why do RTS players refuse to try out new things?
they would rather keep playing 10 year old games where they have played each and every map hundreds of times already instead of giving the new and objectively superior installments a shot.
Is it autsim?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
> new and objectively superior installments a shot.
Bait, or someone who owns stock in Microsoft/Sega.
I still play/replay SupremeCommander and TotalAnnihilation every now and then because there's nothing better and no nothing else has come out other than a few inferior clones.
What about Beyond All Reason?
>not on steam
>ultra dead
the equivalent of a discord fighter but you want at least 8 players for a match. also only 2 factions that barely differ
dead
nta but I can find games every evening I play. Lobby system is cozy too.
>2 factions that barely differ
Have you played it? Main principles are the same, sure, but I think there's plenty of difference. T1 has the least difference, because it's early game, and it veers off from there. You can see how unit differences get bigger from T1 to T3 in the unit viewer if you want to https://www.beyondallreason.info
After typing all that out I have realised I have become a shill for BAR. And I'm okay with it, I like the game.
I admit I haven't played that much or understand all the units. But besides the obvious principles like identical economy and teching they also both get similar radar/anti-radar, main tanks, spiders, stealth artillery, mortar bots for micro nerds, fighters/bombers etc. General playstyle feels very much the same for both factions
>identical economy
>General playstyle
Oh that's true. There's never a massive difference between factions in the Total Annihilation family of RTS games. I'd say the difference is much smaller than Starcraft/Warcraft but much bigger than AoE.
You mean AoE2 specifically. Which is fair because people refuse the play the ones with more unique factions, which goes back to OP's point
I suppose. My orginal point was talking to the guy who still plays supcom, and I believe this subgenre of RTS has avoided the AoE2 situation. Most people have moved to BAR. Supcom has singleplayer, maybe that's what he's replaying though.
We played them, but they're not very good.
>not on steam
>this is somehow a bad thing
steamcucks ruined gaming by hiding in a gated community of corporate run convenience
enjoy hopping on troonycord every time you want to find a match I guess
>steam bad
>discord not bad
fricking moron
call me shallow but I hate the way it looks compared to supcom
>hate the way it looks
The unit designs or the textures? It's less grungy than supcom, and the models are simpler, are those the ones that turned you off?
I kind of like how simplistic some of those units are, but yeah, some border on silly
Of course they look silly, they're the same wacky TA units with changed look and names, likely to avoid a lawsuit. Units in picrel are the equivalents of TA's Sumo and The Can.
100% true
Dune II clone linage of rts games are a dead end. Future is in the TA lineage but unfortunately we are too stupid to come up with anything more brilliant than SupCom and TA (and BAR) for now
100% true
in fact this was a mass extinction event p much any game that wasnt a blockbusting dopamine extracting brainfricking "narrative experience" was left alone to die of hunger
I also would like to remind everyone that even at its peak RTS games were niche genre that could only be played on an already niche(in the eyes of execs) platform and the only reason RTS games were made at all during its peak is simply because execs wanted to repeat success of previous games
True. RTS is hard to make. It is a mmo prg levels of asset production, coding and writing while having none of its monetary income streams on top of that there is this weird stigma against strategy games in general (or in fact any game that requires you to think) that makes things even harder
>Dune II clone linage of rts games are a dead end.
True, but maybe it just peaked with SC2. Some concepts can only be pushed so far. WoL is still the best (or at least one of the best) singleplayer campaign in the subgenre.
Ha, by that logic shooters haven't changed in a meaningful way since quake 1, yet they are as popular as always. RTS is a niche genre, the AAA hype isn't coming back, and there is no point in being angry on the internet about it.
Becuase most "new shit" is same shit with less features or some dumb gimmick and "updated" but aesthetically displeasing graphics?
>Ha, by that logic shooters haven't changed in a meaningful way since quake 1
To be fair Half-Life was very different in trying to make a seamless immersive experience; Quake was classic arena shooter where after the match or mission was completeted you had a score or debriefing scene, Half-Life pushed the perpetual in-perspective story throughout which was and is very different from what came before. Also you have the Operation Flashpoint / ArmA type shooters which are very different from Quake.
>shooters are all different
Yes, that's why I said "by that logic". He was being reductive and I matched the tone. Pretty pointless, the original comment wasn't constructive, but frick it, I took the bait. My point was that RTS has plenty of variation.
Streaming economy RTS games like supcom/BAR play differently from SC2, Company of heroes/DoW2, total war, They are Billions, etc. Hell, I'd compare the coop commanders mode of SC2 to a RTS version of a hero shooter. There are options, it's just the lack of players/buyers that makes them non-viable. Even niche shooters can sell and get enough people online, simply because more people play shooters in general. RTS games can't do that, the general playerbase for the entire genre is small enough already. So publishers rarely gamble.
Shooters are changing all the time. We went through arena shooters, Counter Strike clones, cover shooters, press Shift to sprint modern warfare crap, hero shooters, all kinds of genre-bending stuff, and now the ever so popular BR. Half of these ideas can be attributed to modders. Shooters are more popular in general so trying new things is more rewarding.
RTS gets experimental every so often but the innovations rarely become influential. And what new ideas did the modders introduce? Stuff that hardly even resembles classic RTS, like Tower Defense or MOBA.
I said this million times. RTS was killed by teh fan base not anything else.
RTS is too high risk for publishers. No middling RTS ever succeed.
Genre died when publishers pivoted to console in the 00's.
aoe4 almost has as many players as aoe2. I wouldn't be surprised if aoe4 passed it in a year or two, although I wouldn't be surprised if aoe2 never went below like 18k players. they're both honestly great games.
>aoe4 almost has as many players as aoe2
Verifiably false, MAYBE certain AoE4 spikes get close, but it's like half the AoE2 playerbase over long periods with no signs of it overtaking
AoE4 is a shitty version of AoE2 reimagined for zoomers
>coh3
>tried the demo
>changed how Americans play for the worse
>stick to coh2 since coh3 wasnt fun
>aoe4
>the graphics alone put me off and the gameplay isnt fun
>stick with aoe2
>giving the new and objectively superior installments a shot.
Name one.
AoE4
How is it better?
>new and objectively superior installments
>giving the new and objectively superior installments a shot
Bait but plenty did. They just enjoy the older games more. Nothing wrong with that. AoE 4 has a decent playerbase and it's stable so I don't see the issue with it.
I want to get into AoE4 but I can't get over the mobile game graphic. It's forever associated with shittiness in my brain.
Both those franchises have huge modding scenes
because the RTS are fun, easy to pick up and fast to play. If I understand one RTS, I can easily transfer that knowledge to another one. I can't say the same with 4X
Nostalgia, they don't want to learn a new game. Talking from multiplayer perspective.
hard to learn when the pros just quit if you suck, i'd rather be stomped by them, they just set a precedent, why frickin bother. have fun with the same 50 losers there's always been
>try new rts
>it sucks
>go back to old rts
This is only true for multiplayer. People try the new fotm for a bit, but always return to their regular thing in the end. Singleplayer games are doing better than that.
Maybe the so called objectively superior sequel actually isn't better than the original, if it can't attract fans away from the original?
I'm happy to play new RTS when they fricking make something worth playing.
>Could our games be bad?
>No, it's the children who are out of touch
There hasn't been a GREAT non-remaster RTS since Wings of Liberty
>they would rather keep playing 10 year old games where they have played each and every map hundreds of times
Classic case of "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
When players find a good game they'll stick with it until the enjoyment dies.
Publishers don't like this, so they release a new version/sequel to try and draw players for some easy cash.
The classic gamer may be drawn to it but ultimately they'll revert to the previous game because it is subjectively superior.
The problem is modern kids are so hyped up on ADHD and energy drinks they can't fathom stick with a single game for a prolonged period of time, so they'll jump ship to the latest release, they're an easy mark for publishers. If they could control their impulses they'd see through the thin veneer of marketing and graphics but alas, they cannot so they cry that others prefer the classics over modern slop.
>giving the new and objectively superior installments
Please do show these "objectively superior installments" you are talking abput.
The problem with RTS is that you have to grind a lot just to learn the basics. Until youve completely mastered hotkeys, unit production, and resource management, you cant do any of the fun strategy stuff. That's why noone wants to jump ship and learn a whole new setup.
I just have fun playing sc2 co-op. Every game is different. I go random commander/prestige on b+ with random maps and random dumbass teammates.
In coh2 I have a hundred doctrines 4 factions and different play styles that have all been patched to be decently competitive.
I can have a unique 40-60 min game whenever I load it up if I don’t get quitters for a team.
I will maybe try coh3 when there is Italians in the Italian focused game.
What new things? There are no new things. RTS is an incredibly stale genre. No, a new instalment of the same old gameplay is not new, it's just the devs regurgitating the popular old thing and reskinning it to sell it again. The last time the genre had a meaningful innovation to its gameplay was with the SupCom strategic map 16 years ago and even that wasn't adopted. Everything else has been just a shitty rehash of Starcraft ever since. It's really fricking telling that the biggest expected RTS releases are just almost 1:1 reskins of Starcraft and C&C without bringing any originality to the table. And yet the people wonder why the genre is dead.
>what is Achron
>what is Line War
>what is Original War
>what is Perimeter
>what is Populus The Beginning
>what is Battlezone
>what is Sacrifice
>what is Black&White
Inb4 some of those are old. No shit, but there was quite a few attempts at innovation that flew entirely under radar of everyone because multiplayer morons were too busy felating each other in aoe2 and sc/sc2
>Perimeter
Too bad the localization sucked:
It's really sad to see rts devs to focus so much on soulless esports slop. Even though it's one of the best genres for games with character. At least we're getting Homeworld.
Those are 4 entirely different games
>new and objectively superior installments a shot.
such as?
RTT chads demolished the RTS market
Simply because RTS as a genre isn't acquiring any new fans. It's the same people playing who were playing them in the 90s, and they prefer to stick with the games they know and love. Younger players choose to play more immersive and strategic genres such as 4x, moba, colony management, production chains, etc. Leave the boomers to their clickfests
Because the old games are better. RTS fans are dedicated and want the games to be good, unlike the average gamer who just plays whatever is new. So the usual tactics of just releasing endless garbage that works with other genres doesn't work of RTS. Isnn't it sad that developers still haven't been able to top shit that was released 25 years ago?
TA/SupCom or nothin
I have like 600 hours on coh2, just got 3 and I really want to like it but it feels clunky, the ui is a downgrade, and the match pacing feels off. Infantry that’s not a team weapon becomes useless after a certain minute mark and it’s harder to keep track of units. I think the armor is an improvement though. Tankier and better against infantry, unlike coh2 where a t34 takes a minute and a half to kill and infantry squad out of cover
Tell me how Tiberium war turn out to be.
I went back to RTS to get my micro fix after quitting DOTA. The reality is most of the genre is total garbage aside from a few games that hit just right. It's almost like every single RTS game is the developer saying "HEY! What if we took this already existing game but tweaked one of the mechanics". A lot of them start out so god damn slow too.
But when its good I cant stop playing for weeks on end...
>RTS developers stop trying to simulate being an army commander and focus on being arcade games
>focus on being arcade games
What, you have to put in a coin to continue every time you lose a certain amount of units? New players can jump in in the middle of a match? If you kill enough enemies you get extra resources? What does that mean?
The only sequel to a modern RTS that is superior to it's predecessor is Men of War 2 and it ain't out yet.
>why do RTS players refuse to try out new things?
Because they have already funneled their autism into (a) particular game(s).There isn't enough autism to spread into new bullshit.
>There isn't enough autism to spread into new bullshit.
there is more than enough
Still not enough for big studios to care, because they'd rather make games with a more mainstream appeal.
Meanwhile indies avoid the genre for a good reason, and would rather go with just about any other type of strategy.
Indies avoid RTS cause all indie devs are hacks and making RTS required a modicum of programing and design knowledge.
Indies avoid RTS because they don't have the budget to make a really interesting campaign nor any chance they will get enough players for multiplayer.
There are tons of indie RTS you just never hear of them.
maybe a good map editor can replace a campaign
you ensure that the map editor is good by using it to make your campaign. untested tools don't work
This thread again. "RTS players" don't owe you shit, we play games we like. They are infinitely repeatable, and you can always get better, and that's all you need.
Innovative RTS games come out all the time, and people play them a bunch and then stop. People playing the old games continue playing the old games. That is all. There is no need or want to move the playerbase over to something new.
RTS developers are trying to get blood from a stone at this point. The genre as it is currently conceptualized has been milked dry. It's design reached its logical endpoint with Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty and anyone doing something similar just needs to go back to the drawing board. All the 'throwback' RTS games like Grey Goo, Act of Aggression, even COH3/4 and AOE4 are essentially failures. I strongly predict that Stormgate will also fail. Cap this.
Playercounts of 2K-10K are low enough to be broadly considered failures, especially if these are supposed to be 'good games' in the genre. It's barely even worth being called a 'genre' at that point.
I at one point in time believed that the World in Conflict / Wargame / "RTT" design was going to be the thing that saved RTS and create a breakout hit, because it cut out base building and focused on unit combat, and maybe it could basically appeal to the MOBA crowd if made correctly. I no longer believe this because I am demoralized. Maybe it's true that a lean and mean RTT design focused on lanes and MP could be a design to revitalize the sales of the genre, I'm not holding my breath
I do not know what the answer is, I think we just need to accept that RTS had a golden age essentially because it was an extremely novel concept at one point in time (Wow! We can control armies...on the computer???), we got a few really good games out of it, mostly due to interest from inertia, but now people just don't want that in sufficient numbers to make it a viable mainstream entertainment product investment. Only very niche products from niche developers will keep it going.
I am not being a doomer for the sake of it, I just basically think that this is reality at this point. RTS is essentially dead, and every new game that comes out is doomed to be an autismo super-niche game where any fun will be sucked out of it by the awful small community of asbergers warriors until it inevitably dies as playercounts dwindle
You can make different campaigns, different settings and different gameplay.
You don't need to do what has already been done, yet for some reason all we can do is copy+paste.
It doesn't work as well in RTS' as it does other genres.
You are calling something "dead" because it isn't selling new products. This only true from a consumerist prospective. People still play RTS games. What is cool about the RTS genre is that it doesn't lend itself to and endless, futile cycle of new releases.
Is chess dead? Go? Even though the table top board game market cucked itself into a new release cycle in the 90s, people still play the classic board games. There are still Diplomacy and Catan tournaments. Maybe this is where RTS will wind up, like e-sports. It's not like there are new releases of different professional sports either
>You are calling something "dead" because it isn't selling new products.
There are two definitions relating to the health of the genre that anons use. Some claim that the genre is alive because some people still play some games - well, that mostly means that these individual games are alive, rather than the genre. Other say it's dead because of how little attention it gets from players and devs and that there's not much to look forward to.
>Is chess dead? Go?
Again, those aren't genres, but individual games with exceptional staying power that can't be compared with any RTS. Also, traditional games are a bad example because it's still a strong market that gets new releases, and it's even successfully conquering new platforms like consoles and smartphones. The movement on the market inspires innovation and attracts new players. It's alive and well.
>play thing
>thing is good
>new thing comes out
>try new thing
>new thing is not good
>stick to old thing
shrimple
>CoH3
>Italian Theater
>no Italian faction
dead on arrival
coh3 is growing though and is superior. coh2 nostalgics can stay mad.
Coh 1 > Coh 3 > Coh 2
how so?
not being sarcastic, I just didn't play 3
or 2
I only played coh1 campaign, so I have no opinion on coh1 multiplayer side. But... what I know... is coh3>coh2
Reasons:
. early war vehicles and italian battlegroups
. balance (every unit has value, except maybe recovery vehicles, i've never seen them)
. battlegroups (mini-factions}
. less of slugfest, with fasta ticket bleed (atleast in 1v1}
. sound is varied, it's not just all heavy_explosion sounds
. I think graphics are better now, especially the textures. i'm not a big fan of a coh2 grimdark filter in italy
. path finding better, especially after the starcraft update
. auto-reinforce
. tank riding (if you got the apm)
> thinks graphics and sound are better now
>they have played each and every map hundreds of times already
I am pretty sure AOE has randomly generated maps so you cannot play the same map hundreds of times, just an idea.