
What Greek stratigos did during war.
>real time >make time not a factor >turn-based campaign map >real time
turn based map blobber games are such dogshit, such a meme genre that is either so trivial that you may as well not play it or so bullshit that it is just a matter of memorizing which of the 10000 techs on the tree actually does something against a lazy cheater AI that spawns out cavemen that can club helicopters to death because lol what if we had rpg life/damage scaling in a fricking "strategy" game?
See above. Game can be designed so its real time but the time is not the main factor that overshadows all other factors that determine the outcome.
>And maybe make time not be a factor.
it took 2 hours but here he is, the guy who thinks the fix for rts is to remove the real time part
[...]
Better "remove" time than remove strategy.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never.
gee I wonder what moron said this. surely not anyone as smart as supreme commander anonymous here.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>sends scroll with orders by rider to the regiments at the forest entrance >his order gets there after 10 minutes >the regimental chief reads the scroll >it says to move into forest and assume attack formation >after 15 minutes they are in the forest >rider brings back report
And thats how it was during the days of battle.
The mining of resources, crafting of weapons and arrows, consription and training of troops, etc would get even "slower" and lagging orders.
Sometimes emperors orders would arrive weeks after he wrote them down and sent by couriers to a province.
You are mental midget if you cannot understand those realities.
>real time >make time not a factor >turn-based campaign map >real time
turn based map blobber games are such dogshit, such a meme genre that is either so trivial that you may as well not play it or so bullshit that it is just a matter of memorizing which of the 10000 techs on the tree actually does something against a lazy cheater AI that spawns out cavemen that can club helicopters to death because lol what if we had rpg life/damage scaling in a fricking "strategy" game?
Nobody wants asiaticclicking. Simple as.
You can whine as much you want asiaticclicking genre is dead.
5 months ago
Anonymous
>source: my ass
5 months ago
Anonymous
Source: sc2 dropping in popularity HARSHLY, despite having money pumped into it
5 months ago
Anonymous
There could be any number of reasons for that. You don't know if SC2 but Supcom style or SC2 but Total War style or SC2 but full on TBS style would've been more popular.
>And maybe make time not be a factor.
it took 2 hours but here he is, the guy who thinks the fix for rts is to remove the real time part
rts was never actually popular. there were titles that sold well and had fanbases that claimed to like rts games, but only a fraction of them actually did. just look at Ganker threads where there are always multiple people whose suggestions to "fix" rts games is to make them turn based.
>who thinks the fix for rts is to remove the real time part
Building game desing around time deficit was never good decision. And it was never intentional. RTS were just randomly assembled games in the beginning of the videogameing, there was no thought process behind their design.
Some thought process was during their tweaking and development, but this development took way of pandering to most toxic part of the RTS: asiaticclicking and now surprise that genre died.
t. geriatric boomer who doesn't understand the concept of striking a balance between macro and micro. If a player spends all their attention on asiaticclick micro unit control their macro economy will suffer for it and vice versa, choosing what to pay attention to is itself an important strategic decision
Korean 400 APM.
When RTS is no longer about "real-time strategy" but rather excel spreadsheets and who has better macro then the whole genre becomes unplayable for the major audience.
And the big companies cherished this shit too. You know RTS is still fricked when the commentators in AoE4 tournaments spends half their time praising about players macroing during a match.
These N! Ruined rts by talking shit about the genre
There's no such thing as asiaticlick
https://i.imgur.com/rNTwnYy.jpg
what murdered the RTS genre?
5 sc1 chinese (terran and protoss)
can reach 395
In the west Sziky zerg plays at 420, Bonyth and Dewalt 370 protoss
Gypsy and Dandy reach 370 as terran
Jaeyun (p) reaches 400 but he's not elite
After 350 you need positioning to make it count
Me? 270 and started with 220
Sc2 n-----s are the ones who click like mentally ill people, it literally rewrites their brain because their games are about going back and forth as fast as possible
RTS is fricking dead.
During the AoE4 tourny people starting to realize that the RTS genre has come to shit because when either player picks French it means guaranteed 3 minutes zerg rush and /ff by the 4th minute, either the rush is successful and the defending player can't make a comeback, or the French player didn't inflict enough damage early on and /ff himself.
What's the point designing all those factions and making different maps when all it takes is one player to pick French and every game is the same 3 minutes rush 4 minutes ff.
what a stupid fricking take. no one outside korea except for the nerds at teamliquid even knew esports was a thing until starcraft 2 came out in 2010, but rts was already over by that point. westwood died in 2003 and ensemble was kill by 2008.
warcraft 3 was really only big in korea and china. beyond that you basically only had grubby and that one ud player I forget the name of and the only major tournament was wcg.
>never saw his nerd friend play an rts >every second/resource is min maxed >every unit is hot keyed >he’s blasting around the map so fast… why even bother looking at the game. You never are looking. At anything for more than a second.
>>he’s blasting around the map so fast… why even bother looking at the game. You never are looking. At anything for more than a second.
Soulless drones.
Reality. Turns out RTS is actually a very niche genre: few people actually like its specific mix of strategy, tactics, and mechanics. There are many reasons to play RTS, empirically the most common being custom game modes, but whether it's playing tower defense, microing powerful hero units, commanding large armies, RPing a sovereign, setting up nice cities, or whatever, for each of those draws there are games that do it much better. For example, a lot of people were into Age of Empires because of history, but it's Total War or Europa Universalis that they really wanted.
On top of that the stagnation of the genre: there was innovation to be sure, but games like Majesty, Kohan, or even SupCom really, didn't make a splash. Among the "real" RTS fans (that very small minority that actually played RTS for RTS and not for lack of more specialized titles) came to see a specific *Craft/Ao* formula as what RTS is really about, and since StarCraft and Age of Empires are actually really good, it's exceptionally difficult for any new game to one-up them in their own terms. Especially if you design the game for e-sports rather than letting it emerge organically: MP-players are a niche within niche, and most players who might pick up MP will do so on back of strong campaign experience that hooks them into the game, while most contemporary attempts at RTS are designed around MP/e-sports, trying to replicate StarCraft's success without understanding why it was successful.
they are simply too stressful
long match times where every single second requires focus and can be endlessly optimized
fighting games have a similar problem with difficulty creating playerbase issues but have much shorter match times to balance it out
The fact that it's inherently shit to begin with and it only ever thrived because there was a curiosity towards it back when it was new, but most of us quickly got over it and moved on.
too niche, also RTS gamers are some of the most brain dead people alive. I speak from experience with these communities, so many of them seem mentally handicapped.
The only rts thats actually STRATEGICAL is supreme commander. You make production lines of units that are created only to be destroyed in the meat grinder. You have technological breakthroughs that break the stalemate. Its like being a real general since you make the macro decisions. Other rts is autistically micromanaging little Black folk and tanks which isnt resembling strategy and people who enjoy apm autism can just play assgayots
>End up fighting for some pointless corridor in the underground >All while i build up an entire artilery section pointing right at his base >he rages as hisbase is bombarded to ruin but somehow manage to cut the supply lines to the artillery and rebuild >battle ends in nucelar holocaust
But there's two related but not identical meanings for strategy: strategy in military strategic sense you can find in Clausewitz or NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, and that SupCom appears to have and games like StarCraft absolutely don't on account of their greater abstractness and smaller scale, and strategy in a more abstract sense like "Chess strategy" (or even "business strategy"). Games like StarCraft still have the latter, just like Chess strategy is a thing.
That being said, I do think you gesture towards a real thing that most players find a problem. Where strategy in Chess is considerations like pawn structure, king safety, control of key squares, etc, strategy in RTS is things like build order (building economy first and military second makes you weaker now, but if you get away with it, stronger later), timings (you enjoy a temporary peak in relative advantage the moment a key upgrade finishes), or even things like building placement: building a wall make you safer against early rushes but having a production facility in a different place from the rest makes it in the long term less efficient to macro out units (supposing you have to click buildings manually) and the wall obstructs the movement of your own units as well, so it's a hindrance in the longer term. Or, in some games you might come up with a decision of "the enemy 4-pooled me: he'll have 3 drones mining so, and consequently so long as I'll have more than 4 surviving workers, I have the advantage, so it's better to pull the workers and defend decisively"
But there's two related but not identical meanings for strategy: strategy in military strategic sense you can find in Clausewitz or NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, and that SupCom appears to have and games like StarCraft absolutely don't on account of their greater abstractness and smaller scale, and strategy in a more abstract sense like "Chess strategy" (or even "business strategy"). Games like StarCraft still have the latter, just like Chess strategy is a thing.
That being said, I do think you gesture towards a real thing that most players find a problem. Where strategy in Chess is considerations like pawn structure, king safety, control of key squares, etc, strategy in RTS is things like build order (building economy first and military second makes you weaker now, but if you get away with it, stronger later), timings (you enjoy a temporary peak in relative advantage the moment a key upgrade finishes), or even things like building placement: building a wall make you safer against early rushes but having a production facility in a different place from the rest makes it in the long term less efficient to macro out units (supposing you have to click buildings manually) and the wall obstructs the movement of your own units as well, so it's a hindrance in the longer term. Or, in some games you might come up with a decision of "the enemy 4-pooled me: he'll have 3 drones mining so, and consequently so long as I'll have more than 4 surviving workers, I have the advantage, so it's better to pull the workers and defend decisively"
The problem is, little of that is dynamic big-picture decisions. Builds are strategies but by their very nature they are decided before the game starts. Building placement involves strategy, but it's absolutely not broad strokes big picture stuff but "microstrategy" (and, again, arrived at mostly through statistical experience of what works rather than dynamic decision-making). And like Chess where trying to play strategically is actually self-handicapping unless you're already quite good (any thought-resources spent thinking about pawn structure are thought-resources away from spotting a hanging piece, and anyhow you'll probably throw away the long-term advantages away long before they are realized) and it's better to focus exclusively on tactics, the best strategy (or should we say "metastrategy") in RTS is often, especially for new players who don't know if worker scout arriving in your base at 1:24 means x, y or z (and consequently you can't productively use it to alter your plan) is to ignore strategic considerations. Hell, while there are games where you sometimes see strategic brilliance, even in top level pro games you routinely see situations like protoss refusing to build a second cannon while on 20 workers when zerg has 10. Of course, it's easy for the viewers with fog of war lifted to criticize, but that's kind of the point: by its very nature it's difficult even for the absolute best players to make even the simplest strategic decisions dynamically, so in actual practice RTS doesn't realize even the little room for dynamic big-picture decision-making that there in principle is.
I think it's entirely reasonable for players to want that, and not metastrategy ("as a low-level player, I'm better off committing to a rush build order: even in the most extreme circumstance, I'm probably better off not deviating"), "microstrategy" (building placement), or tactics.
>The problem is, little of that is dynamic big-picture decisions.
Played well, RTS games force you to consider things on all levels at once, not just one. >Builds are strategies but by their very nature they are decided before the game starts.
Wrong. The best build orders are ones that let you fork off into one or multiple builds after scouting your enemy. >Of course, it's easy for the viewers with fog of war lifted to criticize, but that's kind of the point: by its very nature it's difficult even for the absolute best players to make even the simplest strategic decisions dynamically, so in actual practice RTS doesn't realize even the little room for dynamic big-picture decision-making that there in principle is.
Information is a resource in games like these. Your enemy not realizing you're vulnerable can be big, so you want to control what information they have.
there is still strategy in games like starcraft but like chess you actually have to be good at the game to use it. something like knowing that since you gained control of the center of the map with a faster push your opponent will be forced to play around the map edges so as long as you defend against air attacks you can win based on map control. midwits think they are strategic geniuses and get filtered by anything that counters their big picture strategy of "one base until you can tech up to your super weapon."
I realized serious RTS gameplay wasnt for me back when I played with my friends and they had to warmup before a game so they max out the autism slider. I just wanted to build a base and kill enemies even if it took 10x longer than optimal play. As time went on it felt like devs were prioritizing optimal play over having fun, even just mechanically. That and prioritizing multiplayer and dropping the idea of a campaign for some releases entirely. Now it's rare I enjoy an RTS, I think the last one I really liked was deserts of kharak
>How important is a campaign >68%
There's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign, I thought no one played the campaign in RTS games because it's literally all the same generic and boring shit kek'd. Fricking boomers
>here's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign
Campaigns used to be extremely fun. I still remember the solo commando missions in command and conquer. They also allow fun scenarios and are a perfect longer tutorial before being shoved into multiplayer
>There's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign
Believe it.
People want to both be commanded and command in return.
RTS live or die on their campaigns.
c&c was good maybe 20 or 15 years ago, it's really dated today
sure you can enjoy it, lot of people people still worship aoe2 as the pinnacle of rts games but I think it's bad by today's standards
I watched a bit of Stormgate and it looked absolutely horrible. A hack between starcraft 2 and lol/dota. The ultimate PRODUCT™ with no original thought behind it.
dead genre >tryhards
will play the same games until they are in their 50s and die of click-induced heart attacks, so this marketing group is already on the verge of extinction >casuals
there's like 50 million meme rtses out there that are surprisingly decent despite being completely unknown, yet the casuals still won't play them because they hate rts and will only excuse them if they have triple quadruple giga-AAA budgets as in blizzard RTS >big dick developers
will only design new games for tryhards, but realistically won't make RTS because singular microtransactions sell more than entire RTS games with $100+ million budgets >boomer developers
will only design new games for tryhards, they'll be like pale imitations of big dick developer RTS with immense jank that no one ever asked for. see: stormgate >indie developers
RTS is too involved and complex for them to pursue, and even if they succeed, it will bankrupt them because of how much time and money they spent on a game that no one actually wants. this is the only group that will try and actually innovate on RTS, which will be seen as an atrocity by tryhards and casuals alike
RTS players did
The majority of audience rejects any depth and execution barrier, as well as competitive multiplater. The RTS genre is like fighting games, only work with a major focus on outwitting a real opponent, but manchildren just want their virtual version of playing with toy soldiers.
The only good RTS game still alive is CoH2 and 3 that is slowly getting better with each patch. If you are "playing" against the CPU you are nor "playing" any strategy and thus it's not a strategy game.
"Casual RTS players" and compstompers aren't RTS buyers. There's no market for casual single player RTS games, that's why they keep flopping and nobody actually buys them. We gets tons of them and they are never successful. Only strategy games that focus heavily on multiplayer like Starcraft and Company of Heroes have a playerbase. Total War kept itself afloat with the fantasy trilogy but went to shit, and multiplayer and coop campaigns were still the most requested features. Wargame:RD is still the most played wargame style RTS with a bunch of skirmishes as campaign while the following flops by Eugen focused more and more on investing in single player Company of Heroes 3 thought that pandering to single player gays with wannabe Total War would make the game a success and diverted precious resources to it and nobody played the campaigns nor cared for it while the multiplayer fanbase eagerly waits improvements and real content. That's why Relic dropped any future single player campaign, many of which were clearly planned already, to focus on the actual customers, which is why the game is steadily getting better.
>WH Total War says otherwise.
They have bundled and given it everywhere to barely scrape 10k players as final result of a decade long development for a trilogy, and killed history TW in the process
>nearly 18 year old game has more players
says a lot about the modern game industry.
5 months ago
Anonymous
how is Empire at War on steam but Universe at War not anymore?
>>he’s blasting around the map so fast… why even bother looking at the game. You never are looking. At anything for more than a second.
Soulless drones.
they made like a wind direction and it correctly affects both the snow and the smoke.
That's honestly impressive and nowadays we have triple A games where everything that is not a cheap shader is baked in static.
But I played the CoH3 Italian Campaign and liked it!
Of course as a side dish to the multiplayer.
To make it as engaging like TW campaigns you need to build your game from the ground up around it.
The issue wasn't the horse armor, it was the entire piece of shit called Oblivion, a game that only ruined its genre but turning every RPG into actionslop for a decade but i'd say represented the death of the gaming industry the best.
I feel like RTS was a pretty limited genre. Basically every strategies revolved around eco, rush, and turtle, and if you did the wrong one your opponent would basically always win.
So isn't RTS just a fancy version of rock-paper-scissors?
A mix of shit. EA acquiring Westwood, Blizzard getting high off their own farts after the lucky success of StarCraft, a massive shift in focus towards PvP (MOBAs), lack of native support for custom maps/modes etc. Playerbase moved on and even if there were gems released since and still are the genre itself is not recovering to peak popularity.
EA feels extra nefarious for how quickly they abandoned every C&C title they released because they never became the next big esport games, especially Red Alert 3. But to give them credit where it's due, Generals/Zero Hour is like the best thing they ever made even tho it runs like shit in multiplayer.
I'm so used to arena shooter gays having a meltdown whenever they're asked why their old genre is dead, that entering a RTS thread and not seeing the same thing actually caught me by surprise.
Because (real) RTS players actually play their games and don't give a shit about how popular and populated those games are. There will be always a core community sharing their niche and no, none of them cares about shitty single player C&C/AoE clones flopping
That's the equivalent of saying "why don't chess players care that chess is dead" it isn't and none of them cares rehashes of solitaire are flopping
I know majority people hate rts but for some reason i love this genre so much, it reminds me of my childhood when i used to make imagery kingdom and wage wars
I hope someday we get a deep rts game
RTS wasn't murdered, interest just faded (in anything except for AoE2 and StarCraft)
You must remember, initially most titles were "AoE but with X gimmick" or "AoE but in Y setting / aesthetic" with some exceptions, that held true for the whole genre.
People get kind of bored of an endless stream of this after a while. It's the same with FPS. It's not the king of the scene that it once was either (but still thriving of course).
Big deal for RTS though was 2008 when PC gaming was basically declared dead as consoles were outpacing it + economic uncertainty doing its thing.
When MOBA showed that it was still alive and worth investing in beyond just ports, mobile gaming was taking off and sadly that's just not a platform that RTS works well on, same as console.
Why make a game that only works on one platform, when you can make one for several, some with even larger customer bases? And that's why you had so many forgettable Kickstarter RTS titles, only people willing to throw money at it was RTS fans themselves (who happen to browse KS) and not investors and publishers with actual money. And sadly the people willing to MAKE the games hadn't worked on RTS games in ages, or never had. Then you have all the usual KS issues on top of that.
And when you have a bunch of new RTS games doing poorly, it only further signals that people don't want RTS games, which of course is false. They just want GOOD games, not shoddy rushed products done on a paperclip budget.
Not to mention Kickstarter games have zero marketing budget. The only one I can even remember by name still is Grey Goo. And I guess Northgard if that was KS initially, not sure, good shit though.
Why the frick do so many RTS games have such a zoomed in camera. Even when you pull out to max, it's still usually relatively scrunched in. All RTS games should allow you to fully zoom out to a bird's eye view and then zoom in at any point. There's little reason not to, beyond belief the artificial limitation of such things promote multi-tasking and the mechanical difficult of APM + Camera Groups, which is GAY with a capital G-G-G-asiatic.
I've heard a couple of games does have that, but frick you, ALL OF THEM should have it. If they did, I'd play them all the time.
what's the point of zooming out so far that your units look like dots when there's a minimap in the corner of the screen that gives this view all the time?
More precise orders which can be important in games with huge maps. In supcom you wouldn't want to tell your dropships to deliver units into what turns out to be the enemy turret radius.
99% of games don't need it but bigger ones like supcom/homeworld did.
The ability to dictate orders from such a perspective and usually better legibility than minimaps provide. Like a fully pulled out, bird's eye wouldn't necessarily be from space and turn them into dots, based on the size of the map. Plus you get all the zooming out up to that point, which would be nice.
it's just a useless feature for people who play rts wrong. if you are zoomed out looking at the whole map then you are falling behind on things you need actual precision for.
asiaticclick and fast apm rotte execution of precalculated builds while multitasking micro of units makes the RTS games devoid of strategy.
Whats a strategy game devoid of strategy? Nothing.
what is strategy according to you?
5 months ago
Anonymous
Have fun coming out of hyperspace without zooming out, zoomer.
5 months ago
Anonymous
How about I come out of your ass, gayot
5 months ago
Anonymous
>if you are zoomed out looking at the whole map then you are falling behind on things you need actual precision for.
Sounds like if YOU are zoomed out then YOU fall behind because YOU can't be as precise, but some people aren't as bad at RTS games as YOU are. I bet you're only half-Korean.
The ability to dictate orders from such a perspective and usually better legibility than minimaps provide. Like a fully pulled out, bird's eye wouldn't necessarily be from space and turn them into dots, based on the size of the map. Plus you get all the zooming out up to that point, which would be nice.
>All RTS games should allow you to fully zoom out to a bird's eye view and then zoom in at any point. There's little reason not to,
It makes having a big monitor an advantage in PvP.
There are many reasons actually >Being zoomed out so you can't see what any of the buildings makes the game unappealing to watch, which is important when the game wants a spectator audience >Unit readability goes down the more you zoom out which can be frustrating >Related, if you can zoom out as much as you want, then playing on a laptop objectively a downside compared to playing on a huge 4k monitor, increasing the barrier to entry >Games usually put a lot of time into art direction which goes completely wasted if you're so zoomed out that you can't appreciate it
And that's not even mentioning the "artificial" difficulty of the games being designed around dividing your attention between different things
Its not dead at all, I play aoe every day along with tens of thousands of other players. You don't need a million concurrent players and 10 new releases a year to not be dead
Developers are making new RTS games all the time, but the genre classics are so good its hard for new ones to catch on. You guys don't know shit about dead genres. There are less than a thousand people across every quake and UT title at any given time, thats what a dead genre looks like. Meanwhile aoe2 and 4 have 20k+ concurrent players each on steam alone, id fricking kill for quake to get those numbers
>There are less than a thousand people across every quake and UT title at any given time, thats what a dead genre looks like
Fortnite has 200 milions (!) active users.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, your perspective on what makes a game dead is hopelessly warped because you play nothing but free dogshit normie games for children with 500k+ players. 5-10k is perfectly healthy for most multiplayer games
>5-10k is perfectly healthy for most multiplayer games
It's not healthy to start development of anything but indie games. >where are muh RTD games! >ahy no one makes RTS games?!
You don't play them. No money no work.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I don't give a shit about new releases, ill just play aoe2 for another few decades along with thousands of other people. It's a not a dead genre its a solved genre, the pinnacle has been reached. Once you make something like Chess there's no need for a Chess 2
5 months ago
Anonymous
>It's a not a dead genre its a solved genre, the pinnacle has been reached.
Holy cope.
Solved genre is Counter Strike where milion players play essentially the same game for 20 years. RatSare dead genre.
5 months ago
Anonymous
Its also a f2p game for braindead morons and children. Deep complex strategy games will never reach critical mass with normies and they don't need to, as I said 20k+ players is perfectly healthy for games that aren't fricking fortnite
What morons and publishers (so also morons) think RTS players want: to win online matches vs xxdarksephirothxx on painfully symmetrical maps in "balanced" matches
What RTS players actually want: to serve Kane and destroy more African villages
>muh asiaticclick
if you can type 60 wpm that's over 200 apm, which is enough to play any rts competently and at a pro level in most of them. the reality is that it isn't your hands that can't keep up, it is your brain. if you actually had a plan you would be executing it and the actions would come as a matter of course. you don't know what you should be doing though so you just sit there watching the screen and pretend that you only lost because the other guy was clicking faster, not because he actually had a plan and knew what needed to be done to carry it out.
your opponent: >this map has a short rush distance and I don't want to all in so I will scout early so I don't lose to an all in >if I see my opponent is not going for an early attack I will try for a timing attack that will hit before he can get key defensive units out >I need to keep making workers so I have enough resources to afford everything and my tech building needs to be done by 8:00
(you): >hmmmmm what single unit composition should I go for this game? >the most expensive one of course because it has no counters >my opponent will never see it coming >of course I will do it all off one base since it makes it easier to defend with my static defense >wtf why are you attacking me already (12:00 into the game) >fricking asiaticclick
>if you can type 60 wpm that's over 200 apm, which is enough to play any rts competently and at a pro level in most of them. the reality is that
nobody gives a shit
People don't care about getting rank in rts games. It simply isn't interesting. Get that through your fricking skull.
>Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. >Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. >By the time the moon came up, she was shitting brown water. >The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew
I don't know, I feel like it's a genre where you have more fun the less you know how to play them. I don't want to learn a "proper build order" with timings, carefully building walls with buildings and then getting mad because you misplaced something by 1 tile is not fun.
i remember the first time someone micro'd their archers away from me in aoe2. i said "wtf thats gay" and resigned so i could play against someone less autistic. i just build armys and clicked "go here", i imagine thats what a lot of people did. theres strategy in what to build, where to attack, timings, economy balance, etc, but i never wanted to rapidly spamclick my army back and forth over 2 tiles
The over focus on simplified 'streamlined' mechanics.
The lack of focus on single player content / story. Regardless of what you think of story in video games the stories and singleplayer content of RTS games is where most people spend their time.
Hardcore gaming doesn't attract an audience outside of FPS, nobody outside autists wants to waste 50-100+ hours just to "get good" where you won't be curbstomped by some tryhard homosexual online.
EA did when they bought out Westwood. They tried to revive it but then decided it was too hard so they took it out with a shotgun and shot it through the head when they made C&C4. Which they took out base building completely in that game for no good reason.
asiaticclickers will never understand how anyone could play AoM, Stronghold, RA2 and so on completely offline and still had a huge blast.
They don't belong.
threadly reminder there a man with no hands who plays sc2 with his elbow stump and a chopstick. he is platinum which puts him roughly better than 60% of sc2 players and 95% of this thread.
casuls ITT would get bodied by the handicap
>Age of Empires 4
shit >Dawn of War 3
Shit >Company of Heroes 3
Shit >Empire Earth 3
Shit >Rise of Series
Dead >Age of Mythology
Shit remake inbound >Command And Conquer 4
Shit >Total War
Dying and deserves it >Evil Genius 2
Shit >Warcraft
Dead >Latest Stronghold
Shit
As for others like RUSE, Wargame and Starcraft, I don't know, but your main titles have all died or turned to complete shit.
It really damages peoples love for the style, for example, imagine if Call of Duty, Halo or Fable turned to shit.
Oh wait...
Another one for the list >Battle for Middle Earth 3
Never happening and that's good, otherwise we'll get rangz o powah middle earth >Star Wars Empire at War 2
Same same
>Supreme Commander FAF >Age of Empires 2 Definitive >Age of Empires 4 >Starcraft >Battleforge/Skylords >Company of Heroes 2 >Zero K >BAR >Wargame >C&C Generals Evolution >OpenRA
all very much alive
Dota allows you to micro multiple units (although they're streamlining it and removing these features further and further), you're thinking of braindead dogshit like lol or smite
It's just impossible to do strategy well. Look at real life, for example the Napoleonic wars. You got basic units, dudes with guns, big guns, dudes on horses etc etc. You could distill the war into three or four different units. Now look at games about Napoleonic wars, you got like 50+ different units that do the same shit just little differently.
You could have strategy with just three different unit types but people don't like thinking. Guess what people like? Build orders, APM and all that shit that takes thinking away
Here's a wild theory, Factorio and automation games with combat took players out of RTS games too. Since a lot of people liked the building aspect of games like Tiberian Sun but with the combat I'd argue that this autism is better filled with a game that is dedicated to the building aspect.
>No clear avenue for microtransactions
Everything else is cope. This is it in a nutshell. RTS cannot sell skins, DLC characters, emotes, battlepasses, gatcha waifus, or meme pets. It cannot do a progression system to hook morons who physically cannot play a game that doesn't have one. All it can do is try to sell announcers, maps, and expansions.
Like it or not that is the kiss of death in the modern multiplayer game landscape.
>RTS cannot sell skins, DLC characters, emotes, battlepasses, gatcha waifus, or meme pets
Does asiaticclicking damage brain? Looking at takes like that you can surely tell: it does!
CoH2&3 show that there is place for it.
They way AoE3 was resurrected to sell new races as DLC as well.
The problem is that almost no one trusts companies to not go mad with power for money in RTS setting.
I think that koreans sleep on a great idea to make waifu commander gacha for a F2P RTS. Essentially what Generals 2 was trying to do.
>I think that koreans sleep on a great idea to make waifu commander gacha for a F2P RTS
It is somewhat surprising they've never tried this when you put it like that.
Nothing killed them. They are still popular today and you can find a game online in 5 seconds after opening the lobby browser.
The problem with RTS games is that they peaked super early. Warcraft 3, Age of Mythology, Age of Empires 2, Starcraft 2. Those are all perfect games. Why the frick would anyone buy a new game in 2023 when those games still exist and he can play them instead?
Not getting new games made doesn't make a genre dead.
Definitely taking it too seriously and making it overly competitive. They may have gotten a huge surge in sales marketing from competitive nonsense, but it would have been a longer lasting, healthier genre if it focused more on pandering to people who like campaigns, mods, and turtling instead of following build order and stale symmetrical maps.
Definitely this, AoE used to be a game for nerds who were curious about history and battles, even my father got hooked after seeing the historical campaigns. Treating the game as a form of sport completely put off all these people.
Definitely this, AoE used to be a game for nerds who were curious about history and battles, even my father got hooked after seeing the historical campaigns. Treating the game as a form of sport completely put off all these people.
this.
RTS used to be a fun time, where you get to enjoy campaigns and then mess around with your friends in multiplayer, playing randomly generated maps where you have to scout and adapt to the terrain, the strategies were what ever you made up.
now its sterile esports shit, units are symmetrical, maps are sterile and symmetrical, less procedurally generated maps because got to keep it symmetrical and fair
Look at tiberian sun, red alert 2, tiberiumwars/kanes wrath.
In fact if there is ONE RTS I would play right now, is kanes wrath
Ultimately consoles.
You simply cannot play RTS games with a gaypad(nor can they be dumbed down like FPS for the plebs).
The developer would rather make another third person shooter to milk both console and PC players instead of trying to pander to RTS players with high standards.
Even MOBAs still require some micro control over your character which is practically impossible to do with a gamepad.
But rts flourished whe consoles had a larger share of the market.
The actual commercialization of the gaming market happened later. Around PS3 release. The suits came and decided that RTS are not profitable enough. You can actually notice how gaming overall started going to shit around that time, tho the process took some time.
The answer is somewhere in there. RTS died the moment PC gaming died, in the mid 2000's. There was stupid shit like limited installs on Red Alert 3. Then you had cancer like MTX and Steam only games which they couldn't make work with RTS (see Generals 2)
I wonder how much every CnC game past Kanes Wrath contributed. I knew a decent amount of dudes who only liked that series, then when CnC 4 came out it completely destroyed all interest in the genre, a few people tried to go to SC but hated it.
People looking up build orders so they can autistically optimise the fun out of the game and crush anyone new to the game. New players are faced with either memorising build orders (boring) or finding a new game that isn't full of sperglords (wise).
>memorising build orders
Rigid build orders are the white supremacy of RTS.
Not real and a cope used by low IQs that do not understand the mechanics happening under the hood.
Okay are you going to seriously tell me there's NOT an optimal way to do things and the sperglords playing AOE2 for 20 years aren't doing that exact thing to get to end game quicker? Are you really going to try sell that lie?
I'm telling you when there's like 200 active players in a RTS you come across that "top 1%" in your average game and get raped. This is not going to keep people around when they can't grow and are just getting relentlessly fricked for 100 games with no recourse but to look up build orders just to even keep up. It's no mystery why they died.
There are 20k+ players each in aoe2 and 4, not 200. They have sbmm and you can find a game against players of any skill level any time of day. I don't autistically memorize build orders or asiatic micro, I'm a sub 1k elo shitter and I have fun close matches all the time. You guys assume the genre is dead because you personally don't play it and know nothing about it
5 months ago
Anonymous
>sbmm
people just smurf lmao
5 months ago
Anonymous
This lol
5 months ago
Anonymous
This lol
Thats true for any sbmm, but it doesn't seem that prevalent in aoe in comparison to smurfing in more popular f2p slop games. I do wish they would make rules against it and enforce it since streamers do it openly, but in my several hundred low elo matches I only suspected a couple people of it
Those build orders will mean nothing unless you know why are they like this in first place.
One patch and it all changes.
Any game with non-random numbers can be solved, but before you get to that point you will have to battle million midwits going all cheese, and then you will face people that need 4 units of X and 2 units of Y to solve their opening Z, since mechanically you will be equals.
Funnily enough just loaded up cnc remastered, never played the og and turns out its fricking shit. Why did they not remaster tiberian sun and red alert 2?
Being a prophet. >They see a scientific anomaly, a curiosity. I see the future. In their stubborn ignorance, they continue to try and forestall this future.
RTS was never a super profitable genre to begin with, aside from a few outliers. so with the advent of HD graphics ballooning the shit out of development budgets, RTS as a genre stopped being viable.
Basically it's just another victim of graphicsgays.
Even when asiaticclick 2 released most people didn't start making build orders or training their APM. They dove straight into the campaign to see what happens with Jim and Kerrigan.
Too bad it was shit.
The campaign itself was fine, each mission had its own gimmcks, there were some branching paths here and there but the story of Jim & Kerrigan was absolutew dogshit and went against everything you saw in SC1 and BW.
the overarching story is garbage; the missions are pretty good even if they all have a gimmick. There's cool missions like the planet getting hit by a solar flare or the tug of war protoss fight. But having the games boil down to everyone fights sargeras squid monster rather than the political mess that was BW is incredibly disappointing.
Dude 90% of clicks that top Starcraft players do is just them keeping their hands moving doing idle shit. It takes very few "clicks" to actually play well. You're just coping at how bad you are.
It's sad how true this is. SC2 actually removed autocast from Zerg Queens because asiatic playtesters complained about it reducing the APM requirements of the game.
Nobody wants to accept this, but SC2.
Turned a casual campaign focused genre into tryhard sweatfests that killed every non-koreans interest in the genre. Every new RTS that crops up falls into this same trap and tries to make the game "competitive" because that's what everyone thinks RTS is now.
SC2's campaign is still pretty good though, the missions are well designed and force you to play in a variety of different ways. The writing is horrible and it frequently falls back on some form of time limit to keep you moving, but those are the only real issues with it.
>Nobody wants to accept this, but SC2.
Because they'd be wrong.
Sc2 has tons of casual options for the non-competitive type. >Great campaign >Co-op commanders >Custom games >Team-games >Archon-mode
You gays are so moronic and will tell everyone how moronic you are just to fit in.
Just because you say something is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Just because you're not part of the players that enjoy campaigns, co-op-mode or custom games doesn't mean those players don't exist.
You need to understand that just because YOU don't play something, doesn't mean that anyone aren't playing them. You mingle with morons who think Sc2 is competitive only, so that's your understanding. It is wrong.
Wings of Liberty was great, even outside of it's multiplayer- Which was frickin' amazing at the time. The issue came around when Heart of the Swarm released, where the story went to shit and the expac gave some of the most cancerous units that it killed any casual interest very quickly. (Seriously, watch any HotS game with Zerg or Protoss- You'll see the issue with Swarm Hosts and Mothership cores; the latter of which was removed for being too much of a pain to deal with.)
>Nobody wants to accept this, but SC2.
Because they'd be wrong.
Sc2 has tons of casual options for the non-competitive type. >Great campaign >Co-op commanders >Custom games >Team-games >Archon-mode
You gays are so moronic and will tell everyone how moronic you are just to fit in.
Co-Op was an afterthought, I vividly remember LotV shilling Archon mode like it was the next big thing; then it came out and it was dogshit.(Just like the rest of the expac!)
The wider issue is that most people don't have a clue what "strategy" actually is. Effective strategy isn't some convoluted plan that requires your opponent to make anticipated mistakes, effective strategy is just constantly putting yourself in the best position to take advantage of any mistakes that arise. So much of chess is about controlling the centre of the board, and that's all because the centre is the best place to take advantage of anything that comes up from. Likewise in Starcraft, the best way to punish your opponent's mistakes is to always have the largest possible economy/army.
Zooms, they only know how to use their parent's credit card and buy another skin for their fortnite like slop. RTS genre is simply too hard for *modern audiences*
Out of all the popular but "obscure" competitive genres/games that require esoteric knowledge, RTS players always have the biggest chip on their shoulders and its ridiculous. Fighting game players, AFPS duelists, MOBAgays, all of them accept their game isn't for "everyone" but RTSgays always act like there's some crime being committed or greater conspiracy against their favorite genre.
>but RTSgays always act like there's some crime being committed or greater conspiracy against their favorite genre.
Because there is.
We have you Black folk constantly declare our genre dead just because it's not pulling fortnite numbers.
Doesn't help that we RTS players absolutely mogs you casual babs in terms in intelligence, so it's no wonder we're getting sick of tard-wrangling you drooling morons thread after thread.
how is the phrasing "popular but obscure" calling something dead? When did I say something not pulling fortnite numbers is dead" Why are you attributing an argument to me I didn't make? You're honestly just proving my point, you have too much of a victim complex.
You made general statements and I made general statements. Yet here you are acting like I'm addressing you personally.
There's that mental midget thing I was talking about.
Good RTS campaigns are too costly to make and there is no hype about it (high risk for investment). People who say that SC2 killed RTS or any other game are stupis morons that never bothered to do something more than shitpost. E-Sports didn't kill RTS or any multiplayer bullshit, RTS died for the same reason quests, collectathon platformers, rhythm games died
Understandable in most combat focused RTS games, where you have like 2 to 4 resources, but I enjoyed it in a game like Stronghold where economy is half the game.
EARTH 2150 had so many TECHNOLOGY moments it was crazy
>weather actually matters as rain and snow not only effect the terrain but your units/vehicles as well >like laser weapons get less effective as things take longer to heat up >but when the atmosphere gets warmer laser actually become way more effective >all those unit customization options >being able to build tunnels and send your units through those tunnels for surprise attacks >again: terrain actually matters so you can use hills and uneven ground to your advantage and protect yourself from missiles. >snow actually falls onto your units over time and you can see that >day and night cycles that actually matter - effecting your visuals and energy production
I don't think i have played a game with more attention to detail.
The focus on hero units paved the way for ASShomosexualS. Where hero units used to just be some slightly stronger palette swap in campaign modes, WC3 made hero management integral to gameplay with powerful skills and items, which became the foundation for DOTA and its copycats.
I'll never understand how people keep praising Warcraft 3 as one of the best RTS games when the game itself is focused on managing individual units instead of actually working on, you know, strategies. And yeah then Starcraft 2 came and decided to be Warcraft 3 in space rather than an actual sequel to Starcraft.
>Earth 2140 is a generic C&C ripoff >Earth 2150 has amazing TECHNOLOGY at every corner plus you get to play as the only guy in an all-female faction, not-America is run by a crazy AI and you can build giant robots AND the not-russian faction is basically a heavy industrialized Mongolia led by a Great Khan >Earth 2160 throws most of the cool shit 2150 did out of window and only gives you a shitty alien faction in return >Earth 2170 got cancelled because RTS are dead
>LC accidently blowing you up >Later they have to replace officers who want to snusnu you
Yep, LC campaign was kino (even if sonic weaponry is dogshit)
Honestly 3D killed it.
A game that's only played in 2d doesn't need 3D graphics. 3D only slows shit down, lowers the number of units/buildings you can have, shrinks its size and scale and lags the game for wanting to be fancy and impress consoomers with 3D.
Earth 2150 is also the rare case where the addons/expansions are actually decent.
>Moon Project has you fighting on the Moon trying to take down the LC super weapon >Lost Souls is about the people being left behind on Earth trying their best to make the jump to Mars as well
Lost Souls problem(and I think some parts in vanilla) is that most of the missions have this moronic 'kill everything on the map and we do mean EVERYTHING lol' objective
me
Why did you do it?
YOU BASTARD
yeah, he did it
I knew it.
WHACK'EM!
why lil homie
give it back jamal
You better watch your back, mister
You piece of SHIT!!
You?!
You won't live to regret that
MOOOOOOOOOOOODS
Koreans
MOBAs did
THE ICE AGE !!
But during the stone age
More like Dark age. Dark age of vidya
Lack of care for the genre, asiaticclick, chasing esports and time change
Mongoloids.
Blizzard.
/thread
WC3, as good as it was, effectively killed innovation and risk taking from competitors, and the RPGfication of its mechanics allowed for ASShomosexualS to become popular, then SC2's aggressive push for esports influenced other companies to shift their development in pursuit of the esports golden goose, which never caught on, causing them to abandon their games (DoW3 and Grey Goo come to mind)
C&C4 was
>we want the moba audience
too and people hated it so much
RTS: play by yourself, when you lose, there is no one to blame but yourself
MOBAS: play with others, when you lose, blame everyone else, never a need to look inward
it's no wonder why the mOBA genre took over the RTS genre
You know you can play on teams in RTS right?
RTS isn't always 1v1 though
It is if you're not a shitter.
asiaticclick.
RTS requires a time investment and autism to be good at, it was popular in the 90s because that was the gaming market then, after the turn of the millennium, it became increasingly normalised and the newcomers got filtered by RTS, publishers realised they could make more pandering to normalgays and whipped their devs into making games for them.
>RTS requires a time investment and autism to be good at,
Fake and gay. All games require.
It's just exscuses of the RTSbabs.
Reality is RTS were never good, they just happen to exist when MOBAswere not yet invented.
lol. faker is complete shit compared to some of the best rts players. lol is simply a kindergarten tier competition, even dota is more competitive. rts is by far the hardest genre of all, not even a comparison, mechanically, strategically, nothing comes close
EA by not remastering Red Alert 2.
Mechanical Stagnation mostly.
ASShomosexualS
Normifefication ruined all genres of video games. Gatekeeping was good and universal adoption of the internet via smartphones made it unsustainable.
This.
2007 all over again, normies having phone internet, ruined games, ruined 4chavnghvhn, etc
Gatekeepig has never kept anyone out of playing video games, people aren't that fragile.
Normal gays were going to start playing vidya and nobody was gonna stop them.
blizzard fricking up sc2, plus game companies relying too heavily on and prioritizing competitive scenes
RTS was dead long before SC2 entered the scene. What that screwed up was a potential revival.
This. Sweaty losers ruined their own genre.
Now none of us can play fun AoE/SC games anymore. Thanks.
lack of innovations
>start small
>build up resources and bases
>attack enemy
>rinse repeat across campaign
There were innovations, it's just that they ended up spinning off into their own sub genres, like city builders, grand strategy and mobas
Starcraft 1 perfected the genre, all other innovations led to spinoff genres as this guy said
rts was never actually popular. there were titles that sold well and had fanbases that claimed to like rts games, but only a fraction of them actually did. just look at Ganker threads where there are always multiple people whose suggestions to "fix" rts games is to make them turn based.
Rts doesn't need fixing. Forged alliance is right there. Last I checked the community client works perfectly. The only way to fix forged alliance would be a faithful remake that lets it use more cores properly so it doesn't throttle the game speed when I have a 400 ASF dogfight.
>rts was never actually popular
it was literally the most popular PC video game genre during its peak
this is what I mean by people saying they were rts fans but not actually liking rts. how many of the people playing the games were using it as sim city? how many players never bothered to use hotkeys? it's like saying you are a boomer shooter fan but you only played single player and don't know how to bunny hop.
I am an RTS fan, played RTS games a shitton back in the day, RTS games have fricked sucked for ages
AoE4 sucks yes
>you can't be a fan if you aren't MLG pro
dipshits like you are why RTS is all asiaticclick now.
>dude I'm a huge fps fan so what if I only played goldeneye 64 single player and surf maps on cs
And?
Do you pin any 'cred' on being a fricking """""""gamer"""""""?
Nobody gives a shit. In a market, they are all consumers. In a community, they associate with like-minded individuals - of which there are plenty.
the point is that no developer can make a game that will please rts fans because these people never actually liked rts. that survey proves it by showing that the most popular game modes are the ones where you are barely interacting with the core mechanics.
>the point is that no developer can make a game that will please rts fans because these people never actually liked rts.
And yet plenty did. Amazing.
When MOBAs didn't exist.
If LoL existed back then nobody would by your stinking RTS in 1999.
Simple truth that broke RTS fans.
>When MOBAs didn't exist.
Irrelevant, mobas aren't a replacement for single player rts.
>If LoL existed back then nobody would by your stinking RTS in 1999.
Silly conjecture.
Post age 🙂
>Irrelevant
Very relevant you can track RTS fall into nothingness with DotA and LoL release.
>Silly conjecture.
That is the fact. There were no LoL and DotA in the year 1999.
>Very relevant you can track RTS fall into nothingness with DotA and LoL release.
No, you can't. They were falling into nothingness way before mobas.
>That is the fact. There were no LoL and DotA in the year 1999.
Again, irrelevant.
And again, post age.
>They were falling into nothingness way before mobas.
Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2. And ding dong it was released after LoL. You can cry and scream at gamers as hat "LoL is not a real RTS game" but they just ignore your autism and play better games. Simple as.
Such autists like you indeed were in Blizzard HQ whol laughed at MOBAs, and continued pandering to asiaticclicking mechanics. imagine how much they bit their elbows after LoL success. LooooooooL.
>Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2.
Because RTS players didn't want another shitty asiaticclick, which SC2 was. You proved my point for me.
Blizzard jumped in thinking they'd make Starcraft but bigger and more esporty but it had nowhere near the organic growth as SC1 did.
lol
lmao
>Because RTS players didn't want another shitty asiaticclick, which SC2 was
Yeah and they flocked to LoL.
Source?
>Largest fall sign was the flop of SC2
6 figure playerbase for a decade is flopping? It probably still has 100k daily players.
What is this reasoning? People won't buy RTS games that appeal to casuals because casuals don't like RTS, as you can see from this survey showing most people who played it are casuals?
>casuals don't like RTS
lol
Only as RPG. Not as rts.
>More doomgayging for RTS by people filtered by it.
People who answer MOBAs are Westwood widows that never engaged the multiplayer features of RTS games thus they hold a grudge against people who do/did.
People who answer SC2/Koreans are people who tried MP but got filtered and dropped it.
The real answer is you. The people in here right now that abandoned the genre and could be making threads about upcoming RTS games like Homeworld 3 or Tempest Rising or playing current games like AoE, C&C mods, etc, but instead prefer to blame everyone else to the point that you actually start these pathetic threads.
>blaming the consumer for games being shit and lack of innovation
This isn't an argument about why RTS games are shit, it's about why RTS games are dead. If there was a market there would be games, both good and bad. RTS players from the 90s abandoned the genre entirely. Take Dota for example. It got so popular that Valve straight up bought it and it competed with several clones. Why isn't the same happening to RTS games? Why aren't the players flocking to some of the good mods and games out there and causing gamedevs to invest money in the genre? I know why. It's because they'd rather b***h, take the "I'm an oldgay" cred and then go back to play some other genre.
It's exactly the same reason why arenashooters died. The playerbase simply abandoned the genre.
>Why aren't the players flocking to some of the good mods and games out there
Because they aren't good
Demand for RTS games are not being met because developers cannot make good RTS games
Arena shooters are different, they are dead because there is no demand
So the current AoE and the upcoming HW3 are shit then?
>It's exactly the same reason why arenashooters died.
They didn't. Fortnite IS arena shooter. Only boomers would whine and refuse to face truth.
Innovation is overrated, execution is what matters. 90% of the new rts that come are innovating, you're just moronic and a nonplayer lol, they died because they're shit. Doesn't matter how OOOH SHINY NEW INNOVATION NEW ORIGINALITY something is when it's shit.
the consumer for games being shit and lack of innovation
Literally yes. Devs stopped trying because consoomers buy their games no matter what. So why bother being innovative when you can have shit like GTA5 online for 10+ years and shit upon shit sequels and even when new IPs are dogshit like Cyberpunk, Starfield, and Diablo 4/Immortal they still make a bazillion dollars.
Plenty of people play old RTS games. There was a big empire of war thread recently when the devs updated it to 64 bit. The problem is that modern RTS games are shit compared to old ones.
I'm not looking forward to homeworld 3 and its focus on characters. Not to mention the "roguelike" elements they love yapping about.
Actually modern RTS game, WH Total war has largest playerbase among current RTS genre. And it's popularity driven by SP campaign that is far as possible from the "classic" asiaticclicking RTS design.
Don't say that. You'll summon the autist that will insist that TW can't be an RTS since it doesn't have base building.
it's not rts because the strategy part is done in the turn based part of the game
>since it doesn't have base building.
But it does have base building. Turn based on strategic map
TW is not RTS
Its a turn based strategy and RTT hybrid.
Get your fricking definitions right.
And full single player RTS died long ago, since creating content for them is financially unfeasible.
So any successful ones do exactly that, separate the strategic elements to overmap, and let you battle with your toys in real time (usually autoresolved)
I guess the men of war games aren't RTS either then.
yeah now you're figuring it out. neither is sins of a solar empire or dawn of war 2 or stronghold or cossacks.
Pretty sure Cossacks and Stronghold have unit production and resource extraction and even base building. So they are RTS.
Dawn of War 2 is very borderline RTS, since they have no extra buildings (replaced with research of unlocking tiers) but they still use passive resource collection, plus they still have unit production.
asiaticclick and fast apm rotte execution of precalculated builds while multitasking micro of units makes the RTS games devoid of strategy.
Whats a strategy game devoid of strategy? Nothing.
The clear answer is introducing macro commands. Instead of having to memorize build orders and micro workers around to maximize resource harvesting because you clicked faster, make it an automated task that the player has to program into his units with conditional rules. The real challenge will be not to out-click your opponent, but to counter the rules they have currently set up for their units, which you must counter-counter by setting up even better rules. If an RTS game can't basically play itself aside from intelligent orders ordained by the player, then it's not real strategy.
Or like just maybe cut the shit loose and leave it to the campaign map like in Rome total war.
And maybe make time not be a factor.
But that would require some thinking, and developing strategms of a sort and using your mind to think trough moves in advance.
>And maybe make time not be a factor.
You mean have the construction of buildings and units rely solely on resources instead of resources + build times?
No not at all.
Making time not a factor means you do not gain any advantage when issuing commands after 1 or 2 or 3 seconds compared to someone that issues commands after 200ms or 250ms or 300ms.
What Greek stratigos did during war.
See above. Game can be designed so its real time but the time is not the main factor that overshadows all other factors that determine the outcome.
Better "remove" time than remove strategy.
>Strategy is the art of making use of time and space. I am less concerned about the later than the former. Space we can recover, lost time never.
gee I wonder what moron said this. surely not anyone as smart as supreme commander anonymous here.
>sends scroll with orders by rider to the regiments at the forest entrance
>his order gets there after 10 minutes
>the regimental chief reads the scroll
>it says to move into forest and assume attack formation
>after 15 minutes they are in the forest
>rider brings back report
And thats how it was during the days of battle.
The mining of resources, crafting of weapons and arrows, consription and training of troops, etc would get even "slower" and lagging orders.
Sometimes emperors orders would arrive weeks after he wrote them down and sent by couriers to a province.
You are mental midget if you cannot understand those realities.
That's what field tacticians are for
>real time
>make time not a factor
>turn-based campaign map
>real time
turn based map blobber games are such dogshit, such a meme genre that is either so trivial that you may as well not play it or so bullshit that it is just a matter of memorizing which of the 10000 techs on the tree actually does something against a lazy cheater AI that spawns out cavemen that can club helicopters to death because lol what if we had rpg life/damage scaling in a fricking "strategy" game?
Nobody wants asiaticclicking. Simple as.
You can whine as much you want asiaticclicking genre is dead.
>source: my ass
Source: sc2 dropping in popularity HARSHLY, despite having money pumped into it
There could be any number of reasons for that. You don't know if SC2 but Supcom style or SC2 but Total War style or SC2 but full on TBS style would've been more popular.
>And maybe make time not be a factor.
it took 2 hours but here he is, the guy who thinks the fix for rts is to remove the real time part
>who thinks the fix for rts is to remove the real time part
Building game desing around time deficit was never good decision. And it was never intentional. RTS were just randomly assembled games in the beginning of the videogameing, there was no thought process behind their design.
Some thought process was during their tweaking and development, but this development took way of pandering to most toxic part of the RTS: asiaticclicking and now surprise that genre died.
t. geriatric boomer who doesn't understand the concept of striking a balance between macro and micro. If a player spends all their attention on asiaticclick micro unit control their macro economy will suffer for it and vice versa, choosing what to pay attention to is itself an important strategic decision
ASShomosexualS
People who dont want to learn how to play games.
Consoles. Nobody gave a shit about PC-only genres for 10 years and by the time those passed, MOBAs were more profitable to make.
Korean 400 APM.
When RTS is no longer about "real-time strategy" but rather excel spreadsheets and who has better macro then the whole genre becomes unplayable for the major audience.
And the big companies cherished this shit too. You know RTS is still fricked when the commentators in AoE4 tournaments spends half their time praising about players macroing during a match.
These N! Ruined rts by talking shit about the genre
There's no such thing as asiaticlick
5 sc1 chinese (terran and protoss)
can reach 395
In the west Sziky zerg plays at 420, Bonyth and Dewalt 370 protoss
Gypsy and Dandy reach 370 as terran
Jaeyun (p) reaches 400 but he's not elite
After 350 you need positioning to make it count
Me? 270 and started with 220
Sc2 n-----s are the ones who click like mentally ill people, it literally rewrites their brain because their games are about going back and forth as fast as possible
CoHshit, trying to make warcraft tactical is moronic. You gotta have 1hp units to make tactics compelling.
Also Esports.
RTSs are alive and well, we don't get masterpieces like we used to in the 90s but you can't get an AoE II every year.
RTS is fricking dead.
During the AoE4 tourny people starting to realize that the RTS genre has come to shit because when either player picks French it means guaranteed 3 minutes zerg rush and /ff by the 4th minute, either the rush is successful and the defending player can't make a comeback, or the French player didn't inflict enough damage early on and /ff himself.
What's the point designing all those factions and making different maps when all it takes is one player to pick French and every game is the same 3 minutes rush 4 minutes ff.
all i remember from aoe4 was the mongol tc rush
Publishers wanting the esports money when rts players wanted cool single player campaigns with multiplayer on the side.
what a stupid fricking take. no one outside korea except for the nerds at teamliquid even knew esports was a thing until starcraft 2 came out in 2010, but rts was already over by that point. westwood died in 2003 and ensemble was kill by 2008.
>even knew esports was a thing until starcraft 2 came out in 2010
warcraft3 and cs were big e-sport games before sc2.
warcraft 3 was really only big in korea and china. beyond that you basically only had grubby and that one ud player I forget the name of and the only major tournament was wcg.
>never saw his nerd friend play an rts
>every second/resource is min maxed
>every unit is hot keyed
>he’s blasting around the map so fast… why even bother looking at the game. You never are looking. At anything for more than a second.
>>he’s blasting around the map so fast… why even bother looking at the game. You never are looking. At anything for more than a second.
Soulless drones.
Reality. Turns out RTS is actually a very niche genre: few people actually like its specific mix of strategy, tactics, and mechanics. There are many reasons to play RTS, empirically the most common being custom game modes, but whether it's playing tower defense, microing powerful hero units, commanding large armies, RPing a sovereign, setting up nice cities, or whatever, for each of those draws there are games that do it much better. For example, a lot of people were into Age of Empires because of history, but it's Total War or Europa Universalis that they really wanted.
On top of that the stagnation of the genre: there was innovation to be sure, but games like Majesty, Kohan, or even SupCom really, didn't make a splash. Among the "real" RTS fans (that very small minority that actually played RTS for RTS and not for lack of more specialized titles) came to see a specific *Craft/Ao* formula as what RTS is really about, and since StarCraft and Age of Empires are actually really good, it's exceptionally difficult for any new game to one-up them in their own terms. Especially if you design the game for e-sports rather than letting it emerge organically: MP-players are a niche within niche, and most players who might pick up MP will do so on back of strong campaign experience that hooks them into the game, while most contemporary attempts at RTS are designed around MP/e-sports, trying to replicate StarCraft's success without understanding why it was successful.
they are simply too stressful
long match times where every single second requires focus and can be endlessly optimized
fighting games have a similar problem with difficulty creating playerbase issues but have much shorter match times to balance it out
The fact that it's inherently shit to begin with and it only ever thrived because there was a curiosity towards it back when it was new, but most of us quickly got over it and moved on.
>The fact that it's inherently shit to begin with
source?
i want to play games with my friends, and my friends only play popular games. if rts games were popular, theyd be playing them.
too niche, also RTS gamers are some of the most brain dead people alive. I speak from experience with these communities, so many of them seem mentally handicapped.
>RTS gamers are some of the most brain dead people alive. I speak from experience
Well I started replaying wc3 single player again, it's fun game.
DOTA 2 is simply better
StarCraft II being split into three chapters.
The only rts thats actually STRATEGICAL is supreme commander. You make production lines of units that are created only to be destroyed in the meat grinder. You have technological breakthroughs that break the stalemate. Its like being a real general since you make the macro decisions. Other rts is autistically micromanaging little Black folk and tanks which isnt resembling strategy and people who enjoy apm autism can just play assgayots
galactic cope
this is why rts is dead, rts players are moronic
>You have technological breakthroughs that break the stalemate
Yeah, never heard of that.
That game was better than it had any right to be.
>End up fighting for some pointless corridor in the underground
>All while i build up an entire artilery section pointing right at his base
>he rages as hisbase is bombarded to ruin but somehow manage to cut the supply lines to the artillery and rebuild
>battle ends in nucelar holocaust
Great game sad it never got a worthy succsesor
But there's two related but not identical meanings for strategy: strategy in military strategic sense you can find in Clausewitz or NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, and that SupCom appears to have and games like StarCraft absolutely don't on account of their greater abstractness and smaller scale, and strategy in a more abstract sense like "Chess strategy" (or even "business strategy"). Games like StarCraft still have the latter, just like Chess strategy is a thing.
That being said, I do think you gesture towards a real thing that most players find a problem. Where strategy in Chess is considerations like pawn structure, king safety, control of key squares, etc, strategy in RTS is things like build order (building economy first and military second makes you weaker now, but if you get away with it, stronger later), timings (you enjoy a temporary peak in relative advantage the moment a key upgrade finishes), or even things like building placement: building a wall make you safer against early rushes but having a production facility in a different place from the rest makes it in the long term less efficient to macro out units (supposing you have to click buildings manually) and the wall obstructs the movement of your own units as well, so it's a hindrance in the longer term. Or, in some games you might come up with a decision of "the enemy 4-pooled me: he'll have 3 drones mining so, and consequently so long as I'll have more than 4 surviving workers, I have the advantage, so it's better to pull the workers and defend decisively"
The problem is, little of that is dynamic big-picture decisions. Builds are strategies but by their very nature they are decided before the game starts. Building placement involves strategy, but it's absolutely not broad strokes big picture stuff but "microstrategy" (and, again, arrived at mostly through statistical experience of what works rather than dynamic decision-making). And like Chess where trying to play strategically is actually self-handicapping unless you're already quite good (any thought-resources spent thinking about pawn structure are thought-resources away from spotting a hanging piece, and anyhow you'll probably throw away the long-term advantages away long before they are realized) and it's better to focus exclusively on tactics, the best strategy (or should we say "metastrategy") in RTS is often, especially for new players who don't know if worker scout arriving in your base at 1:24 means x, y or z (and consequently you can't productively use it to alter your plan) is to ignore strategic considerations. Hell, while there are games where you sometimes see strategic brilliance, even in top level pro games you routinely see situations like protoss refusing to build a second cannon while on 20 workers when zerg has 10. Of course, it's easy for the viewers with fog of war lifted to criticize, but that's kind of the point: by its very nature it's difficult even for the absolute best players to make even the simplest strategic decisions dynamically, so in actual practice RTS doesn't realize even the little room for dynamic big-picture decision-making that there in principle is.
I think it's entirely reasonable for players to want that, and not metastrategy ("as a low-level player, I'm better off committing to a rush build order: even in the most extreme circumstance, I'm probably better off not deviating"), "microstrategy" (building placement), or tactics.
>The problem is, little of that is dynamic big-picture decisions.
Played well, RTS games force you to consider things on all levels at once, not just one.
>Builds are strategies but by their very nature they are decided before the game starts.
Wrong. The best build orders are ones that let you fork off into one or multiple builds after scouting your enemy.
>Of course, it's easy for the viewers with fog of war lifted to criticize, but that's kind of the point: by its very nature it's difficult even for the absolute best players to make even the simplest strategic decisions dynamically, so in actual practice RTS doesn't realize even the little room for dynamic big-picture decision-making that there in principle is.
Information is a resource in games like these. Your enemy not realizing you're vulnerable can be big, so you want to control what information they have.
there is still strategy in games like starcraft but like chess you actually have to be good at the game to use it. something like knowing that since you gained control of the center of the map with a faster push your opponent will be forced to play around the map edges so as long as you defend against air attacks you can win based on map control. midwits think they are strategic geniuses and get filtered by anything that counters their big picture strategy of "one base until you can tech up to your super weapon."
How does this differ from AoE2?
its asiaticclick
>anything I don't like or any RTS that filters me is asiaticclick
frick off
I realized serious RTS gameplay wasnt for me back when I played with my friends and they had to warmup before a game so they max out the autism slider. I just wanted to build a base and kill enemies even if it took 10x longer than optimal play. As time went on it felt like devs were prioritizing optimal play over having fun, even just mechanically. That and prioritizing multiplayer and dropping the idea of a campaign for some releases entirely. Now it's rare I enjoy an RTS, I think the last one I really liked was deserts of kharak
A bunch of boring mechanics for the sake of realism. RTS was fun when I didn't need to keep track of a million things, shits a job at this point.
Focus on multiplayer over single player
Genre balkanization (MOBA, etc)
Decline of keyboards-based PC gaming in the 2000s in favor of controller-based consoles
What does arcade mean here?
custom maps
imagine if there was a thing between casual and hardcore
A nebulous 'other' with no defining traits or strong feelings one way or the other?
That's just noise for the purpose of a statistical survey.
that's just ladder
why yes, I Agree, a good campaign is very important.
>How important is a campaign
>68%
There's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign, I thought no one played the campaign in RTS games because it's literally all the same generic and boring shit kek'd. Fricking boomers
>here's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign
Campaigns used to be extremely fun. I still remember the solo commando missions in command and conquer. They also allow fun scenarios and are a perfect longer tutorial before being shoved into multiplayer
>There's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign
Believe it.
People want to both be commanded and command in return.
RTS live or die on their campaigns.
>There's no fricking way 68% demands the RTS to have a campaign
are you a souless executive?
nobody gave a shit about multiplayer as main focus before the moronic esports push
correct.
RTS was about a cozy, fun campaign, a fun game. Followed up by skirmish(not for Elo or points but for fun)
MUH COMPETITIVE MULTIPLAYER FIRST is just excess wanting to milk a certain market and they don't make a fun game.
Simple as.
Make a fun game, morons.
There is definitely a selection bias, that poll was run by GiantGrantGames, a YouTuber who mostly focuses on campaign challenge runs
Bro the campaign is the fun part. Memorizing and executing a timing attack faster than the other guy isn't fun (to me)
I hate zoomers like you wouldn't believe. Morons like this bit the e-sport hook and deleted this genre
PC decline in late 00s.
smoothbrains
nothing and they're coming back and this graphic doesn't even have zerospace
>bunch of cheap c&c, warcaft and starcraft copy trash and HW3
wew RTS games are truly saved
ok but c&c clone good
c&c was good maybe 20 or 15 years ago, it's really dated today
sure you can enjoy it, lot of people people still worship aoe2 as the pinnacle of rts games but I think it's bad by today's standards
well obviously c&c clone isn't going to be a literal 1:1 clone of c&c1
as far as I could see on the videos it's mechanically it's the same, basically a pretty graphics version of it
>today's standards
like what?
Nothing. RTS is an anomaly in vidya games where the old games and the pillars of the genre never really went away.
Games are so good no one bothers to make new ones
I watched a bit of Stormgate and it looked absolutely horrible. A hack between starcraft 2 and lol/dota. The ultimate PRODUCT™ with no original thought behind it.
cbf learning build orders
Command and Conquer 4 fully disillusioned everyone. RTS lives on through Total War though, kind of.
I don't give a frick about RTS especially multiplayer ones generally but this game i like
Because you're a nazi
yes, and?
Nothing, just making an observation.
What game is this?
plummeting average IQ of both consumers and developers.
Oh man i loved Earth 2150. Too bad 2160 was so shit. Fricking Aliems really
Control scheme. One player=many units is redicoulous real time . Imagine counter strike when you control 50 units.
When developers realize you can control only one unit in such games ( MOBA) it was over RTS
A select few games being so popular that nothing else sold.
RRS Light (tm) taking over as a genre.
Core genere entries being mostly derivative, faceless, and overcomplicated.
Its not dead, just way smaller.
Last Train home has been keeping me occupied. The game is LOOOONG
Now that's interesting!
dead genre
>tryhards
will play the same games until they are in their 50s and die of click-induced heart attacks, so this marketing group is already on the verge of extinction
>casuals
there's like 50 million meme rtses out there that are surprisingly decent despite being completely unknown, yet the casuals still won't play them because they hate rts and will only excuse them if they have triple quadruple giga-AAA budgets as in blizzard RTS
>big dick developers
will only design new games for tryhards, but realistically won't make RTS because singular microtransactions sell more than entire RTS games with $100+ million budgets
>boomer developers
will only design new games for tryhards, they'll be like pale imitations of big dick developer RTS with immense jank that no one ever asked for. see: stormgate
>indie developers
RTS is too involved and complex for them to pursue, and even if they succeed, it will bankrupt them because of how much time and money they spent on a game that no one actually wants. this is the only group that will try and actually innovate on RTS, which will be seen as an atrocity by tryhards and casuals alike
Consoles
All other answers are wrong
Same reason crpgs died until they started putting them on consoles too
RTS players did
The majority of audience rejects any depth and execution barrier, as well as competitive multiplater. The RTS genre is like fighting games, only work with a major focus on outwitting a real opponent, but manchildren just want their virtual version of playing with toy soldiers.
The only good RTS game still alive is CoH2 and 3 that is slowly getting better with each patch. If you are "playing" against the CPU you are nor "playing" any strategy and thus it's not a strategy game.
Your arguments are fake and gay
>The RTS genre is like fighting games
lol
no
see
Nobody wants your sweaty homosexualry.
>nobody wants to be reminded they are bad
No shit
and so RTS is dead
You're a tourist who doesn't know shit about rts.
Time to leave.
>says the gay that does not even try to understand the basics of the game he "likes"
Lol
and dare I say
LMAO
Funny it didn't affect neither shooters not MOBAs.
It absolutely did
Hero team shooters are the MOBAs of Arena FPS.
They all mutate into one direction.
"Casual RTS players" and compstompers aren't RTS buyers. There's no market for casual single player RTS games, that's why they keep flopping and nobody actually buys them. We gets tons of them and they are never successful. Only strategy games that focus heavily on multiplayer like Starcraft and Company of Heroes have a playerbase. Total War kept itself afloat with the fantasy trilogy but went to shit, and multiplayer and coop campaigns were still the most requested features. Wargame:RD is still the most played wargame style RTS with a bunch of skirmishes as campaign while the following flops by Eugen focused more and more on investing in single player Company of Heroes 3 thought that pandering to single player gays with wannabe Total War would make the game a success and diverted precious resources to it and nobody played the campaigns nor cared for it while the multiplayer fanbase eagerly waits improvements and real content. That's why Relic dropped any future single player campaign, many of which were clearly planned already, to focus on the actual customers, which is why the game is steadily getting better.
>There's no market for casual single player RTS games,
WH Total War says otherwise.
>WH Total War says otherwise.
They have bundled and given it everywhere to barely scrape 10k players as final result of a decade long development for a trilogy, and killed history TW in the process
>nearly 18 year old game has more players
says a lot about the modern game industry.
how is Empire at War on steam but Universe at War not anymore?
they made like a wind direction and it correctly affects both the snow and the smoke.
That's honestly impressive and nowadays we have triple A games where everything that is not a cheap shader is baked in static.
>There's no market for casual single player RTS games
Source?
It came to me in a dream
>There's no market for casual single player RTS games
What did he mean by this?
based indie devs saving the RTS genre by basically re-hashing those warcraft 3 maps where you defend against endless waves of zombies
you are the problem
But I played the CoH3 Italian Campaign and liked it!
Of course as a side dish to the multiplayer.
To make it as engaging like TW campaigns you need to build your game from the ground up around it.
even if you're not playing against AI as soon as you do anything you are employing a strategy
asiaticclicking is shit, you can still make RTSes if they are actually good singleplayer experiences and they try to do something different
post your skin colour
COH2 and 3 are shit compared to 1.
CoH2 is literally the best CoH but yeah CoH1>>>shit>>>CoH3
You can tell this post is correct by the seethe it generates
>The RTS genre is like fighting games
Which is why both RTS and fighting game threads get derailed by shitters so often.
You're a tourist here, RTS was never about asiaticclicking.
homosexuals like (you) ruined the genre.
ASShomosexualS and the braindead npcs that play them.
Lack of advanced a.i tactics
Incompetence and shift of focus from single player to multiplayer.
Also the vidya audience became much more casual with the 360/ps3 and devs were chasing the easy buck.
2006-7 were the last years of the golden age of vidya. Ever since it's been going to shit.
>2006-7 were the last years of the golden age of vidya. Ever since it's been going to shit.
Very observant.
The issue wasn't the horse armor, it was the entire piece of shit called Oblivion, a game that only ruined its genre but turning every RPG into actionslop for a decade but i'd say represented the death of the gaming industry the best.
Exactly. The horse armor was the cherry on top. Oblivion was where you saw what audience they had in mind: consoletards and call of duty infants.
APM autism.
Just make Supreme commander 40k and it will fix everything
>40k
you sucken off a ork
I feel like RTS was a pretty limited genre. Basically every strategies revolved around eco, rush, and turtle, and if you did the wrong one your opponent would basically always win.
So isn't RTS just a fancy version of rock-paper-scissors?
>So isn't RTS just a fancy version of rock-paper-scissors?
RTS is clunky controls top down view action game.
A mix of shit. EA acquiring Westwood, Blizzard getting high off their own farts after the lucky success of StarCraft, a massive shift in focus towards PvP (MOBAs), lack of native support for custom maps/modes etc. Playerbase moved on and even if there were gems released since and still are the genre itself is not recovering to peak popularity.
EA feels extra nefarious for how quickly they abandoned every C&C title they released because they never became the next big esport games, especially Red Alert 3. But to give them credit where it's due, Generals/Zero Hour is like the best thing they ever made even tho it runs like shit in multiplayer.
I'm so used to arena shooter gays having a meltdown whenever they're asked why their old genre is dead, that entering a RTS thread and not seeing the same thing actually caught me by surprise.
Because (real) RTS players actually play their games and don't give a shit about how popular and populated those games are. There will be always a core community sharing their niche and no, none of them cares about shitty single player C&C/AoE clones flopping
That's the equivalent of saying "why don't chess players care that chess is dead" it isn't and none of them cares rehashes of solitaire are flopping
No lose hope brother, manor lord will save rts
That's a city builder
>You strategies in real time
Same thing
I know majority people hate rts but for some reason i love this genre so much, it reminds me of my childhood when i used to make imagery kingdom and wage wars
I hope someday we get a deep rts game
I replay RTS campaigns all the time, it's fun to try to use the shit units
Casuals
EA and Activision "Blizzard"
RTS wasn't murdered, interest just faded (in anything except for AoE2 and StarCraft)
You must remember, initially most titles were "AoE but with X gimmick" or "AoE but in Y setting / aesthetic" with some exceptions, that held true for the whole genre.
People get kind of bored of an endless stream of this after a while. It's the same with FPS. It's not the king of the scene that it once was either (but still thriving of course).
Big deal for RTS though was 2008 when PC gaming was basically declared dead as consoles were outpacing it + economic uncertainty doing its thing.
When MOBA showed that it was still alive and worth investing in beyond just ports, mobile gaming was taking off and sadly that's just not a platform that RTS works well on, same as console.
Why make a game that only works on one platform, when you can make one for several, some with even larger customer bases? And that's why you had so many forgettable Kickstarter RTS titles, only people willing to throw money at it was RTS fans themselves (who happen to browse KS) and not investors and publishers with actual money. And sadly the people willing to MAKE the games hadn't worked on RTS games in ages, or never had. Then you have all the usual KS issues on top of that.
And when you have a bunch of new RTS games doing poorly, it only further signals that people don't want RTS games, which of course is false. They just want GOOD games, not shoddy rushed products done on a paperclip budget.
Not to mention Kickstarter games have zero marketing budget. The only one I can even remember by name still is Grey Goo. And I guess Northgard if that was KS initially, not sure, good shit though.
your point about platform dependency is probably over half the story
I know the exact moment. It was when they released bastardized abomination called SupCom2 on consoles.
Rts is a niche genre and gaming industry is all about making billions which cannot be possible by rts games
Why the frick do so many RTS games have such a zoomed in camera. Even when you pull out to max, it's still usually relatively scrunched in. All RTS games should allow you to fully zoom out to a bird's eye view and then zoom in at any point. There's little reason not to, beyond belief the artificial limitation of such things promote multi-tasking and the mechanical difficult of APM + Camera Groups, which is GAY with a capital G-G-G-asiatic.
I've heard a couple of games does have that, but frick you, ALL OF THEM should have it. If they did, I'd play them all the time.
supcom and BAR are both great
>Why the frick do so many RTS games have such a zoomed in camera.
Because core of the RTS design is artificial difficulty.
what's the point of zooming out so far that your units look like dots when there's a minimap in the corner of the screen that gives this view all the time?
More precise orders which can be important in games with huge maps. In supcom you wouldn't want to tell your dropships to deliver units into what turns out to be the enemy turret radius.
99% of games don't need it but bigger ones like supcom/homeworld did.
but how can it be precise when everything is tiny? if you need a big picture look at the minimap. if you need precision move your screen.
Try playing games
I do though
it's just a useless feature for people who play rts wrong. if you are zoomed out looking at the whole map then you are falling behind on things you need actual precision for.
what is strategy according to you?
Have fun coming out of hyperspace without zooming out, zoomer.
How about I come out of your ass, gayot
>if you are zoomed out looking at the whole map then you are falling behind on things you need actual precision for.
Sounds like if YOU are zoomed out then YOU fall behind because YOU can't be as precise, but some people aren't as bad at RTS games as YOU are. I bet you're only half-Korean.
The ability to dictate orders from such a perspective and usually better legibility than minimaps provide. Like a fully pulled out, bird's eye wouldn't necessarily be from space and turn them into dots, based on the size of the map. Plus you get all the zooming out up to that point, which would be nice.
>All RTS games should allow you to fully zoom out to a bird's eye view and then zoom in at any point. There's little reason not to,
It makes having a big monitor an advantage in PvP.
Because sometimes you need acuuracy and precision on where to click
There are many reasons actually
>Being zoomed out so you can't see what any of the buildings makes the game unappealing to watch, which is important when the game wants a spectator audience
>Unit readability goes down the more you zoom out which can be frustrating
>Related, if you can zoom out as much as you want, then playing on a laptop objectively a downside compared to playing on a huge 4k monitor, increasing the barrier to entry
>Games usually put a lot of time into art direction which goes completely wasted if you're so zoomed out that you can't appreciate it
And that's not even mentioning the "artificial" difficulty of the games being designed around dividing your attention between different things
>then playing on a laptop objectively a downside
It might be Good. for you but it's not good for selling the game which is what actually influences decisions like that
>RTS Games
>Selling
????????
??????????????????
I like gimmick factions.
Been waiting for another factions that's as soulful as the zerg and how they spread across the map
Reminds me of that game where you play as a blob faction. What the frick was it called
Greygoo.
Did not delivery on being a grey goo.
Grey Goo?
Literally Harkonnen vs Atreides vs Ordos. It's funny how they kept this dynamic for all of C&C
I like rts but playing them on pc is so boring, i wish we get more rts on mobile
units with experience points, cooldowns
where's my sequel
Its not dead at all, I play aoe every day along with tens of thousands of other players. You don't need a million concurrent players and 10 new releases a year to not be dead
You need to it for developers making new games. If no-one bothers making new games its dead genre, genre not worth making games.
Developers are making new RTS games all the time, but the genre classics are so good its hard for new ones to catch on. You guys don't know shit about dead genres. There are less than a thousand people across every quake and UT title at any given time, thats what a dead genre looks like. Meanwhile aoe2 and 4 have 20k+ concurrent players each on steam alone, id fricking kill for quake to get those numbers
>There are less than a thousand people across every quake and UT title at any given time, thats what a dead genre looks like
Fortnite has 200 milions (!) active users.
This is exactly what I'm talking about, your perspective on what makes a game dead is hopelessly warped because you play nothing but free dogshit normie games for children with 500k+ players. 5-10k is perfectly healthy for most multiplayer games
>5-10k is perfectly healthy for most multiplayer games
It's not healthy to start development of anything but indie games.
>where are muh RTD games!
>ahy no one makes RTS games?!
You don't play them. No money no work.
I don't give a shit about new releases, ill just play aoe2 for another few decades along with thousands of other people. It's a not a dead genre its a solved genre, the pinnacle has been reached. Once you make something like Chess there's no need for a Chess 2
>It's a not a dead genre its a solved genre, the pinnacle has been reached.
Holy cope.
Solved genre is Counter Strike where milion players play essentially the same game for 20 years. RatSare dead genre.
Its also a f2p game for braindead morons and children. Deep complex strategy games will never reach critical mass with normies and they don't need to, as I said 20k+ players is perfectly healthy for games that aren't fricking fortnite
What morons and publishers (so also morons) think RTS players want: to win online matches vs xxdarksephirothxx on painfully symmetrical maps in "balanced" matches
What RTS players actually want: to serve Kane and destroy more African villages
God i hate that faction and it can all be summed up in one word NEST
>God i hate that faction and it can all be summed up in one word WOMEN
I just want to put dudes up on walls and slaughter wave after wave of attackers. pic related and stronghold are my goto picks for that.
This type of gameplay went into games like Vampire Survivors and its clones and tower defense games. Yeah, it's a shame.
>destroy more African villages
Nice try GDI shill, we both know who actually does that
>lights turn on at night
This is the shit I miss. Little touches to the game.
What's better is that they don't turn on at the same time
heard company of heroes 3 sucks, seems to be true going by the mid reviews.
It's slowly being improved, it just came out half baked
>muh asiaticclick
if you can type 60 wpm that's over 200 apm, which is enough to play any rts competently and at a pro level in most of them. the reality is that it isn't your hands that can't keep up, it is your brain. if you actually had a plan you would be executing it and the actions would come as a matter of course. you don't know what you should be doing though so you just sit there watching the screen and pretend that you only lost because the other guy was clicking faster, not because he actually had a plan and knew what needed to be done to carry it out.
Somebody translate this rumble from asiaticclicking please.
your opponent:
>this map has a short rush distance and I don't want to all in so I will scout early so I don't lose to an all in
>if I see my opponent is not going for an early attack I will try for a timing attack that will hit before he can get key defensive units out
>I need to keep making workers so I have enough resources to afford everything and my tech building needs to be done by 8:00
(you):
>hmmmmm what single unit composition should I go for this game?
>the most expensive one of course because it has no counters
>my opponent will never see it coming
>of course I will do it all off one base since it makes it easier to defend with my static defense
>wtf why are you attacking me already (12:00 into the game)
>fricking asiaticclick
Now this would maybe make sense if rts genre wasnt dead. But rts genre is dead so that trumps your attempt at cope.
>if you can type 60 wpm that's over 200 apm, which is enough to play any rts competently and at a pro level in most of them. the reality is that
nobody gives a shit
People don't care about getting rank in rts games. It simply isn't interesting. Get that through your fricking skull.
MOBAs
>Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning.
>Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler.
>By the time the moon came up, she was shitting brown water.
>The more she drank the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew
I don't know, I feel like it's a genre where you have more fun the less you know how to play them. I don't want to learn a "proper build order" with timings, carefully building walls with buildings and then getting mad because you misplaced something by 1 tile is not fun.
A man has been asiaticclicking for decades.
This is what happened to his brain
Don't be a asiaticclicker.
genre was only viable when there was absolutely nothing else to do on PCs
tryhards made it boring because one or three strategies were simply 1000% superior than anyting else.
In other words, "the meta" turned RTS games boring like chess
i remember the first time someone micro'd their archers away from me in aoe2. i said "wtf thats gay" and resigned so i could play against someone less autistic. i just build armys and clicked "go here", i imagine thats what a lot of people did. theres strategy in what to build, where to attack, timings, economy balance, etc, but i never wanted to rapidly spamclick my army back and forth over 2 tiles
Is there any rts on mobiles?
The over focus on simplified 'streamlined' mechanics.
The lack of focus on single player content / story. Regardless of what you think of story in video games the stories and singleplayer content of RTS games is where most people spend their time.
Hardcore gaming doesn't attract an audience outside of FPS, nobody outside autists wants to waste 50-100+ hours just to "get good" where you won't be curbstomped by some tryhard homosexual online.
Yes. I only play single player campaign mode on hardest difficulty and then I uninstall the game.
I only play platformers
MOBAs and catering to the min/max win-at-all-coast macro-micro try hard crowd.
Normies don’t want to muddle through hundreds of hours of game time just to be competent. (Same why fighting games are for smelly dorks)
>what murdered the RTS genre?
EA did when they bought out Westwood. They tried to revive it but then decided it was too hard so they took it out with a shotgun and shot it through the head when they made C&C4. Which they took out base building completely in that game for no good reason.
The ease at which it is to make your own standalone game. This killed custom game maps and thus 90% of the player base.
asiaticclickers will never understand how anyone could play AoM, Stronghold, RA2 and so on completely offline and still had a huge blast.
They don't belong.
threadly reminder there a man with no hands who plays sc2 with his elbow stump and a chopstick. he is platinum which puts him roughly better than 60% of sc2 players and 95% of this thread.
casuls ITT would get bodied by the handicap
Tourist
i dont speak casul
Funny how with every post you prove you don't belong.
Got a link for this guy? I wanna see how he does it.
It was always a fad.
No APM
No build orders
Not a asiatic click
Come home white man
>No APM
Then it's not Real Time.
you could just read about this game on a sheet of paper and get the same experience
Best chat
>Age of Empires 4
shit
>Dawn of War 3
Shit
>Company of Heroes 3
Shit
>Empire Earth 3
Shit
>Rise of Series
Dead
>Age of Mythology
Shit remake inbound
>Command And Conquer 4
Shit
>Total War
Dying and deserves it
>Evil Genius 2
Shit
>Warcraft
Dead
>Latest Stronghold
Shit
As for others like RUSE, Wargame and Starcraft, I don't know, but your main titles have all died or turned to complete shit.
It really damages peoples love for the style, for example, imagine if Call of Duty, Halo or Fable turned to shit.
Oh wait...
Another one for the list
>Battle for Middle Earth 3
Never happening and that's good, otherwise we'll get rangz o powah middle earth
>Star Wars Empire at War 2
Same same
>Never happening and that's good, otherwise we'll get rangz o powah middle earth
rent free
He is right and you are a Hollywood enabler.
Play Sins of the Solar Empire 2
>epic exclusive
easy way to kill your game right there
shame because i loved the first one.
Should I really start with the second instalment?
There's a 2nd one?
>ebin store exclusive
oh nvm
>Supreme Commander FAF
>Age of Empires 2 Definitive
>Age of Empires 4
>Starcraft
>Battleforge/Skylords
>Company of Heroes 2
>Zero K
>BAR
>Wargame
>C&C Generals Evolution
>OpenRA
all very much alive
games that are actually fun to play.
Tank health bar
the genre diverged into MOBA (simple) and Grand Strategy (complex). RTS was inbetween awkward
moba doesn't offer anything that made rts good
MOBAs offers RTS experience without bad part.
I had a "friend" once who thought like this. He was a mouthbreather.
It offers nothing of RTS.
First MOBA was literally mod for WC3 RTS.
There were Brood War MOBAs actually
>modded out the rts
Yes, and?
>bro it's a custom map in an RTS that means it's RTS!!!
There was also a 3rd-person shooter mod. Is Gears of War an RTS now?
Move aside, peasants
footgays get out
Dota allows you to micro multiple units (although they're streamlining it and removing these features further and further), you're thinking of braindead dogshit like lol or smite
bullshit, assgayots is just diablo ctf
Grand strategy
Complex
It's just impossible to do strategy well. Look at real life, for example the Napoleonic wars. You got basic units, dudes with guns, big guns, dudes on horses etc etc. You could distill the war into three or four different units. Now look at games about Napoleonic wars, you got like 50+ different units that do the same shit just little differently.
You could have strategy with just three different unit types but people don't like thinking. Guess what people like? Build orders, APM and all that shit that takes thinking away
Here's a wild theory, Factorio and automation games with combat took players out of RTS games too. Since a lot of people liked the building aspect of games like Tiberian Sun but with the combat I'd argue that this autism is better filled with a game that is dedicated to the building aspect.
Did any of you actually made this jump?
>installing AAI Vehicles and A-moving a bunch of tanks into the biter nests
Hell yeah, that's the true RTS experience
To me it's more from the Transport Tycoon lineage.
>No clear avenue for microtransactions
Everything else is cope. This is it in a nutshell. RTS cannot sell skins, DLC characters, emotes, battlepasses, gatcha waifus, or meme pets. It cannot do a progression system to hook morons who physically cannot play a game that doesn't have one. All it can do is try to sell announcers, maps, and expansions.
Like it or not that is the kiss of death in the modern multiplayer game landscape.
>RTS cannot sell skins, DLC characters, emotes, battlepasses, gatcha waifus, or meme pets
Does asiaticclicking damage brain? Looking at takes like that you can surely tell: it does!
CoH2&3 show that there is place for it.
They way AoE3 was resurrected to sell new races as DLC as well.
The problem is that almost no one trusts companies to not go mad with power for money in RTS setting.
I think that koreans sleep on a great idea to make waifu commander gacha for a F2P RTS. Essentially what Generals 2 was trying to do.
>I think that koreans sleep on a great idea to make waifu commander gacha for a F2P RTS
It is somewhat surprising they've never tried this when you put it like that.
Don't fricking tell them, or they will
>W3 custom games scene will never come back
>>W3
Bullshit, you can just take the approach Dota 2 did and push for everything that isn't gameplay.
Nothing killed them. They are still popular today and you can find a game online in 5 seconds after opening the lobby browser.
The problem with RTS games is that they peaked super early. Warcraft 3, Age of Mythology, Age of Empires 2, Starcraft 2. Those are all perfect games. Why the frick would anyone buy a new game in 2023 when those games still exist and he can play them instead?
Not getting new games made doesn't make a genre dead.
Definitely taking it too seriously and making it overly competitive. They may have gotten a huge surge in sales marketing from competitive nonsense, but it would have been a longer lasting, healthier genre if it focused more on pandering to people who like campaigns, mods, and turtling instead of following build order and stale symmetrical maps.
Definitely this, AoE used to be a game for nerds who were curious about history and battles, even my father got hooked after seeing the historical campaigns. Treating the game as a form of sport completely put off all these people.
this.
RTS used to be a fun time, where you get to enjoy campaigns and then mess around with your friends in multiplayer, playing randomly generated maps where you have to scout and adapt to the terrain, the strategies were what ever you made up.
now its sterile esports shit, units are symmetrical, maps are sterile and symmetrical, less procedurally generated maps because got to keep it symmetrical and fair
Look at tiberian sun, red alert 2, tiberiumwars/kanes wrath.
In fact if there is ONE RTS I would play right now, is kanes wrath
I just keep coming back to the original Dawn of War every year bros
Touhou empires is the only anime RTS I can think of and it's just AoE but 2hu
Dora Dora Island
Ultimately consoles.
You simply cannot play RTS games with a gaypad(nor can they be dumbed down like FPS for the plebs).
The developer would rather make another third person shooter to milk both console and PC players instead of trying to pander to RTS players with high standards.
MOBAs and Grand Strategies exist and neither is played on console expect a shitty port here and there.
Even MOBAs still require some micro control over your character which is practically impossible to do with a gamepad.
The actual commercialization of the gaming market happened later. Around PS3 release. The suits came and decided that RTS are not profitable enough. You can actually notice how gaming overall started going to shit around that time, tho the process took some time.
But rts flourished whe consoles had a larger share of the market.
The answer is somewhere in there. RTS died the moment PC gaming died, in the mid 2000's. There was stupid shit like limited installs on Red Alert 3. Then you had cancer like MTX and Steam only games which they couldn't make work with RTS (see Generals 2)
The last actual big dick PC exclusive that ironically killed PC exclusivity as a whole was Crysis. We both know why.
Micro killed it. It stopped being about strategy and became about reaction times. If I want to reaction time I'll play a fighting or action game ffs
What's with all the trannies and soihomosexuals not liking goocklickers? Go choke on a MOBA game you gigantic homosexuals
Your shitty made up term isn't sticking, homosexual. Try again.
Didn't Dungeons 4 just come out? There are still RTS games releasing.
> Beyond all Reason not mentioned at least once
you guys killed it
you missed my post
ctrl+f BAR moron
I wonder how much every CnC game past Kanes Wrath contributed. I knew a decent amount of dudes who only liked that series, then when CnC 4 came out it completely destroyed all interest in the genre, a few people tried to go to SC but hated it.
we dont talk about them
People looking up build orders so they can autistically optimise the fun out of the game and crush anyone new to the game. New players are faced with either memorising build orders (boring) or finding a new game that isn't full of sperglords (wise).
>memorising build orders
Rigid build orders are the white supremacy of RTS.
Not real and a cope used by low IQs that do not understand the mechanics happening under the hood.
Okay are you going to seriously tell me there's NOT an optimal way to do things and the sperglords playing AOE2 for 20 years aren't doing that exact thing to get to end game quicker? Are you really going to try sell that lie?
You're not a top 1% player.
I'm telling you when there's like 200 active players in a RTS you come across that "top 1%" in your average game and get raped. This is not going to keep people around when they can't grow and are just getting relentlessly fricked for 100 games with no recourse but to look up build orders just to even keep up. It's no mystery why they died.
That is essentially any old game with high skill roof.
What you want is Imagine Babies of RTS where everybody is equal or its all a RNG toss.
There are 20k+ players each in aoe2 and 4, not 200. They have sbmm and you can find a game against players of any skill level any time of day. I don't autistically memorize build orders or asiatic micro, I'm a sub 1k elo shitter and I have fun close matches all the time. You guys assume the genre is dead because you personally don't play it and know nothing about it
>sbmm
people just smurf lmao
This lol
Thats true for any sbmm, but it doesn't seem that prevalent in aoe in comparison to smurfing in more popular f2p slop games. I do wish they would make rules against it and enforce it since streamers do it openly, but in my several hundred low elo matches I only suspected a couple people of it
Those build orders will mean nothing unless you know why are they like this in first place.
One patch and it all changes.
Any game with non-random numbers can be solved, but before you get to that point you will have to battle million midwits going all cheese, and then you will face people that need 4 units of X and 2 units of Y to solve their opening Z, since mechanically you will be equals.
People stopped appreciating how much skill this genre takes.
Mobas maybe. Maybe a hyper focus on esports.
2150 remaster when
Funnily enough just loaded up cnc remastered, never played the og and turns out its fricking shit. Why did they not remaster tiberian sun and red alert 2?
someone post the webm of Kane dancing
I love this homie, I wonder what is he up to these days
Being a prophet.
>They see a scientific anomaly, a curiosity. I see the future. In their stubborn ignorance, they continue to try and forestall this future.
RTS was never a super profitable genre to begin with, aside from a few outliers. so with the advent of HD graphics ballooning the shit out of development budgets, RTS as a genre stopped being viable.
Basically it's just another victim of graphicsgays.
Is it over Yuri?
Da.
Even when asiaticclick 2 released most people didn't start making build orders or training their APM. They dove straight into the campaign to see what happens with Jim and Kerrigan.
Too bad it was shit.
the campaign was that bad?
The campaign itself was fine, each mission had its own gimmcks, there were some branching paths here and there but the story of Jim & Kerrigan was absolutew dogshit and went against everything you saw in SC1 and BW.
i guess i shouldn't play it then. i really detest it when sequels ruin everything.
WoTL was just the begining. Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void went wild in dragging the story through the mud.
I'd say WoL was very good until Zeratul appeared and started spewing that prophecy bullshit which fricked the lore completely up.
Seeing how your regular units get more and more overpowered with upgrades over the length of the campaign is nice too
Think that sorta carried over to coop
the overarching story is garbage; the missions are pretty good even if they all have a gimmick. There's cool missions like the planet getting hit by a solar flare or the tug of war protoss fight. But having the games boil down to everyone fights sargeras squid monster rather than the political mess that was BW is incredibly disappointing.
Also even RTS used to have waifus
>NOD femoids are all moronic
Not Oxanna, TibWars Noddy girls were though.
>moronic
If you're a 184cm evil zealot woman I don't care if you're moronic or not.
Wish 2150 had more missions for final days
Over saturation of the market, and the genre is mid to begin with. Essentially the 90's video game genre equivalent of a fondue maker.
Personally I'm looking forward to DORF
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2388620/DORF_RealTime_Strategic_Conflict/
Looks soulful.
looks interesting
>german cartoon style
is bloons tower defense an RTS?
no it's a tower defense game
why not both?
the game plays out and can be managed in real time, you have a strategy, there's both macro and micro, you can asiaticclick
it's a tower defense game
Tower Defense/RTS(?)
no
homie i'm trying to get you to EXPLAIN
there's nothing to explain
i made some arguments for it (
)
explain why those arguments are wrong if you can then
it's a tower defense game
you're a moron
RTS basically just means a Dune 2 like.
Warcraft 3. With it came mobas etc. Now everyone wanted activ abilities for units etc.
They also killed it themselves like they did with C&C 4.
Blizzard making an extremely high profile one and doing a really bad job of it.
consolegay pandering
Supcom 2 was also released on the 360. No wonder everything got scaled down
it wasn't about strategy but who could click faster
Dude 90% of clicks that top Starcraft players do is just them keeping their hands moving doing idle shit. It takes very few "clicks" to actually play well. You're just coping at how bad you are.
Top players have gotten to Master while forcing their APM to stay under 60
cope
It's sad how true this is. SC2 actually removed autocast from Zerg Queens because asiatic playtesters complained about it reducing the APM requirements of the game.
lack of a functional tutorial for any title ever
Nobody wants to accept this, but SC2.
Turned a casual campaign focused genre into tryhard sweatfests that killed every non-koreans interest in the genre. Every new RTS that crops up falls into this same trap and tries to make the game "competitive" because that's what everyone thinks RTS is now.
SC2's campaign is still pretty good though, the missions are well designed and force you to play in a variety of different ways. The writing is horrible and it frequently falls back on some form of time limit to keep you moving, but those are the only real issues with it.
>Nobody wants to accept this, but SC2.
Because they'd be wrong.
Sc2 has tons of casual options for the non-competitive type.
>Great campaign
>Co-op commanders
>Custom games
>Team-games
>Archon-mode
You gays are so moronic and will tell everyone how moronic you are just to fit in.
Irrelevant. SC2 is synonymous with competitive play and it rubbed off on the genera at large.
Just because you say something is irrelevant doesn't make it so.
Just because you're not part of the players that enjoy campaigns, co-op-mode or custom games doesn't mean those players don't exist.
You need to understand that just because YOU don't play something, doesn't mean that anyone aren't playing them. You mingle with morons who think Sc2 is competitive only, so that's your understanding. It is wrong.
Facts hurt my dude. Don't tie your personal feelings with a video game.
Go ahead. Explain. Who is this "genera at large"?
SC2 was not competitive, that was broodwar.
They hated him for he spoke the truth.
It's not even true because AoE2's playerbase is the only one that's thriving, and solely thanks to its competitive scene.
>competitive scene
influencers*
Wings of Liberty was great, even outside of it's multiplayer- Which was frickin' amazing at the time. The issue came around when Heart of the Swarm released, where the story went to shit and the expac gave some of the most cancerous units that it killed any casual interest very quickly. (Seriously, watch any HotS game with Zerg or Protoss- You'll see the issue with Swarm Hosts and Mothership cores; the latter of which was removed for being too much of a pain to deal with.)
Co-Op was an afterthought, I vividly remember LotV shilling Archon mode like it was the next big thing; then it came out and it was dogshit.(Just like the rest of the expac!)
Co-op might've been an afterthought but it's the most popular mode
The wider issue is that most people don't have a clue what "strategy" actually is. Effective strategy isn't some convoluted plan that requires your opponent to make anticipated mistakes, effective strategy is just constantly putting yourself in the best position to take advantage of any mistakes that arise. So much of chess is about controlling the centre of the board, and that's all because the centre is the best place to take advantage of anything that comes up from. Likewise in Starcraft, the best way to punish your opponent's mistakes is to always have the largest possible economy/army.
Zooms, they only know how to use their parent's credit card and buy another skin for their fortnite like slop. RTS genre is simply too hard for *modern audiences*
earth 2150 was based, are there any other RTS games that have an underground layer like that?
Metal Fatigue
Out of all the popular but "obscure" competitive genres/games that require esoteric knowledge, RTS players always have the biggest chip on their shoulders and its ridiculous. Fighting game players, AFPS duelists, MOBAgays, all of them accept their game isn't for "everyone" but RTSgays always act like there's some crime being committed or greater conspiracy against their favorite genre.
>but RTSgays always act like there's some crime being committed or greater conspiracy against their favorite genre.
Because there is.
We have you Black folk constantly declare our genre dead just because it's not pulling fortnite numbers.
Doesn't help that we RTS players absolutely mogs you casual babs in terms in intelligence, so it's no wonder we're getting sick of tard-wrangling you drooling morons thread after thread.
how is the phrasing "popular but obscure" calling something dead? When did I say something not pulling fortnite numbers is dead" Why are you attributing an argument to me I didn't make? You're honestly just proving my point, you have too much of a victim complex.
You made general statements and I made general statements. Yet here you are acting like I'm addressing you personally.
There's that mental midget thing I was talking about.
I'm not sure you know what the word "you" means. Is English your second language?
Is yours?
See that's the funny thing about english. "You" is not restricted to meaning singular.
>doubles down
take the L dude
Competqrive play. Most people just want to make a city and frick around instead of learning hot keys and tech trees.
Good RTS campaigns are too costly to make and there is no hype about it (high risk for investment). People who say that SC2 killed RTS or any other game are stupis morons that never bothered to do something more than shitpost. E-Sports didn't kill RTS or any multiplayer bullshit, RTS died for the same reason quests, collectathon platformers, rhythm games died
Not enough wood and comfy economic campaigns
Maybe i'm the minority but I hate economy objectives in games.
Understandable in most combat focused RTS games, where you have like 2 to 4 resources, but I enjoyed it in a game like Stronghold where economy is half the game.
>Earth 2150
Aw shit, this brings me back. Might try to pick it back up and see if I can still make it work on modern windows.
Game works fine on Win10, if you want better resolution then use dgvoodoo2
EARTH 2150 had so many TECHNOLOGY moments it was crazy
>weather actually matters as rain and snow not only effect the terrain but your units/vehicles as well
>like laser weapons get less effective as things take longer to heat up
>but when the atmosphere gets warmer laser actually become way more effective
>all those unit customization options
>being able to build tunnels and send your units through those tunnels for surprise attacks
>again: terrain actually matters so you can use hills and uneven ground to your advantage and protect yourself from missiles.
>snow actually falls onto your units over time and you can see that
>day and night cycles that actually matter - effecting your visuals and energy production
I don't think i have played a game with more attention to detail.
Which was the Earth game that had the morphing ayys?
I thought that one was cool.
2160
Warcraft III with the creation of MOBA and then SCII ruined a potential return of the genre, basically just blame blizzcucks.
Blizzard had nothing to do with DOTA's creation unless you wanna blame them for including the map editor.
The focus on hero units paved the way for ASShomosexualS. Where hero units used to just be some slightly stronger palette swap in campaign modes, WC3 made hero management integral to gameplay with powerful skills and items, which became the foundation for DOTA and its copycats.
I'll never understand how people keep praising Warcraft 3 as one of the best RTS games when the game itself is focused on managing individual units instead of actually working on, you know, strategies. And yeah then Starcraft 2 came and decided to be Warcraft 3 in space rather than an actual sequel to Starcraft.
>Earth 2140 is a generic C&C ripoff
>Earth 2150 has amazing TECHNOLOGY at every corner plus you get to play as the only guy in an all-female faction, not-America is run by a crazy AI and you can build giant robots AND the not-russian faction is basically a heavy industrialized Mongolia led by a Great Khan
>Earth 2160 throws most of the cool shit 2150 did out of window and only gives you a shitty alien faction in return
>Earth 2170 got cancelled because RTS are dead
>LC accidently blowing you up
>Later they have to replace officers who want to snusnu you
Yep, LC campaign was kino (even if sonic weaponry is dogshit)
westwood by inventing tanya
then blizzard invented kerrigan
from there someone invented defense of the ancients
this chain of events created moba
and now no one play rts and everybody play moba
>moba
The fricks a moba?
Multiplayer online battle arena, I think
People getting better options after the 90s
Honestly 3D killed it.
A game that's only played in 2d doesn't need 3D graphics. 3D only slows shit down, lowers the number of units/buildings you can have, shrinks its size and scale and lags the game for wanting to be fancy and impress consoomers with 3D.
Blizzard with Starcraft 2 destroyed the custom game scene so fricking hard it never recovered.
It's the most significant thing, I don't give a frick about your wrong opinions but this one thing is what broke it for years.
Earth 2150 is also the rare case where the addons/expansions are actually decent.
>Moon Project has you fighting on the Moon trying to take down the LC super weapon
>Lost Souls is about the people being left behind on Earth trying their best to make the jump to Mars as well
Lost Souls problem(and I think some parts in vanilla) is that most of the missions have this moronic 'kill everything on the map and we do mean EVERYTHING lol' objective
Yeah it's definitely the weakest of the three games. Still decent though.
Polacks could make some good games.