why are there only 3 RTS franchises worth a shit?
>starcraft
>aoe
>command and conquer
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
why are there only 3 RTS franchises worth a shit? >starcraft. >aoe. >command and conquer
why are there only 3 RTS franchises worth a shit?
>starcraft
>aoe
>command and conquer
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
you forgot company of heroes 2, the only RTS left other than AOE2 with an active steam playerbase.
That doesn't mean it's worth a shit. And he's talking franchises rather than games.
>2 games, 1 upcoming
>more than StarCraft
>not a franchise
It's worth more than C&C right now. Now seethe.
If CoH3 is good sure.
But we all know how unlikely that'll be.
even if it's shit CoH2 would still have more active players than all C&C games combined.
What is it with frogposters and being consistently moronic?
It became a thing when the nazi frog meme happened. Prior to that it wasn't a thing. As for the reason to shitpost while frogposting, well, it's either a false flag or a bandwagon, probably both at this point.
wow
WOWZAH
WOAW
A HECKIN
A
IS THAT A
A HECKIN
A HECKIN FROGERINIO
WOWOWOOOOOOOOOOOOO I'M GOING INSAAAAAAAANE SAVE ME troonyMAN
>frogposter
>moronic
Checks out
You forgot Warcraft 3, despite the horrendous remake people are still playing classic to this day
I can agree with the first two solely on their number of players, since I don't really like their gameplay, but C&C? It's dead as a doornail. If anything, Company of Heroes should be on the list for it's relatively high playerbase and unique mechanics.
TA and SupCom are plenty influential. They're still getting new spiritual sequels.
>he doesn't know about Forged Alliance
EU4 is also decent.
Because RTS is a dead game formula, everything that can be done with it had already been done
There are other franchises that are fun, such as
>Stronghold
>Dawn of War
>CoH
>Spellforce
>Majesty
>Total War
But if what you're looking for is competitive 700 apm multiplayer matches, these 3 franchises are the only ones worth a shit because competitive rts players are a bunch of autistic manbabies that hate change (Mainly because they spent years of their life getting gud at starcraft and feel a sense of dread at admitting they wasted their life), and pretty much no one else finds such games enjoyable.
RTS was basically the first strategy genre, it's only natural that we'd see after thirty years now I think people moving on a bit. Boomer shooters are still popular, people still play platformers, but they're not the entirety of their genres nor the heaviest hitting, besides for some exceptions.
The difference between a platformer / boomer shooter and a good RTS is that an RTS is expected to have mechanical depth that takes time to master, which in modern day and age is simply not profitable enough to bother.
You can just make a bing bing wahoo mario game for phones in a weekend and it'll sell because most people rather play a simple game where you can jump on turtle while funny music plays, than get into the depths of stacking modifiers, counters, battle strategy, economy management and other aspects of a good strategy game.
Same with boomer shooter, just have loud guns and particle gibs and you've basically multiplied your investment in a couple weeks of work. Not so with strategy games.
turned base strategy existed before rts
RTS is a complex beast because of its many mechanics. These individual components are easier to handle in isolation (for players and devs alike), which is why we now have plenty of games centered around one or a handful of said mechanics like MOBAs, town builders, defense games, idle games, etc.