It seems to me that lately RTS games have been dieing a slow and painful death. The RTS game series I grew up with and loved was the AOE series. In my opinion, the series was a perfect example of what RTS games should be, a combination of a simplistic kind of economic management and a simple rock, paper, scissors counter system, along with a few other different elements, that combined to create a great multi-player game where you attempt to disrupt your opponents economy, while countering his army, and maintaining your economy. Recently though, most RTS games seemed to have forgotten about economy, and used a peon-less system, where the game is mostly combat oriented, which to me is much more entertaining in a FPS game. Until SC 2 comes out, does anyone have any games they believe are more like the older RTS games, or any news about a game other than SC 2, that may use some more economic elements?
The death of RTS games
- Thread starter dumblogic511
- Start date
Same here. I loved The Conquerers.dumblogic511 said:
And as for the dying of RTS games. I think they are going. I mean the latest thing I've seen (Console wise) is Brutal Legends crappy attempt at incorporating RTS elements.
Edit: Grats on the first post btw!
Combat RTS' keep the genre alive. People won't appreciate a purely economic RTS with a small sector of combat.
I like combat RTSs also, but I think without any system of economics, the combat is boring. When it is just soldiers attacking soldiers, it becomes very boring to me, I like to distract armies with one attack, while I use a peon killing unit to pick off his villagers, and damage his economy, while keeping mine intact. With purely combat based RTSs to me are more about build orders, and don't require as much skill.
Ive been playing borderlands since it came out on PC and gotta say i love the RTS aspect it brings to the table. It focuses heavily on two things: shooting and loot. The story is minimal but it still works, especially with friends to play with. The economy consists of buying and selling weapons and shields through a vendor but I like the simplicity. It sticks to its strengths and does it well.
I've never been an RTS fan either, but I've noticed this too. Although Halo Wars and Civilization Revolution were a good attempt at console RTSs, there's absolutely no doubt that they're watered down and simple.
I also agree with Adzma, RTSs will come back big time when Starcraft II comes out.
I also agree with Adzma, RTSs will come back big time when Starcraft II comes out.
all three of the company of heroes games are pretty good for this. not so much the rock-paper-scissors style, but certainly the economy. a large part of the game is based around capturing territory to gain resource supplies, but you have to keep that terrirtory connected to other territories that connect to your home base territory, and if you cut off enemy territories, then they stop providing resources.
As of right now, there haven't been many RTS games released, and we are all awaiting the release of SC2. However, there have been so many RTS games released in past years that if you have managed to complete every single one then I will be impressed.
If you are looking for a good RTS that doesnt focus completely on combat, try Total Annihilation. Or just for the hell of it keep playing SC:BW until your eyes bleed.
If you are looking for a good RTS that doesnt focus completely on combat, try Total Annihilation. Or just for the hell of it keep playing SC:BW until your eyes bleed.
I think you're confusing RTS and RPG.Poomanchu745 said:
I personally have never been a fan of any RTS series except for Warcraft, so the genre has been pretty dead for quite a while for me. Maybe I'll get into SC2, but I doubt it.
Something I've seen cropping up in some places are RTS minigames embedded as minigames in other games. A prime example of this is Mobilising Armies in Runescape. It's your standard, rock-paper-scissors objective based one, but with predeployed troops and simple goals. It's simplistic, yes, but good. so...I dont think RTSes will die off, just evolve, and still live on, at the very least, as minigame elements of larger ones.
The genre is evolving and, in my eyes, it's for the better.
Company of Heroes for example is in my oh-so-humble opinion the best example of a modern rts. It's a new breed of rts which rely less on macro skill and gathering resources and more on genuine tactics and strategy. In an old rts if you were to throw infantry against a tank you'd lose because everyone knows tank>inf, it's part of that rock paper scissors gameplay. But with CoH *if* you play that squad properly and equip them with the right gear then what do ya know, an impossible situation suddenly becomes a genuine threat, just like it would in real life. A player can reverse a bad situation simply by playing well, something that simply doesn't happen in older rts where he who rushes first and rushes with the right units wins.
But the best feature, and one which is being picked up my many other rts as well, is that the focus in now on the battlefield itself rather than the bases. My focus is on commanding those units, making sure they're doing exactly what I want them to do and micro-managing every detail I can. I enjoy that stuff, it adds a tactical element to the game.
This is a mixed blessing however since sometimes base building was one of the most fun parts in an rts; Age of Empires 2 for example. I loved building elaborate wall defences and death-traps. It was fun.
But then you've got games like Stronghold which are nothing *but* base building, and that's even *better*. Tropico although advertised as a sim-esq game is also more or less an exercise in base-buildings. Evil Genius, Dungeon Keeper. There are some great entries into the base-building genre and ultimately they're better at it than any rts out there.
It's a tricky situation, but the way I see it the genre is simply dividing and evolving. And methinks it's for the better. I was getting sick of playing the same old rock paper scissors every time I started up a new game for the first time. At least now it seems rts developers are trying new stuff. See Sins of a Solar Empire for example.
Company of Heroes for example is in my oh-so-humble opinion the best example of a modern rts. It's a new breed of rts which rely less on macro skill and gathering resources and more on genuine tactics and strategy. In an old rts if you were to throw infantry against a tank you'd lose because everyone knows tank>inf, it's part of that rock paper scissors gameplay. But with CoH *if* you play that squad properly and equip them with the right gear then what do ya know, an impossible situation suddenly becomes a genuine threat, just like it would in real life. A player can reverse a bad situation simply by playing well, something that simply doesn't happen in older rts where he who rushes first and rushes with the right units wins.
But the best feature, and one which is being picked up my many other rts as well, is that the focus in now on the battlefield itself rather than the bases. My focus is on commanding those units, making sure they're doing exactly what I want them to do and micro-managing every detail I can. I enjoy that stuff, it adds a tactical element to the game.
This is a mixed blessing however since sometimes base building was one of the most fun parts in an rts; Age of Empires 2 for example. I loved building elaborate wall defences and death-traps. It was fun.
But then you've got games like Stronghold which are nothing *but* base building, and that's even *better*. Tropico although advertised as a sim-esq game is also more or less an exercise in base-buildings. Evil Genius, Dungeon Keeper. There are some great entries into the base-building genre and ultimately they're better at it than any rts out there.
It's a tricky situation, but the way I see it the genre is simply dividing and evolving. And methinks it's for the better. I was getting sick of playing the same old rock paper scissors every time I started up a new game for the first time. At least now it seems rts developers are trying new stuff. See Sins of a Solar Empire for example.
OOOOO Real Time Strategy. For some reason I was thing Role Playing Shooter (RPS). Gah this is what happens when you drink. I thought Empire: Total War was pretty good.MetallicaRulez0 said:
Starcraft 2 was the only RTS game that i was looking forward to.
In fact, its the game i am looking forward to the most.
Didn't Command and conquer 3 have that 'drone worker' kind of resource collection?
Using the harvesters on tiberium. If they died, it could destroy an army.
In fact, its the game i am looking forward to the most.
Didn't Command and conquer 3 have that 'drone worker' kind of resource collection?
Using the harvesters on tiberium. If they died, it could destroy an army.
Well, part of it is that RTS games don't really translate to consoles, so there's no new market to tap into since most people are more likely to get into gaming through consoles than PCs nowadays. In essence, RTS games are marketed towards people who have always played RTS games. Since StarCraft and, perhaps, C&C were the last real phenomena in the genre, it's probably going to take something like that to bring more attention to RTS and bring more people into it.
Another aspect of it might be lack of innovation. I mean, I love RTS games, but, to be honest, a lot of them are kind of samey. Apart from real standouts like Total War, the only real difference between maybe 80% of RTS games is the setting, and not much else. They could benefit from the way StarCraft had a great story to tie all of the battles together.
Another aspect of it might be lack of innovation. I mean, I love RTS games, but, to be honest, a lot of them are kind of samey. Apart from real standouts like Total War, the only real difference between maybe 80% of RTS games is the setting, and not much else. They could benefit from the way StarCraft had a great story to tie all of the battles together.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with OP up there. I grew up with The Settlers IV as my first RTS, and that had the focus squarely set on the economy, with approx 50 different kinds of resource and only 12 soldier types - 6 of which were upgrades - per culture. They decided to attempt to bastardise AoE and Total War to make Settlers V, and it became lame. They focused on the combat, when Settlers IV was all about building. I guess RTS now has to actually involve some combat, rather than the strategy of making the most effecient base possible.
I was never really into RTS games myself (Although I own AOE 1+2, Supreme Commander, and SOASE) the only one I could get into was SOASE, and I guess it was because it was slower and more laid back than the frantic pace I found myself trying to go in AOE and SupCom.
My problem is all RTS games are becoming like this. I think it is ok for a few games to try it, but the thing I don't like about these types of games(haven't played COH, but I think I have played a few games like it) is that it becomes all about just complicated counters and how to counter this and how to counter that, instead of actually microing your units to counter other units, properly protecting your economy, while trying to disrupt your opponents economy. IMO, they just keep getting more complicated, and the more complicated they get the less fun they become for me. The simplicity of each part of AOE, but the complexity of combining these simple elements, for me made it a great game. I am pretty sure the AOE series is done for, which I think is a huge shame.The Madman said: