Why did the RTS genre die?

Why did the RTS genre die?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uvSUOweBa4I
amazon.com/Warcraft-III-Battle-Chest-PC-Mac/dp/B00009ECGK
youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8PTCxuzTA
youtube.com/channel/UC-pdFtCNPzMUi49fmo63wFw
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Because it's boring as fuck.
Grand strategy is where it's at.

Because the traditional RTS devs that matter stopped caring and people who would otherwise make RTS games decided to make fucking MOBAs instead.

Because the UI always sucks ass

Mobas took a massive chunk of their playerbase and most of those who remained just play Starcraft and nothing else.

Genre is as big as it ever was. It's just overshadowed by things that actually grew past it.

it divided into two camps, the mouthbreathing retards who enjoy playing miilitary sim city and think rts games are about single player, and adhd-ridden competitive assholes who think 5 minute rushes are enjoyable games, attempts to appeal to both audiences have failed

MOBAs are easier to get in to and the biggest RTS had a sequel that ended up being bad, with expansions that were even worse.

not enough real autistic playing it

>Genre is as big as it ever was
at one point in the 90s rts was THE pc game genre
now it's a corpse

Is there any Grand Strategy that doesn't have a boring setting? That actually has the feeling of a RTS game, but turn-based?

multiplayer focus

everything had to be balanced, everything had to be symmetrical, boring, similar, nothing could be unbalanced in the slightest, maps, units, factions, everything, just to have some sort of fair multiplayer mode

there are extreme cases of both: SC2 where everything is symmetrical and uninteresting but fairly balanced, and let's say Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge, where Yuri's faction is the most ridiculously overpowered and unbalanced broken piece of shit ever introduced to a game to the point where the majority of players would just play Red Alert 2's ladder mode just so Yuri couldn't be randomly encountered.

>building a base that looks like a junkyard


Don't touch me filthy peasant.

I'm hoping Halo Wars 2 somehow manages to be good, or at least very successful.

grand strategy isnt actually a real genre, it's just a word cooked up by fans of paradox's buggy historical military sims

>building a pretty base, researching every upgrade, maxing your population cap with your fantasy army and 1Aing over the easy computers base is an enjoyable passtime

You mean SC2? Because it's too hard for people to play.

Most adults are too tired to sit through stressful 1v1 games and read up on builds and practice them.

Blizz did a good job with the coop stuff in Legacy which has commanders, mutations etc.

In fact i'd say the 'fun' of the game is the best it has ever been, but maybe a little too late.

lol

Indeed.

I know its a fool's hope. Even the soundtrack won't be as good as the first.

Because there's nothing to improve upon
You have AoE2 for action slash building
Stronghold for chill RTS/ building
CC Generals/ Red Alert/ Tiberian Sun for fighting
Warcraft 3 for some small army management and story

And then you have everything that evolved from strategies, ea. grand strategies and MOBAs
The genre is dead.

>consoles

Attention span diminished. People only want MOBA now.

Its how I got into RTS as a kid.
I was too shit at strategy to actually play it properly against real AI.
First game I ever won was in Starcraft on the fuckton of minerals map where I mined my way and bombarded them from afar.
Nowadays I can barely play RTS's because they go too fast for me and I need a pause button. Its really weird that I can handle shit like CMANO but not Cossacks 3 on normal speed.

there's no shame in that
that's how every kid plays
the shame is the adults who still 'love' rts games but never graduated to multiplayer and think a good rts is about steamrolling stupid AIs

The games rely too much on micromanagement, which only autistic people actually enjoy

I mean I love RTS's, but I dislike going online because its either a 1v1 where I get smashed or a 2v2 where I feel like shit if im not pulling my weight.
If youre even slightly empathetical to your teammate you feel the obligation to git gud.
The last RTS I played online was Battlefleet Gothic, which consist of mostly spamming my low-cost deck to overwhelm the enemy via volume of fire, circa 17th century tactics.

Stale concept that aged badly. I wouldn't mind a true sequel to WC3 but that's just because i'm a nerd oldfag, most people wouldn't give a shit.

thats one of the reasons moba games are popular. you can play in a team enviornment where you wont immediately lose if you're not the best at the game. your teammates will flame the shit out of you, but you're still able to play. If you're shit at most rts games you're dead in 2 minutes

Because EA killed westwood, microsoft killed ensemble, and blizzard was never good at making strategy games so when strategy games died and they were left standing all they knew how to do was make gookclick trash.

I was really looking forward to it, then I played the beta and it was so terrible

I was away from home, so I wasn't able to play the beta.

Now it all makes sense.
Fuck MOBA's.

I love the RTS support group threads.

I think I'll play a bit of Stronghold today. Though last weekend my housemate and I both bought Cossacks 3 and have been having ome fun with that on multiplayer.

cannot be played on consoles.

that's it. these games take a lot of resources to make for balance reasons etc, and companies felt they couldn't get enough return off PC only

I guess that for me personally RTS games was always more exciting to WATCH than to PLAY because I didn't have the necessary micro and macro skills to reach anywhere near the top, so the games at my skill-level were often very 'samey', quite dull, and repetitive.

My reactions and speed aren't terrible by any means but I am starting to become an old man now and find that I appreciate the turn-based games more than ever. XCOM, Heroes of Might and Magic, Endless Legend, various Card Games, and Civ 5 with a ton of mods are my favorite things to play as of late even though RTS was my go-to genre as a teenager and I grew up playing the very first Command & Conquer and WarCraft 1. Lately I'm really enjoying pic related.

Blizzard killed it, just like the MMO and ARPG.

>blizzard was never good at making strategy games

Millennials killed it with everything else. Their attention spans are too short and they need shit that streams well on twitch.

skill ceiling too high for the general masses

Only good thing about sc1 and wc3 was the custom map scenes, wc1 and 2 sucked ass, everyone knew this, the only people who thought starcraft had any competition value was the koreans, by which point everyone in north america and europe had long dropped it.

But you don't have the skills necessary to reach the top of any game/genre.

So by your own logic, there's no point in playing any games or sports.

rts is one of the best games to spectate dumbass

kys

>wc2 sucked ass
leave this board kid. you never once played wc2.

Because RTS fans have unrealistic standards and won't accept anything new unless it's literally the best thing in the genre.

Hey, you can't deny that a successful Halo Wars 2 might get other studios to make more RTS games. We could get another Empire at War or anothe Battle for Middle-Earth. But it won't happen. Not with 343 having anything to do with it.

I have a hard copy that came with my wc3 battle chest, compared to C&C it's utter garbage, sorry you're invested so deeply in your shitty orc immigrant lore but it still sucked.

>dota international had a prize pool totaling 20 million dollars.

First place got a little over 9 million dollars.

RTS is not dead

>MOBA is too generic to label dota, fucking COD is a "MOBA" just from the description of MOBA.

Because despite like 10 new RTS games coming out in the past 2 years alone, and another on the way (Halo Wars 2, DoW3), It isn't enough because none of them are SupCom.

I'm stunned they are still even made with how ridiculous, insufferable and entitled RTS fans are.

>I have a hard copy that came with my wc3 battle chest

LOL
get the fuck out little kid

That's not true - I am ranked top 100 in the world in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, and way above average in most games that I play online. Of course the total amount of players playing DCSS is a whole lot smaller than most other games, so with less competition it's easier to climb higher on the ladders - It makes sense. Also frequently get some world's first in Path of Exile still, when they open the new leagues. I normally end up in the top 100-300 there as well. But neither of these two games mentioned are PvP - You just compete to progress faster and further or perform better than everyone else.

WC and WC2 were shit-tier compared to C&C and Red Alert.

WC3 was GOAT because of the custom games. The game itself is really good, but I consider RA2/YR to be better than WC3/FT

They just need to remaster Warcraft 3, nerf blademaster and change the meta so that every undead doesn't just go crypt fiends and frost wyrms all the time and we're good to go.

I'd still be playing the game if it wasn't for the 1 second delay between commands.

That's because at some point they stopped making primarily pc games for pc and console games for console (by that I mean for the most part, you wouldn't see a platformer on a pc or a point and click adventure game outside of Clock Tower on consoles).

When everything merged, the stuff that was unique to each started fading away.

you weren't there and are parroting your own opinions

it's funny how you don't even understand the importance of the online kali wc2 community but hey you don't even know what kali was.

stay talkin about shit you're ignorant about little kid. PS C&C ripped off WC2 in terms of basic mechanics, retard

>I own the game
>I've played and beaten the game
>You still think you're right
Alright, I quit, keep up the stupid user, never let anyone stop you.

GS is not turn based though

Warcraft 2 was amazing - Arguably the best in the entire series. Warcraft 3's custom maps and modes were groundbreaking innovative but the campaign and regular games weren't as amusing as WC2 was. Also one of the very first games that had a very sweet map-maker included that was easy to use for the players. I'd definitely rank it above Command & Conquer both for it's campaign and multiplayer skirmishes. Arguably Red Alert 2 was a better multiplayer experience - Something about that game was just amazing. Korea best nation - Black Eagles for the win!

Ashes of the Singularity
Call to Arms
Legacy of the Void
Etherium
Deserts of Kharak
Grey Goo
Offworld Trading Company
Homeworld Remastered

I mean really. There's TONS of new RTS games coming out and I love almost everything on that list. But not only are RTS fans impossible to please, they don't even want to be please. They purposefully ignore every single RTS that comes out and then whine "WHY IS THIS GENRE DYING"

If you think Arena Shooter fans are hard to please think again. At least they're willing to TRY the newest games. RTS fans don't even bother.

wow you "beat" it yet you never played it against another player

With C&C 4

I really don't think people are buying Halo Wars because it's an RTS, it's just another thing they can slap the Halo name on. If anything they would be inclined to make different types of Halo games.

different person here
i was there and wc2 was far inferior to C&C
both sides were exactly the same, and all units behaved the same with slightly different attack values, there were no tanks that turned or could crush infantry or helicopters that could take off and land

Because the Strategy in RTS is only about which unit you should mass to win the game

The mechanics are shit user, I would never play that garbage against anyone. It follows the same shitty theme as all blizzard games where you mass pump one type of unit and send in the zerg.

That isn't even all of the RTS games that have come out, some are missing but I cant remember them off the top of my head.

The genre is alive and well. Halo Wars 2 is on the way, Dawn of War 3 is on the way.

RTS fans are so bad they've already dismissed both because "haha why play that when supcom exists"

It tried to he a dawn of war 2 style victory point capture win which didn't work for it at all, all the economy was pretty weird and every single strategy you could come up with was inferior to massing marines. That and there was horrible input lag

rts games died WAY before console and pc got 'merged'
they died when fps games started to become popular
for much the same reasons adventure games did, the gameplay sucked

Is it me or most RTS games are super snowball-y? Like, if you lose a major number of units you're pretty much done. I guess MOBAs became more interesting because of the bigger probability of comebacks

the genre isn't dying, it's long dead, and honestly if you like any of those games you have pretty bad taste

They are still alive and well.

idk sc2 was fun as fuck, but there was no custom games with like big game hunters 2v2, thats all i did in brood wars.

sc2 was more focused on 1v1 serious ranked ladder mode, which is just stressful and not as fun really.

>it's just another thing they can slap the Halo name on
True. At least the first Halo Wars was alright. The soundtrack to that game is 10/10.
youtube.com/watch?v=uvSUOweBa4I

What a shame.

you clearly weren't alive when they were actually popular then

I like those games because I enjoy the RTS genre. I'm sorry if that upsets you. You can miserable in the corner and ignore every attempt to bring it back and I'll continue to enjoy the new things that come to it.

If supcom 3 and a new C&C got announced tomorrow. There would be no hype at all. You people are hilarious.

>Deserts of Kharak

That game is the comfiest RTS I've ever played. The ambient radio chatter is amazing

because rock paper scissors can only have so many forms

i got bored with no Co-Op and PvP that wasnt fun coz you either had quitters, full noobs or elitists that do nothing but play to win

quite frankly i didnt enjoy my time in RTS or MOBAs. it felt like a chore, like doing the dishes or paying the bills. as if you had to work to play right

also FUCK any win 1000 games to get an avatar bullshit Starcraft had. like why you cant fucking make games for busy working people instead of neets who got all the time in the world to study your game mechanics?

I love(d) RTS games but they'd dead
the only way I can see anyone liking those games was if they didnt play them back when they were actually alive
I mean SC2 was polished as fuck and the campaign was fun but strategically it didnt offer anything games 10 years it's senior didn't

>no true scotsmen would enjoy those games

Pathetic. Not an argument.

>but its true!

Fallacy.

What are the chances those Starcraft 1 remasters were true?

And what ever happened about that thing Blizzard said a few guys were working on related to a Warcraft RTS?

Dawn of War 2 was one of the worst games I've ever played in my entire life. Talk about a mindless Zerg. It was such a huge downgrade over the first Dawn of War which was actually really good and had a great skirmish mode (Thinking about the expansion in which you took over all those home planets, specifically!)

>like why you cant fucking make games for busy working people
they're called mobile games, have you tried Crash Royale? it seems right up your alley

>No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"; i.e., those who perform that action are not part of our group and thus criticism of that action is not criticism of the group).[2]

you don't think it's a valid complaint that RTS games haven't evolved since the 10-15 years when they were popular? fuck, even platformers have found a way to feel fresh

RTS is dead because C&C is dead.
Luckily EA isn't completely shit like a nintendo so they don't kill fan projects, and within another 2 years this puppy will have tiberian sun support and entire campaigns for the other games.

>It's a lets blame MOBA's for everything episode.

They don't translate to consoles.

that dude is calling you out because you said you got it from the battle chest, which wc2 it doesn't include.

Why would you openly say something so stupid to blatantly show that you never played WC2. You could of literally just said, "yeah i pirated it", but then you said some dumbass shit. Good job.

amazon.com/Warcraft-III-Battle-Chest-PC-Mac/dp/B00009ECGK

When we were all 9 years old we would play the lamest, turtle style and mass our favorite units and 1a over the AI.

Then Starcraft 2 came out and us average plebs got a taste of what real RTS was like with build orders and micro and unit compositions and most people realized they didn't actually like RTS, they like military-themed Sim City games or simpler to control MOBAs.

sounds good
is the final fantasy mobile title out yet btw, i heard they were desinging it for people who dont have time to sit in front of a screen 5 hours anymore

>mindless zerg

... the game where you actually have to use tactics and set up your units to control the map?

Kid, you would get destroyed by me 9/10 in multiplayer. If you want we can hash out a couple games right now.

I don't care if they haven't evolved. I still have a lot of fun with the perfected formula. My first game ever was Metaltech Earthsiege back in 1995 (it was released in 94), just to give a little idea that no I didnt start playing games in 2008.

The genre in fact has been reinvented and made fresh (MOBAS), they aren't my cup of tea though so I don't play them.

Because every game became the same.

Game comes out.

Someone crunches the numbers, finds the optimal build orders.

Everyone practices those build orders as fast as possible to try and get an edge on the opponent.

Plus the fact that it's like playing Rock-Paper-Scissors with the ability to occasionally catch a small glimpse of your opponent's strategy (that you'd only be aware of if you knew the meta and the strategies to tell why he put a certain building in the place he did).

Also:
-The games require too much micromanaging and split attention
-StarCraft swallowed the market
-The RTS community is toxic, quite literally, to any new RTS game that comes out

And I think the biggest reason is that RTS games did a couple of things in mediocre ways.

People who wanted to build big bases got into City builders and city builders got more diverse and advanced.
People who wanted to micromanage units got into small-scale tactical games or into RTT as that genre advanced(which are probably superior anyways).
People who want to lay grand plans over a long period of time got into Grand Strategy games.

>you don't think it's a valid complaint that RTS games haven't evolved since the 10-15 years when they were popular?

They have. They turned in to Mobas (which are shit). Evolution isn't always good senpai..

>average sc2 match is 15 minutes
>average moba match is 45 minutes

It was big because there wasnt many other interesting game out there at the time. Its still bigger now than it was back then. Stop being retarded, you would know this had you actually played them back then.

Please don't defend Dawn of War 2. It was a disgrace compared to the first game. The first one had control points too, but actually featured proper base building and the like.

>perfected formula
thats a complete joke
you could look at an fps or platformer maybe and say 'perfected formula'
the only thing you can say about rts is it's an aborted genre
it doesnt mean much if you've never played one and you enjoy one today, i'd enjoy one too if i'd never played one but for fans of the genre all they can do is circlejerk over their old favourites because everyone failed to move it foward and fix the problems with rts

>average sc2 match is 15 minutes where you constant attention is required after the first minute.
>average moba match is 45 minutes where you can dick around half the match and keep one eye on your other monitor or tab out for a little bit

>World in Conflict 2 never

mobas are a spin-off, they're distinct from rts. mobas wont fulfill your desire to play rts

Not him but the guy's statement that the game is a zerg rush makes me think he never even played it.

They put all their emphasis on small number of units and ability usage/placement. It's just an objectively idiotic thing to say regardless of the quality of the above.

RTS was fun before the e-sports mentality to most normies.
It's the same way with fighters.
People played fighters mashing thinking that's the way to play them. Now even rookie ranks will know optimized combos and try to emulate pro play.

It's the internet. Knowledge alone will naturally push you to force to do the "right thing". In this case, playing RTS efficiently/competitively.

And that is a nerve-wrecking activity for casuals, so they'll choose not to play them at all.
You cannot play StarCraft casually when you know in the back of your mind that that's not how you play properly. It's not the same feeling as thinking you're doing the right thing by ignorance, when everyone else around you is ignorant too.

You're still shit, but you now REALIZE it. And so casuals don't like feeling like shit. See how mobile games have splashing rewards, systems and mind hoops for making you feel good when infact you don't even deserve it? That's planned, that's psychological. Casuals want to feel like they are good. Relatively to the top players, casuals will be worms in RTS.

I will defend DoW 2, cause it's fun. DoW 1 was good too, but to call DoW 2 a "mindless zerg" versus DoW 1 (which essentially is, besides build orders) is completely fucking retarded and on top of that DoW 1 has minimal micro in comparison so it's not as if there was much skill in that either.

And yes, both DoW had control points, but only one of them featured flanking and holding choke points with suppression bolters and properly using abilities to overcome shit which was DoW 2.

Again, I like both games even though both had radically different style, but DoW 2 was absolutely not a disgrace and I still play a few games on the regular cause you know, it's fun.

Sorry, you blow at DoW 2, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

RTS then, every big company was making one, front page of every magazine after C&C came out
now they're delegated to AA developers nobody has ever heard of, and even blizzard failed to maintain a playerbase with their super-polished SC2

I consider the things you see as "problems" just part of the genre. A lot of the things that iron out those problems split it in to subversions of the genre (mobas, city builders, rtt etc)

Sorry, but I love RTS games, even the new ones. Despite growing up on Total Annihilation, Red Alert and CAC

I got Warcraft 2: Battle.net Edition for free too when I bought Warcraft 3. The guy just handed me it over the counter. It was in a square cardboard case.
The same thing probably happened to him.

This

True. Once everyone realized they weren't Flash or Jaedong or MC or whoever, they couldn't play the game anymore

Exactly that happened to me, they were having some sort of promotion. I was trying to find it to prove this guy wrong but it's not in my old cd box neither is wc3 so I just had a bit of a panic attack

I didn't name any problems with the genre. I don't actually know what they are to be honest, all I know is that RTS games are dead and none of them have felt fresh in at least ten years and the public at large seems to feel the same

There are people that can look up to flash and jaedong and be inspired knowing that one day, maybe i can be that good. Im an example

Is there anything worse in an RTS than every unit having an array of skills on cooldowns like in a goddamn MMO?

>Its still bigger now than it was back then
Stop smoking whatever it is you do, "back then" there were dozens of RTS of varying quality released in a single year, now we have maybe half a dozen at best and none of them above mediocre.

>tfw you will never experience TS + FS for the first time ever again
youtube.com/watch?v=Qq8PTCxuzTA

>see thread
>ctrl + f "consoles"
>actually have to scroll to find first instance

Step it up Cred Forums

Excatly that, without autocast.

are you korean?

if not then no, you can not be

fucking a girl makes you feel good so you want that
eating shit and stabbing yourself into the chest doesnt feel good, so you dont want that

>WOAH DUDE ITS PSYCHOLOGICAL

..but that's absolutely delusional.

You will never.. ever.. be that good. To be that good at that game, you literally need to put in 8-12 hours a day on the game. That's the barrier between Korea and Foreigners is the amount of time they put into the game on the daily.

And that isn't enough for most people to keep playing anyway even if it was feasible. Grinding out game after game on a ladder isn't fun for most people, or reviewing replays or mastering build orders... i mean you just have to have that sort of mindset and unfortunately the common man can't be bothered by anything that isn't shiny and instantly gratifying.

The fanbase is as big as ever, it just didn't explode as much as every other fanbase did in recent years. Suits see these other exploding fanbases and tell the devs to go for that rather than the stagnating RTS fanbase.
It's more casual playerbase moved on to MOBAs though. Since devs are only chasing the big bucks (and the bucks are now bigger than ever) they usually make MOBAs instead of RTS because RTS need the player to really dig into and understand the mechanics even for just casual play. So the mass market appeal of other genres are lost on RTS.
On top of that, the fact that game development is now more expensive than ever lead to there basically being nothing inbetween AAA and indie. The bulk of RTS games back in the day was made by smaller dev studios.

Also, RTS games that are made today apparently try to invent the wheel anew rather than building upon the standards set 10 to 20 years ago.

there's nothing inspiring about gookclick unless you're a gook
it's not about strategy and creativity, it's about skill, practice and execution.

>no Sins of a Solar Empire 2

It hurts desu senpai

bad pathfinding and not obvious boundaries of objects, like a building taking up 4x5 space but the actual building sprite/body is like 3x3

Cossacks 3 is great.

I wish you good luck. Maybe one day I'll see you in WCS

>the game where you actually have to use tactics and set up your units to control the map?
Just like DoW1.
>Kid, you would get destroyed by me 9/10 in multiplayer
The same would happen to you, considering that you admit to thinking that map control and pressure does not matter in 1.

>The fanbase is as big as ever
millenial pretending he knows shit detected

>RTS genre died
wrong

You do know millenials were also born in the 80s, right?

Anyway, just because it looks smaller now doesn't mean it shrunk. Everything else just got bigger. The problems RTS games have is that they can't manage to get new players to play them.

[spolier] BLABLABLABLA [/spoiler]

i havent played rts in over two years :/

Casuals know they will NEVER pull off the hype clutch plays pros in SC do. RTS is a genre with too high a skill ceiling.

>the shame is the adults who still 'love' rts games but never graduated to multiplayer
And when you become an adult you will realize that your concept of maturity is awkwardly childish.

I haven't played RTS in almost 12 hours.

>You do know millenials were also born in the 80s, right?

You realize that when people compain about millenials, who they mean when they use the term is important, not that they might use the term falsely?

your post just reeks of projecting your knowledge of the current game industry into the past
rts games were popular, casual, and made by the biggest game studios
kids loved them and they broke into the dad gaming market aswell

>That's the barrier between Korea and Foreigners

And their ridiculous internet let's them play at >5ms latency.
And because of this, all the gooks are on a higher tier of play, thus meaning they're able to learn and train at an accelerated rate.
And playing videogames for an exceptional amount of time isn't socially condemned like it is everywhere else.
And

It's been almost 12 minutes for me

I just won a SC2 match where my protoss opponent played overly defensive and allowed me to tech up to crackling/broodlord/corruptor while doing minimal damage.

>t. guy who played C&C a little bit when he was 13

I know that i wont ever reach flash status, but for me its enough knowing that with enough effort and passion you can be THAT good.

I agree with what you say though that sc2 isnt a game everyone will enjoy simply because of how much effort you must put in, its definitely not a game for everyone.

Granted sc2 is very much about mechanics and execution but its the decisions you make on the fly that will be the big difference.

That is certainly a factor but if there are other ways to play the game, the game will live on. If for example sc2 would have a really solid arcade from the get go, the game would be better off now i think. The coop missions are a step in the right direction though.

In this case my concept of maturity is actually challenging yourself instead of role-playing against an opponent who offers little to no resistance, like a kid playing with toys. I mean if you think that's mature more power to you I guess

why you even bother with a shit genre

who /faf/ here

thousands of hours into all C&Cs, top of the ladder at points in generals and bfme

>Ashes of the Singularity
Unoptimized and garbage

>Call to Arms
Early access shit

>Legacy of the Void
>gookclick

>Etherium
>40% positive review score

>Deserts of Kharak
It's OK at best

>Grey Goo
Shit

>Offworld Trading Company
Boring trading simulator

>Homeworld Remastered
>New RTS game

DoW 1:
>Don't get your ranged units tied up
>Keep melee in the front
>control critical points this way without spreading to much

DoW 2:
>Ranged units not tied up
>melee in front
>Suppression in cover on points
>Assault to jump/tie suppression/value targets
>War gear to counter opponent
>Positioning vehicles so they don't get rear damage
> keepin' models alive by retreating away from melee
>control points with specialized units to hold chokes so you can react properly

You know the game has the exact same system as Company of Heroes right? That game, along with this one, which is absolutely all about tactics?

DoW 1 is about strategy, which is fine, but it's not anywhere near as in-depth as 2.

And I never said map control doesn't matter cause that would be retarded cause that's how the basic mode of the game is played you fucking retard, I said you have to actually use your fucking brain and acknowledge the map's terrain so you don't get completely fucked by disruption and cover mechanics.

Please defend against this.

>And their ridiculous internet let's them play at >5ms latency.
>And because of this, all the gooks are on a higher tier of play, thus meaning they're able to learn and train at an accelerated rate.
That means very little actually, especially since games like SC2 have latency equalizers so both players or on the same level. Koreans have the advantage of having a scene for 15 years before foreigners really got into it, thus breeding the best players and the best practice environment

>And playing videogames for an exceptional amount of time isn't socially condemned like it is everywhere else.
It is though, most parents want their kids to go to college and get degrees, not play video games all day. For every one kid who makes it in esports, 100 just waste their time trying.

Why do you show up in every RTS thread if you do not like these games?

Also I won't reply to you after this.

this is not an RTS faggot stop thinking of counter tactics a to reply

...so you think their 5ms latency is what allows them to get up to 300 apm? You think internet latency is tied to learning (i.e. knowledge of the game) and training (i.e. developing muscle memory)?

>playing video games for an exceptional amount of time isn't socially condemned like it is everywhere else

And the cream of the crop ignorant statement. Fucking kill yourself. You are automatically a loser if you so much as even consider the thought of trying to become a pro gamer in Korea. Literally get banished from your fucking family type of condemnation. If you're not on top, you're on the fuckin' bottom in that culture. Why would you make such an off the cuff ignorant statement like that when you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about?

This.

I bought all of the starcraft games, played through the campaigns once, spent a couple of hours doing multiplayer until i realised i was bad, and spent about 1000 hours in coop

efficiency of the market

RTS were way bigger than they ever deserved to be and once people started playing a better product, one that was considerably more fun and easier to access then they just moved to that and RTS popularity fell to where it was always supposed to be

Consider how autistic you have to be to enjoy RTS. Resource management, unit management, macro, micro, strategy where you have to build this building at this very second, scouting. You call it skill, sure, it takes skill. Most people just call it autism.

*launches nuke at ur base*

>doing difficult things is autism
yeah I guess if you aren't working minimum wage or a welfare queen you have autism

>literally comparing gameplay to work
this is how autistic you are

source?

i work hard i play hard people like you will never understand

Do you really think playing with 120ms latency isn't a huge barrier to entering pro play? Faker himself said 40 ping is "unplayable".

faker is an autist

Any game where asian people are the best players is a game for autists. It's their very nature to find the most efficient process, they are a people who just love calculating numbers.

Wc2 was fucking amazing at the time you degenerate

So every genre except for FPS?

No, he's a Korean.They just act like autists.

well that and single player games

Came out the same year as C&C and was garbage in comparison.

>Cred Forums
>you're autistic
>no you're autistic

You're talking about RTS games and you bring up Faker. Just fucking stop, you're so fucking stupid.

"40 ping is unplayable" how? And 120ms is quite a fuckin' bit different than 40 don't you think? It's current year. Where the fuck are you getting 120ms?

Are you literally trying to play from new york and connecting to korea? If so, stop being a fucking retard and play locally.

Also, as said, Faker is a fucking autist. He's a pro LoL player, he's an autist by definition.

westerners are on equal terms with chinks at dota

>tfw no one gives you (You)s

*shows ur mom a screenshot of what you do at PC*

and pro RTS players aren't autists? they would be considerably more autistic to play a more "skillful" game by the very nature of what it means to be more skillful

That's because the chinks that are good at videogames play lol instead

Well, autists, generally speaking, excel at one thing, so I would make the contention that LoL players are more autistic cause all you do is sit in lane and cs.

And since most pro games, that is games at that high of level, are decided in the first 10 mins (i'll find you a source if you need to validate this); then yeah. It's staring at your lane and cs'ing.

You could say that autistic aspect can be found in build orders or manipulating units, but generally speaking an autist would be good at only one of those things, not both.

So, unless you're suggesting RTS players have high functioning autism (which is true more than likely) versus something like Faker which is subhuman in comparison essentially.

- Autism Expert Professor

why so they can earn less money?

>Grand strategy is where it's at.
GSG is fucking awful

4X is better

Yes

>Why did the RTS genre die?

AAA studios stopped making them, it's as simple as that.

Consoles, casualising and streamlining. The average gamer these days just doesn't want to put in as much actual effort into a game as RTS games usually require.

Similar thing happened with MMOs i.e. WoW where once the playerbase grew past college-age and into full-time working adulthood, they simply didn't have enough time to fully enjoy WoW like they used to. The result of which is streamlining and casualisation for the sake of being newcomer-friendly and time-friendly, otherwise the playerbase will slowly trickle away due to time-constraints or scaring new players away.

RTS is very rooted in mechanics that if casualised or streamlined, would lose practically everything that makes it what it is.

Because RTT games are superior and you know it.

Starcraft focused more on being gook 1000 actions per second simulator than being actually fun.

How far is it now? I'd like to play with a couple of friends.

Lets see:
Command & Conquer
>studio closed down 5 years after EA bought them
Might & Magic
>doomed once franchise creator left New World Computing
>3DO bought out NWC, and turns out 3DO was bad at finances
>Ubisoft buys out franchise, but fails to do anything with it beyond more Heroes of M&M
Age of Empires
>Franchise sales died down at third game, in a planned 5 game franchise(bronze, medieval, napolic, modern, SPACE)
>Studio closed by Microsoft in 2009
Ultima
>Origin Systems was bought out in 1992
>Creator left in 2000
>Studio closes down in 2004
>Richard Garriott has faith in the MMO dream
Any other franchise we can summarize?
I get that the 3D change killed a lot if, but still.

you only need like 150 apm to play at a master league level. anyone can click that fast

>muh gookclick 100000000000000000000 APM
>muh comfy city builder
>muh rush in 0,00000000001 sec in the game
>muh esports ruins muh games
>muh total war

I don't even know why I even bother to open these threads when the responses are always the same shit

Yeah and as soon as someone does one click wrong they forfeit.

You forgot:

Command & Conquer
>fanbase gave up on series after terrible "[Franchise Name] Online" game

Age of Empires
>fanbase gave up on series after terrible "[Franchise Name] Online" game

depends how bad a misclick it is.

>If you think Arena Shooter fans are hard to please think again. At least they're willing to TRY the newest games.

>implying

Arena shooter fans are super elitst in regards to anything that's not UT, Quake, or the like. Halo isn't touched with a 10 foot pole even though they are great games.

Hell even Halo fans have their heads stuck so far up their own ass they won't touch Halo 5 even though it has the best gameplay the series has had in over a decade, if not ever

Cossacks 3 is pretty fun

The west isn't Japan user.
Its not as much "fanbase gave up" as "One game did poorly".
And then somebody sees that and go like "okay, one game did poorly, lefts kill the franchise".

Meanwhile in Japan
>One game offends the fanbase
>Successor games only reach 10-20% of sales

The only misclick bad enough to force you to forfeit is if you throw all your workers into a group of banelings
Which just doesn't happen unless you have brain damage

Too much thinking and not enough action for the waves of new console normies who just wanna shoot shit bro

That's the boring kind of RTS, I was unable to finish 40k Winter assault because every mission boiled down to that which made the game very boring.

Can't play them on consoles.

>inb4 muh haah waaw
>c&c3

You don't know what you are talking about. Grand strategy is rarely turn based.

>RTS is genre that was always played on PC the most
>RTS genre is struggling now because of MOBA F2P shit
>somehow it is console gamers fault

Winter Assault had timed missions, missions where you defend. Not just what was described in previous post.

which games are you talking about?

Because the genre sucks. I don't care how casual that makes me. Multi-tasking at that competitive level is stressful and irritating, and not fun. When I do well, it's because I managed to spam workers until I was stable enough to spam units and specifically 20 of the same unit that's OP in midgame to wreck my opponent.

>>blizzard was never good at making strategy games
>statistically identical factions
>one is still overpowered
"Blizzard balance lmao" was always a thing even when it shouldn't have been possible

Because all RTS games feels the same.

That's only if you stick to Westwood clones. You can't seriously tell me that Majesty feels like Sacrifice and that either feels anything like Red Alert.

Just like how all shooters feel the same really.

It can become incredibly rewarding though.

>playing starcraft 2
>some guy tries to cheese with proxy pylon
>manage to still overcome it despite the odds.

current gen to stupid for RTS games or many games in general
also it is hard to break down a RTS game into a one button press A game
majority is overwhelmed by controlling one unit at a time see League/Dota 2

>le hardcore gamer meme

This
I was never good at SC2, but I spend a lot of time playing multiplayer because it was fun.

Yeah but shooters don't really need you to focus or pay attention

I've somehow managed to make it into Platinum despite being shit.

Now it's mostly people massing a single unit and steam rolling through.

I'm too shit to properly micro and macro so I suck at harassing.

>Mfw basically grew up with rts games

Gen z shitters will never know the joy

I only got to Gold and that was in Wings of Liberty. I really sucked dick in macro, was to much of a bitch to have healthy economy and expand because of muta harassment. If I had to play now I would probably be much better.

Getting to Platinum or Diamond is pretty much being decent at macro lots of shitters don't understand this and try to do build orders. There was a guy that got to gold by just building queens proving that you can win against almost any unit by just having way better eco than the enemy.

It died because devs couldn't figure out how to make you units obey you. I'm playing WH40k Dawn of War: Winter Whatever for the first time, and the units don't do what I say half the time. I could just be spoiled because of SC2 though.

>DoW1
>tactics
if you said DoW: Ultimate Apocalypse that's different, but DoW1 is just attack moving a gigantic blob of units at the enemy base, it's the same shit as the starcraft 2 marine/marauder/medivac blob

DoW2 you dont have hundreds of units so you have to actually think about what you do with them and not just a-move your 150 supply of guardsmen with some elite and HQ units supporting them to win

SC2 and mobas killed it

>we will never have warcraft 4
>we will never have rise of nations 2
>we will never have age of empires 4

My only hope is with Dawn of War 3, but i think i'll get my asshole obliterated by disappointment.

Gen Z might grow up on the RTS derivated Pimin clones.
Like Pikmin, Overlord, Little Kings Story, etc.

Well, we got Cossacks 3.

Some older RTS have poorer AI pathfinding is what you are trying to say I believe.

who the fuck has played those games seriously

Somebody.

>Play Warcraft III
>Find out it has Attack Move
>Stop using Move and only use Attack Unit when needed

Yeah, pretty much. It seems even worse than SC1 though, unless I'm remembering wrong. Fucking guy in charge of pathfinding had downs.

WC3 was pretty dope. I played through it a few months ago.

Because of Developer / Publisher business choices. Creating a good RTS game is HARD. It takes both time an money to get right something Publishers really dont want to give.

Think of all the "Classic" RTS games. C&C, SUPCOM, Starcraft. What do they all have in common? A nice long good singleplayer. All of them made good singleplayer games FIRST then evolved the multiplayer out of the singleplayer.

This is something Publishers and many Developers absolutely do not want to do in the industry right now. They all want to make a multiplayer game and shove it out the door. The reason this doesn't work is RTS at its core is a very simple game. The concepts behind it are easy. This means you can completely overbalance everything and make it bland. Each side does their THING. Each side has a unit that does X. Each unit is strong against Y but weak against Z.

This is why you have to start with singleplayer. Making a good LONG singleplayer forces the developers to get creative and "break" the expected rules to keep the player entertained. If you do that then turn it into a multiplayer experience all those things follow with it and you get sides that are unique from each other. Side that simply cant do some things other sides can do.

RTS died not from interest from players but because Developers and Publishers dont want to put the work into it and care WAY to much about multiplayer.

rts games started as single player games until people eventually realized they were way better as multiplayer games, as anyone who played them for a significant amount of time and wasn't a complete autist would realize aswell

A lot has changed and is still changing.

They're now introducing separate ranked races where you might play Gold ranking as Zerg but Silver ranking as Terran.

but we did get rise of nations 2 (rise of legends) and it was fucking trash

Its not Pathfinding, its how much clutter you need to do to get units to behave, in a easy way.

Starcraft and Warcraft III for instance has attack moving.
Age of Empires has the AI controls for things like Patrol to be fucked up, and you can't manually attack move, you need to attack, kill unit, then don't reorder.

A lot of RTS has this sorta of weird thing going on, and it feels messy and unwieldy compared how it could be.

I started with C&C on the Sega Saturn. RTS has always been my favorite kind of game and looking back on it I think I'm completely right.

It was the rise of multiplayer centrism that ruined it. When you could hop from one game to a totally different one and have sides feel similar to what they do and play the industry has failed.

They all simply care about balance to much making sure its all nice and perfect and no one is at a disadvantage. Its perfectly ok to have side imbalance. Those imbalances are what make it fun. When you start building your side with the other sides strengths in mind you failed. You completely failed. You should never build and plan to give the side your making ways to deal with other sides because then its all just bland nothing. Its the players responsibility to come up with methods to deal with it with the tools they have.

Developers pussied out. RTS was supposed to bring us into a new world of smart AI but instead they all bitched out and cheated the system before running away.

trying to balance for multiplayer made RTS games more bland sure, but if you think playing repititive missions against terrible AI where strategy barely comes into play at all is a good game compared to a real, thinking opponent you don't grasp what strategy games are all about

Exp;lain.

really good ai is outside the scope of ordinary game development

RTS is only good with good AI right? Once you figure out the AI's ticks the game is over. For a while AI was getting better and better but then development just kind stopped. Instead they started giving the AI free units and letting them cheat. Then when players bitched they just stopped making RTS games all together.

AI has cheated since day 1. and it never got much better, it just went from 'barely functional' to 'bad'

ut99 AI is wonderful
unlike ut3 which its "i know exactly where you are 100% of the time" and i have 100% accuracy
i only played C&C and a little of starcraft so i dont know any rts game thats hard and not because infinite resources and instant construction

I should have said "strategy ai" then. fps game ai is cakewalk in comparsion

Age of Empires wasn't given up on because of a terrible online game
Ensemble Studios got killed in all but name because Halo Wars flopped

ea kills westwood and its assets
praises ea for keeping a speck of dust of its former self alive
wow what a progressive company

Ensemble was killed WAY before Halo Wars. Seriously ream some of their development blogs. Its a miracle Halo Wars was finished all with what they did to them.

Hes probably talking about total war and alike games.

This, its weird because I dont get stressed out in games like CS:GO, Dota, LoL, Overwatch but SC2 just stresses the FUCK out of me, which makes the game not enjoyable.

EA command and conquer games were way better than westwood ones until red alert 3. and westwood still exists as petroglyph and makes garbage like grey goo and 8 bit armies

Nothing will beat brood war so they stopped trying. Also mobas

And considering Halo Wars was actually quite good for a console game.

Cutter was best hero. With best ODSTs

I was like 6 when EA bought Westwood. Even as a kid I knew they were evil. It just didn't make sense or seem right that a company could just buy another like that. I've been boycotting them since.

it wasn't a hostile takeover, every company ea bought out was because the company agreed to it because they wanted more money

Oh I know that NOW. But I was like 6 at the time. To me EA was this big scary thing that just ate the guys that made my favorite game.

+1

League, Overwatch, Hearthstone and currently Stronghold Crusader 2. It's just a game :))


>SC2 on the other-hand.

> It was founded by Brett Sperry and Louis Castle in 1985
>The company was bought from Virgin Interactive by Electronic Arts (EA) in 1998, and closed by EA in 2003.
> Castle remained with Westwood when it was bought by Electronic Arts in 1998 and he was a vice president and General Manager of EA's Blueprint Studio.
>Brett Sperry: However, in 1997 he took a larger role within the companies as Virgin Interactive's President of Worldwide Development, an internal attempt to turn Virgin's otherwise struggling video games divisions into a profitable enterprise.

Contrast this with Origin Systems in Basically EA can't into game development time management, or the cores of the teams leave once they see the new time constraints.
I don't really understand why they would choose to defunct the teams, instead of just fixing the issues they have.

I.E EA was funded by Trip Hawkins. Trip Hawkins created 3DO, failed a console, then killed his entire company over 7 months because they never fixed anything by shortening the dev cycles to "6-9 months".
The entire culture of Trip Hawkins seem to be a thing EA kept, for no reason, and failed to recognize.
I get that their entire stratergy at the time was being "a growth company", but i think they failed miserably at it, compared to how big they could have got.

People just found it easier and more fun to control just a small number of units (Or just 1 when it comes to LoL) rather than micromanaging entire armies

And i have to admit i'm one of those too, i'm just too retarded and i don't really have the time to learn effective micromanagement. I even have a hard time using Meepo in Dota.

Its because EA view video games as a means to an end and not an end. They dont give two flying fucks about the games or the players. All they want is the money. Everything they do is to that end.

I can understand some of the team defuncts.
Like when you buy out Might & Magic, and it turns out the CEO of that company was literally the only thing holding it together, most of the programmers ain't worth the salt, and the writers has a too big ego to salvage.

But I don't get the idea that you can buy out a company, then fail to realize why you are ruining, and its okay.... because you don't get to keep the programmers?

Ea doesn't buy for the talent except on one condition. They buy for the brand name and the consumer base. Unless the talent has a name that sells products they dont care about them at all. They buy companies for their consumers because they know that in the short therm no mater what those consumers will buy the product because they will thing the quality will be the same.

Its all a means to an end. They dont care about the game. They care about how easy it will be to get to your money.

Catering to APM fetishists.

>They buy for the brand name and the consumer base.
Then whats the point if you buy a company for the profit of 20-30 games, and then defunct it after 4-5?

>lets be friends, there's nothing to worry about, you can trust me
>just sign here to give us total control over your company in exchange for a ton of money
>nothing bad will happen guise, we swear
>dead_bullfrog_in_rain.gif

You forgot Universe at War which was one of the best RTS games I have ever played.

Thats due to reinforcement, if the unit gets reinforced is a "new unit" and forgets the orders you did

Considering that I have an APM of 100 - 120, I'm beating fags that sit at 180+

The whole system is a joke

Everyone and their mom relocated to Grand Strategy

>more fun to control just a small number of units rather than micromanaging entire armies
Thats a fucking snake eating his own tail

What has been the biggest army you have ever built in an RTS?

I built 100 GDI soldiers in C&C once.

Lots and lots of ships in Sins of a Solar Empire. All escorting my giant Titan of doom fuck.

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World
Russia
Conscript with reduced cost upgrade
Instant Production power
My computer didnt like 2000 units created in a instant

Because everything became base building and health bars. Also multiplayer helped killing it because it had to be balanced to appeal to people.

Because nobody except Blizzard made any good games recently.

That's just it. Starcraft 2 gameplay wise was incredible good. Light years ahead of SC1. So RTS do have the potential.
Mobas are a completely different genre.

>blizzard
>making anything good after the actiblizz merger
o i am laffin

Since this is the RTS thread, anyone wanna help me out and identify a game for me? I can't remember shit about this game, and old RTS from my childhood. The only thing I can remember is that it was a turn-based fantasy RTS where you chose a "color" which correlated to an element, and all your opponents chose colors as well, represented by orbs or some shit.

Are there any rts games with a psychological model for the soldiers in it except for the Close Combat series of games?

>Hell even Halo fans have their heads stuck so far up their own ass they won't touch Halo 5 even though it has the best gameplay the series has had in over a decade, if not ever

lol

The game is designed entirely around a single hyper competetive playstyle with zero opportunity for variation. It's done very well, but its far from the "Best ever"

RTSs started to develop to other games. People who wanted building, chill gameplay and no rushing got their own games. The only thing left for RTSs now is the competitive side and that doesn't appeal to casuals. At least that's how I see it coming from Aoe2.

>turn-based rts

>There will never be another Command & Conquer game that doesn't suck shit
>Tfw no love for C&C Generals but it was my favorite of the series because it had less sci-fi shit

>Tfw thought the Wargame series would be the best thing ever but it sucks shit - enemy AI is OP af but maybe it's just because RTS games aren't really my thing so I don't micro-manage the fuck out of my units throwing the camera all over the damn map every second
That said, IDK if the later Wargames are better, I only played the first one and decided it sucks shit because enemy infantry in a destroyed building were destroying my armored carriers and said armored carriers weren't even fighting back nor did they have time to engage because they just got shredded (seriously what the fuck is that bullshit)

Its not that far off.
At the same time you also have parallel genres like Animal Crossing, which do a lot of similar things to what Age of Empires ends up accomplishing.

We are just living in a weird age where Sim City is a dead franchise, but the clones are better

>literally proving his point

I wish Destiny had stuck with his to diamond using only queens. That would have been really interesting and prove to a lot of players that macro is primarily the most important aspect in sc2

because there is no gameplay diversity in RTSs
every game is literally a reskin of each other.

What RTS's came out in the last three years?

Grey goo.

So one single game in the last three years with a metacritic score of 7.7.

"Big as as big as it ever was" eh?

It is not. It is okay.
AI is shit, the rest is Cossacks: European Wars.

Also Sandniggers are way too fast. If you start with thousands of ressources you get bowi rushed in 3min

Then adapt your strategy to go for the barracks before making the second townhall.

Standard play is 1k ressources as a start anyway, unless you play millions.

because there's a limit to how much goodness you can get out of singleplayer, and the threshold for entering multiplayer is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too high

>it's been 5 years since DoW2: Retribution came out
Holy shit.

Are they our last hope?

I can't get this working to save my life, every time I need some bullshit .net framework and it just never works. CTD every time.

cncnet works fine though, love that.

>Backflipping ninja space marines
>Biggest unit per faction is imperial knights, nothing unique.
>3 factions from the start
>Game looks fucking smaller scale than DoW2

No.

If you start playing Cossacks 3 now you should have no problem hopping on the multiplayer train, holy hell are those guys bad most the time. I didn't even play any other RTS in the last 10 years and I win 3v1 easily.

It was the DoW1 that was the mindless zerg

DoW2 was far faster and more tactical

As expected of trashy skirmish player tho

Delete your RTS thread posting license

I loved Retribution, but so far DoW3 did nothing for me. Might get better after a couple expansions.

>smaller scale than DOW2

did you even look at it like....at all? its not as large scale as DOW1 but its definitely larger than DOW2.

it is really stressfull to play pvp 1v1

Same thing with fighting games, the skill floor is too high, and unable to compete, the next generation of gamers simply refuses to play.

rts building and improving on supcom:fa's interface when

ideally with more interesting factions than round robots, spiky robots and square robots

Because in that time They made their money back and then some and in that time there is a new company everyone loves that they can buy.

Seriously look at how many they have killed off. Its how they work.

Another more minor reason they do it is to control competition. If they buy every company that has the possibility of becoming the next big thing no one will rise to challenge them.

varies hugely. shit it can vary just from map to map, never mind game to game.

five hour old post idgaf

casualaising market
easy gaming (thats why phone trash pay to win games are 10000000% profit)

relic are fucking garbage and CoH being on the playable side of "janky garbage mess" was pure luck

God damn...my heart. God damn...my dick.

it's true

RTS games are actually action games where success is determined primarily by how good the player is at working within the awkward and limiting user interface

Is every game where the player has actions an "action game"?

Stellaris

that's not a sincere question, try again

The battle map part is actually really well made. The campaign map could have made with a little more depth though. Still fun stuff.

fuck off, ladyboy

It is. Let me rephrase it: how do you define "action game"?

Does anyone else play thebwargame series? That's pretty fun.

a game where the focus of interaction and success comes from rapid and precise manipulation of the input device(s)

I eventually realized that I was shit at RTS games and that the reasons I thought I liked the genre for are not what the genre is actually about. I switched over to Turn-Based Strategy instead which is even deader than RTS and never bothered to look back.

Because how good you are at the game just boils down to how fast you can click around the map between groups of units. It's just annoying to lose units not because you're unskilled, but because you were focusing somewhere else on the map, or couldn't select the right units in time. The only good RTS games are slow paced ones like Stronghold

I just like playing turtle to spend 6 hours to blob up max pop top tech units and attack move over the map.

Honestly I don't give a shit about being challenged with macro/micro bullshit since clicking a lot doesn't appeal to me. A lot of people pretend they like to do it, but we all know they are like me, as with most people.

Not much is quite so satisfying rolling an undiluted rap blob over every fucker on the map.

Starcraft expansions 2 and 3, Act of Aggression, 8 bit armies and Horde, Men of War: Assault Squad 2, Company of Heroes 2 and its expansions. Also Total War games if you count them.

That applies to a huge amount of games. Surely you agree that one can differentiate between Devil May Cry and Cossacks?

>grand strategy isnt actually a real genre

It's a sub-genre

Knock paradox all you want but at least they follow up with patches for fans unlike some other major developers.

A game like eu4 has been massively improved since release even if you didn't buy the dlc

I do this as well. I realized that I like just watching the battles instead of really managing them.
You should try Supreme Commander if you haven't. You can do this and be even lazier, you can just put the rally point for your units on the other side of the map and then watch as they make a constant stream over there fighting along the way.

Total war?

lots of game are action games, yes. you can create subdivisions among games within the category if you wish, of define alternate categories altogether.

categorization lets us describe all kinds of things in various ways, it's pretty amazing.

Yes. So what exactly was your point when you described RTS as action games?

that lots of people mistakenly think they aren't. acknowledging that they are lets you look at the genre from a different angle

Like what?

you're doing that thing where you just keep asking questions until i say something stupid or stop answering them. it's pretty rude. did i upset you somehow?

I am not sure i agree on any of your points.
1. They don't make their money back
2. They lose reputation
3. They lose developers they bought out studios for
4. By letting the IPs die, they also lose what value those IPs had
5. There was some profit in their 80 to 90s phase, but they survived the 90s off sports games
6. They survived the 00s off FIFA, Sports licensces and their movie licensed games(LOTR, etc)

7. Their current Dev & IP lineup is alien to what the company bought out, meaning it was literally waste of money

>Another more minor reason they do it is to control competition.
Ubisoft and the other big companies also did they. None of them really earned any money on it.

Yeah supcom is great. FA is absolutely amazing for this. Spent so many hours enjoying myself this way.

The combat of TW games is RTT not RTS.

Because Blizzard ruined them and replaced them with dumbed down shit like MOBAs.

>tfw want to play Wargame or a different RTS online but afraid cause I know I'll get destroyed since I've barely played the genre

>I just like playing turtle to spend 6 hours to blob up max pop top tech units and attack move over the map.
Im the same.

I wish there would be more rts games with deep base building mechanics.

Something like a city builder-rts hybrid.

I want to have a discussion with you, but so far you have not really made a statement.

What different angle can one look at RTS from and would one learn from that, when acknowledging that they they are action games?

I've got 600 hours in the game, don't even bother.
It's just full of pubstomp teams, comlete cancer, people stopped playing it for fun, only to win.

>Talk about a mindless Zerg
>zerg
>when you won't even have anything close to resembling a zerg until you're into late-game because of how small squads are and how much units cost
thanks for confirming that you never played the game

buggy? da fuck

Because ASSFAGGOTS create a new branch of gaymers that have 0 ability to command more than one unit.

you are just mad they beat you at rts with one caster unit

>who would otherwise make RTS games decided to make fucking MOBAs instead.

Who would those people be?

Riot and Valve never made an RTS and probably never would have.

Blizzard still made both genres.

Hi-Rez never made an RTS either.

Any other moba dev doesnt matter at all.

>Moba is a one button rts

People still spout this retarded shit?

That can only come from someone who never played either of those genres competetivly.

>company of heroes 2 is 3 (fri) years old

ok ok four-button

read his post again
it says "that have 0 ability (wait for it) to command more than one unit"

and that's true; barring a few heroes that have you micromanage more than two units, the game most often puts you in control of a singular unit

DOTA and LoL perfected the genre and gave it tons of depth

rts is obsolete

That implies that mechanical skill is the be all and end all of skill.

Protip: It isnt.

>4X
What's the difference between 4x and grand strategy?
Why does Alpha Centauri have such shitty diplomacy? Everyone's always so angry

WC3 killed the RTS genre. discuss.

The genre has diversified and people looking for good singleplayer experiences or less mechanically difficult multiplayer have gone elsewhere. I'd like to see an RTS game that recongizes that people like the immediacy of RTS controls but don't really want to have to concentrate hard for the entire duration of a match. I think total war gets this pretty well, the battles are high intensity and the campaign is low intensity, so it ends up being engaging without being too tiresome. A single player RTS that went for longer single player matches might be interesting.

I can't, it's the truth

no but it's definitely a huge deciding factor of skill, especially in a competitive environment, and the fact that MOBAs decided to gut these mechanics has arguably lowered the skill ceiling

At least Ubisoft still releases a good game now and then

ITT no one remembers what the fuck happened after 2000

Console masters and corporations coerced or forced RTS devs to create sequels for consoles. Those bombed and the devs sank and RTSes were dismissed in favor of other genres. The only exception is Demigod, which was the first to sell commercial MOBA but failed horribly due to shit netcode and also destroyed the dev/company.

Only Electronic Arts and THQ remained in the RTS market for close to a decade. EA was milking Command and Conquer, and THQ had a lucky streak with CoH and DoW.

no blizzard did, they had a monopoly on the genre and esports but decided to stop supporting it so they could focus on WoW

then they had overwatch which could have killed LoL but again blizzad gave zero support to the esports

if blizzard had supported sc2 esports the RTS genre would be even more popular than it was during broodwars

Siege is only looks good because the fps genre is also a console mess these days. Don't kid yourself into thinking ubisoft releases anything other than dull games.

>and the fact that MOBAs decided to gut these mechanics has arguably lowered the skill ceiling

Nah because they require more skill in other areas that rts games dont touch.

Its funny the mechanics are so easy and there are literally millions of players

yet the pros, the best of the best still miss there "skillshots" occasionally or make other mechanical mistakes, why hasn't a starcraft or streetfighter ex-pro gone into league to make some easy cash?

>SC2
>have to worry about build order (akin to how you'd build your abilities) in accordance to your enemy
>have to worry about what kind of army you'll go for to counter your enemy's possible setup (except in this case, unlike in LoL for example, you can't press tab and find out that your opponent is using magic resist and as a result can just decide to go for magic penetration)
>all the while this is happening, you have to maintain a steady APM of roughly 200-400 to stay in the game (but this is entirely gutted in MOBAs)
the only thing that sets MOBAs apart is that these RTS games are usually fought 1v1 whereas MOBAs conduct their competitive matches in a 5v5 format, replacing the APM feature and others with a strong emphasis on teamplay and synergy
however, I don't believe that's enough to keep the skill ceiling at the same level seeing as how the feature that arguably set apart good players and bad in RTSs has been gutted and replaced with something where you basically have to have a mental link with your teammates in order to win

WC3 hero mechanics killed RTS, the Dota maps didn't really kill the genre, it just filtered the casuals who got WC3 to play DOTA and only DOTA

In 4x games you mostly control individual units and expand one city at a time.
In GSG you look at a map with little flags on it for the entire game and expand through entire regions or countries at a time.

Okay now list ones that are actually good instead of Steam shovelware.

Heroes of Might & Magic would go into losses without the Slavic audience. Its that bad.
Messiah of Might & Magic, didn't get a proper released, massively stunting anything that could have been a massive franchise.

Ubisoft is in the weird position where they are the largest game distributor in France, and by proxy: The French speaking countries in Europa.
So France, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, and Aosta Valley.
With EU Free Trade being a thing, rest of the European union.
So its a company thats large because its well positioned.

From a IP standpoint they are barely better than EA.

What the hell are you on? Have you ever played Age of Empires? Where in the third installment only self-hating players play the Germans because they are so ridiculously underpowered and the ottomans are the go-to rush nation?
Only Blizzard made really balanced RTS games, the rest (mostly) didn't.

youtube.com/channel/UC-pdFtCNPzMUi49fmo63wFw

Oh right, everyone here's an RTS pro when it's time to talk about RTS games. Also, everyone's a Quake pro whenever there's a multiplayer FPS discussion.

...

Even AoE2 has big balance disparities between the civs.

And to the casual eye most civs look the same in AoE2

Yo, Mr. Rose-tinted Glasses: The average player in the 90s didn't put any actual effort into playing RTS games either.

Not that it matters since CnC is the most casual RTS in existance.

Command and Conquer 4

Multiplayer focus was a thing in the 2006-2007 and after.
Not before.
Before that the idea of MMO was a thing, but not P2P multiplayer outside a few genres.
And honestly: The Genre sorta died during the late 90s(Warcraft III: 2002, Rise of Nations 2003), not during the 2006-2007s.

Now, some games introduced it, but it was never a core feature.
TCP/IP was always a thing after all.


From a Rush perspective? Yes.
Building those houses to reach population cap is expensive after all.

>From a Rush perspective? Yes.

Well the meta is flushing (feudal rushing)

So from a meta perspective there are 3 races who can clearly do that best.

If a civ e.g has good late game options doesnt matter in 1on1 matches at all.

Yeah, I was going to point out how being high on the ladder in a C&C game (Generals, no less) is something only someone with a really basic level of investment into the RTS genre would find impressive to begin with. Pretty much "Oh that's the game I liked as a teenager, I'm gonna pick that one to lie about being the best at they'll be super impressed".

I actually like Red Alert 3.

It was ok

Cossacks 3

I feel like the spirit of the RTS genre lives on in the Total War series, if it only because it scratches that itch of "having huge armies duke it out"
Is it a pure RTS? No, but it's close enough for me anyways

Its like with cheeses.
Some are better than others, and you sorta want to eat the one that tastes better.
Even if the worse one is okay.

Its fine.

You want huge armies duke it out, but in an actual RTS, play Cossacks.

Why would you use a food analogy when it doesn't work well?

I don't want to do a wine analogy.

>You will never enjoy RA1 again with your friends and call the Tesla Coils "Electricity trees" (because of English not being your first language) for the first time.

>convince my friends to play w3 and sc:bw with me at a computer cafe in the 2000s
>defeat them easily
>i was really shit at micro btw they just didn't research upgrades or build more than 1 production building
>they never want to play again
I blame casuals

Wine also counts as food.

Videogames are foodlike, because even when you don't have any good ones around you still get hunger pangs if you don't get enough, but not every videogame related thing has a good food analogy for it.

Grand strategy games are really role playing games more than anything else. The AI is always so terrible (especially for Paradox games) that you can win with any retarded strategy.

> enemy infantry in a destroyed building were destroying my armored carriers and said armored carriers weren't even fighting back nor did they have time to engage because they just got shredded

You drove your armor through this and expected it to survive against rpg's? Remember Grozny.

Food is problematic because its a essential need.
If you could eat a nutrient slab to get rid of it as a need, you might value food/snacks/candy more as it become a experience.

Video games isn't essential. Its just a interactive medium.
But there are similarities. Such as if you haven't tried anything, you don't know about it.
Even if we only have a limited amount of taste buds, smell, and touch.

My interest in real time died with the death of World in Conflict

>Video games isn't essential.
Humans are more than just bacteria.
Because of that, videogames are essential.

Maybe its because they don't play good on consoles?

I stopped caring about them once Westwood died, Blizzard jewing off SC2 was the final nail in the coffin.

...

i miss the ded

That didn't stop Blizzard from trying But only Once

>People who wanted to build big bases got into City builders and city builders got more diverse and advanced.
>People who wanted to micromanage units got into small-scale tactical games or into RTT as that genre advanced(which are probably superior anyways).
>People who want to lay grand plans over a long period of time got into Grand Strategy games.

Honestly, this. This is why RTS is in decline, while at the same time other genres are getting better. The new games aren't all that bad. It's just that they don't cater to the extremely specific niche of what any one individual RTS fan might want. And if they do cater to that niche... then they're not really RTS games anymore.

So how is life in a Post Starcraft World?

But i agree with your final point, somewhat.
People jumped ship from Age of Empires to Paradox Games, HOMM, Kings Bounty, Sim City Clones, etc.

>total war
>grand strategy

wot