>long matches
Lots of AoE2 games barely go longer than 20 minutes because the meta is just rushing your opponent in feudal age and fricking them up to make them panic-gg
I started having fun with AOE2 when I intentionally let my elo drop down to like 500.
Now I can frick around, do intentionally stupid builds, basically whatever, and the game is still playable instead of repetitive tryhard shit. If I get bored of a game that's going on for too long I just say "gg, gotta go wash dishes" or something and resign.
Online matchmaking is perfect to abuse for this shit.
It requires too much micro managing and efficiency when most people just want to build pretty buildings and defend their base. the games also almost never have crazy shit anymore. back in my day we had nukes and titans.
this, IMO modern RTS should use an initial budget to allow players to start with an already mid sized base and keep the game going from that point. They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
>They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
play a fricking city builder, that's what you want
one is forced and unfun, another is not forced and unfun. Change doesn't mean it's good. >then don't complain is dying
I'd rather it died than be forced to harmonize my buildings kek
this, IMO modern RTS should use an initial budget to allow players to start with an already mid sized base and keep the game going from that point. They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
If you just want to build a base and turtle then just play fricking Supreme Commander, it already exists.
The main problem is compared to most other genre, it requires a lot more competency from the devs to get it right. When a platformer is bad at platforming, people can forgive a lot if it does other things right (see: SM Sunshine). When an RTS does their job bad, everyone can see it from a mile away.
Put simply, a no-name dev can't shit out an RTS like they used to be able to with development costs being what they are today.
>it's more about (the mechanical ability to implement strategy) than strategy
this, IMO modern RTS should use an initial budget to allow players to start with an already mid sized base and keep the game going from that point. They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
balance used to be player created with plateaus in the early late game where players may have been stressed to even control the armies they had.
With new technologies all the unit selection and strategies used to overcome bad UI has been erased.
Dunno what the fix could be for people making games too easy to play. People cry when a game is too hard to play.
RTS is not dead, the same types of people that played rts back then still does.
Only difference is after the smartphone, all types of morons and third worlders are the majority of gamers and internet users.
In the 90s and early 2000s the average internet user was much smarter and more competetive minded, which is required to enjoy rts.
I'd disagree tbh, the average gamer today is far better than the average gamer back then, the reason why these games aren't as popular anymore is because they are harder to get into. The higher bar for entry means that most zoomies flock to games with lower bars for entry or games that feed into their adhd itch.
Also, as I said before, a good rts takes way more money to make than it used to which means basically only the companies that have always made RTS games still can
Also, as I said before, a good rts takes way more money to make than it used to which means basically only the companies that have always made RTS games still can
Look, I didn't say the average gamer was better back then, but smarter.
Smart people enjoy games that are hard to get into, with complex systems. They like to come up with new strats, analyze what they did wrong the previous game and improve.
For this frequent balance changes are needed so the meta does not become "solved".
>For this frequent balance changes are needed so the meta does not become "solved".
Starcraft proves that you don't need to mess with balance to keep things fresh. This year's ASL had a lot of unexpected strats that defeated long-time champions of the game.
>the average gamer today is far better than the average gamer back then
lol, categorically false, unless you disqualify all the normalgays. (Which wouldn't make it the average, now would it?)
It requires too much micro managing and efficiency when most people just want to build pretty buildings and defend their base. the games also almost never have crazy shit anymore. back in my day we had nukes and titans.
The main problem is compared to most other genre, it requires a lot more competency from the devs to get it right. When a platformer is bad at platforming, people can forgive a lot if it does other things right (see: SM Sunshine). When an RTS does their job bad, everyone can see it from a mile away.
Put simply, a no-name dev can't shit out an RTS like they used to be able to with development costs being what they are today.
>platformer is bad at platforming, people can forgive a lot if it does other things right (see: SM Sunshine).
The platforming is quite good in sunshine. It is okay if you didn't like it.
My favorite part about the RTS genre is how anyone can bring out their notepad and start taking notes as to why Broodwar is so good, and make a 2d game that compares to it, but nobody ever bothers. And to make matters worse SC2 was a failure and we needed those boots filled. We should be up to SC3 by now, but nooooo....
It was never strategy, it's tactics. Strategy is above the battlefield level, it has to take into account things like supply lines, the general economy of the nations involved, political support of the war effort, etc.
>Strategy is just a way of thinking
That line of thought is how every country in a war that was good at winning battles lost the war anyway because they didn't know how to translate those tactical wings into long-term strategic goals.
So macro? Normalgays hate macroing, it's funny how half of all modern RTS try to automate it in some way.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
no that sucks and the buildings aren't pretty. it's more about the RP than muh autistic tower defense
Then when are you even playing a fricking RTS and not a fricking city builder or something? When spend all your time RPing to make a pretty little town when the guy playing on the other screen is determined to burn your pretty town to the ground because he's playing to win?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>That line of thought is how every country in a war that was good at winning battles lost the war anyway because they didn't know how to translate those tactical wings into long-term strategic goals.
this just reads like gibberish
you can apply strategy to any situation, it's just in RTS games the strategy is shallow as frick
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Then when are you even playing a fricking RTS and not a fricking city builder or something? When spend all your time RPing to make a pretty little town when the guy playing on the other screen is determined to burn your pretty town to the ground because he's playing to win?
I don't like city builders. Also I don't pvp. I do co-op sometimes.
7 months ago
Anonymous
So you're a casual
7 months ago
Anonymous
>So you're a casual
yes
>I don't like city builders
yes you do, because that's exactly what you're describing
no I fricking don't, none of them appeal to me. I like RTS like aoe2 and 3
7 months ago
Anonymous
You literally enjoy the city building part, not the RTS part
7 months ago
Anonymous
do you have autism too? if I enjoyed city builders I'd fricking play them. none of them have units I can use to patrol, or armies I can build up and prepare for example.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Black and White 2
7 months ago
Anonymous
You're playing an RTS game as a city builder
You'd be happier if you came out of the closet and just played a real city builder
7 months ago
Anonymous
no I wouldn't, and no I'm not, because city builders don't have units and enemies and shit.
Black and White 2
not my cup of pee
7 months ago
Anonymous
>city builders don't have units and enemies and shit. >Pharaoh/Caesar >Stronghold >The Settlers >Anno
7 months ago
Anonymous
Settlers 6 is literally the game for you, you make pretty cities that need production chains, you even need to collect taxes and make festivals so the men can find woman to marry, then you wall in your city and produce swords/bows to raise armies.
there are only 3 units for the combat which makes everything really simple.
random video so you can see what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWZf4c_ZlE4
7 months ago
Anonymous
Stronghold
7 months ago
Anonymous
Since no one has said it, Stellaris is literally that
7 months ago
Anonymous
Most people are, this is why RTS died, poopsockers can dump so hard on casuals, there is no reason to play just to be fodder for some gigasperg
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't like city builders
yes you do, because that's exactly what you're describing
7 months ago
Anonymous
>guy playing on the other screen is playing to win
That sounds like his problem not mine
No they aren't, strategy and tactics mean two distinct things
7 months ago
Anonymous
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy >the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactics >the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat >Synonyms: strategy
Stop trying to sound smart on Ganker by forcing a dichotomy that doesn't exist between two terms you don't understand.
And you'll get no more replies if all you do is b***h and moan that the dictionary says you're wrong.
i would say >making workers, telling them to do stuff >making supply depots/whatever to not be supply blocked >making units, upgrading them, teching up
is "macro"
also the bot difficulty is always fricking garbage. they either send a tiny trail of weak units or never stops producing units like you're fighting the machines from The Matrix
Dunno, I enjoyed the hell out of Starcraft Brood War, Warcraft, and C&C Red Alert 1, 2, and Generals. The death of LAN gaming might have something to do with it since all my best memories were my friends all lugging our PCs to one location, I never cared to play against randoms online. In terms of new RTSs, I have hopes for Stormgate to be decent since it's headed by the guys who worked on some of the classics.
I believe people just don't want to learn how to play rts game because it ask too much time when you could simply put hundred of hours in a game easy to learn with a fastest dopamine reward adjacent to it.
Also do the devs nowaday the capacity to make one without plaguing with a e-sport mindset.
Same.
I left off on Horns of Hattin.
I can't beat it. I made Jerusalem resign but I can't deal with the English while they constantly send Scorpions to my wall and I've got the Hospitallers sending an endless stream of crossbow men and knights up my ass.
Frick.
Devs never put in work for the team modes but it's the only chance they're ever going to have of capturing a casual audience. People want the mental load of the entire map lightened a bit and to be able to call in for help if they're getting fricked.
Those games are literally an RTS if you only controlled 1 unit instead of 200. The entire MOBA genre exists purely because people who were too stupid to play Warcraft 3 properly made an easy-for-morons custom version of it. You are a moron.
you are the moron one getting pissy over nothing. I was just refuting the point.
Truth is that RTS is quite boring for some extent, this is why I have been playing a lot more coh than AoE, in coh you get into the action way faster than any other game out there, even faster than dota. But in AoE or SC the begginning is pretty much always the same, make worker, gather resource, expand base etc. It takes at least 3-5 minutes before you attack, it feels like a waste of time.
did I mention anything about micro? I said the game is more complicated and require way more knowledge, you can learn how to play AoE2 in like 2 hours, to play dota you need to learn about the 200 items and 100 heroes which each have 4 skills that do completely different stuff, it is a frick ton of information you need.
>tried playing AoE2 online after years of just playing against the computer >opponent kicks my ass in like 5 minutes >check map afterwards >opponent has made hundreds of buildings and units by the time I get to the third age
tryhard, it's tryhard that killed the genre
No one said you actually have to be a beginner to play on those servers, you just don't have many ranked wins under your belt. For all you know that guy was a complete scrub and you lost to him anyway.
Avoid those servers, those are usually highly skilled players hosting them looking to troll or just wreck low skilled players, although it might seem scarier you are better off playing ranked or there are some discord servers for low elo players too to find people.
>play online against other player >WOW HE BEAT ME FUKCING TRYHARD >RTS ARE DEEEEEEAAAAAD
this is why RTS are dead
Seriously tho, if you played ranked the first 10 or so matches are for ajusting your elo, you will get trashed a bit but eventualy you will start against people of your skill level.
this, most people nowadays are feminised pussies, if they get their ass kicked once they get butthurt for eternity and RTS is a genre where you really is responsible for your actions and b***hes hate that.
RTS is one of THE edgelord tryhard genres of games, its arguably the sweatiest and most taxing genre of games to play. Brood War was one of the OG esports for a reason
the genre has really suffered from the modern gaming environment where every game has a massive internet footprint of minmaxxers and hyper competitive optimization scenes, it has led to an absolutely insane skill floor to climb up to just to get into the games and be mediocre at them
No one around the starting elo is tryharding, I'm around the starting elo because I'm a noob but if you are trailing behind them that hard you are likely struggling with the very basics. Some simple tips I can give that can drastically improve your gameplay are to learn a basic dark age build order. Get the lumbercamp upgrades as fast as you can, never stop producing villagers having a hotkey to select all town centers and produce vills makes this a lot easier. Don't forget about blacksmith upgrades and try making multiple tc's in castle age. Also once you lose enough matches on ranked, you will get put in an elo with a 50/50 win rate eventually. I don't blame you about being scared of playing ranked but once you get over the starting hurdle things will be much better.
This. Odds are there's something you're just plain doing wrong that massively holds you back and it isn't even tryharding, it's the basics. I was struggling a lot in SC2 until I figured out the build order.
This. Odds are there's something you're just plain doing wrong that massively holds you back and it isn't even tryharding, it's the basics. I was struggling a lot in SC2 until I figured out the build order.
>Build order
lmao soulless.
That's why this genre is dead.
This is how I know you don't play online, because you would be constantly frustrated by the fact that the people who do bother to do the research are beating you ever time.
Devs are scared of making quality single player RTS because everything had to be about sweatlord PvP e sports bullshit for a decade now.
Everyone always says this like it's something recent but even in the SC1 days people went full sweatlord tryhard on bnet. Were you there? Because I fricking was and once people figured out a strategy it became a dominant meta.
This is nothing new, everyone is b***hing about this like it only started with LoL but in reality this is something that has existed in the genre since C&C1. You just never realized it because you never interacted with the community at all, or in the case of WC3, you probably only just played custom games.
No that's your moronic casual mindset because it has nothing to do with how to actually play the game, it's about how to play the game better against other people that play in metas the game never originally counted on existing. You can beat the AI playing normally because the AI won't take advantage of you being stupid enough to build an artosis pylon. A player won't, they'll stomp your shit in for doing something that dumb
It doesn't. The current version of AoE2 has plenty of tutorials to teach you the basics.
You are just mad because you're shit at video games.
Build house and lure boar spam villagers
75% on berries chop wood for lumber camp
get to 19 villagers and fast feudal then fast castle then spam knights
99.9% of games
fricking boring
don't do crossbows/knights with specific build orders? lmao lose.
Warcraft 3 is better.
That's just low skill ranked games where it works because it's pretty easy to learn and players are too bad at the game to defend against it.
Just play custom games, especially on maps where that strategy doesn't work, or either lose a few games in ranked to be matched against players who aren't tryhards, or actually get good, beat all the spreadsheet scrubs and get matched against good players who play more varied and interesting strategies.
With literally any other game you’d just accept that you don’t know how to play and either move on or get better. I have no idea why RTS games are held to this impossible standard that no other game has to meet.
Other games allow players to cope by blaming luck or teammates or some other external factor.
In RTS players can cope by blaming balance, but then in a mirror they have to face the fact that they are just bad at the game.
ASShomosexualS distilled the high APM twitch gameplay in a competitive environment elements from your more autistic RTS games and city builders/4x capture most of the chill economy managing and construction aspects for a more laid back casual experience. RTS games were also more difficult to monetize back when lootboxes were in the main industry method for israeliteing morons and children
Asshomosexuals took all the casual RTS players. With how much games cost to make nowadays there aren't enough turbo autist RTS players to get devs to make more games.
>APM's killed the genre.
Everyone says this but SC2 is still by far the most popular RTS out there in terms of the number of people playing at any one time and despite how much b***hing people do about APM, you can reach Master rank in that game by literally only doing 4 gate chargelot + stalker timing attacks.
There's literally nothing wrong with APM. The better you get at the game the faster you can think, which results in quicker actions. APM is something that comes naturally with experience
I like them, but I like to turtle and build nice bases and overwhelming forces, so I just play online. I've tried to play online a few times, and those guys beat my ass like it's nothing.
Because they made the best ones ever 20+ years ago and there's nowhere to go. It's like asking where is Chess II. People will play Starcraft and AoEII for literally the next 500 years.
because they dont give us what we want i.e. base building and since 2008 all devs have fricked up in that department. they always try to experiment when they cant even get the basic things right. we have mastered the FPS genre there's room for experimentation but the same cant be said for RTS. i unironically believe the whole genre evolved into MOBAs
>because they dont give us what we want i.e. base building
Frick off and play a city builder, you don't want an RTS, you want to build a town that's never truly in danger.
Nah, aoe2 still has plenty of people playing. But if you wanted to revive the genre, id say making a high budget more simplified rts game would probably bring back the genre, the bar for entry is too high and it takes a hundred hours or so to be able to beat anyone online.
because the devs did to RTS what FPS devs did to their genre. Making them all about multiplayer at the expense of the singleplayer experience. The problem with this is a lot of players dont want to grind multiplayer and instead want fun and varied rts campaigns.
Pic related is some of the most fun Ive had with an rts in years because its singleplayer experience is great
>Lets give supcom a spin haven't played it in years >Gap >Gap >Gap >Seton >Craters >Dual gap
Just play tower defense if you're going to do this holy shit
is aoe2 fun if I only want to play one civ and like 2-3 build orders for it? I watched part of a tournament and the players were different civs in every game.
>is aoe2 fun if I only want to play one civ and like 2-3 build orders for it?
You'll easily push into 1k elo if you just pick a civ and play into its strengths. Just picking a unit type and getting all the upgrades for it will get you there.
Get it, there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later. Because it's fricking fun. You can choose to make the AI's either super hard or relatively normal so you aren't instantly getting ass fricking right out of the gate.
I want to start playing because I remember having fun with the original game like 20 years ago, but I actually bought it once already and had to refund it because it wouldn't run on wangblows 7. I am hopefully going to build a new pc though before the end of the year when valve steals all my other games so I will get it then as long as it runs on loonix.
>isn't 1k what you start at?
Maybe 4 years ago but 1k elo is pretty competitive these days. At that elo you have to have a grasp of your build orders or you'll just get stomped.
Also it takes about 20 games to find your elo so don't be discouraged.
>isn't 1k what you start at?
You start at 1200, that guy is a shitter.
Get it, there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later. Because it's fricking fun. You can choose to make the AI's either super hard or relatively normal so you aren't instantly getting ass fricking right out of the gate.
>Ganker: vocally hates casuals >also Ganker: will take the most pro-casual stances possible the second a videogame is actually competitive in nature and isn't built around cheesing
It's the one thing that unites discussion of both RTS and fighting games here, an absolute refusal to try and improve their own personal skill
Because they completely frick up the singleplayer/coop experience and don't have enough modding support. Custom maps is what keeps Warcraft 3 alive. Brood war is running on esports and nostalgia. Starcraft 2 has a good esport scene and decent custom maps.
Nobody rushes at an actually competitive level because everyone knows how to counter it. Rushes only work on scrubs because if your rush fails, you're fricked.
Blizz themselves once said that thanks to the being always online thing, they've tracked player data and 50% of the 6 million people that played Wings of Liberty played the campaign once and never touched the game again. That's not a community, that's just customers. You're not part of an community if you never once leave the campaign menu.
Ultimately, because of esports and competitive matchmaking. Tryharding in an RTS is too stressful for most people. But once the game is all about sweaty competition it's hard to go back to playing naively.
>Why is the RTS genre dead?
Partly because devs don't want to make an RTS game. There's a lot of interest for RTS, just see all the SC2 tournaments going on. >Why is RTS stagnating.
Just a lack of creativity and risk. The last best RTS I played was Supreme Commander and that came out 10 years ago. Hasn't been topped.
Too many devs are too stuck on games that came before them. You keep seeing the same mistake over and over again with the Xth iteration of the Same Old Shit TM being released.
Why the frick isn't there an RTS with scope automation? Early game micromanagement that gets handled by AI once you reach a certain stage. Distant Worlds did this really well where once you get tired of managing some aspect of your empire the AI takes over and does it. Why the frick hasn't any dev taken the hint and done the same for RTS? Why are battles so formulaic? Every one of these games is based on land with the occasional sky unit. Why not sea? Where is that chaotic rock paper scissors? Why the frick can't devs pull their heads out of their asses and include RPG elements into their RTS like Warcraft 3 did 20 fricking years ago?
The more you question this shit the more you realize there isn't much passion and creativity going on in game development anymore. You used to get AAA games that were hand crafted with love and full of novel features. Warcraft 3's custom map design spawned literally dozens of novel game designs. Fricking dozens, just from people messing around and having a good time. Now all you get are half finished buggy DOA releases and abandonware that requires entire marketing teams and HR departments to successfully release. It really makes you realize how downhill things have come in gaming.
>Distant Worlds did this really well
No it didn't, in fact distant worlds did it in the worst way possible. It just gives you an option to turn off entire portions of gameplay instead of just decreasing the amount of actions you need to take to carry out your strategy. Literally just letting the game play for you.
if you listen to Ganker, then it's because people who don't play against other people can't tolerate that other people do, and people that do can't tolerate that other people play to win
It split into more specialized genres. Almost nobody played RTS just to play RTS, most people only liked 1 specific part like base building, combat, or whatever.
>shame that alternative "RTS" never caught up like Dungeon Keeper.
Dungeons 3 is actually good. Besides that a lot of yuro devs still make real-time tactics games
Developing a good one requires actually playing the game and understanding the mechanics. Moderns devs, who'd prefer to just shit out derivative trash to collect a paycheck, are not interested in doing that.
Don't know why, but it's dead. So dead that only people who like RTS games play them. It's a shame that RTS games will never break mainstream and gain the relevance and transformative power of mass market adoption that comes with an influx of millions of new players into the genre and lots of genuine video game journalist attention. I'd love to watch RTS games become what the FPS and RPG (especially CRPG) genres have become, but unfortunately, the RTS genre is not only dead, but ought to be left alone. Let the basement dwellers who play RTSs alone to their dead genre. Trust me when I say this: you don't want to get into RTS games anyway.
>So dead that only people who like RTS games play them
what's wrong with this >RTS games will never break mainstream
good >gain the relevance and transformative power of mass market adoption that comes with an influx of millions of new players into the genre and lots of genuine video game journalist attention.
homosexual
[spoilers]I may need to work on my sarcasm. The point was that I'm glad RTS games are "dead" and would rather they just stay "dead" than get infiltrated.[/spoiler]
Pale imitation of AoE2. The tech tree is less varied, beyond the introduction of many unique techs and overtuned bonuses meant to make each faction feel totally different, without realizing part of AoE2's appeal is the fact that each faction lightly influences a skeletal tech tree and unit roster, letting the consistent setpieces shine.
Wish they'd put in more effort for map and game variety. AoE2 was pretty limited by what its engine could do, but they had an opportunity to do more with AoE4. Stuff like stealth / ambushes, garrisoning soldiers on walls, infantry building siege weapons, that's the kind of innovation I like about it, but in too many other ways it's stripped down and bare bones. It doesn't help that it released in a barely finished or even unfinished state, with barely any maps and no ranked queue.
I don't mind the unique factions either. I just feel like a lot of the game is tacked on. Like, for example, the upgrades for economy and military, they feel like they're only there because that's what AoE2 did. If you're going to innovate, start with rethinking basic systems like those. You don't have to mindlessly imitate AoE2. In fact that kind of imitation is bad for the game because the closer you ape AoE2 the more people will go "but I already have AoE2 so why play this?"
Too much change is part of why AoE3 got so much backlash. Well, that and the absurd grind they built into the game that was just patently unfun. Clunky unit controls also. I loved the overhauls to economy in AoE3 but FRICK grinding dozens of home city levels to unlock my faction's best features and then having to do that with EVERY civ. What were they thinking? That more than anything killed my interest in ever playing the game seriously.
People who hate change are just going to play AoE2 forever, and that's fine. Not everybody needs to move to AoE4. I'd just like it if AoE4 tried harder to have its own identity.
I really liked aoe3 when it came out and played it a lot online. having to grind to unlock the 200 wood age up guy sucked ass, but like 90% of the criticism directed towards the game at the time was that the setting wasn't medieval again and people crying that they couldn't turtle because of fast fortress falconet pushes. it's a shame that the expansions and de completely shit on the original.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>having to grind to unlock the 200 wood age up guy sucked ass
Yeah they removed the home city grinding with DE iirc since it's well, moronic
7 months ago
Anonymous
The things I noticed the DE of AOE3 doing wrong was being overly PC with the removal of "colonial age" and making native civs more bland so they wouldn't offend anyone, although it was released when this bullshit was at its height. Also the African civilisations just being brokenly good.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I'll cut them slack with removing Crazy Horse because they really didn't have a choice there. His family is actually super litigious and sue the frick out of anyone using him in fictional works without their permission.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I’m baffled by that. How can they litigate over a man who has been dead for 150 years. A public figure no less.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Also the African civilisations just being brokenly good.
Are they actually? Or is this another America/Mexico where they come across as broken but it's mainly that they have a lot of shiny new toys that we hadn't figured out how to counter yet? I haven't bought anything for 3DE since America so I haven't tested them.
I really liked aoe3 when it came out and played it a lot online. having to grind to unlock the 200 wood age up guy sucked ass, but like 90% of the criticism directed towards the game at the time was that the setting wasn't medieval again and people crying that they couldn't turtle because of fast fortress falconet pushes. it's a shame that the expansions and de completely shit on the original.
>it's a shame that the expansions and de completely shit on the original.
What? Asian expansion is the only thing in 3 that has a decent campaign, and the Japanese are actually fun to play
7 months ago
Anonymous
"On-release DLC" kind of broken.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I really liked the new world colonialism theme of the game. adding a bunch of civs that never had colonies was just diluting the theme and wanting to be more like age of empires 2. yeah I know the turks were in the base game but they were a major faction in the time period at least.
7 months ago
Anonymous
tbf if it's like the Congo, that's a legit faction to add as they were considered one of the most pretigious empires in the world at the time and their diplomats still have paintings of themselves in many european palaces. All because they were Europe's supplier of slaves through their war bands and got insanely rich off of it.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>as they were considered one of the most pretigious empires in the world >Kingdom of Kongo
What Eurocentrism does to a mf.
They were a regional power, somewhat like Thailand or Sweden.
It's the opposite.
Many of us only bought it because we thought it'd be an updated AoE2. It only pretended to be. In actuality, it was AoE4, using AoE2 techs and visual shorthand as a prop. And yes, many things were done just to be "like aoe2". They didn't know what to do, so they just did whatever they saw.
>I was making fun of the game for having really poor eco mechanics.
You are an actual brainlet.
Being unfamiliar with SupCom and its predecessors by calling it starcraft-like is casual shittery, homosexual.
I'd have more success teaching a fish to climb a tree than explain anything to your brainlet self.
kys
I'd have more success teaching a fish to climb a tree than explain anything to your brainlet self.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Okay, good talk.
>Many of us only bought it because we thought it'd be an updated AoE2.
That's what AoE2 DE is. I wanted AoE4 to do something different from AoE2. I've been playing AoE2 for 20 years, and for me DE is enough of a radical change from the game I played as a kid, and the latest factions they have released for it, along with reworks to older factions, is making me wonder if it'll even be recognizable to me in a few years. Heaven help me if they rework Celts.
Fwiw, I don't think they'll rework Celts. Celtgays have their cookie, and they love it.
>Many of us only bought it because we thought it'd be an updated AoE2.
That's what AoE2 DE is. I wanted AoE4 to do something different from AoE2. I've been playing AoE2 for 20 years, and for me DE is enough of a radical change from the game I played as a kid, and the latest factions they have released for it, along with reworks to older factions, is making me wonder if it'll even be recognizable to me in a few years. Heaven help me if they rework Celts.
I don't understand why AoE4 is set in the medieval period again when it should basically be WWI/WWII/Cold War tech. Now that I think about it, I can't really think of a whole lot of RTS games made set in the modern era. Does C&C Zero Hour count?
It’s actually a great game with lots of unique civs and interesting ideas. RTSgays despise anything new though. Most autistic fan base of any genre and it’s not even close
If you make a game called AoE4 set in the same time period as AoE2 then what do you expect? What happened is exactly what many people predicted would happen. You can't have it both ways, if your game is designed to appeal to an existing fanbase you're going into direct competition with the game those people have been playing for 20+ years.
the real answer is that starcraft exists. Most RTS players are all playing RTS games that came out like 20 years ago. If its not starcraft BW its age of empires.
You have plenty of good RTS games that come out but hardly anyone plays them, all the fanatics stick to their 20 year old game they played when they were kids or play the flovaor of the month starcraft clone that is just like starcraft, only shittier, whenever their favorite streamer is paid to play the game. All the big popular RTS coming out are basically starcraft 2 clones. Things like Zero-k get a very small following and die out in a few months because they arent starcraft enough
So now that the casuals have been filtered out of the thread what do we think about the new RTS' coming up?
Personally I'm looking forward to Sanctuary, though I doubt it'll be as advanced as Supreme Commander, I do expect it to have much of the same QoL features, which is already a huge step up.
Looked it up. apparently, it is. It's also ugly in the same way Sanctuary is, so there's clearly some demand.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>yer game is le ugly >:(
And yet it mogs every RTS ever made in features like something as (on the surface) simple as changing queued commands on the fly.
Like I said. Casuals like you need to leave.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>And yet it mogs every RTS ever made in features like something as (on the surface) simple as changing queued commands on the fly.
"1 -> Click, shift+clickclick"
Done. Now tell me all about how great SupCom's economy is. >Like I said. Casuals like you need to leave.
Disliking your robot wars game doesn't make someone a casual.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Being unfamiliar with SupCom and its predecessors by calling it starcraft-like is casual shittery, homosexual.
I'd have more success teaching a fish to climb a tree than explain anything to your brainlet self.
kys
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Being unfamiliar with SupCom and its predecessors by calling it starcraft-like is casual shittery, homosexual.
No, it's called ignoring things you don't like. I don't like Starcraft, I don't like SupCom, and they both draw from the same pool of ugly for their visuals, so it should be easy to understand the mistake.
7 months ago
Anonymous
there's plenty of medieval RTS thanks to Total War and AoE you uneducated homosexual
7 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, and SupCom isn't one of them.
Also, Total War is shit.
7 months ago
Anonymous
then you are clearly in the wrong genre if you are going to hate every RTS
7 months ago
Anonymous
I don't. I love AoE2/3. Favorite games of all, though 2 is the best in the genre.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Then play AoE4 aka AoE2 re-re-released
7 months ago
Anonymous
AoE4 is terrible. They collected awful ideas from every corner of the internet and threw them back together as a game. Waiting on 5.
the genre never evolved. It stayed it's own sort of niche thing where some games had different gimmicks about them and that was it. there's infinite potential for rts, just not the usual top down perspective only fanfare
Learn from AoE2. You'll want factions that are similar, using many of the same abstractions to form the game around, but differing in their end kits and feel. You want them close, using every side of the system creatively for their options.
The better you understand AoE2, the better you'll understand RTS.
>You'll want factions that are similar, using many of the same abstractions to form the game around, but differing in their end kits and feel. You want them close, using every side of the system creatively for their options.
sounds lazy as frick
Sounds the same, but isn't. It's "nearly" the same.
Like how you can customize motorcycles, but many are going to be closely related. Same chassis, same principle, but they still feel very different to ride.
>Lords in Jan 2021 >Dukes in Aug 2021 >Triple Pajeets in April 2022 >Romans in May 2023 (which was mostly about a AoE I up-port anyway) >Royals in Oct 2023
>but it's also really fricking hard to design multiple factions that play radically differently like SC/WC3 did.
There's a couple of design concepts that still haven't been reimplemented yet that they could try to figure out adding in. Namely, nomadic civs having mobile buildings now that the new civs in the most recent DLC having a mobile lumber camp/mine. Wouldn't surprise me if they try making a civ in the future that predominantly only has mobile buildings but they're all exceptionally weaker than static buildings. Armenians are fun to frick around with, considering their composite bowmen are basically anti-anti anti archers who can out-range TCs and towers. Shit's funny.
It is. AOE2 is just a copy/paste game and NPC’s still spend like 10$ for a “new civ” which is like one unique unit and that’s it. It baffles me that people just won’t fricking move on from it.
>make factions and units that you think would be cool and build from that >invest in making good music and sound design as if it were important as the gameplay
there, you can't go wrong with this
Genre's still alive though? Still popular all over the world, still having tournaments with pretty respectable prize pools, and the most popular games in it still get updates and expansions.
RTS didn't die off, it just became a smaller part of the gaming industry. Back in the 1990s there were a lot fewer people playing and buying video games overall, so an RTS game selling 100,000 units made it a best seller, a true heavyweight. Gaming got more popular in the 00s, and it was largely driven by genres like FPS, RPG, action/adventure, sports, etc. These games started pulling in sales in the millions, which made the big publishers look at RTS numbers, which were still roughly what they were in the 1990s, and decide to chase the bigger pile of money.
But those popular RTS games never went away. They are, in fact, more popular than they ever were in the 1990s, in terms of the total number of people playing RTS. It's just that gaming has gotten so much bigger.
SC and AoE are still alive and well, and they were always the real giants of the scene. The death of WC2 and WC3 is a tragedy though. I always felt C&C is overhyped, and that's probably going to get me flamed.
>They are, in fact, more popular than they ever were in the 1990s
If that were the case then they could support large studios making RTS games but that's not happening
I actually explained why that's not the case in my post if you bothered to read it. I'll summarize for you: basically, gaming exploded in popularity in the 2000s. So even though RTS games didn't lose any players, many other genres gained tons of players, making them more attractive to major studios chasing big sales. RTS sales didn't crash, they just didn't explode with FPS, RPG, sports, etc. If you weren't alive in the 1990s you just have no idea how massive the expansion of the industry was in the 2000s.It went from 100k sales being a massive hit to being not even worth it for the major studios, because of how many more people suddenly started buying games.
No, it's you that doesn't seem to get what I'm talking about. RTS game sales never crashed, they just didn't grow. Maybe you need a visual aid to understand? Note the blue line, there's no big dip here. No "crash" of sales. It just never exploded in popularity like other genres did, thus there was no incentive for big studios to stay with it.
It sounds like you weren't alive in the 1990s, or don't remember them well in any case, so you don't really get how much the industry changed going into the 00s. It's completely different, a lot bigger, more corporate, dominated by mainstream tastes. Back in the 1990s RTS was a much bigger part of the overall gaming pie, now it's a thinner slice, despite not actually losing players.
When RTS games were peaking, companies like Blizzard and Westwood had over 200 employees making top of the line RTS games
Are there companies this size making RTS games today? No, Petroglyph games (former Westwood) is now down to about 30 employees. If RTS games were selling the same, they could afford to have the same amount of people working on them. But all RTS efforts are basically indie these days
7 months ago
Anonymous
Again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. RTS games ARE selling the same as they were in the 1990s, it's just that 1990s standards are way lower than modern standards for what constitutes a hit game or worth a major studio's time. Back then 100k sales was enough to put AoE2 at the top of the best seller list. Now 100k sales won't make headlines anywhere, if you can't move a couple million at a minimum, a major studio considers you a flop.
You seem to fundamentally not understand how much the industry grew from 1999 to 2009. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars difference in profits.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>RTS games ARE selling the same as they were in the 1990s,
If that were the case then there would be the same amount of people working on them. There isn't, RTS efforts have downscaled. 200 employees isn't a big studio anymore, that's a mid studio, that's like Firaxis making Civilization. If RTS games were still selling the same, we'd have mid-tier companies making them. But for the most part we don't. There was really only Relic left, and they just fired a third of their staff
7 months ago
Anonymous
Total War franchise is RTS, if you haven't noticed.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>we'd have mid-tier companies making them
Microsoft and Blizzard are mid-tier?
7 months ago
Anonymous
Relic is currently the only mid-tier company making RTS games, and they just laid off 100 employees
Blizzard quit making RTS games
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Blizzard quit making RTS games
Reforged happened 3 years ago. >Microsoft is a mid-tier company
delusional moron
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Reforged
and look at what happened to reforged
7 months ago
Anonymous
Reforged was an internal frick up at Blizzard, everyone working on that was straight up fired which is why it hasn’t since been fixed
7 months ago
Anonymous
Reforged was outsourced to an SEA company. They quit developing RTS games after SC2 didn't do as well as they wanted to
Microsoft owns Relic, who made AoE4. Relic is a mid-tier company owned by Microsoft
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Microsoft owns Relic
Sega owns Relic you omega moron.
7 months ago
Anonymous
what RTS games are Microsoft making then?
7 months ago
Anonymous
How can someone be this moronic over a niche genre
7 months ago
Anonymous
can you answer the question? I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
7 months ago
Anonymous
It must suck being a zoomer.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I asked you what RTS games Microsoft was developing
That's Relic, who we were already talking about, not a big company
7 months ago
Anonymous
Microsoft makes Age of Empires.
If you think Relic has always made Age of Empires then you need to look up your RTS history, zoomie.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>If you think Relic has always made Age of Empires
I didn't say that
Relic made AoE4 for Microsoft, I mistakenly assumed Microsoft owned them but that's not the case
It sounds like you're just trying to one up me and you don't actually have anything insightful to say
Microsoft isn't making RTS games, they just hired Relic to make one
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Microsoft isn't making RTS games
7 months ago
Anonymous
Developed by World's Edge, a small company of 40 people
7 months ago
Anonymous
World's Edge is an actual in-house Microsoft studio.
7 months ago
Anonymous
yes, a small one
which is my original point, there are not 200+ sized companies making RTS games anymore outside of Relic
This reflects the lower demand
7 months ago
Anonymous
You thought Relic was owned by Microsoft. You thought Relic made the Age of Empires franchise. You are a moron with no point.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>You thought Relic was owned by Microsoft
It's an easy mistake to make given they made AoE4 > You thought Relic made the Age of Empires franchise.
No I didn't, you made this up
My point is clear, you're a monkey seething about god knows what
7 months ago
Anonymous
>No I didn't, you made this up
can you answer the question? I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
>I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
have a nice day
7 months ago
Anonymous
I meant in development right now
Do you really have nothing better to do than try to win a trivial argument about nothing and scream insults over a video game
7 months ago
Anonymous
You believed you knew how gamedev studios operate and didn't even know the bare basics and got factual information wrong. You are a moron.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I do know how they operate, mistakenly assuming Microsoft owns Relic has nothing to do with that
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I do know how they operate >mistakenly assuming Microsoft owns Relic
again >didn't even know the bare basics and got factual information wrong. You are a moron.
Pack-up and go home, zoomie.
7 months ago
Anonymous
That's like saying because I didn't know who painted a particular painting I can't draw
Are you moronic
7 months ago
Anonymous
>I didn't know who painted a particular painting I can't draw
Are you OK.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't use any big words, you should be able to understand that analogy
7 months ago
Anonymous
Sorry, I don't speak ESL.
7 months ago
Anonymous
If you can't understand that sentence you definitely have some English difficulties
7 months ago
Anonymous
That is a nonsensical run-on sentence, anon. >I look at painting and cant draw
ungabunga rockstop
7 months ago
Anonymous
Keep practicing your English, you'll get better some day
7 months ago
Anonymous
No wonder you believed Relic made Age of Empires if you are this stunted.
7 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't, you just didn't comprehend what I was saying
I'm noticing a pattern here
7 months ago
Anonymous
here
>No I didn't, you made this up
[...] >I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
have a nice day
7 months ago
Anonymous
Wait relic isnt even working on homeworld 3
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1840080/Homeworld_3/
The last attempt to save the genre
Wonder if they will ignore the fan favorites again
What RTS games are they making???
7 months ago
Anonymous
They made AoE4 and now they're working on CoH3
7 months ago
Anonymous
>they could afford to have the same amount of people working on them
They could, and they can, and they obviously won't because why would they try to chase a niche genre instead of making more money doing something else?
7 months ago
Anonymous
>instead of making more money doing something else?
Like what? If there's demand there's going to be people who want to develop it. RTS games were lucrative back in the day, and if demand hasn't changed like you say, then we would still have similar teams doing the same thing. Devs like RTS games, if there was appropriate demand there would be companies making them. But all the companies making RTS games are tiny indie outfits
If you seriously think that the RTS market and playerbase has been expanding for the past decade, I want some of what you're smoking.
The three expansions of SC2 had decreasing sales from 2010 to 2015, and nothing in the RTS sphere has even come remotely close to Wings of Liberty in terms of sales or playerbase.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Evidently you're wrong, because Microsoft keeps dumping money into AoE2.
7 months ago
Anonymous
Not even close to the amounts of money Blizzard dumped into SC2 back in the day.
There isn't any metric by which AoE2 matches up to WoL. In playerbase, sales, tournament viewers, tournament funding, WoL absolutely dwarfs AoE2. AoE2 barely even measures up to the current state of SC2.
>Supcom / TA don't have gatherers (although you do use builders / Com to gather early resources or reclaim downed units to boost), rather it relies on structures to gather / produce (or RA sub coms late game for mobility) and unit building / expenditure is done over time based on build strength / rate. ie you can start a unit / building at any point it just takes forever to finish and you might energy stall (thus hurting your metal production as it requires energy and also blipping your shields)
I wasn't actually asking how it works. I was making fun of the game for having really poor eco mechanics.
everyone keeps saying this but there's no actual proofs. the only games I know of that tried to be esports were starcraft 2 which was expected to be that way and dawn of war 3 that tried to be a moba. all of the total annihilation-likes were always anti-esports and age of empires kept doing its own thing without changing.
>Casually ignoring the forbidden RTS, Command and Conquer 4
Then you have other games like Crossfire: Legion and other now-abandonware trying to start their own esport franchise
>Koreans
Korean game community are masochists that hate everything unless the form of 'entertainment' gives them pain in return. There's horror stories of koreans starving to death because they needed to spend more time grinding in MMOs than look out for their own or other's well-being. I can't imagine how grotesque their gacha spending habits are compared to the rest of the world.
One of the biggest problems in multiplayer video games is that winning is fun, but losing isn't. No one likes being struck in a game they have no chance of winning. This is why battle royale games became so popular, because when you die you start a new game immediately. And RTS games are the worst when it comes to forcing you to be struck in an unwinnable state.
>because when you die you start a new game immediately. >RTS games are the worst when it comes to forcing you to be struck in an unwinnable state.
If you think you have lost then you just leave and start a new game.
I have both versions of AoE2 on steam, which should I play? I'm not an original purist, I just genuinely want to know which is overall the better experience.
DE is strictly better. Has every single expansion for the HD version included in the base game + new campaigns and tutorials and balance patches. I'd say stick to HD if you're playing on a toaster, though, and maybe if you're nostalgic for older balance.
HD is a lot less demanding, spec-wise, so you can run it pretty much on any computer without issue. It got some patches and I believe a couple expansions as well. It still has a fairly dedicated playerbase, but it's not really growing anymore, cause most everybody serious about AoE2 has moved to DE.
Definitive Edition is where all the action is these days. It gets regular patches and occasional expansions / DLC. It's also got a lot of content just in the base game, every single expansion for AoE2 that came out prior to DE's release in 2019 is included with the base game, that means Age of Conquerors, Rise of the Rajas, African Kingdoms, and The Forgotten are all part of DE without any other purchase necessary.
Because we have more options nowadays and people moved to other genres or their preferred niches of strategy games.
Only people who enjoy the RTS for their mechanics are left, ie asiaticclickers.
>look up c&c generals vids on yt >find a channel of some guy doing 1 vs multiple hard ai >the videos have thousands to hundreds of thousands views
I'm not sure what to make of it, it's an old game but there's still a lot of interest in these games. It's not even high level PvP, just AI.
That's because most people didn't play these games online/competitively.
Most people fricked around with map editors, played through campaigns for story, played skirmish against or fricked around with friends in multiplayer. Building "proper" cities, having large armies clash instead of playing optimally and all that shit. Maybe custom maps in case of WC3.
Nowadays when you want a good story in a game you can play many other genres that fit your sensibilities better - there are more options that are more easily available. If you liked building cities you play city builders, if you wanted to see big armies clash you played Total War and all that shit.
The youtube viewers are there for that - to see big armies clash and maybe reminiscence about the "good old times".
Only the people who enjoyed RTS for what they are are left playing these games. If you want to go by views you have plenty of vids like "epic massive cinematic cool battle of spartans" usually in total war or some battle simulator - these have millions of views.
People just really don't care - newer audience picks something else, older audiences stay with their old shit and complain about anything new.
Same shit like with P&C adventures, arena shooters, pure stealth games etc.
I'm going to guess a part of it is people like seeing armies clash with one another but don't want to play RTS. The amount of people who watch and talk about given games down to their finer details but don't even play them is staggering.
Get it, there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later. Because it's fricking fun. You can choose to make the AI's either super hard or relatively normal so you aren't instantly getting ass fricking right out of the gate.
>there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later
A big part of it was letting a mod team a decade ago make stuff for HD, and now they've got former Ensemble devs helping with DE releases.
Now this is soul. You know the game is good if the ai cannot cheat with infinite resources
A shame blizzard is such a shitshow to the point nobody wants a warcraft 4
If I wanted to actually get into an RTS rather than just play a few bot rounds every so often what would be the game for this? AoE2 as it's the only one alive?
Starcraft 2 has a big scene as well, but it's a lot more demanding in terms of APM and build orders. You get absolutely demolished if you don't put in the work in that game. AoE2 does require practice and learning build orders to git gud, but you can also just mess around and have fun.
I will try out AoE2 and Starcraft 2 (Zerg) too see which I prefer. Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
>Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
no but it's still intensely active, the problem comes in how utterly primitive it is, arguably the single hardest RTS since you can die if you do as so much lose a single fight
If you start Brood War today, you’re 20yrs behind learning the game and are just going to get steamrolled repeatedly until you get good or quit out of frustration
>Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
Outside of Korea? Probably not.
There's also just a lot of little things BW did worse than 2 that aren't changed purely because the players don't want it changed, like how pathfinding in BW is godawful.
Starcraft 2 has a big scene as well, but it's a lot more demanding in terms of APM and build orders. You get absolutely demolished if you don't put in the work in that game. AoE2 does require practice and learning build orders to git gud, but you can also just mess around and have fun.
>Starcraft 2 has a big scene as well, but it's a lot more demanding in terms of APM and build orders.
Build orders yes, the high APM requirement is a meme, you can get to diamond rank with a shitty APM as long as you know how to play well.
Also, SC2 has something that goddamnit I wish some other RTS game had and it's the co-op mode. It's a fricking ingenious idea and no one since has tried it, it's what RA3's co-op SHOULD have been.
>AoE4 is literally the only time I've seen England represented with the St. George cross in a videogame.
It's not really relevant, I just find it odd how hard most games try to avoid using it. EU is set in exactly the time period the flag was most used, but insists on sticking with the three lions despite those being relegated to royal use.
>Why is the RTS genre dead?
Let's look at the Giants of RTS >C&C
Killed by EA's incompetence. >AoE
Peaked too hard with 2 and 3 was too experiemental, they didn't even try again after 3 >SC
In the grips of artificial esports hype
>TW is still kicking with lots of players
Not right now it isn't, what with CA being content to crash and burn the entire franchise along with all their good will.
Too slow for zoomzooms, you always can't get handheld,anti zoomer gameplay also needs dedication to learn mechanics and can drag on for long
Theres a reason why there isn't a single p2w RTS or gacha on the market
>gearbox >ESG marketing and plot
I don't care if it's the best RTS in the world, there's no excusing any of that.
Besides, they fricked the HW1 "remaster" so damn hard by porting it to 2's engine and never bothered to fix it.
because RTS "fans" are the biggest morons and don't know what they want. when you allow them to build a base simcity style and spam tanks to win they say it's too formulaic, but if there's anything remotely more interesting such as "hit the F key to make the units do a supershot," you're suddenly making it extremely difficult and micro-heavy, frick you for pandering to e-sports.
No but you generally learn some of the wrong lessons and pigeonhole yourself. SC2 Coop, despite being against AI, helps unlearn a lot of these lessons because of the many different objectives it makes you play around.
i wish i could play AOE online with people who were chill and not autistic minmaxing spergs who bumrush you as fast as possible
would be cool if there was actual diplomacy and stuff between players, that never seems to happen at all but i havent played much because i got my ass recked every time for not being as efficient as possible
>would be cool if there was actual diplomacy and stuff between players, that never seems to happen at all but i havent played much because i got my ass recked every time for not being as efficient as possible
I think for those kinds of games you'd need to play nomad or something, since not having a static start and accidentally starting really close to another player means you're forced to negotiate some sort of living arrangement or fight to the death really, really early.
It sure would be nice if there were some kind of system that evaluated your performance and automatically matches you with other players of similar performance.
AoE 2 is the only RTS you can actually play now a days if you don't have 5k hours invested. And even then SC 1 and 2 are basically dead.
With AoE 2 being the only real RTS to play you have no excuse to complain about tryhards, just go play some fricking black forest if you want to play online, but don't actually want to.
>dead
no, it just doesn't have mainstream normalgay appeal
do keep in mind that it's also almost if not impossible to make traditional RTSes on consoles and you give more incentive for most AAA companies to not bat an eye in this genre
>people complaining about tryhards in AoE2
Bro just play your matches and lose, your ELO will fix itself. Seriously google T90 low elo legends for relevant games. I swear 99% of the people in these games don't even have a pulse. Which is perfect for Ganker.
>Just lose for several hours bro until the ELO catches up
There’s way too many good games out now to bother with this. RTSgays sound like arena game players, wildly out of touch about why their genre is dying
I would rather go to the dentist for several hours than act as a punching bag for people with thousands of hours playing RTS, no mentally normal person enjoys this
7 months ago
Anonymous
When's the last time you played an online RTS anon?
7 months ago
Anonymous
StarCraft 2 laddering in 2010-12, I can’t say it was particularly fun, my friends were all doing it though and SC2 esports was at its peak hype. It was the time I learnt about games that are fun to watch but not to play
>Seriously google T90 low elo legends for relevant games.
I've been watching this videos for years, they are like crack. I seriously don't understand how some of these people can have hundreds or thousands of games played. And still have no idea how to play the game. I'm not talking like a build order, or unit micro, or game sense. I swear these people don't even know how to use a computer after thousands of hours of playtime.
Everyone is gonna spam about how they’d play if it didn’t cater to competitive players but that’s fricking bullshit. You’d maybe play the campaign once and then drop it. There’s a reason these companies don’t cater to you they aren’t moronic.
Losing in RTS games just feels extremely bad, without the hype of an esports scene, nobody is going to put up with it. They’re also the closest thing to a job that gaming ha ever produced other than MMOs
Casuals sell games, not compgays
What do the most played RTS games have in common? Enough stuff for casual players to enjoy.
You can have a game that's both enjoyed competitively and casually. But if you gut your casual content, your game's going nowhere.
The most played RTS game mode was cobbled together by an underfunded dev team, built on an RTS that was the most focused on multiplayer throughout development.
Casuals gravitate towards responsive controls and good pathfinding, but it is the competitive players that provide the detailed feedback necessary to develop the pathfinding and responsiveness.
>The most played RTS game mode was cobbled together by an underfunded dev team, built on an RTS that was the most focused on multiplayer throughout development.
SC2's co-op mode?
Man why'd they have to kill it when there was more commanders they could've released
>?
There hasn't been new content developed for it since the release of Mengsk outside of changing up the mutation that week. It's dead as far as the devs are concerned, is what I mean
graphics look worse than SC2 from 2010 which is quite an accomplishment
tbf, SC2 had a bajillion dollars spent on its development, of course it looks good
Tools have advanced massively since then, every man and his dog has access to UE5, an engine that can do Pixar level graphics on a consumer grade graphics card. There's no excuse
>pic
It's amazing how much they retconned Kerrigan too. >SC2 Kerrigan feared Mengsk because he's a crafty strategist that's "always 3-4 steps ahead" >BW Kerrigan was able to trick Mengsk easily which resulted the death of General Duke >SC2 Kerrigan believed taking over Korhal for the second time would be the hardest thing she'd ever do >BW Kerrigan attacked UED controlled Korhal without hesitation and did it just to troll the UED, Mengsk, and the Protoss.
Ok let's be real, Kerrigan dicksucking started in BW, not SC2. She outmaneuvers everyone not because she's smarter but because in BW everyone becomes 10 IQ points dumber in her presence (except Aldaris, which is why she had to kill him). She wins because of the sheer incompetency of everyone around her.
Not to defend how she is in SC2 but BW really is not much better in that regard
Every Blizzard fan has nostalgic brainrot
Not that SC2 has a good story, but the original wasn't anything special
The writing for BW was all over the place. I swear they switched the character writing for DuGalle and Stukov halfway through the UED campaign. >Stukov trusted Duran >DuGalle didnt
then suddenly >Stukov doesnt trust Duran >DuGalle trusts Duran enough to have Stukov killed
>Zeratul had to doubly convince Jim not to kill Kerrigan because Tassadar's force ghost says so >Zeratul was forced to kill the Matriarch to save her from Kerrigan >also added bonus of Kerrigan killing Fenix and Aldaris >In SC2 Zeratul was able to repeatedly sneak into Kerrigan's presence this entire time and did nothing beforehand
[...]
TO BE FAIR, for 90% of WoL he still wants Kerrigan dead and never forgot what she did to the galaxy. Then Zeratul had to show up with that bullshit prophecy and throw a wrench in it all. Remember that in HotS when she came back and he saw that she reinfestated herself the first thing they said was >What did you do? >What I had to >Tell that to Fenix! Tell that to the billions you butchered!
The assassination of Jim's character in regards to Kerrigan only truly happens at the very end of HotS. People love to point to him looking at that photo but all he says is "sometimes I think you should've just died that day" and where's the lie? How many people would be alive if the Zerg simply killed Kerrigan?
>Zeratul had to doubly convince Jim not to kill Kerrigan because Tassadar's force ghost says so >Zeratul was forced to kill the Matriarch to save her from Kerrigan >also added bonus of Kerrigan killing Fenix and Aldaris >In SC2 Zeratul was able to repeatedly sneak into Kerrigan's presence this entire time and did nothing beforehand
I hate to call Blizzard writing of all things subtle, but SC2 if you pay attention does go out of its way in dialog to make a distinction between "Kerrigan" and "The Queen of Blades". Jim does not want Kerrigan dead. Everyone, including Jim, wants the Queen of Blades dead. Zeratul always makes it clear that KERRIGAN specifically must live.
It's something I never caught until someone pointed it out to me.
It wasn't subtle, just easily dismissible. The 'prophecy' is just plot armor for Kerrigan so that Chris Metzen could write another 'corrupted character redeems themselves' story.
>SC2 Raynor is lovesick over losing his waifu >BW barely know her then hates her and wants her dead
TO BE FAIR, for 90% of WoL he still wants Kerrigan dead and never forgot what she did to the galaxy. Then Zeratul had to show up with that bullshit prophecy and throw a wrench in it all. Remember that in HotS when she came back and he saw that she reinfestated herself the first thing they said was >What did you do? >What I had to >Tell that to Fenix! Tell that to the billions you butchered!
The assassination of Jim's character in regards to Kerrigan only truly happens at the very end of HotS. People love to point to him looking at that photo but all he says is "sometimes I think you should've just died that day" and where's the lie? How many people would be alive if the Zerg simply killed Kerrigan?
You're right but the primary fanbase for RTS games nowadays are PVP tryhards so every game is going to try to cater to them and ignore the 99% of people who prefer single player and be a massive commercial failure because most people don't like getting wrecked by nerds on the internet. The biggest RTS games of the late 90s/early 2000s were heavy on story-based single player campaign (C&C, SC, KKND, Warcraft, Age of Empires) and multiplayer was just an afterthought that randomly got popular or usually didn't. RTS games being multiplayer first is exactly the opposite of what any successful RTS game did during the prime of the genre
I never did play the second one. Is it even better than the first? I remember multiplayer had you conquer entire maps so it could take hours and hours. Nobody is willing to put that time into a game now.
>Is it even better than the first?
Yes and no
2 lets you build bases and has more units and factions
It's more balanced than 1, which was a fricking mess balance wise, but it feels less unique
I would assume TB and RA2 would get remastered together to continue the trend. Don't know why they haven't started considering that apparently the C&C remaster sold gangbusters
Honestly I can't believe how EA is so incompetent with C&C >stop supporting zero hour too early >rebrand another game as c&c 4, flops >make generals 2, randomly canclel it during closed beta >release dozens of mobileslop c&c games >finally do a good thing and allow the remastering of the first games >no follow up though, must have been a fluke
>I only play RTSs for the campaign and never touch them again once I'm done. Why did RTSs stop pandering to me? This is why RTSs are dead >NO STOP PANDERING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL PLAYING THE GAME
>There are actually people like this ITT.
Well maybe if (you) had actually been doing that, playing RTSs campaign/singleplayer all of the time over the last 20 years, then the devs would have noticed that there is an audience who consumes SP content instead of hyperfocusing on MP (which I agree that its is bad).
The only people still playing RTS games are absolute irredeemable spergs who represent 0.1% of the audience of the genre at its peak. Anyone who wants to make money development an RTS would be insane to build a game for such a small audience instead of targeting the 99.9% of people who play for the campaign. That's what most people do with video games, play the campaign then drop it, that's completely normal.
We know for a fact that's not true, Blizz released the numbers. It's half of players that stick around and do other shit, half play the campaign once and never touch it again.
>The only people still playing RTS games are absolute irredeemable spergs who represent 0.1% of the audience of the genre at its peak
Lmoa, ok buddy, go raly the 99,9% of the RTS fanbase then and be change you want to see. Sart putting 2000 hrs into RTS singleplayer content. AoE 2 has at least 200 hrs of campaign content nowadays if you need some recomendations. Dont forget to make it clear that you bought all of its dlc just for the campaing only
It's not even true anyway, they are still releasing single player content for AoE2! Every expansion comes with a load of new campaigns, there are hundreds of hours worth of them by now.
Exactly, which is even funnier considering that singleplayer content has been a staple of RTSs and there is nothing preventing those people from doing what they want.
>Sart putting 2000 hrs into RTS singleplayer content
This is not how normal people play video games you dumb motherfricker. They play for 20hrs and call it a day, satisfied with their purchase
They pay the exact same entry fee as the 20hrs people but are 100x more annoying, demanding balance changes, chasing away new players on the ladder, shitting up forums, harassing devs on social media. If developers could replace every nutcase obsessive with a casual player they would.
7 months ago
Anonymous
You can nickel and dime people who play 2000 hours for DLC and season passes and cosmetics and all that crap
7 months ago
Anonymous
>They pay the exact same entry fee as the 20hrs people
Unless we could add things like skins and voice packs that only they would buy...
I see that you are completly out of touch and probably has poor reading comprehension
Well, I hope that at least you are not a hypocrite who cries about devs pandering normalgays then
Are you stupid? My post is literally about how devs need to target normal people much harder if they want to revive the genre. RTS games solely appeal to the tiny minority of sick in the head ladder players remaining from decades ago. Targeting the hardcore is a recipe for certain death and commercial failure, yet hardcore players constantly egg them on. You have to know when not to listen to the loudest players as devs, many do not know how to do this.
Games constantly make the mistake of pandering to hardcore and quickly die as a result - Wildstar is a classic example in the MMO world.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Games constantly make the mistake of pandering to hardcore and quickly die as a result - Wildstar is a classic example in the MMO world.
Counterpoint: EVE Online has outlasted fricking WoW in terms of being around on this planet.
7 months ago
Anonymous
WoW, even in its crippled dying state, is still vastly more commercially successful than Eve. WoW will continue on life support for another few decades if Everquest is anything to go by
7 months ago
Anonymous
It wasn't about being commercially successful, it's that EVE found its niche and didn't fricking die. EVE has tapped into the one market no other MMO seems to be able to successfully cater to: sociopaths and the people who are sad that they missed out on the Scramble for Africa
7 months ago
Anonymous
yeah fair point
7 months ago
Anonymous
>people who are sad that they missed out on the Scramble for Africa
lol
7 months ago
Anonymous
And my point is that devs who make games with a heavy versus component have like RTSs have a clear choice between people who play 20hr and never touch the game again, and people who play it for years, because it is obvious where the safe money is and free advertising.
7 months ago
Anonymous
>people who play 20hr and never touch the game again
This is how every RTS worked during the period they were actually popular. Starcraft is an anomaly, the multiplayer only got popular because of a weird subculture in PC bangs in Korea of all places
7 months ago
Anonymous
>Starcraft is an anomaly
Not really, starcraft was what came with the battle.net client which made it easy to play multiplayer with
7 months ago
Anonymous
>starcraft was what came with the battle.net client
No that was Warcraft 2
7 months ago
Anonymous
battle.net edition of WC2 came out years after SC and Diablo
7 months ago
Anonymous
What is the point that you are making here? I can only guess. I bet that most if not all of those games had a mp component and all the implications that this brings, like for example that MP was viewed as a desirable feature and intended by the devs (if not essential considering that it is vital for playtesting).
7 months ago
Anonymous
>What is the point that you are making here?
Are you really still not getting it? Most people play RTS for single player, always have, always will. Everyone loves Warcraft 3 for the story and campaign, not the autism simulator that is the multiplayer mode. It is not a complicated point to understand.
It's not even true anyway, they are still releasing single player content for AoE2! Every expansion comes with a load of new campaigns, there are hundreds of hours worth of them by now.
How so?
You command large armies, build defensive or offensive buildings and all of it is in real time, how does that not fit the definition of "RTS"?
And Age of Empires Online is like any other Age of Empires game but with different unique civs and itemization for troops and buildings ( PvP doesn't take these bonuses into account unless you want )
>too formulaic
>step learning curve
>long matches
The keeners ruined it. It's more about APM than strategy
Yeah
Frick off leaf.
>long matches
Lots of AoE2 games barely go longer than 20 minutes because the meta is just rushing your opponent in feudal age and fricking them up to make them panic-gg
I started having fun with AOE2 when I intentionally let my elo drop down to like 500.
Now I can frick around, do intentionally stupid builds, basically whatever, and the game is still playable instead of repetitive tryhard shit. If I get bored of a game that's going on for too long I just say "gg, gotta go wash dishes" or something and resign.
Online matchmaking is perfect to abuse for this shit.
>I started having fun when I started not giving a shit about competitive autism
The secret to enjoy virtually all games.
>zoomers have no concentration
it's not the long matches for sure, MOBA is way longer
war3 was like 15-20 minutes usually
So basically it requires an IQ above 95. I see why it isn't popular anymore, people are getting dumber
Why do all copers always refer to IQ to make themselves feel better?
It requires too much micro managing and efficiency when most people just want to build pretty buildings and defend their base. the games also almost never have crazy shit anymore. back in my day we had nukes and titans.
this, IMO modern RTS should use an initial budget to allow players to start with an already mid sized base and keep the game going from that point. They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
>They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
play a fricking city builder, that's what you want
nah that sucks because forcing people to do shit is even worse for popularity. the fun in these games is the free placement.
>forcing people
how is that different than playing metas? if you want tthe genre to stay the same, then don't complain is dying
one is forced and unfun, another is not forced and unfun. Change doesn't mean it's good.
>then don't complain is dying
I'd rather it died than be forced to harmonize my buildings kek
this is the most moronic thing I've ever read when it's come to an RTS game.
>They also should incorporate some sort of "harmony" mechanism to reward bases that make sense in their distribution.
If you just want to build a base and turtle then just play fricking Supreme Commander, it already exists.
no that sucks and the buildings aren't pretty. it's more about the RP than muh autistic tower defense
>Supcom sucks
You will NEVER like RTS's no matter how much they cater to you.
RTS is not dead, the same types of people that played rts back then still does.
Only difference is after the smartphone, all types of morons and third worlders are the majority of gamers and internet users.
In the 90s and early 2000s the average internet user was much smarter and more competetive minded, which is required to enjoy rts.
I'd disagree tbh, the average gamer today is far better than the average gamer back then, the reason why these games aren't as popular anymore is because they are harder to get into. The higher bar for entry means that most zoomies flock to games with lower bars for entry or games that feed into their adhd itch.
Also, as I said before, a good rts takes way more money to make than it used to which means basically only the companies that have always made RTS games still can
indie RTS exists, AA RTS exists, remasters exist. there's still hope. i want to believe
Look, I didn't say the average gamer was better back then, but smarter.
Smart people enjoy games that are hard to get into, with complex systems. They like to come up with new strats, analyze what they did wrong the previous game and improve.
For this frequent balance changes are needed so the meta does not become "solved".
>For this frequent balance changes are needed so the meta does not become "solved".
Starcraft proves that you don't need to mess with balance to keep things fresh. This year's ASL had a lot of unexpected strats that defeated long-time champions of the game.
>the average gamer today is far better than the average gamer back then
lol, categorically false, unless you disqualify all the normalgays. (Which wouldn't make it the average, now would it?)
>most people just want to build pretty buildings and defend their base
literally me lol
>most people just want to build pretty buildings and defend their base.
play dyson sphere
The main problem is compared to most other genre, it requires a lot more competency from the devs to get it right. When a platformer is bad at platforming, people can forgive a lot if it does other things right (see: SM Sunshine). When an RTS does their job bad, everyone can see it from a mile away.
Put simply, a no-name dev can't shit out an RTS like they used to be able to with development costs being what they are today.
>platformer is bad at platforming, people can forgive a lot if it does other things right (see: SM Sunshine).
The platforming is quite good in sunshine. It is okay if you didn't like it.
My favorite part about the RTS genre is how anyone can bring out their notepad and start taking notes as to why Broodwar is so good, and make a 2d game that compares to it, but nobody ever bothers. And to make matters worse SC2 was a failure and we needed those boots filled. We should be up to SC3 by now, but nooooo....
If you just cloned Brood War nobody would play it
>SC2 was a failure
Care to elaborate?
>And to make matters worse SC2 was a failure
SC2 is not only probably the best-selling RTS game in history, it's easily the most-played to this day.
Ah Rise of Nations, now that was a game...
*sips*
>it's more about (the mechanical ability to implement strategy) than strategy
Unironically, yes
It was never strategy, it's tactics. Strategy is above the battlefield level, it has to take into account things like supply lines, the general economy of the nations involved, political support of the war effort, etc.
Strategy is an abstract concept
You're an abstract concept
Not really. Whenever people are talking about "strategy" in games, they're really just talking about tactics.
Yes really
Strategy is just a way of thinking, even though RTS suck at strategy, that doesn't mean they require politics or whatever
>Strategy is just a way of thinking
That line of thought is how every country in a war that was good at winning battles lost the war anyway because they didn't know how to translate those tactical wings into long-term strategic goals.
Did you mean to reply to someone else?
Then when are you even playing a fricking RTS and not a fricking city builder or something? When spend all your time RPing to make a pretty little town when the guy playing on the other screen is determined to burn your pretty town to the ground because he's playing to win?
>That line of thought is how every country in a war that was good at winning battles lost the war anyway because they didn't know how to translate those tactical wings into long-term strategic goals.
this just reads like gibberish
you can apply strategy to any situation, it's just in RTS games the strategy is shallow as frick
>Then when are you even playing a fricking RTS and not a fricking city builder or something? When spend all your time RPing to make a pretty little town when the guy playing on the other screen is determined to burn your pretty town to the ground because he's playing to win?
I don't like city builders. Also I don't pvp. I do co-op sometimes.
So you're a casual
>So you're a casual
yes
no I fricking don't, none of them appeal to me. I like RTS like aoe2 and 3
You literally enjoy the city building part, not the RTS part
do you have autism too? if I enjoyed city builders I'd fricking play them. none of them have units I can use to patrol, or armies I can build up and prepare for example.
Black and White 2
You're playing an RTS game as a city builder
You'd be happier if you came out of the closet and just played a real city builder
no I wouldn't, and no I'm not, because city builders don't have units and enemies and shit.
not my cup of pee
>city builders don't have units and enemies and shit.
>Pharaoh/Caesar
>Stronghold
>The Settlers
>Anno
Settlers 6 is literally the game for you, you make pretty cities that need production chains, you even need to collect taxes and make festivals so the men can find woman to marry, then you wall in your city and produce swords/bows to raise armies.
there are only 3 units for the combat which makes everything really simple.
random video so you can see what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWZf4c_ZlE4
Stronghold
Since no one has said it, Stellaris is literally that
Most people are, this is why RTS died, poopsockers can dump so hard on casuals, there is no reason to play just to be fodder for some gigasperg
>I don't like city builders
yes you do, because that's exactly what you're describing
>guy playing on the other screen is playing to win
That sounds like his problem not mine
The words are synonyms and your attempt to give them hard defined niches like that doesn't apply.
No they aren't, strategy and tactics mean two distinct things
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/strategy
>the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tactics
>the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat
>Synonyms: strategy
Stop trying to sound smart on Ganker by forcing a dichotomy that doesn't exist between two terms you don't understand.
And you'll get no more replies if all you do is b***h and moan that the dictionary says you're wrong.
The dictionary is wrong
So macro? Normalgays hate macroing, it's funny how half of all modern RTS try to automate it in some way.
Define "macro"
i would say
>making workers, telling them to do stuff
>making supply depots/whatever to not be supply blocked
>making units, upgrading them, teching up
is "macro"
that's just micromanaging your economy
Macro is controlling the map/gamestate
Micro is controlling an individual unit/building
macro is worker/base control, which is really just out of combat micro
RTS games don't have true macromanagement
Which require apm and a meta build order in order to work.
Yeah playing the game requires playing it and knowing how to play it well.
also the bot difficulty is always fricking garbage. they either send a tiny trail of weak units or never stops producing units like you're fighting the machines from The Matrix
Dunno, I enjoyed the hell out of Starcraft Brood War, Warcraft, and C&C Red Alert 1, 2, and Generals. The death of LAN gaming might have something to do with it since all my best memories were my friends all lugging our PCs to one location, I never cared to play against randoms online. In terms of new RTSs, I have hopes for Stormgate to be decent since it's headed by the guys who worked on some of the classics.
I believe people just don't want to learn how to play rts game because it ask too much time when you could simply put hundred of hours in a game easy to learn with a fastest dopamine reward adjacent to it.
Also do the devs nowaday the capacity to make one without plaguing with a e-sport mindset.
balance used to be player created with plateaus in the early late game where players may have been stressed to even control the armies they had.
With new technologies all the unit selection and strategies used to overcome bad UI has been erased.
Dunno what the fix could be for people making games too easy to play. People cry when a game is too hard to play.
>unit collision
>limited unit selection
There now even with perfect pathfinding it'll still take effort to move armies around.
Nah. Its effortless when you can hotkey everything or even put 1 whole max supply army on 1 gotkey. Literally effortless.
This thread made me boot up AOE2 DE
Same.
I left off on Horns of Hattin.
I can't beat it. I made Jerusalem resign but I can't deal with the English while they constantly send Scorpions to my wall and I've got the Hospitallers sending an endless stream of crossbow men and knights up my ass.
Frick.
Trash-unit warfare.
Step 1: Spam Light cavalry to counter archers and siege and pikemen to counter cavalry
Step 2: Win
none of my friends are even willing to try RTS.
Those are not your friends. They are nobody's friend. If they were an ice cream flavor, they'd be pralines and dick.
Devs never put in work for the team modes but it's the only chance they're ever going to have of capturing a casual audience. People want the mental load of the entire map lightened a bit and to be able to call in for help if they're getting fricked.
It's too complicated for casual normies and too abstract for tiktok zoomers.
people love dota/lol which is way more complicated than any RTS
Those games are literally an RTS if you only controlled 1 unit instead of 200. The entire MOBA genre exists purely because people who were too stupid to play Warcraft 3 properly made an easy-for-morons custom version of it. You are a moron.
you are the moron one getting pissy over nothing. I was just refuting the point.
Truth is that RTS is quite boring for some extent, this is why I have been playing a lot more coh than AoE, in coh you get into the action way faster than any other game out there, even faster than dota. But in AoE or SC the begginning is pretty much always the same, make worker, gather resource, expand base etc. It takes at least 3-5 minutes before you attack, it feels like a waste of time.
>It takes at least 3-5 minutes before you attack
same shit in DotA/LoL
no it doesn't
yes it does, more telling that DotA/LoL games last 2x longer than average RTS games
I dunno about lol since I never played, but in Dota people do teamfights before the first wave even spawn, you are full of shit.
>poking for 15 minutes is peak action for the ADHD zoomie
homosexual moron c**t. have a nice day zoomer prostitute
lol zoomers really believe this
the level of micromanagement and multitasking involved in MOBA is child-like compared to Starcraft or Warcraft
did I mention anything about micro? I said the game is more complicated and require way more knowledge, you can learn how to play AoE2 in like 2 hours, to play dota you need to learn about the 200 items and 100 heroes which each have 4 skills that do completely different stuff, it is a frick ton of information you need.
rts = more player skill
moba = more player knowledge
>tried playing AoE2 online after years of just playing against the computer
>opponent kicks my ass in like 5 minutes
>check map afterwards
>opponent has made hundreds of buildings and units by the time I get to the third age
tryhard, it's tryhard that killed the genre
What's wrong with losing to better players? You will drop down and play against others at your level.
forgot to mention I was playing on a "beginner" server
No one said you actually have to be a beginner to play on those servers, you just don't have many ranked wins under your belt. For all you know that guy was a complete scrub and you lost to him anyway.
Avoid those servers, those are usually highly skilled players hosting them looking to troll or just wreck low skilled players, although it might seem scarier you are better off playing ranked or there are some discord servers for low elo players too to find people.
Just fricking queue ranked you’ll get destroyed on those so called “noob” servers.
Food is produced on farms
>it's tryharding to actually know how to play the game compared to someone who by their own admission hasn't played AoE2 in literally years
>play online against other player
>WOW HE BEAT ME FUKCING TRYHARD
>RTS ARE DEEEEEEAAAAAD
this is why RTS are dead
Seriously tho, if you played ranked the first 10 or so matches are for ajusting your elo, you will get trashed a bit but eventualy you will start against people of your skill level.
this, most people nowadays are feminised pussies, if they get their ass kicked once they get butthurt for eternity and RTS is a genre where you really is responsible for your actions and b***hes hate that.
RTS is one of THE edgelord tryhard genres of games, its arguably the sweatiest and most taxing genre of games to play. Brood War was one of the OG esports for a reason
the genre has really suffered from the modern gaming environment where every game has a massive internet footprint of minmaxxers and hyper competitive optimization scenes, it has led to an absolutely insane skill floor to climb up to just to get into the games and be mediocre at them
No one around the starting elo is tryharding, I'm around the starting elo because I'm a noob but if you are trailing behind them that hard you are likely struggling with the very basics. Some simple tips I can give that can drastically improve your gameplay are to learn a basic dark age build order. Get the lumbercamp upgrades as fast as you can, never stop producing villagers having a hotkey to select all town centers and produce vills makes this a lot easier. Don't forget about blacksmith upgrades and try making multiple tc's in castle age. Also once you lose enough matches on ranked, you will get put in an elo with a 50/50 win rate eventually. I don't blame you about being scared of playing ranked but once you get over the starting hurdle things will be much better.
This. Odds are there's something you're just plain doing wrong that massively holds you back and it isn't even tryharding, it's the basics. I was struggling a lot in SC2 until I figured out the build order.
>Build order
lmao soulless.
That's why this genre is dead.
This is how I know you don't play online, because you would be constantly frustrated by the fact that the people who do bother to do the research are beating you ever time.
Everyone always says this like it's something recent but even in the SC1 days people went full sweatlord tryhard on bnet. Were you there? Because I fricking was and once people figured out a strategy it became a dominant meta.
This is nothing new, everyone is b***hing about this like it only started with LoL but in reality this is something that has existed in the genre since C&C1. You just never realized it because you never interacted with the community at all, or in the case of WC3, you probably only just played custom games.
>bother to do the research
no game should require anything outside the game, that is bad design
No that's your moronic casual mindset because it has nothing to do with how to actually play the game, it's about how to play the game better against other people that play in metas the game never originally counted on existing. You can beat the AI playing normally because the AI won't take advantage of you being stupid enough to build an artosis pylon. A player won't, they'll stomp your shit in for doing something that dumb
It doesn't. The current version of AoE2 has plenty of tutorials to teach you the basics.
You are just mad because you're shit at video games.
Build house and lure boar spam villagers
75% on berries chop wood for lumber camp
get to 19 villagers and fast feudal then fast castle then spam knights
99.9% of games
fricking boring
don't do crossbows/knights with specific build orders? lmao lose.
Warcraft 3 is better.
That's just low skill ranked games where it works because it's pretty easy to learn and players are too bad at the game to defend against it.
Just play custom games, especially on maps where that strategy doesn't work, or either lose a few games in ranked to be matched against players who aren't tryhards, or actually get good, beat all the spreadsheet scrubs and get matched against good players who play more varied and interesting strategies.
With literally any other game you’d just accept that you don’t know how to play and either move on or get better. I have no idea why RTS games are held to this impossible standard that no other game has to meet.
Other games allow players to cope by blaming luck or teammates or some other external factor.
In RTS players can cope by blaming balance, but then in a mirror they have to face the fact that they are just bad at the game.
ASShomosexualS distilled the high APM twitch gameplay in a competitive environment elements from your more autistic RTS games and city builders/4x capture most of the chill economy managing and construction aspects for a more laid back casual experience. RTS games were also more difficult to monetize back when lootboxes were in the main industry method for israeliteing morons and children
Asshomosexuals took all the casual RTS players. With how much games cost to make nowadays there aren't enough turbo autist RTS players to get devs to make more games.
>she knew.
Anyone ever mute ingame music of any RTS they're playing and just shuffle the Terran themes from Starcraft?
APM's killed the genre. Now only turn-based games and RTT games are still around.
>APM's killed the genre.
Everyone says this but SC2 is still by far the most popular RTS out there in terms of the number of people playing at any one time and despite how much b***hing people do about APM, you can reach Master rank in that game by literally only doing 4 gate chargelot + stalker timing attacks.
>by literally only doing 4 gate chargelot + stalker timing attacks.
Yeah, if playing Protoss aka Easy Mode is something you can live with
>sc2
coop is the most popular mode.
There's literally nothing wrong with APM. The better you get at the game the faster you can think, which results in quicker actions. APM is something that comes naturally with experience
I like them, but I like to turtle and build nice bases and overwhelming forces, so I just play online. I've tried to play online a few times, and those guys beat my ass like it's nothing.
Because they made the best ones ever 20+ years ago and there's nowhere to go. It's like asking where is Chess II. People will play Starcraft and AoEII for literally the next 500 years.
Starcraft is overrated.
>People will play Starcraft and AoEII for literally the next 500 years.
I hope this is irony
because they dont give us what we want i.e. base building and since 2008 all devs have fricked up in that department. they always try to experiment when they cant even get the basic things right. we have mastered the FPS genre there's room for experimentation but the same cant be said for RTS. i unironically believe the whole genre evolved into MOBAs
>because they dont give us what we want i.e. base building
Frick off and play a city builder, you don't want an RTS, you want to build a town that's never truly in danger.
Because you haven't revived it yet. What are you waiting for?
Nah, aoe2 still has plenty of people playing. But if you wanted to revive the genre, id say making a high budget more simplified rts game would probably bring back the genre, the bar for entry is too high and it takes a hundred hours or so to be able to beat anyone online.
because the devs did to RTS what FPS devs did to their genre. Making them all about multiplayer at the expense of the singleplayer experience. The problem with this is a lot of players dont want to grind multiplayer and instead want fun and varied rts campaigns.
Pic related is some of the most fun Ive had with an rts in years because its singleplayer experience is great
for me kharak is the third most kino RTS after COH and starcraft 2. devs want a piece of the esports pie nowadays
I have it in my backlog, i need to start it.
you should. Its short but very fun
You just reminded me, I got this free on epic a while ago, meant to check it out.
I don't know if I would place Deserts of Kharak as one of my top RTS games, but its def the direction that more RTS games need to be going in.
I was excited for frost giants title, but now it just looks like more generic esport slop. They were prob forced in this direction from investors.
>look it up on Steam
>a bunch of recent reviews are negative
>the game apparently installs EGS shit and forces you to be online
What?
multiplayer will always be massively swingy unless you include moronic upkeep/comeback mechanics
>upkeep
It was the worse thing that happened to W3 and the reason people only played custom maps instead.
They have the illusion of being difficult because people are too stupid to use grid hotkeys and learn a basic build order.
The world just needs more pve rts games like They Are Billions
surprised how unpopular it is on Ganker seeing all people do here is complain about how they want single player base builder RTS games
I recall it being fairly popular for a brief while when the first release happened but never since
consoles
Looks alright to me lots of people play on gamepass too don't @ me
I fricking hate build orders and I hate that the entire rts genre shit the bed by trying to make the next starcraft 2
>I fricking hate build orders
Why, and what do you propose they do instead? Because remember, build orders are something that players came up with.
Devs are scared of making quality single player RTS because everything had to be about sweatlord PvP e sports bullshit for a decade now.
nobody buys quality single player RTS games
>Lets give supcom a spin haven't played it in years
>Gap
>Gap
>Gap
>Seton
>Craters
>Dual gap
Just play tower defense if you're going to do this holy shit
is there a website like teamliquid for aoe2? I think heavengames died a while ago. I want to look up build orders and faction guides and shit.
aoecompanion?
they should get rid of the farm system for once
seriously, name one reason that should exist
????
Why?
>name one reason that should exist
Because MOBA's replaced it
is aoe2 fun if I only want to play one civ and like 2-3 build orders for it? I watched part of a tournament and the players were different civs in every game.
Go full Tudpool
its fun and its $5 on sale, also you won't need any build orders to play tbh.
yeah that's totally fine, people who play the game too much just pick random to provide variety. Or in a tournament they ban / draft pick civs
get rid of the competitive mindset. just play the singleplayer like we all did
>is aoe2 fun if I only want to play one civ and like 2-3 build orders for it?
You'll easily push into 1k elo if you just pick a civ and play into its strengths. Just picking a unit type and getting all the upgrades for it will get you there.
isn't 1k what you start at?
I want to start playing because I remember having fun with the original game like 20 years ago, but I actually bought it once already and had to refund it because it wouldn't run on wangblows 7. I am hopefully going to build a new pc though before the end of the year when valve steals all my other games so I will get it then as long as it runs on loonix.
>isn't 1k what you start at?
You start at 1200, that guy is a shitter.
>isn't 1k what you start at?
Maybe 4 years ago but 1k elo is pretty competitive these days. At that elo you have to have a grasp of your build orders or you'll just get stomped.
Also it takes about 20 games to find your elo so don't be discouraged.
>1200
>start at
no?
Get it, there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later. Because it's fricking fun. You can choose to make the AI's either super hard or relatively normal so you aren't instantly getting ass fricking right out of the gate.
Every civ is practically the same so I wouldn’t worry about it. Also AOE4 is better.
>Ganker: vocally hates casuals
>also Ganker: will take the most pro-casual stances possible the second a videogame is actually competitive in nature and isn't built around cheesing
It's the one thing that unites discussion of both RTS and fighting games here, an absolute refusal to try and improve their own personal skill
Because they completely frick up the singleplayer/coop experience and don't have enough modding support. Custom maps is what keeps Warcraft 3 alive. Brood war is running on esports and nostalgia. Starcraft 2 has a good esport scene and decent custom maps.
I blame rushers. That fast paced gameplay led to MOBA shit in my eyes.
Nobody rushes at an actually competitive level because everyone knows how to counter it. Rushes only work on scrubs because if your rush fails, you're fricked.
>competitive
Competitive RTS community still exists. It's tiny because it always was tiny. You need "scrubs" to keep a genre alive.
Blizz themselves once said that thanks to the being always online thing, they've tracked player data and 50% of the 6 million people that played Wings of Liberty played the campaign once and never touched the game again. That's not a community, that's just customers. You're not part of an community if you never once leave the campaign menu.
and now nobody buys rts because it doesn't exist. What a great trade off.
>nobody rushed at a competitive level
boy you should watch some starcraft, you can get away with 4pooling in premier tournaments some of the time
>Get scouted
>Rush fail
>LOse
Rush is fine.
It's good game design to choose to either player hyper aggressive, defensive, or balanced.
Ultimately, because of esports and competitive matchmaking. Tryharding in an RTS is too stressful for most people. But once the game is all about sweaty competition it's hard to go back to playing naively.
When is the last time RTS has an engaging and fun campaign?
If you count Total War then TWW3's tutorial campaign. Not the main campaign, specifically the tutorial Kislev one.
iron harvest
of the ones I played it I can only think of W3 and CoH1.
this, Iron Harvest has a great campaign
homeworld deserts of kharak
It's a fundamentally flawed concept served by either city builders, or mobas now
Because people like the fantasy of city building but rts are designed to be a shitty sport instead
>Why is the RTS genre dead?
Partly because devs don't want to make an RTS game. There's a lot of interest for RTS, just see all the SC2 tournaments going on.
>Why is RTS stagnating.
Just a lack of creativity and risk. The last best RTS I played was Supreme Commander and that came out 10 years ago. Hasn't been topped.
Too many devs are too stuck on games that came before them. You keep seeing the same mistake over and over again with the Xth iteration of the Same Old Shit TM being released.
Why the frick isn't there an RTS with scope automation? Early game micromanagement that gets handled by AI once you reach a certain stage. Distant Worlds did this really well where once you get tired of managing some aspect of your empire the AI takes over and does it. Why the frick hasn't any dev taken the hint and done the same for RTS? Why are battles so formulaic? Every one of these games is based on land with the occasional sky unit. Why not sea? Where is that chaotic rock paper scissors? Why the frick can't devs pull their heads out of their asses and include RPG elements into their RTS like Warcraft 3 did 20 fricking years ago?
The more you question this shit the more you realize there isn't much passion and creativity going on in game development anymore. You used to get AAA games that were hand crafted with love and full of novel features. Warcraft 3's custom map design spawned literally dozens of novel game designs. Fricking dozens, just from people messing around and having a good time. Now all you get are half finished buggy DOA releases and abandonware that requires entire marketing teams and HR departments to successfully release. It really makes you realize how downhill things have come in gaming.
>Distant Worlds did this really well
No it didn't, in fact distant worlds did it in the worst way possible. It just gives you an option to turn off entire portions of gameplay instead of just decreasing the amount of actions you need to take to carry out your strategy. Literally just letting the game play for you.
asshomosexuals and everyone wanted brood war tier balancing e-sports shit after SC. But mostly asshomosexuals
if you listen to Ganker, then it's because people who don't play against other people can't tolerate that other people do, and people that do can't tolerate that other people play to win
Because Microsoft killed pc gaming with Vista.
It split into more specialized genres. Almost nobody played RTS just to play RTS, most people only liked 1 specific part like base building, combat, or whatever.
So just like DayZ?
Making them is harder than 2d platformers and turnbased deckbuilders.
shame that alternative "RTS" never caught up like Dungeon Keeper.
Also, most RTS lost their soul really soon, the genre peaked too fast.
>shame that alternative "RTS" never caught up like Dungeon Keeper.
Dungeons 3 is actually good. Besides that a lot of yuro devs still make real-time tactics games
Developing a good one requires actually playing the game and understanding the mechanics. Moderns devs, who'd prefer to just shit out derivative trash to collect a paycheck, are not interested in doing that.
Don't know why, but it's dead. So dead that only people who like RTS games play them. It's a shame that RTS games will never break mainstream and gain the relevance and transformative power of mass market adoption that comes with an influx of millions of new players into the genre and lots of genuine video game journalist attention. I'd love to watch RTS games become what the FPS and RPG (especially CRPG) genres have become, but unfortunately, the RTS genre is not only dead, but ought to be left alone. Let the basement dwellers who play RTSs alone to their dead genre. Trust me when I say this: you don't want to get into RTS games anyway.
>So dead that only people who like RTS games play them
what's wrong with this
>RTS games will never break mainstream
good
>gain the relevance and transformative power of mass market adoption that comes with an influx of millions of new players into the genre and lots of genuine video game journalist attention.
homosexual
[spoilers]I may need to work on my sarcasm. The point was that I'm glad RTS games are "dead" and would rather they just stay "dead" than get infiltrated.[/spoiler]
>fricked up the spoiler tag
>again
I'm tired and I need sleep
>caring about mistakes on the anonymous interwebz
bet ur a boykisser lmao
ctrl+s you dingus.
lol you are a massive gay, too scared to face a human?
your genre is dead
The same reason league of legends and dota2 are dead. Nobody wants to play it anymore, especially not on multiplayer ladders
people say that dota is dead and yet everyday half of my friend list is people logged on it, I don't get it.
What do people thing of Aoe4? I’ve only player a single skirmish but so far it plays exactly like aoe2….
Pale imitation of AoE2. The tech tree is less varied, beyond the introduction of many unique techs and overtuned bonuses meant to make each faction feel totally different, without realizing part of AoE2's appeal is the fact that each faction lightly influences a skeletal tech tree and unit roster, letting the consistent setpieces shine.
Wish they'd put in more effort for map and game variety. AoE2 was pretty limited by what its engine could do, but they had an opportunity to do more with AoE4. Stuff like stealth / ambushes, garrisoning soldiers on walls, infantry building siege weapons, that's the kind of innovation I like about it, but in too many other ways it's stripped down and bare bones. It doesn't help that it released in a barely finished or even unfinished state, with barely any maps and no ranked queue.
That's what happens when you try to make every factions "unique". Syndrome was right.
I don't mind the unique factions either. I just feel like a lot of the game is tacked on. Like, for example, the upgrades for economy and military, they feel like they're only there because that's what AoE2 did. If you're going to innovate, start with rethinking basic systems like those. You don't have to mindlessly imitate AoE2. In fact that kind of imitation is bad for the game because the closer you ape AoE2 the more people will go "but I already have AoE2 so why play this?"
Too much change is part of why AoE3 got so much backlash. Well, that and the absurd grind they built into the game that was just patently unfun. Clunky unit controls also. I loved the overhauls to economy in AoE3 but FRICK grinding dozens of home city levels to unlock my faction's best features and then having to do that with EVERY civ. What were they thinking? That more than anything killed my interest in ever playing the game seriously.
People who hate change are just going to play AoE2 forever, and that's fine. Not everybody needs to move to AoE4. I'd just like it if AoE4 tried harder to have its own identity.
I really liked aoe3 when it came out and played it a lot online. having to grind to unlock the 200 wood age up guy sucked ass, but like 90% of the criticism directed towards the game at the time was that the setting wasn't medieval again and people crying that they couldn't turtle because of fast fortress falconet pushes. it's a shame that the expansions and de completely shit on the original.
>having to grind to unlock the 200 wood age up guy sucked ass
Yeah they removed the home city grinding with DE iirc since it's well, moronic
The things I noticed the DE of AOE3 doing wrong was being overly PC with the removal of "colonial age" and making native civs more bland so they wouldn't offend anyone, although it was released when this bullshit was at its height. Also the African civilisations just being brokenly good.
I'll cut them slack with removing Crazy Horse because they really didn't have a choice there. His family is actually super litigious and sue the frick out of anyone using him in fictional works without their permission.
I’m baffled by that. How can they litigate over a man who has been dead for 150 years. A public figure no less.
>Also the African civilisations just being brokenly good.
Are they actually? Or is this another America/Mexico where they come across as broken but it's mainly that they have a lot of shiny new toys that we hadn't figured out how to counter yet? I haven't bought anything for 3DE since America so I haven't tested them.
>it's a shame that the expansions and de completely shit on the original.
What? Asian expansion is the only thing in 3 that has a decent campaign, and the Japanese are actually fun to play
"On-release DLC" kind of broken.
I really liked the new world colonialism theme of the game. adding a bunch of civs that never had colonies was just diluting the theme and wanting to be more like age of empires 2. yeah I know the turks were in the base game but they were a major faction in the time period at least.
tbf if it's like the Congo, that's a legit faction to add as they were considered one of the most pretigious empires in the world at the time and their diplomats still have paintings of themselves in many european palaces. All because they were Europe's supplier of slaves through their war bands and got insanely rich off of it.
>as they were considered one of the most pretigious empires in the world
>Kingdom of Kongo
What Eurocentrism does to a mf.
They were a regional power, somewhat like Thailand or Sweden.
It's the opposite.
Many of us only bought it because we thought it'd be an updated AoE2. It only pretended to be. In actuality, it was AoE4, using AoE2 techs and visual shorthand as a prop. And yes, many things were done just to be "like aoe2". They didn't know what to do, so they just did whatever they saw.
Expand on this.
>Expand on this.
ok
I'd have more success teaching a fish to climb a tree than explain anything to your brainlet self.
Okay, good talk.
Fwiw, I don't think they'll rework Celts. Celtgays have their cookie, and they love it.
>Many of us only bought it because we thought it'd be an updated AoE2.
That's what AoE2 DE is. I wanted AoE4 to do something different from AoE2. I've been playing AoE2 for 20 years, and for me DE is enough of a radical change from the game I played as a kid, and the latest factions they have released for it, along with reworks to older factions, is making me wonder if it'll even be recognizable to me in a few years. Heaven help me if they rework Celts.
I don't understand why AoE4 is set in the medieval period again when it should basically be WWI/WWII/Cold War tech. Now that I think about it, I can't really think of a whole lot of RTS games made set in the modern era. Does C&C Zero Hour count?
It’s actually a great game with lots of unique civs and interesting ideas. RTSgays despise anything new though. Most autistic fan base of any genre and it’s not even close
Arena shooter fans are pretty close in autism levels
If you make a game called AoE4 set in the same time period as AoE2 then what do you expect? What happened is exactly what many people predicted would happen. You can't have it both ways, if your game is designed to appeal to an existing fanbase you're going into direct competition with the game those people have been playing for 20+ years.
>It's another, "Ganker pretends to understand RTS" episode
>They're still filtered by the fact that you can move units around
ASShomosexualS took the competitve/multiplayer fans.
It didn't, everyone says that but the only people it truly took away were the people that cared more about playing DotA than playing actual WC3
the real answer is that starcraft exists. Most RTS players are all playing RTS games that came out like 20 years ago. If its not starcraft BW its age of empires.
You have plenty of good RTS games that come out but hardly anyone plays them, all the fanatics stick to their 20 year old game they played when they were kids or play the flovaor of the month starcraft clone that is just like starcraft, only shittier, whenever their favorite streamer is paid to play the game. All the big popular RTS coming out are basically starcraft 2 clones. Things like Zero-k get a very small following and die out in a few months because they arent starcraft enough
>Me trying to pick a civ to focus on.
I wish AoE3 DE wasn't wokeified.
The answer is always AMERICA.
Or you know, go check the thread on /vst/, get some idea from them
RTS is for campain only if you play multyplyer you are a asshat
Mandatum?
>your genre is dead
Red Alert 4 will sell if EA has the balls to make it (they don't)
So now that the casuals have been filtered out of the thread what do we think about the new RTS' coming up?
Personally I'm looking forward to Sanctuary, though I doubt it'll be as advanced as Supreme Commander, I do expect it to have much of the same QoL features, which is already a huge step up.
>Another Starcraft-like
Ew. Tell me when they make a medieval/renaissance game.
>SupCom
>Starcraft-like
I want casuals to leave.
Does SupCom have still-breathing multiplayer?
Yes it does.
Looked it up. apparently, it is. It's also ugly in the same way Sanctuary is, so there's clearly some demand.
>yer game is le ugly >:(
And yet it mogs every RTS ever made in features like something as (on the surface) simple as changing queued commands on the fly.
Like I said. Casuals like you need to leave.
>And yet it mogs every RTS ever made in features like something as (on the surface) simple as changing queued commands on the fly.
"1 -> Click, shift+clickclick"
Done. Now tell me all about how great SupCom's economy is.
>Like I said. Casuals like you need to leave.
Disliking your robot wars game doesn't make someone a casual.
Being unfamiliar with SupCom and its predecessors by calling it starcraft-like is casual shittery, homosexual.
I'd have more success teaching a fish to climb a tree than explain anything to your brainlet self.
kys
>Being unfamiliar with SupCom and its predecessors by calling it starcraft-like is casual shittery, homosexual.
No, it's called ignoring things you don't like. I don't like Starcraft, I don't like SupCom, and they both draw from the same pool of ugly for their visuals, so it should be easy to understand the mistake.
there's plenty of medieval RTS thanks to Total War and AoE you uneducated homosexual
Yes, and SupCom isn't one of them.
Also, Total War is shit.
then you are clearly in the wrong genre if you are going to hate every RTS
I don't. I love AoE2/3. Favorite games of all, though 2 is the best in the genre.
Then play AoE4 aka AoE2 re-re-released
AoE4 is terrible. They collected awful ideas from every corner of the internet and threw them back together as a game. Waiting on 5.
>rush or turtle
nothing has changed in 30 years.
the genre never evolved. It stayed it's own sort of niche thing where some games had different gimmicks about them and that was it. there's infinite potential for rts, just not the usual top down perspective only fanfare
It evolved into mobas like LoL which took the core of the gameplay and distilled it into something fun.
I saw that video analysis on RTS games too anon.
I play the hearts of iron 3 EAW mod constantly...rts is doin fine
gamedev here
how do I save RTS?
>inb4 no multiplayer
Multiplayer should be focused on teams. People want somebody to share the blame with and help/be helped by.
Learn from AoE2. You'll want factions that are similar, using many of the same abstractions to form the game around, but differing in their end kits and feel. You want them close, using every side of the system creatively for their options.
The better you understand AoE2, the better you'll understand RTS.
>You'll want factions that are similar, using many of the same abstractions to form the game around, but differing in their end kits and feel. You want them close, using every side of the system creatively for their options.
sounds lazy as frick
It sounds lazy, but it makes for some of the best faction design imaginable.
>everyone and everything is the same
>best faction design
Sounds the same, but isn't. It's "nearly" the same.
Like how you can customize motorcycles, but many are going to be closely related. Same chassis, same principle, but they still feel very different to ride.
Maybe, but it's also really fricking hard to design multiple factions that play radically differently like SC/WC3 did.
AOE2 gets expansions like every 3 months so it's nothing unusual.
>AOE2 gets expansions like every 3 months
5 at best, 13 at worst.
>Lords in Jan 2021
>Dukes in Aug 2021
>Triple Pajeets in April 2022
>Romans in May 2023 (which was mostly about a AoE I up-port anyway)
>Royals in Oct 2023
Otherwise getting more bloaty for sure.
Nah it's real.
>but it's also really fricking hard to design multiple factions that play radically differently like SC/WC3 did.
There's a couple of design concepts that still haven't been reimplemented yet that they could try to figure out adding in. Namely, nomadic civs having mobile buildings now that the new civs in the most recent DLC having a mobile lumber camp/mine. Wouldn't surprise me if they try making a civ in the future that predominantly only has mobile buildings but they're all exceptionally weaker than static buildings. Armenians are fun to frick around with, considering their composite bowmen are basically anti-anti anti archers who can out-range TCs and towers. Shit's funny.
It is. AOE2 is just a copy/paste game and NPC’s still spend like 10$ for a “new civ” which is like one unique unit and that’s it. It baffles me that people just won’t fricking move on from it.
>make factions and units that you think would be cool and build from that
>invest in making good music and sound design as if it were important as the gameplay
there, you can't go wrong with this
moba gets you 70% of the fun without having to memorize build orders, and with the benefit of blaming your teammates for your own mistakes
they won't release a good one on the switch
threadly reminder
There's nothing wrong with 3, it's just very different and most are used to 2. I very rarely hear someone say that 3 is actually BAD.
OG is dead and DE is revisionist trash.
genre already peaked. it's only downhill from there
because its high effort, difficult, and intimidating.
RPG's got too good, one of the major improvements being the strategy aspects. The genre just couldn't keep up.
CAPTCHA: PS4TN
>posts a game getting DLC in a few days
What did OP mean by this?
ai slop?
Genre's still alive though? Still popular all over the world, still having tournaments with pretty respectable prize pools, and the most popular games in it still get updates and expansions.
RTS didn't die off, it just became a smaller part of the gaming industry. Back in the 1990s there were a lot fewer people playing and buying video games overall, so an RTS game selling 100,000 units made it a best seller, a true heavyweight. Gaming got more popular in the 00s, and it was largely driven by genres like FPS, RPG, action/adventure, sports, etc. These games started pulling in sales in the millions, which made the big publishers look at RTS numbers, which were still roughly what they were in the 1990s, and decide to chase the bigger pile of money.
But those popular RTS games never went away. They are, in fact, more popular than they ever were in the 1990s, in terms of the total number of people playing RTS. It's just that gaming has gotten so much bigger.
>But those popular RTS games never went away.
C&C is dead
Starcraft is dead
Warcraft is an MMO (dead)
SC and AoE are still alive and well, and they were always the real giants of the scene. The death of WC2 and WC3 is a tragedy though. I always felt C&C is overhyped, and that's probably going to get me flamed.
Starcraft isn't getting a new game
AoE got a new game but people are just playing AoE2 which is like 20 years old
I would unironically start playing AoE4 if they changed the UI to something less soullessly flat-minimalist.
>They are, in fact, more popular than they ever were in the 1990s
If that were the case then they could support large studios making RTS games but that's not happening
I actually explained why that's not the case in my post if you bothered to read it. I'll summarize for you: basically, gaming exploded in popularity in the 2000s. So even though RTS games didn't lose any players, many other genres gained tons of players, making them more attractive to major studios chasing big sales. RTS sales didn't crash, they just didn't explode with FPS, RPG, sports, etc. If you weren't alive in the 1990s you just have no idea how massive the expansion of the industry was in the 2000s.It went from 100k sales being a massive hit to being not even worth it for the major studios, because of how many more people suddenly started buying games.
>RTS sales didn't crash
If that were the case they could still support big studios making RTS games
Are you thinking about this clearly?
No, it's you that doesn't seem to get what I'm talking about. RTS game sales never crashed, they just didn't grow. Maybe you need a visual aid to understand? Note the blue line, there's no big dip here. No "crash" of sales. It just never exploded in popularity like other genres did, thus there was no incentive for big studios to stay with it.
It sounds like you weren't alive in the 1990s, or don't remember them well in any case, so you don't really get how much the industry changed going into the 00s. It's completely different, a lot bigger, more corporate, dominated by mainstream tastes. Back in the 1990s RTS was a much bigger part of the overall gaming pie, now it's a thinner slice, despite not actually losing players.
When RTS games were peaking, companies like Blizzard and Westwood had over 200 employees making top of the line RTS games
Are there companies this size making RTS games today? No, Petroglyph games (former Westwood) is now down to about 30 employees. If RTS games were selling the same, they could afford to have the same amount of people working on them. But all RTS efforts are basically indie these days
Again, you're not understanding what I'm saying. RTS games ARE selling the same as they were in the 1990s, it's just that 1990s standards are way lower than modern standards for what constitutes a hit game or worth a major studio's time. Back then 100k sales was enough to put AoE2 at the top of the best seller list. Now 100k sales won't make headlines anywhere, if you can't move a couple million at a minimum, a major studio considers you a flop.
You seem to fundamentally not understand how much the industry grew from 1999 to 2009. We're talking hundreds of millions of dollars difference in profits.
>RTS games ARE selling the same as they were in the 1990s,
If that were the case then there would be the same amount of people working on them. There isn't, RTS efforts have downscaled. 200 employees isn't a big studio anymore, that's a mid studio, that's like Firaxis making Civilization. If RTS games were still selling the same, we'd have mid-tier companies making them. But for the most part we don't. There was really only Relic left, and they just fired a third of their staff
Total War franchise is RTS, if you haven't noticed.
>we'd have mid-tier companies making them
Microsoft and Blizzard are mid-tier?
Relic is currently the only mid-tier company making RTS games, and they just laid off 100 employees
Blizzard quit making RTS games
>Blizzard quit making RTS games
Reforged happened 3 years ago.
>Microsoft is a mid-tier company
delusional moron
>Reforged
and look at what happened to reforged
Reforged was an internal frick up at Blizzard, everyone working on that was straight up fired which is why it hasn’t since been fixed
Reforged was outsourced to an SEA company. They quit developing RTS games after SC2 didn't do as well as they wanted to
Microsoft owns Relic, who made AoE4. Relic is a mid-tier company owned by Microsoft
>Microsoft owns Relic
Sega owns Relic you omega moron.
what RTS games are Microsoft making then?
How can someone be this moronic over a niche genre
can you answer the question? I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
It must suck being a zoomer.
I asked you what RTS games Microsoft was developing
That's Relic, who we were already talking about, not a big company
Microsoft makes Age of Empires.
If you think Relic has always made Age of Empires then you need to look up your RTS history, zoomie.
>If you think Relic has always made Age of Empires
I didn't say that
Relic made AoE4 for Microsoft, I mistakenly assumed Microsoft owned them but that's not the case
It sounds like you're just trying to one up me and you don't actually have anything insightful to say
Microsoft isn't making RTS games, they just hired Relic to make one
>Microsoft isn't making RTS games
Developed by World's Edge, a small company of 40 people
World's Edge is an actual in-house Microsoft studio.
yes, a small one
which is my original point, there are not 200+ sized companies making RTS games anymore outside of Relic
This reflects the lower demand
You thought Relic was owned by Microsoft. You thought Relic made the Age of Empires franchise. You are a moron with no point.
>You thought Relic was owned by Microsoft
It's an easy mistake to make given they made AoE4
> You thought Relic made the Age of Empires franchise.
No I didn't, you made this up
My point is clear, you're a monkey seething about god knows what
>No I didn't, you made this up
>I haven't heard of any RTS by Microsoft that isn't from Relic
have a nice day
I meant in development right now
Do you really have nothing better to do than try to win a trivial argument about nothing and scream insults over a video game
You believed you knew how gamedev studios operate and didn't even know the bare basics and got factual information wrong. You are a moron.
I do know how they operate, mistakenly assuming Microsoft owns Relic has nothing to do with that
>I do know how they operate
>mistakenly assuming Microsoft owns Relic
again
>didn't even know the bare basics and got factual information wrong. You are a moron.
Pack-up and go home, zoomie.
That's like saying because I didn't know who painted a particular painting I can't draw
Are you moronic
>I didn't know who painted a particular painting I can't draw
Are you OK.
I didn't use any big words, you should be able to understand that analogy
Sorry, I don't speak ESL.
If you can't understand that sentence you definitely have some English difficulties
That is a nonsensical run-on sentence, anon.
>I look at painting and cant draw
ungabunga rockstop
Keep practicing your English, you'll get better some day
No wonder you believed Relic made Age of Empires if you are this stunted.
I didn't, you just didn't comprehend what I was saying
I'm noticing a pattern here
here
Wait relic isnt even working on homeworld 3
What RTS games are they making???
They made AoE4 and now they're working on CoH3
>they could afford to have the same amount of people working on them
They could, and they can, and they obviously won't because why would they try to chase a niche genre instead of making more money doing something else?
>instead of making more money doing something else?
Like what? If there's demand there's going to be people who want to develop it. RTS games were lucrative back in the day, and if demand hasn't changed like you say, then we would still have similar teams doing the same thing. Devs like RTS games, if there was appropriate demand there would be companies making them. But all the companies making RTS games are tiny indie outfits
If you seriously think that the RTS market and playerbase has been expanding for the past decade, I want some of what you're smoking.
The three expansions of SC2 had decreasing sales from 2010 to 2015, and nothing in the RTS sphere has even come remotely close to Wings of Liberty in terms of sales or playerbase.
Evidently you're wrong, because Microsoft keeps dumping money into AoE2.
Not even close to the amounts of money Blizzard dumped into SC2 back in the day.
There isn't any metric by which AoE2 matches up to WoL. In playerbase, sales, tournament viewers, tournament funding, WoL absolutely dwarfs AoE2. AoE2 barely even measures up to the current state of SC2.
Every aspect of RTS that people like has evolved into its own genre.
>Supcom / TA don't have gatherers (although you do use builders / Com to gather early resources or reclaim downed units to boost), rather it relies on structures to gather / produce (or RA sub coms late game for mobility) and unit building / expenditure is done over time based on build strength / rate. ie you can start a unit / building at any point it just takes forever to finish and you might energy stall (thus hurting your metal production as it requires energy and also blipping your shields)
I wasn't actually asking how it works. I was making fun of the game for having really poor eco mechanics.
>I was making fun of the game for having really poor eco mechanics.
You are an actual brainlet.
they stopped making rts.
>Why is the RTS genre dead?
Koreans. Everyone wants to make it a fricking e-sport. That's stupid.
everyone keeps saying this but there's no actual proofs. the only games I know of that tried to be esports were starcraft 2 which was expected to be that way and dawn of war 3 that tried to be a moba. all of the total annihilation-likes were always anti-esports and age of empires kept doing its own thing without changing.
>Casually ignoring the forbidden RTS, Command and Conquer 4
Then you have other games like Crossfire: Legion and other now-abandonware trying to start their own esport franchise
>Koreans
Korean game community are masochists that hate everything unless the form of 'entertainment' gives them pain in return. There's horror stories of koreans starving to death because they needed to spend more time grinding in MMOs than look out for their own or other's well-being. I can't imagine how grotesque their gacha spending habits are compared to the rest of the world.
One of the biggest problems in multiplayer video games is that winning is fun, but losing isn't. No one likes being struck in a game they have no chance of winning. This is why battle royale games became so popular, because when you die you start a new game immediately. And RTS games are the worst when it comes to forcing you to be struck in an unwinnable state.
>because when you die you start a new game immediately.
>RTS games are the worst when it comes to forcing you to be struck in an unwinnable state.
If you think you have lost then you just leave and start a new game.
This. It's not even rude, unless the other player is a sadist that enjoys tormenting a weaker player, in which case frick him anyway.
I have both versions of AoE2 on steam, which should I play? I'm not an original purist, I just genuinely want to know which is overall the better experience.
DE is strictly better. Has every single expansion for the HD version included in the base game + new campaigns and tutorials and balance patches. I'd say stick to HD if you're playing on a toaster, though, and maybe if you're nostalgic for older balance.
There is no reason not to play DE if your pc can run it, it's one of the most polished remasters in vidya history.
HD is a lot less demanding, spec-wise, so you can run it pretty much on any computer without issue. It got some patches and I believe a couple expansions as well. It still has a fairly dedicated playerbase, but it's not really growing anymore, cause most everybody serious about AoE2 has moved to DE.
Definitive Edition is where all the action is these days. It gets regular patches and occasional expansions / DLC. It's also got a lot of content just in the base game, every single expansion for AoE2 that came out prior to DE's release in 2019 is included with the base game, that means Age of Conquerors, Rise of the Rajas, African Kingdoms, and The Forgotten are all part of DE without any other purchase necessary.
Because we have more options nowadays and people moved to other genres or their preferred niches of strategy games.
Only people who enjoy the RTS for their mechanics are left, ie asiaticclickers.
>look up c&c generals vids on yt
>find a channel of some guy doing 1 vs multiple hard ai
>the videos have thousands to hundreds of thousands views
I'm not sure what to make of it, it's an old game but there's still a lot of interest in these games. It's not even high level PvP, just AI.
That's because most people didn't play these games online/competitively.
Most people fricked around with map editors, played through campaigns for story, played skirmish against or fricked around with friends in multiplayer. Building "proper" cities, having large armies clash instead of playing optimally and all that shit. Maybe custom maps in case of WC3.
Nowadays when you want a good story in a game you can play many other genres that fit your sensibilities better - there are more options that are more easily available. If you liked building cities you play city builders, if you wanted to see big armies clash you played Total War and all that shit.
The youtube viewers are there for that - to see big armies clash and maybe reminiscence about the "good old times".
Only the people who enjoyed RTS for what they are are left playing these games. If you want to go by views you have plenty of vids like "epic massive cinematic cool battle of spartans" usually in total war or some battle simulator - these have millions of views.
People just really don't care - newer audience picks something else, older audiences stay with their old shit and complain about anything new.
Same shit like with P&C adventures, arena shooters, pure stealth games etc.
>It's not even high level PvP, just AI.
remember that RTS peaked when people barely had the internet and at most could play on lan at a friend's house
I'm going to guess a part of it is people like seeing armies clash with one another but don't want to play RTS. The amount of people who watch and talk about given games down to their finer details but don't even play them is staggering.
>there's a reason Microsoft is still updating the game's civs even 20 years later
A big part of it was letting a mod team a decade ago make stuff for HD, and now they've got former Ensemble devs helping with DE releases.
watching autists abuse AI in those games is pretty comfy
Now this is soul. You know the game is good if the ai cannot cheat with infinite resources
A shame blizzard is such a shitshow to the point nobody wants a warcraft 4
If I wanted to actually get into an RTS rather than just play a few bot rounds every so often what would be the game for this? AoE2 as it's the only one alive?
AoE2 or SC2. Both have an absolute frickton of players and both regularly go on sale for dirt cheap.
I will try out AoE2 and Starcraft 2 (Zerg) too see which I prefer. Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
Brood War is worth playing just for the campaign. Multiplayer.... I wouldn't.
Only in Korea. The other regions have much smaller playerbases.
If you mean multiplayer, Broodwar is dominated by Korea, they're pretty much the only country that still plays it in a big way.
>Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
no but it's still intensely active, the problem comes in how utterly primitive it is, arguably the single hardest RTS since you can die if you do as so much lose a single fight
If you start Brood War today, you’re 20yrs behind learning the game and are just going to get steamrolled repeatedly until you get good or quit out of frustration
If you start brood war today you have 20 years worth of knowledge to soak up and get off to a much better headstart than shitters 20 years ago.
that's not how multiplayer games work at all
picking up a decades old multiplayer game is for masochists only
>Is starcraft brood war played as much as 2?
Outside of Korea? Probably not.
There's also just a lot of little things BW did worse than 2 that aren't changed purely because the players don't want it changed, like how pathfinding in BW is godawful.
starcraft bw
starcraft 2
age of empires 2 de
Starcraft 2 has a big scene as well, but it's a lot more demanding in terms of APM and build orders. You get absolutely demolished if you don't put in the work in that game. AoE2 does require practice and learning build orders to git gud, but you can also just mess around and have fun.
>Starcraft 2 has a big scene as well, but it's a lot more demanding in terms of APM and build orders.
Build orders yes, the high APM requirement is a meme, you can get to diamond rank with a shitty APM as long as you know how to play well.
Also, SC2 has something that goddamnit I wish some other RTS game had and it's the co-op mode. It's a fricking ingenious idea and no one since has tried it, it's what RA3's co-op SHOULD have been.
I still play a lot of company of heroes 1 and 2 and they are still fairly active and are a very different take on the RTS genre too.
everyone who played rts is now married with children or just plays mobas instead because its less stressful
Too much emphasis on multiplayer
I want to play a challenging campaign history mode...
>challenging campaign
WoL on Brutal
>history
oh...
>AoE4 is literally the only time I've seen England represented with the St. George cross in a videogame.
It's not really relevant, I just find it odd how hard most games try to avoid using it. EU is set in exactly the time period the flag was most used, but insists on sticking with the three lions despite those being relegated to royal use.
That's because EU4 is spunoff of Crusader Kings which is a dynastic breeding simulator, so royal arms are appropriate.
>Why is the RTS genre dead?
Let's look at the Giants of RTS
>C&C
Killed by EA's incompetence.
>AoE
Peaked too hard with 2 and 3 was too experiemental, they didn't even try again after 3
>SC
In the grips of artificial esports hype
It's like they all stopped trying.
TW is still kicking with lots of players
EA killed C&C
Starcraft is autism shit
AoE is niche as too company of heroes
>TW is still kicking with lots of players
Not right now it isn't, what with CA being content to crash and burn the entire franchise along with all their good will.
Too slow for zoomzooms, you always can't get handheld,anti zoomer gameplay also needs dedication to learn mechanics and can drag on for long
Theres a reason why there isn't a single p2w RTS or gacha on the market
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1840080/Homeworld_3/
The last attempt to save the genre
Wonder if they will ignore the fan favorites again
>gearbox
>ESG marketing and plot
I don't care if it's the best RTS in the world, there's no excusing any of that.
Besides, they fricked the HW1 "remaster" so damn hard by porting it to 2's engine and never bothered to fix it.
because RTS "fans" are the biggest morons and don't know what they want. when you allow them to build a base simcity style and spam tanks to win they say it's too formulaic, but if there's anything remotely more interesting such as "hit the F key to make the units do a supershot," you're suddenly making it extremely difficult and micro-heavy, frick you for pandering to e-sports.
Warcraft 3 is one of the most popular RTS games universally loved by everyone
What are you talking about?
NTA but warcraft 3 never got as big as SC, mostly because of the worse balance the game have compared to brood war and the overly focus on creeping
Nta but I would argue it was as big, just not competitively. Instead what everyone played was custom maps
that's (kinda) my point, most people who wanted to play brood war played brood war, most people who wanted to play WC3 only did it for DOTA
WC3 was so popular and loved that it spawned the biggest MMO of all time that still exists to this day
and how many of those players even knew about the RTS that it spawned from?
This has to be bait
If it isnt you werent even alive when warcraft 3 launched
all of them
only in Korea really
War3 was extremely popular in Europe
Is it wrong to play RTS against AI only?
No but you generally learn some of the wrong lessons and pigeonhole yourself. SC2 Coop, despite being against AI, helps unlearn a lot of these lessons because of the many different objectives it makes you play around.
I don't believe so. Compstomp is a fun way to relax after work.
i wish i could play AOE online with people who were chill and not autistic minmaxing spergs who bumrush you as fast as possible
would be cool if there was actual diplomacy and stuff between players, that never seems to happen at all but i havent played much because i got my ass recked every time for not being as efficient as possible
>would be cool if there was actual diplomacy and stuff between players, that never seems to happen at all but i havent played much because i got my ass recked every time for not being as efficient as possible
I think for those kinds of games you'd need to play nomad or something, since not having a static start and accidentally starting really close to another player means you're forced to negotiate some sort of living arrangement or fight to the death really, really early.
I think you want to roleplay and not play video games
It sure would be nice if there were some kind of system that evaluated your performance and automatically matches you with other players of similar performance.
because it's not fun
like, at all
AoE 2 is the only RTS you can actually play now a days if you don't have 5k hours invested. And even then SC 1 and 2 are basically dead.
With AoE 2 being the only real RTS to play you have no excuse to complain about tryhards, just go play some fricking black forest if you want to play online, but don't actually want to.
>dead
no, it just doesn't have mainstream normalgay appeal
do keep in mind that it's also almost if not impossible to make traditional RTSes on consoles and you give more incentive for most AAA companies to not bat an eye in this genre
>people complaining about tryhards in AoE2
Bro just play your matches and lose, your ELO will fix itself. Seriously google T90 low elo legends for relevant games. I swear 99% of the people in these games don't even have a pulse. Which is perfect for Ganker.
>Just lose for several hours bro until the ELO catches up
There’s way too many good games out now to bother with this. RTSgays sound like arena game players, wildly out of touch about why their genre is dying
Zoom zoom.
I’m literally in my 30s, being fodder for rts spergs is not and never will be fun
Zoom zoom at heart.
I would rather go to the dentist for several hours than act as a punching bag for people with thousands of hours playing RTS, no mentally normal person enjoys this
When's the last time you played an online RTS anon?
StarCraft 2 laddering in 2010-12, I can’t say it was particularly fun, my friends were all doing it though and SC2 esports was at its peak hype. It was the time I learnt about games that are fun to watch but not to play
>Seriously google T90 low elo legends for relevant games.
I've been watching this videos for years, they are like crack. I seriously don't understand how some of these people can have hundreds or thousands of games played. And still have no idea how to play the game. I'm not talking like a build order, or unit micro, or game sense. I swear these people don't even know how to use a computer after thousands of hours of playtime.
>take 5 minutes to learn hotkeys
>actually make workers constantly
Congratulations you are now a tryhard in the eyes of Ganker.
Yup.
Everyone is gonna spam about how they’d play if it didn’t cater to competitive players but that’s fricking bullshit. You’d maybe play the campaign once and then drop it. There’s a reason these companies don’t cater to you they aren’t moronic.
Losing in RTS games just feels extremely bad, without the hype of an esports scene, nobody is going to put up with it. They’re also the closest thing to a job that gaming ha ever produced other than MMOs
You can do both (AoE2) or focus almost entirely on single player (Total War) and do well. You've just got to make a good game.
Casuals sell games, not compgays
What do the most played RTS games have in common? Enough stuff for casual players to enjoy.
You can have a game that's both enjoyed competitively and casually. But if you gut your casual content, your game's going nowhere.
The most played RTS game mode was cobbled together by an underfunded dev team, built on an RTS that was the most focused on multiplayer throughout development.
Casuals gravitate towards responsive controls and good pathfinding, but it is the competitive players that provide the detailed feedback necessary to develop the pathfinding and responsiveness.
>The most played RTS game mode was cobbled together by an underfunded dev team, built on an RTS that was the most focused on multiplayer throughout development.
SC2's co-op mode?
Man why'd they have to kill it when there was more commanders they could've released
>SC2's co-op mode?
yes
>why'd they have to kill it
?
it's still the most played RTS game mode right now.
>?
There hasn't been new content developed for it since the release of Mengsk outside of changing up the mutation that week. It's dead as far as the devs are concerned, is what I mean
tbf, SC2 had a bajillion dollars spent on its development, of course it looks good
Tools have advanced massively since then, every man and his dog has access to UE5, an engine that can do Pixar level graphics on a consumer grade graphics card. There's no excuse
graphics look worse than SC2 from 2010 which is quite an accomplishment
I hope you're not implying SC2 looks bad
I'm implying SC2 still mogs this game, produced 13 years later. The team should be embarrassed
>mobile game graphics
these people have literally no idea what people actually like about RTS games
>stormgate
>tempest rising
>zerospace
The RTS renaissance is among us
>pic
It's amazing how much they retconned Kerrigan too.
>SC2 Kerrigan feared Mengsk because he's a crafty strategist that's "always 3-4 steps ahead"
>BW Kerrigan was able to trick Mengsk easily which resulted the death of General Duke
>SC2 Kerrigan believed taking over Korhal for the second time would be the hardest thing she'd ever do
>BW Kerrigan attacked UED controlled Korhal without hesitation and did it just to troll the UED, Mengsk, and the Protoss.
Ok let's be real, Kerrigan dicksucking started in BW, not SC2. She outmaneuvers everyone not because she's smarter but because in BW everyone becomes 10 IQ points dumber in her presence (except Aldaris, which is why she had to kill him). She wins because of the sheer incompetency of everyone around her.
Not to defend how she is in SC2 but BW really is not much better in that regard
Every Blizzard fan has nostalgic brainrot
Not that SC2 has a good story, but the original wasn't anything special
The writing for BW was all over the place. I swear they switched the character writing for DuGalle and Stukov halfway through the UED campaign.
>Stukov trusted Duran
>DuGalle didnt
then suddenly
>Stukov doesnt trust Duran
>DuGalle trusts Duran enough to have Stukov killed
DuGalle is from day 1 a massive moron and the UED lost pretty much purely because of him.
>SC2 Raynor is lovesick over losing his waifu
>BW barely know her then hates her and wants her dead
>Zeratul had to doubly convince Jim not to kill Kerrigan because Tassadar's force ghost says so
>Zeratul was forced to kill the Matriarch to save her from Kerrigan
>also added bonus of Kerrigan killing Fenix and Aldaris
>In SC2 Zeratul was able to repeatedly sneak into Kerrigan's presence this entire time and did nothing beforehand
>because Tassadar's force ghost says so
And then it turns out it wasn't even him, it was the good member of Amon's race posing as him
god starcraft 2 was shite
And then you play modes other than the campaign and it becomes good again
I hated multiplayer too because it didn't have tard wrangling. Everything moves too efficiently.
I hate to call Blizzard writing of all things subtle, but SC2 if you pay attention does go out of its way in dialog to make a distinction between "Kerrigan" and "The Queen of Blades". Jim does not want Kerrigan dead. Everyone, including Jim, wants the Queen of Blades dead. Zeratul always makes it clear that KERRIGAN specifically must live.
It's something I never caught until someone pointed it out to me.
It wasn't subtle, just easily dismissible. The 'prophecy' is just plot armor for Kerrigan so that Chris Metzen could write another 'corrupted character redeems themselves' story.
TO BE FAIR, for 90% of WoL he still wants Kerrigan dead and never forgot what she did to the galaxy. Then Zeratul had to show up with that bullshit prophecy and throw a wrench in it all. Remember that in HotS when she came back and he saw that she reinfestated herself the first thing they said was
>What did you do?
>What I had to
>Tell that to Fenix! Tell that to the billions you butchered!
The assassination of Jim's character in regards to Kerrigan only truly happens at the very end of HotS. People love to point to him looking at that photo but all he says is "sometimes I think you should've just died that day" and where's the lie? How many people would be alive if the Zerg simply killed Kerrigan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VLDT-gbHFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7djrrqBoG_c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWRdcynXJ8Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQL_idkUxoA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xej5JeM2bME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCBPQkwz714
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fprCqgC-c14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0thXFYIsSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3SPJLtnMXQ
RTS games will make a comeback once game devs remember it's primarily a single player genre. PvP is too niche.
RTS fricking sucks single player, the only good single player RTS is TaB
You're right but the primary fanbase for RTS games nowadays are PVP tryhards so every game is going to try to cater to them and ignore the 99% of people who prefer single player and be a massive commercial failure because most people don't like getting wrecked by nerds on the internet. The biggest RTS games of the late 90s/early 2000s were heavy on story-based single player campaign (C&C, SC, KKND, Warcraft, Age of Empires) and multiplayer was just an afterthought that randomly got popular or usually didn't. RTS games being multiplayer first is exactly the opposite of what any successful RTS game did during the prime of the genre
People only played RTS because it was something new that couldn't be done previously.
Been there, done that.
The World of Warcraft died for the same reason.
I never did play the second one. Is it even better than the first? I remember multiplayer had you conquer entire maps so it could take hours and hours. Nobody is willing to put that time into a game now.
2 is very different from the first and it's personal opinion as to whether it's better or not. They're bith very good.
Its better but the basebuilding in 1 is comfier
>Is it even better than the first?
Yes and no
2 lets you build bases and has more units and factions
It's more balanced than 1, which was a fricking mess balance wise, but it feels less unique
>they remastered C&C/Red Alert but not Tib Sun
Its not FRICKING FAIR
I would assume TB and RA2 would get remastered together to continue the trend. Don't know why they haven't started considering that apparently the C&C remaster sold gangbusters
TibSun doesn't need a remaster and it's not a good game
Honestly I can't believe how EA is so incompetent with C&C
>stop supporting zero hour too early
>rebrand another game as c&c 4, flops
>make generals 2, randomly canclel it during closed beta
>release dozens of mobileslop c&c games
>finally do a good thing and allow the remastering of the first games
>no follow up though, must have been a fluke
>>no follow up though
people don't have nostaliga for the next C&C gen and they'd be harder to remake because of voxel graphics
The guys who made the remasters are up for it though, but since EA owns the IP and code there's nothing they can do without EA
Yeah it's a pity that not much else came out of it. Some love for Tiberian Sun + RA2 would've been great especially.
Most people just do not appreciate the art of wargaming.
devs aren't taking it seriously anymore. when they make one now, it just plays and looks like shit.
only autists enjoy it. just like chess.
It peaked with aoe2. Even your screenshot proves that despite being 20 years later they couldn't evenake it lool better
TA is where it's still at.
>tfw they'll never remaster TA
>I only play RTSs for the campaign and never touch them again once I'm done. Why did RTSs stop pandering to me? This is why RTSs are dead
>NO STOP PANDERING TO PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL PLAYING THE GAME
>There are actually people like this ITT.
Well maybe if (you) had actually been doing that, playing RTSs campaign/singleplayer all of the time over the last 20 years, then the devs would have noticed that there is an audience who consumes SP content instead of hyperfocusing on MP (which I agree that its is bad).
The only people still playing RTS games are absolute irredeemable spergs who represent 0.1% of the audience of the genre at its peak. Anyone who wants to make money development an RTS would be insane to build a game for such a small audience instead of targeting the 99.9% of people who play for the campaign. That's what most people do with video games, play the campaign then drop it, that's completely normal.
We know for a fact that's not true, Blizz released the numbers. It's half of players that stick around and do other shit, half play the campaign once and never touch it again.
Starcraft 2 is not representative of the normal RTS, it had a lively competitive scene like no other game had that was somewhat inviting to casuals
When it's one of like 3 RTS that people still bother to play I'd say it's kinda relevant.
Nobody plays SC2, all the pros retired years ago. WC3 reforced has a more alive custom game scene
>Nobody plays SC2
It has someting like 200k active players minimum at any one time, for a game from 2010.
It has 200k players active per season, not concurrently, which is admittedly more than I would have expected
Oh my bad. Still that's a lot of people coming back every season.
>The only people still playing RTS games are absolute irredeemable spergs who represent 0.1% of the audience of the genre at its peak
Lmoa, ok buddy, go raly the 99,9% of the RTS fanbase then and be change you want to see. Sart putting 2000 hrs into RTS singleplayer content. AoE 2 has at least 200 hrs of campaign content nowadays if you need some recomendations. Dont forget to make it clear that you bought all of its dlc just for the campaing only
Exactly, which is even funnier considering that singleplayer content has been a staple of RTSs and there is nothing preventing those people from doing what they want.
>Sart putting 2000 hrs into RTS singleplayer content
This is not how normal people play video games you dumb motherfricker. They play for 20hrs and call it a day, satisfied with their purchase
People who put 2000 hours into multiplayer are 100 times more valuable than people who put 20 hours into single player
They pay the exact same entry fee as the 20hrs people but are 100x more annoying, demanding balance changes, chasing away new players on the ladder, shitting up forums, harassing devs on social media. If developers could replace every nutcase obsessive with a casual player they would.
You can nickel and dime people who play 2000 hours for DLC and season passes and cosmetics and all that crap
>They pay the exact same entry fee as the 20hrs people
Unless we could add things like skins and voice packs that only they would buy...
I see that you are completly out of touch and probably has poor reading comprehension
Well, I hope that at least you are not a hypocrite who cries about devs pandering normalgays then
Are you stupid? My post is literally about how devs need to target normal people much harder if they want to revive the genre. RTS games solely appeal to the tiny minority of sick in the head ladder players remaining from decades ago. Targeting the hardcore is a recipe for certain death and commercial failure, yet hardcore players constantly egg them on. You have to know when not to listen to the loudest players as devs, many do not know how to do this.
Games constantly make the mistake of pandering to hardcore and quickly die as a result - Wildstar is a classic example in the MMO world.
>Games constantly make the mistake of pandering to hardcore and quickly die as a result - Wildstar is a classic example in the MMO world.
Counterpoint: EVE Online has outlasted fricking WoW in terms of being around on this planet.
WoW, even in its crippled dying state, is still vastly more commercially successful than Eve. WoW will continue on life support for another few decades if Everquest is anything to go by
It wasn't about being commercially successful, it's that EVE found its niche and didn't fricking die. EVE has tapped into the one market no other MMO seems to be able to successfully cater to: sociopaths and the people who are sad that they missed out on the Scramble for Africa
yeah fair point
>people who are sad that they missed out on the Scramble for Africa
lol
And my point is that devs who make games with a heavy versus component have like RTSs have a clear choice between people who play 20hr and never touch the game again, and people who play it for years, because it is obvious where the safe money is and free advertising.
>people who play 20hr and never touch the game again
This is how every RTS worked during the period they were actually popular. Starcraft is an anomaly, the multiplayer only got popular because of a weird subculture in PC bangs in Korea of all places
>Starcraft is an anomaly
Not really, starcraft was what came with the battle.net client which made it easy to play multiplayer with
>starcraft was what came with the battle.net client
No that was Warcraft 2
battle.net edition of WC2 came out years after SC and Diablo
What is the point that you are making here? I can only guess. I bet that most if not all of those games had a mp component and all the implications that this brings, like for example that MP was viewed as a desirable feature and intended by the devs (if not essential considering that it is vital for playtesting).
>What is the point that you are making here?
Are you really still not getting it? Most people play RTS for single player, always have, always will. Everyone loves Warcraft 3 for the story and campaign, not the autism simulator that is the multiplayer mode. It is not a complicated point to understand.
warcraft 3 had very popular multiplayer
It's not even true anyway, they are still releasing single player content for AoE2! Every expansion comes with a load of new campaigns, there are hundreds of hours worth of them by now.
Go play Battleforge right now
Same for Age of Empires Online
Best RTS games ever made, and both are free.
the instant I looked at it I knew it had nothing to do with rts
How so?
You command large armies, build defensive or offensive buildings and all of it is in real time, how does that not fit the definition of "RTS"?
And Age of Empires Online is like any other Age of Empires game but with different unique civs and itemization for troops and buildings ( PvP doesn't take these bonuses into account unless you want )
It's fricking frustrating to play. I want to see cool battles and not babysit my dumbfrick troops.
>t. A-move player
Mechabellum is something that you should be looking at