Why did RTS die out? They were very popular in the early 00s. Or, maybe, why they were so popular back then?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Why did RTS die out? They were very popular in the early 00s. Or, maybe, why they were so popular back then?
>20k players daily
>Monthly major tournaments
>Going to have ANOTHER tourney in an actual European Castle this year
RTS is alive, and the only people who claim it is dead are ladder anxiety b***h boys that throw a fit if they even hear the phrase "build order"
Imagine unironically arguing that nobody should be trying in RTS multiplayer because you didn't when you were in elementary school. These SAME people then turn around and rage at journos for asking for easy modes and don't see the moronation they've committed for what it is.
RTS can stay """dead""" for all I care, I don't want you people in my community.
True RTS isn't dead most notably They are Billions being a fun little resurrection to the genre.
AoE II is nowhere near "an inuitive RTS".
Cope and seethe shitter. I'll be enjoying my new expansion pack and tournament in a castle while you wallow in the absolute pits known as modern multiplayer.
I don't think a lot of people want stop-attack and split-move micro.
>>20k players daily
Literally fricking nothing, Paradox Map painters with hundreds of dollars of DLC have a larger community.
10 million flies eat shit. ASShomosexualS dwarf both moron.
I have a more than substantial playerbase to make sure 1v1 and teams ranked, and the lobby browser are always busy and easy to find games in, as well as a constant trickle of new content and balance changes. Objectively a living game.
Where are Paradox Map painters tournament in a castle? Hmm?
Keep coping with your dead genre, maybe in 10 years you can buy a rerere-master.
You are trying too hard to fit in anon. It's embarrassing.
But to answer your question, EU4 will have one in October at Moszna Castle in Poland.
Just like every year for the past few years.
>LAN
Not a tournament. Literally anyone can afford a castle when every tom dick and sally is paying a venue fee.
Wait. There's a castle called "ballsack" in Poland?
none of those are rts you gay
Exactly, people actually want to play those games.
>Going to have ANOTHER tourney in an actual European Castle this year
Seems legit.
https://liquipedia.net/ageofempires/Red_Bull_Wololo_Legacy/2022/AoE2
>Venue: Heidelberg Castle
Meanwhile, here is the ""castle"" that EU4 is happening in
literally means ballsack in Polish kek
>Country that hasn't produced anything of note since Chopin attempts to make fun of literally anywhere else
When is that tourney happening again, last time I watched it it was kino as frick
When it comes to games like Starcraft, then the whole strategic element in them is killed by the need for microcontrol.
>low tier: microing the army
>mid tier: macroing the production
>high tier: both at the same time
That the issue with RTS, no one wants to put the time required to get good into a perceived "dead genre" because they get stomped in a 1v1 and couldn't blame their teammates. Harstem has an entire video Playlist where people submit how "imba" a race/unit is, just for him to say "you suck mate you're the problem" it's pretty funny.
Depends on the person. If you're a competitive person then RTS is like heaven but if you play games to relax it's not a great experience.
Personally I prefer RTS over MOBA just because I have a lot more control and a loss is always my fault. Having to depend on people that are nonfunctional for teammates is far more frustrating than losing a 1v1 match.
For most people its the opposite. They prefer having teammates to blame for their defeats because admiting their fault hurts their ego.
Being good at Starcraft is like being good at football. It doesn't matter how accurate you are if you can't run for 90 minutes straight.
its so tiresome. Its the same thing said every time.
Thr total war games are still massively popular, especially the Warhammer ones
Because people(kids) back then didn't know better. Internet wasn't as widespread, you played a game that bunch of your other kids friends played. It was mostly casual players fricking around, not people playing competitive seriously.
That's why if you wanted giant battles, city building or smaller hero maps, you played RTS games. You just maybe fiddled around with map editor. Essentially just using kid's fantasy to LARP into things being larger and better than they are.
But now you have more options than ever that are much more accessible.
Want giant battles? Play Total War. You get actually bigger battles than you could have in RTS but with more mechanics such as unit exhaustion or cool looking cavalry charges.
Want to build cities? Play Anno, Pharaoh or many other options - that go much more in-depth.
RTS is a genre stuck in the past because of bunch of vocal nostalgiagays - who admittedly are playing still the same games for 20 years anywaay. There is nothing to actually revive, no actual renaissance of RTS games because everything you could want to experience from story or gameplay perspective you can experience better elsewhere. Exceptions being maybe some games like CoH and people who are autists who enjoy the multiplayer for what it is.
Kid just admit you're bad at the genre lmfao.
>Some dumb pseudo sim shit like Total War exists so RTS can't be made
??????
>kid
>just admit you're bad at the genre lmfao.
I am sure you tried thinking real hard to come up with that anon. Great opening line, really showing your superiority and how well you fit into the board culture, I am sure you aren't new here. I am awed.
The point is most people never liked RTS for the gameplay itself, but because there was less choice and didn't know better - and the point stands. I know reading and arguing is hard, but try to do so with comprehension.
Nobody is saying RTS games can't be made, I am saying why would people care when they can play stuff that fits their taste better and the actual RTS fans will just play same shit like they always have.
Anyway:
cope, seethe, dilate, etc
Kid just admit you're bad at the genre lmfao
Oh my you are so good at 20 year old games you must have people lining up to suck your dick. By the way have you sent out any job applications today? Your mother is worried that you haven't been working for quite a while...
Shh give him his moment to brag about how great he is at games that no one cares about. It's the only thing in his life he can feel superior about.
>Why are RTS dead
>FPBP: Because of bads
>Bads proceed to trip over themselves proving first post correct
Every fricking RTS thread on Ganker.
Of course we're not as good as you champ! After all you spend all day playing those computer games of yours. You know you aren't getting any younger have you gotten a girlfriend yet? Your mother and I would like grandchildren at some point...
these posts just reek of small man mentality. every rts thread has posts like this and I'm betting its the same one or two guys. cant imagine getting this fragile over an old video game genre you apparently hate
Tried acting like a dickhead and now trying another angle?
Good one anon. Try again. You'll get there one day.
RTSs haven't done well at showing people how to play, micro in AoE II or macro in SupCom. They're more fun than MOBAs though.
I mean a well designed RTS is (I'm not really into AoE II because of the micro and how long startups are); MOBA could innovate too though.
Quality is of objectivity. Some genres being surpassed in fun by RTS is simple to design for, though an MMORTS would be an optimal.
>why they were so popular back then?
Because they had interesting stories and characters that involved the player as the main character. Skirmish was fun. Multiplayer was an afterthought for people who wanted to play the game more after they completed it - Age of Empires II has sold over 25 million copies since launch, and less than 1% of that population has ever played online multiplayer.
Nobody wants to play an overtuned rock-paper-scissors simulator that's identical to every other overtuned rock-paper-scissors simulator released in the past decade. People want to play old-style RTS games.
>less than 1% of that population has ever played online multiplayer
You're free to try to prove that.
There's two parts to it mainly:
Focus on multiplayer = no fun allowed
Combined with the dumbing down of the vidya audience at the time, with the introduction of the ps3/360 everything just got more and more casual and aimed at the lowest common denominator.
>Focus on multiplayer = no fun allowed
RTSs have had fun, varied:deep multiplayer.
The "lowest common denominator" that's been talked about for years is made up. People would like the same things.
Name a fun multiplayer RTS where the winner isn't decided by how many APM he can do.
Every single one but Starcraft Brood War.
Almost always your apm being low is due to moronation, not motor skills.
Nonsense. It has everything to do with practice.
It's like chess. Chessgays like to pretend that chess is a game for smart people, when all you have to do is memorize as many moves and counters as possible.
APM is purely about practice, which isn't fun for most. Most people play games to be entertained.
Maybe you have a point if you are talking about competitive play, but no game is fun in competitive play anyway, you just need to know the basics of the game to do well in multiplayer and most people are to stupid for that.
SupCom can be played mostly with a mouse; some of the few hotkeys I use are attack and patrol.
I think you should look up what APM means.
People bringing up APM usually seems like they're talking about games where macro is replaced with small maps and tasks that require extra micro than a standard, realistic fantasy. I brought up SupCom because you don't have to press a buncho of keys quickly to keep up with tradeoff time, scouting, and choosing a strategy.
The shift away from PC to consoles did that. Basically killed any genre that was best controlled with a mouse except for FPSs.
Koreans
Battle for Middle Earth III when?
>BfME 3 comes out
>based on amazon's Rings of Power
>developed by EA Chillingo
>available on PC, PS5, Xbox, Switch, Android and iPhone
Too many appeals to competitive gaming. Too few casual experiences.
Advertisement could have a lot of players playing RTS; all you have to do is talk about objective science while having enough intuitive gameplay to be naturally fun.
AOE4 topped the play charts on steam at launch, only reason it didn't keep is cause the game was awful.
70k isn't topping the Steam charts. Elden Ring had 900k for a little while; a lot of games are quit after a month or few. Players want persistent worlds and multiplayer.
Zoomers have lower IQs than our generation. That's why they flock to League of Legends over StarCraft.
What zoomers are playing is often determined by saturation, which is OK because playing games with others is a lot of the fun. StarCraft isn't "an intuitive, traditional RTS" though.
RTS are infamously difficult to design and develop compared to something like an FPS and they sell a lot worse too, so there's very little incentive for large companies to pursue the genre. Why would I spend any amount of money on a long dev cycle for ok returns when I can pop something out in 12 months and make bank?
These days some RTS games are made by die-hard enthusiasts and legacy RTS companies, but they're generally nowhere near as technically and mechanically remarkable as the existing AAA titles like SC, AoE, CoH, etc, so they never get enough traction to build a lasting community. A great recent example is Iron Harvest: a title with a decent budget, art direction and polish that also, unfortunately, has absolutely frick-all going for it mechanically.
shut up, zoomer. FPS games are not the end all be all for profit. Otherwise there'd be nothing else. Frickin myopic children
There are 10+ genres (outside of mobile games) that are more profitable than RTS, FPS is one of the more charitable examples because it's been an AAA staple for decades. Good job missing the point, dimwit.
>Developing games is cheap and easy if done properly
No.
If you want people to play RTS, it would be easy to do.
>No.
Not a rebuttal.
>FPS games are not the end all be all for profit.
FPS is arguably the most skillful genre. They develop motor skills, which is rewarding.
GTAs have been made in 12 months. Developing games is cheap and easy if done properly; a few developers can make a couple of characters, items, areas, and activities and have an MMO of content in 1 month.
I am guessing that this edit as a Ukraine war analogy, considering the video the screenshot is from. But I fail to see how it in any way reflects or mirrors the Ukraine war.
What don't I get?
UP YOURS WOLF MORALISTS
WE’LL SEE WHO CANCELS WHO
Because developers became not so motivated knowing They had to impress the Broodwar obsessed asiatics.
What do you mean?
DOTA 2 is like always top 10 online games on Steam
There were a frickloads of variety of games and genres in general because people tried to experiment and do weird shit a lot. Nowdays it's either extreme budget games from big companies that can't afford the risk of touching non-mainstream genre, or small indie teams who lack skill and resources to make a big rts game.
there are no good modern rts.
>So btfo over player numbers and the fact map painters also have tournaments he now has to seethe over choice of castles
>Choices of castles
One castle vs one manor, objectively speaking
There are McMansions in my neighborhood bigger than that thing, EU4kun
>American's literally think all castles were like the Disney castle.
Anon that is a fort.
Some grandstanding european several centuries ago that wants to bluster about their big home does not make for an official verdict on what is and isn't a castle.
to me: when the games lost its puzzle character like the early c&cs had, you know, the trial and error approaches with soulfully bad ai
MOBA took some of its player base.
But is it really hurting that much?
I think its more that PC gaming isn't as niche. The type to build and have a good PC in the past was different. Think of it this way.
>1000 PC gamers
>500 like RTS at least sometimes
>increase to 10,000 PC gamers
>same 500 still like RTS
Its not that they are liked less its just more people play games now and the niche tech person of the past was more likely to like RTS games than someone who just bought a passable PC at Bestbuy.
Compound on to it that technology over time didn't really effect how good the genre is, Starcraft 1 and Age of Empires 2 are still fun to play now so a new game has to compete with ancient games. But what tech improvement did do was spin off the genre into more strategy games, RTS/combat hybrids, or RTS-like games that aren't really an RTS.
Probably see some indie resurge of them at some point.
Hope Dorf RTS turns out well
>”Up yours woke moralists, we’ll see who cancels who!”
What did he mean by this?
>The castle was built around 1020 by Count Radbot
Genre so shit and dead, threads have to kept alive via American crying and not knowing what a castle is.
>Make a bad game
>Nobody plays it because it's bad
>"The genre must be why nobody wants to play it!"
Fun fact, AoE2 has over double the player count of AoE4.
the barrier to entry for players was always way too high compared to literally anything not strategy based.
As a newbie coming into any RTS, you're either facing off against idiots, or dudes you will lose miserably against forever and have no fun. Also DC's were and are a huge problem, outside of playing on LAN.
And im saying this as a big RTS fan who just finished up a big game of modded supreme commander 2.
99% of people just have no concept of economics, and that's all RTS is. Every moment you're not doing something is lost opportunity cost.
>the barrier to entry for players
Total myth and lame self-aggrandising cope, there's no more "barrier to entry" in doing 4v4s with shitty build orders with other casuals in SC than any other game. They're just boring games that almost nobody wants to ladder in.
blizzard with its asiatic-clickers killed the RTS genre
simple as
Two main reasons:
1. Most RTS players were casuals, they didn't care about speed or actual strategies. They just wanted to build cities and see armies clash in spectacular ways. However devs became more and more obsessed with designing RTS games around competitive play. Removing map editors, lowering base building aspects and increasing the speed of these games more and more. Additionally the forced need for balance made factions feel rather samey and removed just quirky and fun options because they were "unoptimal" or "OP".
2. Because of that the RTS genre split off into several subgenres. Dedicated City Builders, Settlement games like Dwarf Fortress or Rimworld is where for example the crowd that liked the base building went to. Games like Factorio cater to those that liked to construct an economy. MOBA's are for those that just wanted a fast pace but didn't care for large bases.
And Total War caters a lot to the crowd that loved the spectacle of battle or in-battle strategies without being distracted by a million things going on at the same time by separating combat and base management to two different gameplay layers.
If RTS wants to come back then I think "competitive balancing" needs to take a backseat in the design process. The ability to just have "dumb fun" should be the priority. But the game should still have enough depth and skill ceiling so that competitive players using custom rulesets can still design it to their needs.
Unless you can remove the real time economic aspect from them, you'll never make an RTS fun. Just look at DotA, it still has the economic aspect. If a carry misses last hits they lose out on gold, which makes them lose the game.
You are arguing based on the competitive angle, but like said few people cared about that. They just wanted to build cities that were busy, really. And an economy happening certainly made them look "busy".
What I mean is most players didn't play them to "be a strategic mastermind" but to build a civilization and watch it just going on about it's day. A lot of map editor usage a lot of people do was literally just "look at the neat city I built".
Or just re-make massive battles like Helms Deep and such by just having two super massive armies face one another and have them fight.
>You are arguing based on the competitive angle, but like said few people cared about that
The principle applies no matter how bad two people are at the game. If it takes you 10 minutes to make a big army but your friends takes 15 minutes to make one, you just beat them every time. Does that make you a tryhard for winning?
I think you nailed it spot on.
As a personal anecdote, I tried getting into the more competitive multiplayer side of rts once in SC which I never tried playing it before and I just got filtered at the sheer amount of things you got to be doing/thinking about at the same time yet my favourite games were dota/total war/others strategy games.
Pretty accurate. That is sort of what I was saying too. The old RTS games still play well and the newer ones just became other types of games that focus a favored aspect. Like even Mount and Blade has some strategy/rts like elements even though you join the battle personally. I enjoyed the shit out of Kings and Castles which is sort of an RTS but more city building where you defend against incoming threats, like Sim City x Age of Empires. Modern games are RTS hybrids sneaking in those aspects.
>UP YOURS WOKE MORALISTS! WE'LL SEE WHO CANCELS WHO!
>is clearly losing the culture war
What did he mean by this?
>Why did RTS die out
Factorio is popular and it's the best RTS ever. Rust also has a deeper strategic layer than any "RTS" ever and is real time -- Dune II clones just died out because they're inherently flawed, dumb games (they're games where nothing can get done without the player directly intervening, leading to pathetically low levels of tactics and logistics and instead an autistic focus on multitasking. Brood War and WC3 were not "cerebral" games at all and have about as much "strategy" as Mortal Kombat).
>Come back from receiving new job offer
>Anon still seething that EU4's lan is in a manor
Lmfao
>room a mess
>dick unwashed
>posture slouching
yup it's RTS time
killed by consoletards, like many other PC game genres
in the early days, big companies didn't really care about vidya, because the market wasnt as big. the people making them were roughly the same demographic as the market: computer nerds, so they made the type of games that appealed to them (rts would be one of these).
eventually companies realized how much money could be made in vidya, specially as more people got home computers and normies started acclimatizing to the idea (consoles were big in this), so they started pushing for games that appealed to a wider audience (casual shooters, sports games) or games that could be milked for more money (subscription mmo's, dlc factories like paradox and eventually pay2win mobile games).
rts audience has been dwarfed by normies that play vidya AND they are also expensive while not really lending themselves to making a lot of money through skins or dlc
>rts audience has been dwarfed by normies
There is absolutely nothing about WC3, BW, SC2 that isn't normie-friendly. Most of the people who have ever reached gold-plat in SC2 were "normies".
These are not and never were popular games among *anyone* really. Because they are severely flawed.
>Most of the people who have ever reached gold-plat in SC2 were "normies".
lmao no.
i will accept that rts can be "normie friendly" in the context of the lan cafes of the early 00s where noone really dedicated to grind or even understand the games, and words like "meta" were meaningless outside of specialized groups of nerds, but nowadays where pretty much the only place to find games is "The ladder", rts are not accesible.
they are complicated, both micro and macro demanding and if you approach it casually you'll get your face caved in by every shitter that even begins to learn build orders.
at least in comp shooters or in moba you can get things accidentally right, which keeps you coming back, OR you have a team around you that can compensate for your noobness. not in rts
Back then plenty of people WERE trying to minmax the RTS games they played. They just sucked at doing it.
What killed RTS is the death of clans. If people just played games for fun with other people they know they'd have much more fun. Open your gameplay up to the world and you'll get your shit rocked 24/7 by 13 year old east Asians.
>why did RTS "die out"
>why did point & click adventures "die out"
>why did space sims "die out"
>why did arena shooters "die out"
I think you should look at the big picture here.
Now i wanna play Freelancer
people got filtered by online matchmaking. with old games most people only played with irl friends or casual online communities. they could be shit but still think of themselves as "the 2nd best player in their group." now you have matchmaking that puts them in wood league and their egos can't handle it. they will complain that the game is unfair or no fun even though they can play the exact same kind of game against the exact same skill level players as they did 20 years ago.
1. Dawn of War came out, perfecting the genre.
2. The 90% of trash that made up the "community" (90% of any community is trash) went to DotA and DotA clones.
3. Koreans followed Blizzard into SC2 to watch it die
general shifts in trends as well as a focus on competitive multiplayer instead of campaigns and fun with your bros
Definitely a point to be made there. Multiplayer games were self hosted or on a small network that just helped connect owners of a games. Companies don't want to let people self-host as much now because they often want to try to turn it into an esport cash cow or so that they can control more in general like modding or lack there of. Blizzard comes to mind, Warhammer likely too since they are such pricks about everything.
>Why did RTS die out?
Cause nobody but old Blizzard knew how to make them. I mean Dawn of War is cool but not competitive with it's pathfinding. Strategy is hard to get into and you really cant make things too crazy I need to recognize what I am fighting against. So basically WW1/2 or sword era. Or and IP that is well known.
I mean the only game that did good are Starcraft and AoE. Rest felt and controlled like shit.