What is the next logical step? Could there be a RTS MMO?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Why hasnt the RTS genre evolved?
What is the next logical step? Could there be a RTS MMO?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
>What is the next logical step?
Voice commands to be standard across every game like Endwar.
This game is so fun and interesting. Regiments is kind of similar but not as RPS-y which means I have to actually use my brain.
>What is the next logical step?
full neural integration
micro with your mind
>micro in your mind
>improve RTS
>more micro
>less basebuilding and more moronic shit like C&C4
Never played that one. But a good RTS should have at least observation buildings, walls, static defenses, air defense, artillery, and fortresses.
> micro with your mind
Koreans develop god-tier nootropics
We Yuri now
Does it need to evolve?
What else can they do with it?
Endwar controls, but in true RTS don't need evolutions and shit, rts games are like chess and yuo need patience playing them... is mostly the zoomer mind that always need a dopamine injection instead that killed rts games.
Stop hiring mobile developers to make serious games. Also enthusiastic new RTS developers should stop simply trying to recreate games from 20 years ago.
Hostile Waters, Citizen Kabuto and Sacrifice certainly didn't bomb because of a lack of innovation, but poor-planning by publishers that didn't understand what these games were. Many of the ideas they originated were copied much later, and watered-down despite improved technology.
No point trying to tell established and well-funded devs to stop chasing trends and esports though; they're a lost cause and Relic killed the DoW franchise because of it and CA look to be doing the same to TW.
There is actually a middle-ground between micro-management and decision-making, and it used to seem like it was better understood and now isn't: make micro-management more about anticipation and less about reacting to events.
This is already done in games where certain unit actions are mainly automated, but require time to set-up. Think spear units automatically bracing when they sense an incoming frontal charge in Total War; no one does this in modern Total War because most units don't do it any more. In Company of Heroes, MGs need setting-up and a direction chosen, then they will effectively cover that approach from almost any infantry and light vehicle units.
If designers got this basic stuff right, even better ideas flow from there as they once did.
Further to that, SC2 gets the balance between reacting and anticipating right. You need to react to things that happen of course, but there are few ways to react when your opponent has anticipated you and already positioned to surround, block, defend, snipe or win a base-race.
>Could there be a RTS MMO
nah
It has already been done… https://www.sgalaxy.com/index.html…and it was hot garbage. For its time though it played quite well given the number of units and players in a single match. It had some cool gameplay systems and units. Judging by the website I would imagine that the game is offline now.
It was actually kind of good.On the first planet anyway after you get off that it's purely pay-to-win microtansactions.
Loved me snipers and nuking the Black folk that crowded in the middle of the centre map.
There was one and I believe the name was generic as frick. So I won't be able to find it. I only remember it kind of sucked
RTS combined with Hearts of Iron 4 style gameplay where the RTS skirmish is about territorial control on important areas on the global map, which is also where you also conduct your research for upgrades and new units. Hero units can only be deployed to one front at a time so if you're fighting halfway across the globe you don't get access to it during the skirmish part.
Conflict: total resistance
>Conflict: total resistance
Didn't knew this existed, downloiading the Demo.
Alright that shit is almost as cool as angels fall first, but im a sucker for sci-fi and angels do what planetsmall 2 don't
So you wanna play total war except replace the current ground battle with CoH?
I'd like a total war ww2 but to paradox level management just imagine
I can clearly imagine all the DLCs paradox would shit for it.
I'd play that.
I also not sure there is a pc that could run that game that will exist in even the next ten years, considering how poorly paradox can make spreadsheets run (at least on my machine/s)
Yeah that's true I just want to play HOI4 with actual combat
All the dlcs paradox and sega combined the whole game would just be a giant dlc
I like strategy but most of my retarted friends like chewing on rocks and getting dopamine hits from pvp games. They will also spend money on micro transactions. What I'm getting at is unless rts fans also become dopamine gambling addicts and shove money into a furnace, like people who play pvp, no one is gonna take the time to make a game for us.
The next step would just be making more Starcraft clones to have alternatives, but they're probably not going to be worth playing.
No, an MMO wouldn't work.
The problem is between BW and SC2 the genre has been nearly perfected already, and RTS games aren't cheap to make. It's just not worth the investment to make an RTS; the genre has already hit so near the possible peak that further investment is discouraged and hence never reached.
What's so expensive in the development?
I would guess these 3 (4 if not historical) reasons
>1. Balance is a b***h
Balancing an RTS game takes a lot of math and numbers autism and is a weird act between unit balance and player skill.
>2. The game needs to be able to have dozens (sometimes hundreds) of units doing different things in real time, likely off screen and be ready to receive input from the player at any time
>3. The game needs to be responsive at all stages
You need to be able to input multiple, possibly conflicting commands to different units, that will change on a whim, even when the entire screen is particle effects and blood sprays
>4. If your game isn't historical you need a good aesthetic and design is expensive
>The problem is between BW and SC2 the genre has been nearly perfected already
This. I felt it after WOL released. The bar was raised too high from a gameplay perspective. 13 years later and nothing compares to the depth, balance, and quality or that game. Balanced factions, comfy music, nice animations, responsive inputs. Even casually the game feels nice to play, move the units around and click on things.
>RTS games aren't cheap to make. It's just not worth the investment to make an RTS;
The only company that could top SC2 was Blizzard, and Bliz isn't what it used to be. Maybe, and that's a huge maybe, a WarCraft 4 could have come close at least in the campaign department because SC2's campaign kinda sucked. Who knows, maybe if D4 is a success then we'll see a WC4.
>SC2's campaign kinda sucked
Wrong, the campaign was great, the story however was very bad.
Yeah, the campaign levels are some of the best RTS campaigns I ever saw. Almost all stages feel different enough to not become too repetitive, the progression is really nice, There is variety in builds.
The biggest problem however is that every stage is designed with the unit you just unlocked in mind except the last ones.
So this shiny new upgraded unit you got? not as useful as the base unit you just got.
The story however sets a new bar for how you can frick up a franchise.
AOE4 is unironically good.
game is designed around decision making and positioning, not individual unit micro.
Didn't play it but it looks really shit artistically. Everything is washed and souless unlike AGE 2 DE that looks beautiful
Give me handgonnes and I will play your game.
Improvememts to artificial intelligence are probably the best option for evolving the RTS genre
better AI opponents that can chat, better unit AI that can be given more sophisticated instructions, versatile content generation like fully voices AI generated campaign missions
the harvest build destroy formula and the basic controls are already perfect
DoW2 was really good and should have been the future direction of the games but city builder homosexuals ruined it with their whining.
>DoW2 was really good and should have been the future direction of the games
lol, baselets. when will they learn?
I think DoW3 should have gone for a split.
>Pick your match-type
>Warfront (DoW1)
>Skirmish (DoW2)
>Escalating (DoW2, tech up to DoW1 scale, and then tech up again to go further beyond)
But instead we got pooped on after a great trailer.
The next step is to have a bunch of Total War clones pop up so that a great strategy concept isnt held hostage by a garbage developer.
they just don't want to make those, clearly. the total war games are freely available, any dev can buy a total war game for forty bucks or whatever and dissect it and try and make their own total war clone, but somehow, they never seem to want to do that. weird.
I think RTS genre will resurrect with VR. It's actually much more enjoyable than playing another shooter or some shitty melee centric game.
I have thought about this too, feels the RTS genre can face a revival if they can make you FEEL like a commander and VR seems like a good way to do this.
Giantgrantgames hurr shill actually funded some research on RTS games.
The ratio of hardcore RTS players to casual players was something stupid like 16% hardcore enjoyers over 84% casual players.
The majority of homies just want a fun campaign, co-op, and player-created content.
Starctaft and APM-intense micro games are honestly one of the smaller demographics in what people say that they want.
Give them simple but interesting games, fun units, and a good setting, and they'll buy it up by the boatload.
People trying to make the Starcraft killer will always fail. It's so ingrained that it's insurmountable, and it's not what the majority wants, apparently.
The problem with that is RTS campaigns have no longevity. It's like releasing a single-player RPG. Yeah, it can do well, but it has to be exceedingly exceptional to have much impact. More importantly, RPGs can be developed for cheap, and RTS is extremely expensive. So you're spending a ton of money on a game you'd have to have become absolutely huge to recoup your investment. With active competitive multiplayer you have a much longer-lived playerbase, and thus can constantly get growth. There's a reason every major game that lasts more than a couple of months is multiplayer PvP, with the few exceptions of titans like Skyrim or Elden Ring.
Maybe if there were some way to make RTS cheaper this could be a way to go, but as of right now it's prohibitively expensive.
>Yeah, it can do well, but it has to be exceedingly exceptional to have much impact. More importantly, RPGs can be developed for cheap, and RTS is extremely expensive. So you're spending a ton of money on a game you'd have to have become absolutely huge to recoup your investment.
Source? What makes them so prohibitively expensive to develop?
>With active competitive multiplayer you have a much longer-lived playerbase, and thus can constantly get growth
The casual multiplayer crowd is what keeps the game alive. You are delusional if you think it was ladder players that kept WC3 alive for so long and not the custom scene.
And you are delusional if you think the casual scene is what kept Starcraft alive and relevant
>The problem with that is RTS campaigns have no longevity?
Why does this have to be a problem though? Not everything needs to be the next big thing, self contained titles that simply provide some entertainment and sell well enough to be profitable and fund the development of the next game, but don't necessarily become some huge hits are needed too
basically playing devils advocate trying to justify greedy business practices of people who dont give a shit about games and just want to maximize their profits
>The problem with that is RTS campaigns have no longevity.
Admittedly old data, but back in 2017 or 2018 or something Totalbiscuit - who was pretty well informed on the game's life due to his casting work and him owning an sc2 team at the time had info on the playerbase then
And it was something like 90% non-ranked players and of that 90%, 80% of them only played campaign and co op
A solid single player experience will promote longevity far more than competitive multiplayer ever will in an rts
The issue with modern rts developers is they go "we want to be the next starcraft!" Put all their eggs in the ranked 1v1 basket and then die because if people want to do ranked 1v1 they'll stick to the most popular one which is starcraft 2. SC2 got its position by just being a well made game in numerous places
Its true that an interesting campaign will get you invested in MP because the setting sells the game. Lots of RTS are lacking one or the other. Generally speaking, latest RTS ive played have been lacking in GAMEPLAY, so doesnt matter if its SP or MP, there wasnt any game to begin with.
I remember though, how well recieved was DoW2 SP but the game overall was shitted on. Its because its a shit game, but a decent story/campaign. Still its barebones of a game, like a Diablo like even dumber, but people that like that stuff appreciated it in a way. Doesnt save the game though, since it was so bland, the MP was a weightless merry go round of little choices. But it did sell itself.
>and then die because if people want to do ranked 1v1 they'll stick to the most popular one which is starcraft 2.
Nah, they die because they're shit lol. Anytime a new RTS comes out all of the SC2 guys go check it out and play it. 100% SC2 numbers dip when a new RTS comes out and slowly go back up because most new RTS are shit. Just stop making games period. morons who try to make it about tribalistic bullshit CAMPAIGN GOOD 1V1 BAD should just die. Doesn't matter if they focused on campaign because it would have been shit anyway.
>The problem with that is RTS campaigns have no longevity.
It's called DLC/expansions. It's literally been around for decades.
>It can't be developed for cheap.
Yes it can. Anytime someone says that it's "no exspensive or reasource intensive!" is just code word for lazy zoomer. Studios don't want to make RTS games because most major studios still live in the past and are hyper focused on consoles. RTS is very much alive, the only reason why a new RTS hasn't made any ground is because of dev lazyness and moronic trend chasing.
Im not gonna say this is perfectly fair given this game is over 20 years old with ALOT of campaigns but I got over 200 hours in just this version of AoE2 off nothing but the campaigns. Given I spent like 15 bucks this is a great game and deal.
>It's like releasing a single-player RPG. Yeah, it can do well, but it has to be exceedingly exceptional to have much impact.
Not really true, RPGs are doing well and CRPGs are currently having a renaissance.
yeah, but the main problem is that the devs are fricking morons, how do you fix that? when the devs see graphs like these, that shit just makes them think that people are idiots who want casual cartoony moba crap. and then they make a game like that and it unsurprisingly doesn't sell, and then they run out and declare for everyone to hear, that the rts genre is dead. like, no, man. the rts genre isn't fricking dead, we just want a fricking regular fricking rts game with a nice campaign and some good multi-player where we can squash bots with our homies.
because just like the parent poster they draw the wrong conclusion. 16% hardcore players is a huge amount. It shows that Starcraft was so good that a large amount of players got enticed into trying the deeper aspects of the game. Nobody cares whatsoever about all these mediocre RTS games that came out over the years and people stopped playing them. I fell for some of them like SupCom2 or Planetary Annihilation. They were superficial, dumbed down versions of SupCom. The solution isn't to make dumber games, it's to make easy to understand games that still have a very deep set of strategic possibilities.
This is how it is with every video game that has multiplayer. morons think that multiplayer is the only thing that keeps games alive when it's not. If the game isn't good or have an interesting story and setting no one is going to give a shit. The real issue is that nu devs have zero creativity which directly effects both settings that drag you in and inovation of the genre. Honestly BW and WC3 where the last 2 RTS games with actual interesting and game changing mechanics. Really look at RTS games that came after, how many have mechanics like zerg creep or pylon power? What about having units that literally morph in to a new unit? What about units that require you to build their ammo? The most you'll ever get out of modern day RTS games is a tank that turns in to a long ranged artilery. Not even SC2 did anything to innovate or experiment when it came down to it and we also know how horrible that story was.
SC2 campaign was excellent and it did have some innovative mechanics for RTS imo. Some things it featured that SC did not is suicide units (I know infested marines exist, but they are super rare), unit linked mind control, moving while burrowed and moving/attracting/casting while burrowed, channeled abilities instead of just instant cast, those Disruptor protoss units that throw out their attacks that you then manually micro, the really awesome new creep mechanics with the creep tumors and overlords that actually lets you live the Zerg experience and makes spreading creep across the entire map viable and a key to victory, the Protoss warp in mechanic where they can build units and then keep them in a pool to call up instead of instantly deploying, the Queens actually being queens and being essential to growing your base by defending and increasing larva count, I'm sure there is some more.
Point being that SC2 was not lacking in adding interesting mechanics and trying new things or using little used mechanics.
However, I do agree that most RTS would benefit from actually having as many interesting mechanics as SC features in its factions.
I wish that those mechanics were in the MP. Its one of the blandest experiences to have because how closely they wanted it to SC1, without SC1 units and utility, its just a clusterfrick of idiotic chores.
>I wish that those mechanics were in the MP.
Anon, all those mechanics are in MP. I'm a bit confused now.
I know I said campaign so that's a bit confusing, but I was just talking about how the campaigns are also innovative, everything I listed afterwards is all units you use in SC2.
What campaign did you play? There were unique units, buildings and techs for campaign only. In fact like half of the game isnt on MP
Yeah of course but everything I referenced is just core units that you play in Multiplayer
As far as campaigns, I did WoL and HoTs.
Just about all those mechanics appeared in WC3 first so really it's not new. Plus I would argue that quite a bit of those mechanics are very underplayed as well in MP which was the main focus of the game.
which of those mechanics are in WC3? all i can think of is suicide units (more like a suicide ability on batriders, wisps and sappers), and channeling.
Which ones are from WC3? Even then, they are not featured in SC and they are interesting and spice up the gameplay, they are not common RTS mechanics.
>Plus I would argue that quite a bit of those mechanics are very underplayed as well in MP
Every single one I named is commonly used in MP at the top tiers. So which ones do you mean?
I hate the competitive/esports vocal minority.
That's always the way
Fighting games is 1% EVO Grand Finals and 99% "you and your mates get drunk and button mash"
imagine delivering a product customer wants instead of scamming him in to being an addicted pay pig, couldnt be modern publishers.
Also the chances of them writing a good story, that would go with the campaign, today are close to non existent, we live in the age of social activism and deconstruction.
Are there any fun for casuals strategy games?
Age of Empires
Every single big RTS with fun campaigns and skirmishes qualifies which is the majority of them. Starcraft 1 and 2 are fun for casuals, just because they have sweaty PvP scenes doesn't change that.
AoE4 is pretty good
Deserts of Kharak is a great campaign
Literally all of them if you play casually. Even Brood War can be enjoyed casually if you treat it casually. I'm happy to spend forever 9poolspeeding losers in F-D rank.
Supreme Commander was the peak, but Starcraft esports made people and companies chase the tedious micromanagement and moronic APM spamming instead, which nobody actually wants to play except a minority of autists.
Unfortunately, most people do not find micromanaging morons to be a fun experience. Those types of classic RTSes became quite niche for a reason. Those that went for the macro-focused route more or less reached their peak and there isn't really much else to do. At best I can see some macro games being made when AI is advanced enough to have them actually act completely on their own with a level of complexity with the player giving more general orders as far as combat goes (ie infantry smartly making small maneuvers around a fairly large zone instead of robots just walking in a straight line shooting each other).
The actual successor to the RTS genre was ASShomosexualS / MOBA. If you wanted to market top down micro to the masses then it helped to decrease the amount of things you had to control, and MOBAs were the logical conclusion.
>infantry smartly making small maneuvers around a fairly large zone instead of robots just walking in a straight line shooting each other
I could see this being both really cool and really frustrating.
You could have this great general idea of how you want to advance and engage, and your infantry squad on the right flank thinks the area is too dangerous and clears a safe way, slowly. And then the main road is not clear for your next wave that needed to be able to have freedom of movement.
The units need to act like robots a little bit. Otherwise players will have moments of GOD YOU STUPID FRICKING JARHEADS NOT LIKE THAT which might turn people off from game on the long-term.
>the custom scene
I miss it so much. Frick DotA bots refreshing their lobbies every 5 seconds and making finding games impossible. Even a full DotA game stopped being able to be found easily.
Having units get in the way of each other is a matter of how dense your unit count is. To some degree it is reasonable to expect that if you give a single macro move order to a large amount of units that they will inevitably get in the way of each other and move slower. One way to alleviate this is a simple toggle value or held hotkey to tell the units how much to spread out on their own.
Ultimately it is a game and so exacting control is necessary, which is completely opposite to how commanding real troops in a real battle can be. If you make a game that tries to emulate the latter then you might end up with a non-game instead, and simulators are definitely niche products.
>commanding real troops in a real battle can be
Anything above Platoon leader you are more of a HR/politician than a tactician/strategist.
Though advanced maneuvering should probably left to humans, I think units having adjustable behavior would make gameplay more dynamic and less APM dependent.
For example
>designated scout units that can randomly roam the map on their own and reports enemy/resources found
>ranged units having an option to try to stay at the edge of their fire range/keep away when enemy is too close
>squads that can keep formation when moving
>target priority, you can set units to prioritize enemy units by specific parameters, like most/least armored, casters, biggest cover for aoe attacks etc., maybe spread/single fire for squads
Most of these were a thing even 20 years ago in some form.
I've been playing Cossacks recently, and being able to set facing direction of your group when moving and seeing how the arriving formation would look is really nice, it's a shame very RTS have such features.
The problem is that RTS games are significantly harder to make than most other genres, so they're normally too heavy a task for smaller devs and not popular enough for big studios. And nobody has the balls to compete with SC2, which, despite all its faults, has insane production value for the genre.
i think we are at a really good stage now. rts's don't really need to evolve a whole lot more, because we already have discovered all the good ways one can make an rts. the real problem is just that the fricking devs are completely incapable of making an actual good rts that blends all these new features together. for example, i played aoe4 when it had a free-weekend on steam recently, and while it was semi-decent, there were some things that just really really frustrated me with that game. the zoom levels were pretty bad, it could easily have a larger zoom level. the second thing was that, like many other rts's, the game just felt way too cartoony. i don't know why rts's absolutely have to look so cartoony these days, it boggles the mind. they look like fricking mobile games, or something. extremely off-putting. the third thing, is that the mp maps were wayy too small. like, why can't we have really large mp maps these days? why do they have to be so small? if you look at how aoe2 hd did it, they did it perfectly. there, you could create maps that were truly gargantuan and which took a real while to traverse. why isn't this the bare minimum, these days? why not have even larger maps than aoe2 hd had? so yeah, it's entirely possibly to merge all these improvements that rts games have had over the years, it's just that no one ever actually does that. they always seem to do things half-way, for some reason. and they are all completely obsesses with that weird cartoony look these days, for some reason. i don't know why the devs constantly have to make their games so cartoony looking and have such atrocious zoom levels. boggles the mind, really.
Starcraft 2 wol campaign was good. Others could have copied it. Not the multiplayer, but the singleplayer experience
I just want more Tychus.
I want a zerg-infested Tychus in HotS.
I want a robot Tychus made by Karax in LotV.
I want Tychus to go back in time and be a unit in SC1.
Give me more of the man.
With armor on, preferably, but I could deal with him seducing the playerbase if it was the price that must be paid.
The next step is less micromanagement nonsense. . Since the Age of Empires, Starcraft, and C&C/ Petroglyph days, the games were about large armies yet heavy micromanagement - korean clicking autism APM junk. Now of course in 1996 you couldn't have the kind of tech to do much better, but people failing to break away from it is part of the problem. These situations made it so that you didn't feel like you were commanding soldiers at all, which is what the game is ideally supposed to do - a soldier generally knows not to just run headlong into enemy fire unless you specifically used the "attack move" order, knows which enemies to target (ie a small arms unit will not have to be told to shoot the soft infantry target instead of plinking at the fricking heavily armored main battle tank ten feet to the left etc. There were some games with some improvement. Last I checked, the Warhammer 40K Dawn of War series, and a few one off titles like Iron Harvest are some of the better examples of this, if not perfect. In DoW2 or Iron Harvest you gave instructions to the leader of squad and things like "generally defend in this direction" or "get behind cover over here" could be useful rather than having to specifically set up each soldier to line up behind each specific place and not shoot each other or bunch up stupidly when the mortars are incoming etc. Unfortunately, whenever a game tries to do something like this a lot of the time autists complain because its not Starcraft or whatever.
There have been some decent improvements over the years and even the older ones are fun to play, but we need to move away from esports garbage, support titles with basebuilding and low micro together, use AI to improve the experience (including eventual voice command to units) and more.
Agreed, the SC2 campaigns were great, as were the Co-Op mode missions! More games need both co-op and good campaigns as well. The Riftbreaker is a neat hybird TD/RTS
Why does it need to evolve? Shooters, RPGs, racing games, fighting games, etc are all basically the same now as they were 20 years ago. Why do strategy games have to reinvent themselves?
Because they're not being made anymore, unlike games in all the other genres. They're wrong though, just like compgays. A RTS renessaince means focusing more on campaigns and co-op content, not e-sport asiaticclicking.
The genre already peaked with SupCom.
Imo RTS and fighting games have the same problem: you can't have fun if you suck. Competitiveness have killed the genre. They were fun during LAN with friends, not so much when playing against online players.
rts is way more fun than fighting games if you are shit. you just have to play against people who are equally shit. the real problem is that people don't like being told that they're shit so they either blame the game and ragequit or just refuse to play multiplayer so they can't be judged.
I play RTS as I play fighting games
Its interesting to have games that improve YOU more than just playing a time waster. Still, as far as fighting games and RTS go, the parallelisms between shitters and tryhards is real and theres nothing the games can do to help people that wont just have fun in git gud
So you play both to memorize checklists?
Lel thinking about that
Clearly when you play something like RTS its obvious the scenario at opening barely changes and thats where build orders come in handy. I do not like SC2 because IT NEVER CHANGES throughout the game. Its restrictive and solved, and its all about speed only. Speed is important in every competition, but its not just an arms race.
Fighting games are really much more simple. Most are so focused on combos that its the only thing that matters. There is some scare tactics and pokes, but its mainly about memorization of the big damage combo. I like them but not gonna pretend they're complex. At surface level they're about improving yourself in rythm. In gameplay, theyre about matchups and maximizing OTKs.
RTS are about the killing blow, but much more nuanced than that.
People who enjoyed the competitive aspect moved on to MOBA
People who enjoyed the city builder aspect moved on to Cookie Clicker
>city builder aspect moved on to Cookie Clicker
guh?
Personally I think the reason there were so many rts games back in 90's to lates 00's was mostly due to the technology of computers and the lack of cross platform technology. I think back then if you wanted to develop a game and you didn't have money to buy a lisnence from Sony or xBox you would devolp games for the PC, and if you wanted your game to sell well on the PC you'd make it an RTS. And that's why we have 300 titles from that era with developers who no one knows about.
I only play RTS games for the scenarios.
All I want is a good custom scenario editor and a very convenient way to share them, like an in-game scenario browser. Then the developers just need to make it very flexible and add cool features into the game that scenario creators can use. Maybe even the ability to add new custom units and buildings.
Play Mindustry, it's Factorio + Starcraft with a server browser and its super fricking based.
the genre needs to move closer to movies and further from this if it wants to be more popular
What? Just play the games, anon. RTS is not that hard.
Classic RTS are so boring, I don't know how people enjoy them, besides RA2 that had a good campaign with some well designed missions and fun cutscenes.
you literally named the classic rts. Red Alert 3 is quicker, more action oriented and also with well designed missions and fun cutscenes, so less boring
RA2 gets carried by the setting and cutscenes, RA3 goes a bit too far imo, it looks worse and is too camp.
>the setting and cutscenes
heard of the Dune series?
I love RA2 for the simple reason of high tier units actually feeling dangerous, like Apocalypse tank being an all-in-one moving fortress that can take a lot of punishment, deliver a lot of punishment and also self repairs because why the frick not, or Prism tanks casually destroying your whole fricking base trying to kill a harvester. Even some smaller units can pose a big threat on their own like Desolators.
can you make an even worse webm? holy shit
which game is this?
I was wondering this myself, thought it was wargame Red Dragon at first but the UI was off. It's an unreleased game "Broken Arrow"
Dawn of War perfected the RTS
homie no.
Animation on the level of DoW2 should be the bare minimum .
Don't worry boys
GOTY coming out today
Forgot my pic
Can't wait to shit on console players in cross platform mp
>w*man in the center
>in a ww2 game
dropped
It won't evolve until these games go beyond
>Select unit
>Right click to move unit
You should be controlling squads of units, groups of squads, battalions, and armies, and each member should have it's own intelligence to decide how to best carry out their mission. I shouldn't have to click on a horseman, right click near an enemy farm, click on the farm, click away from the farm if the spearmen come, click on the farm again, then click on the my base again. I should be able to tell a group of horsemen, go harass the enemy, and they should be able to figure out the rest.
Supreme commander already did peak RTS, mechanically speaking.
Honorable mentions: Dawn of War, SC:BW, and WC3, Wargame deserves mention because of its depth.
>Make any RTS that isn't an AoE/SC clone
>"Lol this game is dogshit because (reasons it's not SC/AoE)"
>Make any RTS that is explicitly an AoE/SC clone
>"Lol why would I play this when I still have AoE2/SC2?"
There's really no point evolving the genre because RTS "fans" will only play the same two games and b***h about all others being dogshit. That's why every single RTS fails financially that isn't an extravagant middle finger to the typical RTS fanatic. The roaring success of Total War Warhammer is a testament to the fact that the only way you can make a thriving RTS is by completely ignoring what the genre's contemporaries do.
>the only way you can make a thriving RTS is by making a TBS
They just need to add event he slightest bit of depth. Take battle for middle earth II (never played 1, sue me) every single unit in the game fights and acts like the others except for some splash damage
Instead of cavalry. Calvary units, including wolves and big monsters, do charge attacks. Meaning if you tell them to attack something they are going to run into them and throw them all into the air and they die.
The counter for this is to have spear men. Units that will still die to a cavalry charge, but will shred the unit specific horses into a grave. It's such a small change but results in you having to micro in a more interesting way than the standard starcraft 2 move and then auto attack autism
The last "new" RTS games I bought and had fun with were Steel Division and TW Warhammer.
People already mentioned Wings of Liberty as a fantastic RTS campaign.
I've been playing some Majesty recently which has extremely little micro, but I'd still call it RTS and its just fun single player scenarios.
The key has ALWAYS been good single player. You make it fun, then you develop multiplayer afterwards. If your game doesn't have fun single player with campaigns/scenarios/skirmishes, then it's shit.
>an rts with an actual realistic damage model instead of colorful goofy ass cartoon machines pew pewing lazer beams until their health bar depletes
Make the gameplay actually fricking interesting instead of a placeholder with the depth of an excel table.
The next step is to not make RTS games anymore and a lot of devs are already catching on.
because theyre not fun
YOU'RE not fun!
That doesn't explain it. If it did, fighting games would be in the same decline.
And they are
No, they're stagnant and have been the same for 20 years.
Explain how Under Night In Birth is the same as SF 2
Never heard of it
>want to make indie RTS to help the genre cling to life
>have sick custom army idea that would only work in 3D
>it'd still largely be a CoH clone and a nightmare to make AI for
>have actual experience with Gamemaker
>want to make a schlocky Starcraft clone complete with pseudo-3D sprites
>even downs syndrome AI lags with six units on screen
>wouldn't be that fun anyways
Anyways imagine a single player wargame where you can zoom out to a continent-scale and order big groups of units/supplies to go from region to region, each one being its own RTS map, and also you can customize your guys' gear/uniforms/training/vehicles.
Age of Mythology is too perfect, it can't be improved on. Maybe a bit more water combat variety but that's a patch job instead of a fundamental.
>everyone else: no ai please don't take my job
>rts players: ai please play the game for me I don't want to click
why is it like this? if you're going to let ai do everything for you what are you actually going to be doing to play the game? do you want it to turn into a game where whoever sets up the best ai scripts wins and you just sit back for 20 minutes to watch it play out?
The funny thing is Firefly Studios (creators of stronghold) could not repeat success of their first game themselves, not to mention someone else
>What is the next logical step?
procedurally generated map with complete destruction and terraforming
That might be neat, but it would upset the hardcore crowd for not being 100% balanced every time.
>His side has more hills and mine has less trees
>bg luckerfgt
Though I could see it as a nifty co-op or skirmish vs AI mode. Never the same map and constantly changing strategies every time.
Red Alert 2 is literally perfect, the genre died because after it came out there was nothing more that could be done
Most people have already answered, the genre hasn't evolved for 2 reasons
>The most vocal and devoted player group just wants the game to be SC/AOE and will complain if you're game isnt just SC/AOE and will still complain even if it is
>Normies are not interested in Strategy games enough to justify the cost of making the game
I think Battleforge was a great idea for a RTS game, but it was killed in infancy by EA because theyre a pack of greedy Black folk.
You can play the game without the awful paywalling and MtX now and its fun, but the limitations of the game are still glaring. I'd love for someone to take the good ideas of BF and try to build something from scratch
Are Total War games RTS? The battles are real time, but it has a campaign map and turn by turn in it.
It's RTS.
Obviously it is a hybrid of gameplay, but the core game is 100% RTS and the entire game is built around it.
Many RTS games do this, with external systems built around the RTS combat.
it's not rts without base building or some kind of in battle tech tree. total war is turn based strategy with real time tactics.
its RTT
>Could there be a RTS MMO?
Ever tried End of Nations? Was ahead of its time.
Did I try it? I closed alpha tested, beta tested, managed the wiki and shilled it nonstop for free to my friends until Trion took a huge shit on Petroglyph. I don't care about NDA, I signed one but don't know what the term was, so it doesn't matter to me.
Ask me about this game if any of you want to know more, it's been 10 years but I'll do what I can to recall.
also I'm pretty sure I have an alpha build of the game on an old hard drive but I'm not sure where it is anymore
All I need is a remake of these 3
Granted.
Amazon games division is put in charge of the remakes
Here is my RTS check list
>Base building
>Good Graphics*
I don't mean HYPER REALISM Unity asset flip. I mean make it look good. Units should be clear and defined, combat should be engaging and visual. SC2 is not a graphically intense game but it does look nice. Many new RTS games look silly or muddy
>Is not historical
I just don't enjoy historical games. The difference between Roman Spearman and Persian Spearman just isn't engaging for me. I love fantasy but sci-fi is good too
>Units are responsive
I don't need SC levels of APM autism but I fricking hate games where things feel delayed. Sins of Solar Empire felt like a good middle ground, where ordering ships to move felt snappy, but the ships themselves still had turn speed, acceleration, etc
>Custom Games/Map Editor/Mod Support
Basically every game should have this
>PvP without a focus on e-sports
Also recommend me some games, here are the RTS i've played
>Paraworld
Probably nostalgia but frick I love this game
>SC/AOE2
>Supcom FA/2
>Endwar
cool gimmick
>Sins of a Solar Empire
>Dow1/2
>Battleforge/Skylords Reborn
>Demigod
Company of Heroes 1
Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds
Command and Conquer series - Most of the games. There's more good ones than bad ones.
Brutal Legend
Divinity: Dragon Commander
They're both kinda bad, but in a goofy fun way.
>Red Alert 2
Okay where do I get the game, a quick google search reveals it's not on the usual online game marketplaces
https://mega.nz/file/m0MEDChJ#UcBHHpaoxQOS_nOsshuVs40kysu2KTNpxGjcDBTfiC8
Neat thanks anon
?
Brutal Legend is great, nothing "kinda bad" about it.
the only good part about dragon commander is characters, some of them, or perhaps just their actors, not the strategy part, no way https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rd_X18dUt4&list=PLKk18MwTBHbQ-ysmOU7u4D8kvErQVo7pJ&index=9
Do yourself a favor and play Red Alert 2, and if you like that be sure to check out other Command and Conquer games though they won't play the same, but Tiberium Sun and C&C Generals are very fun.
Warcraft 3 has great campaigns. I haven't played the other warcraft games, can't comment.
Majesty Kingdom Simulator is maybe technically not an RTS, but it's a great game regardless.
Impossible Creatures
Universe at War
Act of War HT
Battleforge/Skylords
is starcraft 2 worth getting into in 2023 as a completely new player or should i just not even attempt it
i've played dawn of war a fair bit, is it anything like that?
Do you mean get into the PvP or do you mean playing the campaigns or both.
pvp, i don't mind losing against the pc, i just don't want to play against other people and have my shit kicked in for 60 hours until something finally clicks
Speaking as someone with very little firsthand knowledge, but who played a bit a couple years ago, I think the matchmaking will do its job and give you a competition regardless of your skill level, I certainly played some complete mouth breathers and skilled players when it was calibrating my starting rank.
>next logical step?
It already peaked, and there's nothign wrong with that.
supcom is the best rts, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved any further
Sanctuary Shattered Sun looks really good, check it out
Thank God theres a lot of RTS coming out this year
Do not buy CoH3, its a dumbed down piece of shit, again, frick Relic[spoiler]
RTS evolved into MOBAs
tomorrow
Are we getting Japanese / Pacific theater as well?
RTS devs really underestimate how hard real scale battleships make me
No.
Pacific theatre seems a lot more work than you think. You have the Marine Faction, and the Japanese faction (which is easier to make the marine faction)
How will you design the Marine faction to be in online multiplayer matches when its not on a beach map and is instead on a land locked map? You'll probably have to switch how the faction works based on map types
RTS as a genre has been kept alive mainly by the multiplayer scene for a handful of popular titles, notably Starcraft and Age of Empires, but there's a couple others. So developers who want to break into that genre think the safe bet is to imitate the most popular games of the genre. Except they miss the obvious result of this: nobody's going to play a shittier version of a classic game that has had decades to refine its systems. If you want to make a name for yourself in RTS you have to do something different. It's why the only new, notable RTS I can think of all tried to do something different.
Tooth and Tail had a very different approach to base building and unit control compared to classic RTS games, and went for a dark fairy tale kind of vibe, which strayed clear of the sci-fi and historical settings. However those things that made it different also limited its potential, the controls were unique but also very simple which meant there wasn't a lot you could do with units. The base building was also pretty flat and uninteresting, without tech trees or upgrade paths.
The other is Northgard, which combined elements from the settlement survival and 4X, to make surviving winter and exploring new regions key parts of the game. Unlike a lot of classic RTS games Northgard puts a lot of emphasis on controlling key parts of the map, because of how building works, and the presence of landmarks and other spots on the map that give significant advantages. The devs seem to have expended most of their effort on the exploration and base building, and left combat rather lackluster, though. There's basically no unit variety and fights often feel underwhelming, even with hero units present. However unlike Tooth and Tail, the game isn't as constrained by its unique choices and could easily develop into something more complex and interesting, if they build on it for Northgard 2.
Starcraft is popular because of its campaign and I'm tired of people pretending it's not.
Multiplayer is only what keeps people playing later. I don't believe for a second people would get invested into even the original starcraft without its campaign, that's where you build the heart and soul of the game that makes people invested and think the world and units are cool and they want to fight more battles with them
>Starcraft is popular because of its campaign and I'm tired of people pretending it's not.
This is completely wrong though. Brood War is still played to this day purely for multiplayer. Multiplayer is the reason it is one of the most popular games in Korea. The campaigns for older RTS games were great, but they didn't keep the games alive. That was always the multiplayer community.
>Brood War is still played to this day purely for multiplayer
You didn't understand what I said. My entire point is that you need that opening shot, you need to light the fire to get people excited and interested.
PvP only RTS lacks this spark. Furthermore, you need a way for people to actually learn the basics of RTS, something people really discount. Tutorials don't cover it because if you try to teach too much it's just boring, no one wants to sit through long tutorials. Skirmish throws you into the deep end with no explanation. Campaigns are the perfect learning tool because they are fun and engaging while gradually introducing more and more units and mechanics.
ehhh man, supcom became a cult hit with a complete garbage campaign, practically a campaign that nobody played. It only seems that the campaign was important because it was well made. But at the end of the day people elevate a game to cult status for its pure gameplay, nothing else.
Seems kind of like an expectation doesn't it? Every RTS I have really liked has a great campaign.
I suppose I won't say it's a 100% rule, but it it is a 99% rule, people should take note.
Evolved? It doesn't even exist. Please tell me what I'm supposed to play after Warcraft 3.
Custom content will keep an RTS alive along with expansions.
Back when Starcraft Broodwar came out its custom games were also very popular, like one thing I remember about it is its DBZ custom game mode where you play as beefed up starcraft models with DBZ names on them
However the trajectory of custom games has gone way done for video games cause of greed. Companys want to release an expansive microtransaction store for their big games effectively killing custom content as a whole cause they don't want them to take a slice of their microtransaction pie.
Rts peaked with supcom (not 2) but the focus on micro in future titles killed the genre.
It did "evolve", becoming the moba. True RTSes are basically coelacanths, remnants of a bygone age eking out an existence on the margins
Asshomosexuals were made back when RTS was still in it's peak. It took 10 years for asshomosexuals to become popular.
To evolve rts, you must escape build order hell. Build order turns what should be an exciting open ended experience into a pigion hole the second you start playing.
One good example of rts escaping build order hell is picking.
>picking
*Pikmin
personally I have a similar opinion: Modern RTS have very little strategy in them. In Sc2 you had tons of different paths you could go for.
Most new RTS don't even have that, you just go for the strong units and that's it.
In Sc2 you had different types of rushes, different unit combos would have vastly different playstyles, you had to micro on top of all of that..
A game like Aoe4 is worthless compared to that. It has next to nothing. In fact, all Aoe4 has is probably build order strategizing, trying to tech up as fast as possible and harassing.
You are not escaping build order hell either of those two ways. The game need to be able to force players to think on thier feet more often.
The only real option are random terrain with extreme restrictions on pathing and movment so you are forced to use all the tools in the toolbox to succeed.
Or the objective needs to much more flexible than "go to place", "make sure thing doesn't blow up" and the ever classic "make them stop existing"
One of the most innovative rts games in the sapce came out 30 years ago, it was called rock raiders. And it to suffered from build order hell, once you beat a few missions you have done a good amout of what you are gonna be doing the rest of the game.
You could also just due away with base building and that will solve the issue as well, but this has been tried before I feel like and didn't go so hot.
As for games that make you think on your feet in the rts space that isn't pikmin, CoH dose a good job of making you think about how you move and use your troops while punishing you for trying to kite or try to over micro in general.
no offense but that's noob cope. Just because you make some path blocked so you can build up your city for 20min doesn't make the game more strategic or better.
In a good game with a wide array of different units the build order is sufficiently disrupted by having to scout your enemy and having to react to what he does. No need for bridges randomly being blocked by time gates
>I don't understand
No you do not understand. I'm talking about having, let's say a swamp level where you are forced to only use units that can cross the swamp but the base you need to attack has heavy armor.
This is a basic example that isn't really fleshed out but abstract challenges is what the gerne needs. The same checklist of do the same things you do in every other game is the death and stagnation of the genre.
Ya, and all that shit you are not assessing in any kind of abstract manner. Its set, its linner thinking, its braindead
>muh rush game
That if both players are about equal skill is just a 50/50 gamble to end the game in 5 mins instead of 20, how compelling and thoughtful, really flexing the old thinking noodles with that plan of attacking early.
>Ya, and all that shit you are not assessing in any kind of abstract manner. Its set, its linner thinking, its braindead
Please do expand on this, using an actual game as a reference point.
>That if both players are about equal skill is just a 50/50 gamble to end the game in 5 mins instead of 20
Wrong. Only the Vietnamese gamble actually sets you far back. The rest are just an eco reshuffle with delayed feudal. No one actually ends games with just dark age militia. You would know this if you played.
An easy way to address that would be small variations in the maps, like entrances that are partially blocked sometimes or debris that sometimes spawns on the map. Not procedural generation but something that mixes up the optimal strategy for a given map that might cause players to alter their play…although generally having a good build order and playing the same strategy consistently is a good way to improve at rts games
Age of Mythology had a new refined random tournament where you only played on the new random map they developed.
It was very fun and interesting.
Better yet add some interactivity to the maps. Maybe a bridge that you can raise or lower by controlling a capture point or something, stuff like that would be really cool. Little optional objectives that can complement your strategy or make things harder for your opponent
Interactivity in maps isn't new for big name RTS. See SC, SC2, Red Alert 2, Warcraft 3... etc.
>Build order turns what should be an exciting open ended experience into a pigion hole the second you start playing.
Anon, build orders are just instructions from players on how to best use the resources you start with. If you want random resources (which will frick balance eternally), you can just play nomad.
Thats the problem, you are not thinking while you play the game, all that though went into before the game even started. The first 5 mins of any base centric rts game is going to be you playing by yourself. People compare rts to chess but thats a misnomer, you see your opponent's moves the entier time and it affects your strategy in turn, which is what rts needs to survive in a multi-player space.
>Thats the problem, you are not thinking while you play the game, all that though went into before the game even started.
I'm thinking about how to best recognize my opponent's build, plans, and pathing on the map. The build order just lets me focus on that instead of trying to reinvent the process of picking berries for no real gain.
>The first 5 mins of any base centric rts game is going to be you playing by yourself. People compare rts to chess but thats a misnomer, you see your opponent's moves the entier time and it affects your strategy in turn, which is what rts needs to survive in a multi-player space.
You're complaining that the first 5 or so minutes are spent alone. The rest of the game is highly interactive. The first few minutes are just for setup, and there are even some civs that can attack you within the first 2 minutes (Lithuanians, Persians, Goths, Berbers, Viets, Aztecs, etc.)
To state something that moronic tells me you wouldnt last long in an open ended enviroment either
The fact you think everything in rts need to be a vs match is why the genre has stagnated
See the swamp thing in my post before. If it was a multi-player match, you now have to change how you scout, the way you plan on expanding, the way you engage the opposing force. Having unexpected obstacles that you can't predict is the only way to actually use your brain while playing the game.
>but muh competive
Literally no one cares. This isn't a thread about how rts is competive, its about how the genre is stagnating and dying.
>Having unexpected obstacles that you can't predict
That would be your opponent.
>This isn't a thread about how rts is competive, its about how the genre is stagnating and dying.
A dead narrative. AoE2 just grabbed the console market.
You know literally everything your opponent can throw at you from the second they pick whatever civ/race/ect. You don't know what they will throw at you for sure, but you can compensate for that. In fact thats kinda the basis of how the entire genre functions right now, and why it is boring.
>aoe 2 on consoles
I know exactly zero people who gave a shit. I just found out about that from you. I didn't even see a Ganker thread.
I don't know who you are fooling. Selling 25 million is cool, but let's be real, most of those sales are nostalgia buys that play maybe one or two campaigns before probably never booting it again. If that wasn't the case I feel like there should be more people playing it that tf2 on steam for god sakes but nope.
>You know literally everything your opponent can throw at you from the second they pick whatever civ/race/ect.
You know it from the moment you read their page. And?
>You don't know what they will throw at you for sure, but you can compensate for that. In fact thats kinda the basis of how the entire genre functions right now, and why it is boring.
Ah, got it. You just want to type. (You)
>this cope non-comeback
I accept your concession
You don't know that you don't know
any RTS or 4x playable on the steam deck?
it requires reflexes and quick reaction. Enemies of consoles. Turn based "strategy" is the solution for slow fingers.
yeah real-time and strategy don't go THAT well together
a multiplayer RTS fight isn't so much a battle of strategy as the ability to quickly micro and to multitask without getting overwhelmed
Strategy is decided and adjusted BEFORE the matches, not during. Developing build orders is strategy, considering counters to popular tactics and build is strategy, picking and banning maps is strategy.
Once you are in the match, you rely on your tactics to win.
the genre has been perfected already
MOBAS already exist old timer, if anything make movas more like
What are the chances of Homoworld 3 being terrible? Deserts of kharak was solid
RTS MMO is basically GSG.
The genre isn't "evolving" because new creators don't learn the lessons of previous games, and either choose to blindly innovate or satisfy some guy's very particular fantasy without adding the features a game needs to be a proper RTS.
Instead of taking note of AoE2's flaws and trying to make a game that does a better job of being AoE2, new devs go and make their own thing that doesn't resemble it at all, then expect people to flock to their product.
They get creative with no real grounding.
RTS in four dimensions
>your army dies so you command them to travel backwards through time and come alive again
>meanwhile your opponent hit your expansion with a timewarp missile and it disappeared into the future (will reappear ten minutes from now)
Been done, it's called Achron. Don't ask me how it works, I'm guessing it's a pain in the ass to play.
its pretty fun but outside of the time travel mechanics its fairly simple due to technical limitations at the time
>gsg/4x and mobas fill the same niche as rts
frick off moron, mobas maybe be an evolution of hero rts but to say that it has superseded it is like saying that hero shooters supersede regular fpses
also, gsgs are turn-based not real-time and is not meant for quick matches
YOU SAY SUPCOM
I SAY TOTAL ANNIHILATION ZERO
Devs need to split at some point where part of the team is only doing multiplayer and part of the team is only doing single player and they are each balanced separately.
RTS concept: I'll use my superior decision making and planning to win the day
RTS reality: I'll use this build order I found online and click and micro faster than the other guy.
That's the reality we live in. any game that's real time is going to favour the guy that can micro all his units. For me that shit is stressful to play.
I'd like a real time game with some kind of order limit or a delay to orders.
Be honest, anon. You've never even tried to understand the game. It's like watching a guy try to design a form of chess that doesn't have an opening phase because it's not interactive enough.
Ive got around 180 hours between aoe2 and aoe4, I'm a shitter. I like those games enough but the high level of play rewards speed and watching all areas of the map like a schizo.
I'm just saying the concept of RTS does not match the gameplay.
>I like those games enough but the high level of play rewards speed and watching all areas of the map like a schizo.
It does not. You've watched too many hera videos. Granted, he tends to select single buildings instead of selecting multiple (hotkey), causing his camera to jitter around, so I understand how one could get that impression. Just play the game.
I'd hesitate to call them RTS (or even RTT) in the sense of this thread, but Combat Mission games have - or had, I've not really played the more modern releases- such a delay depending on unit experience. For instance, an Elite unit will perform each task after only a second or two delay, a conscript could easily be almost a minute. An obvious consequence is you don't dick about with less experienced units (no point giving them a complicated movement route when they spend an age sorting themselves out at EVERY checkpoint).
>RTS concept: I'll use my superior decision making and planning to win the day
Singleplayer. The thing 99% of RTS players do.
>RTS reality: I'll use this build order I found online and click and micro faster than the other guy.
Multiplayer. The thing 99% of RTS players statistically do not even touch once.
LMFAO THE SHIT YOU READ ON THIS FRICKING BOARD
Wheres the lie?
Here
and
rts super reality: this new game has systems im not familiar with. therefore its not a real rts.
Actual recreations of real battlefields and cities. I just want assasisin's creed rts
Reminder that people arguing openers are bad gameplay are moron larpers that wipe first and shit second irl
Do not argue with them, they will never gonna make it
the only good rts games are the mount and blade ones bc they actually let u fight as well after u tell ur troops what to do and its not some birds eye view top down shit the whole time
mount and blade isn't RTS so no worries, you can just say you hate RTS without any reservations.
killed by forcefully turning it into an e-sport
Seriously though, why dont you kids scout?
Scout is the action to spy on your opponent early and see whats he doing. Its fun. Its VERY important. Its early gameplay. Take any fast moving unit and check it out. It might save you from the evil that build orders are to you. No more scary uncertainty.
fact: RTSs peaked with age of empires 3
Very pretty game. Why did it have no staying power unlike aoe2?
>RTS MMO
already exists, it's called Lands of Lords.
That's gay ERP and boomer power simulator
>already exists
not after alfred godson mindbroke the admin and btfo ingertrannies
Admin won in the end. Godson is non-existent. sad!
DO I GET GOOD AT BW OR 2 AAAAAAAA
2
If you gotta ask, YNGMI
rts peaked with supreme commander fa
Reminder fighting games are for corporate paypigs too casual for RTS
>play red alert 2
POST MEGA LINK PLEASE PORFI ONEGAI
>anon makes troll image
>moronic phonegays post it for years thinking that it's real
Why is this so common?
bros I literally cannot tell the characters in Fafner apart
>Industrial warfare
You want proof if more be needed Ganker is casual? Look at any RTS thread, they get filtered so hard its insane
>next logical step
Well for one RTS is already in it's final form. Change for the sake of change is why we have countless bad sequels across all genres of game.
>Why hasn't the RTS genre evolved
It did, grand strategy, 4x and city builders are all evolutions of the basic RTS formula, focusing on a particular aspect as its core gameplay. That doesn't mean the basic formula doesn't get used again. As for why more of these games aren't made, it's because they require a time investment to play and get good at, and games are made for low IQ morons who throw six hours into a title and never touch it again.
Debunked
The RA2 mega isn't working for me lads
you might need to install cncnet fan patch for red alert 2 to get it running.
CoH3 is literally out
>progressgay microtransaction RTT garbage
LMAO
Someone is feeling defensive
Pick up a heart demon in the thread did ja?
>lelic
>when they haven't even finished aoe 4
LMAOOOOOO
>A 20 year old in 1980 playing imported strip mahjong games could be 63 years old playing oppai academy big bouncy booby babes today
Fascinating post anon, true to your word
Once you find out whoever has the highest APM wins, the genre gets boring as a result.
Stormgate
CoH3 looks great
>No tank crushing infantry
Complete and total soul destruction
mental omega
Did improved pathfinding kill RTS? People always b***h about death balls in SC2 but a good deal of that is because of how good pathfinding is and the need to micro unit movement less.
>Did improved pathfinding kill RTS?
Considering how fun SC2 campaign is, I would say no.
People yelling about whether SC2 multi is good or trash or worse than BW really don't matter.
SC2 is wildly successful, so it just doesn't make sense.
>This wienersucker thinks anyone else gave a shit about abysmal SC2 campaign
We get it you like sucking wieners
Its not impressive either with or without the imbecile story
so what rts campaign did you like
The problem is not just pathfinding but unlimited unit selection and unit collision.
In the context of SC2 1v1 multiplayer? Yes.
In RTS games overall? No.
I didn't see anyone mention it, but Warzone 2100 is a pretty decent RTS. The graphics are a bit dated, but the campaign is fun. plus its free.
every time you try to do anything interesting rts autists shit their pants because they want to feel skilled without learning anything new.
This and this
The fighting genre has the same issue
True
Still fighting games are actually all about the optimal combo and 3 baits to land them
You can say whatever about build orders, its not even close to how simple FGs are after the execution part
It's called MOBA.
Sorry
The RTS genre died when Blizzard made WoW instead of Warcraft 4.
Rogue Time Strategy
I like the spellforce series, doesn't seem to get enough love from the RTS crowd.
It didn't evolve because there was no meaningful incentive to do so. The market moved to grand strategy/4X stuff for more tactical depth, or MOBAs for a more fast-paced moment-to-moment multiplayer spectacle.
At this point the most engaging thing RTSs could do would just be really elaborate tower defense stuff, like "They Are Billions" where you set up a bunch of dudes to fight a gigantic ass horde.
stop appealing to esports homosexuals
make a fun game
simple as
I would hack the MMO and rape everyone with endless zerglings.
It did evolve. It evolved into-
>MOBAs
>Auto-battlers
>Tower Defence
>Action RPGs
>Arena RTS
>Arcadey Wargames
>Lite-sim Wargames
What it didn't evolve into was better RTS. Game companies have no idea why RTS was appealing in any way which the above genres don't satisfy, so they keep shoving spreadsheets and mobile game mechanics in our faces.
RTS died because nobody can figure out how to make them appealing anymore, autistics can play GSG and 4x MPgays have ASShomosexualS now and RTS MP has the same issue fighting games have where if you're a beginner you're gonna get stomped
I'd just argue that RTS games should focus on having stronger single player campaigns to have some kind of niche for those who want it but not autistic enough to play a Grand strategy game but I guess modern RTS devs still think everyone just plays MP. So whatever
Are there any other games like the first dawn of war? Dark crusade is one of my favorite games and I'm not the biggest fan of the company of heros clone route the genre seems to have went down.
Did you play the apocalypse mod?
If you haven't, everyone basically gets a 3rd and 4th tech level, and the unit list is expanded including multiple new races like the tyranids.
There like, 8 different flavors of landraider in the mod, its great.
Wish there were more RTS's that had sandbox arenas where you could spam units nilly willy and test them out against each other.
Battleforge might have had a real b***h of a paywall at times, but it was still fun.