What happened to the RTS genre?

[Deleted]

http://novusaeterno.com/

This one is said to come out in April 2014 so keep an eye out for that.
It's a MMORTS though so I don't know if it counts.

[McNeil]

Iirc, multiplayer in Generals was shitty, everyone played red alert instead (at least in my city), but even play RA2 now, it's all dumbs down to making 100 Kirovs and shitting on everything. It was fun back then, but now it's just ""meh"+nostalgia"

I don't like how people declare whole genre as "dying out" while there is SC2 with huge fanbase and multiplayer support AND bunch of new RTS games released every year. Just like spoiled kids.

Like you said there's only SC2 around as the active go-to RTS, but if you don't care about the SC games you have little other choices to go to. And its also the only base building RTS game where the multiplayer is quite active. There are still tournaments for C&C Generals, C&C3 and RA3 but they don't get supported by the bigshot commentators like Totalbiscuit and many else, its all about 1 game.

If I want to go to an active FPS, MMORPG, racing, fighting or whatever other genre with a multiplayer, I got more than enough choices. A genre does not stay alive with only 1 game IMO

[May90]

Thats the hole point off RTS genre. Back soon 1½ year ago when I started playing Age of empires2 again I sucked so bad I had trouble beating the AI on hardest. Eventueally I got there - And when I had fully switched to hotkeys it got so much better instead off clicking buildings etc.

A good example is recent games Ive won lately; Cause I was 1-2 minutes faster with my ecomonics (Aka building fast) I got to the last age inn the game fast, and fuss I was able to make the push first, and all the upgrades.

...And now for the point; I knew I was facing better or equal oppents. I could easly see it from there attitude, small hints and ofcourse there rating, but I choose a tactic that are all about speed (Building fast) and no combat until late inn the game.

...So rushing, or playing fast is what RTS is for. It dosen't come easy - I played atleast 200 AI games before I feelt I could even handle playing online.

No, I agree with Achaman here. Starcraft is too fast-paced. Two supply-capped armies can destroy each other in less than 30 seconds. One single DT can win the game in case the opponent is just a little bit late with detection. One luckily placed Widow Mine can kill 20 Zerglings that would otherwise screw the Terran. One Medivac drop can destroy 20+ workers in case the opponent's army is far away and he/she is not Protoss. For extremes, watch Day9 Burrowed Banelings Funday Mondays, where a few well placed Banelings destroy the whole opponent's army in less than a second.
Normally Starcraft 1v1 game lasts 10-15 minutes, sometimes 5-6 minutes (timing push), and very rarely over 20 minutes. In Age of Empires 2, for example, game can last 2 hours, and two capped armies won't destroy each other in 5 minutes, at least, if the players are good.

Also, Starcraft is too simple in terms of general strategy. Economy is just lacking: you have a few resource nodes in fixed positions arranged the same way, and that's it. Generally the game is like this: scout, build counters, scout, build counters, scout, build counters. There is no struggle for multiple resource nodes, unlike Age of Empires 2, no strategic points to hold with castles/towers...

Actually, I haven't played ladder in SC2 in quite a while (3 months or so). Custom Maps, on the other hand, are amazing. Micro Tournament 1.26, Desert Strike HotS, Squadron TD, Micro Arena EU and Bx Monobattles never bore me. And those maps are what differs Starcraft 2 from all other RTS games. Warcraft 3 had quite a lot of good maps too, but Starcraft 2 perfected it.

[Sorrior]

to my surprise reading most of these posts, I haven't seen one mention of Rise of Nations, another little gem from the industry, I was quite sad when Rise of Legends fell flat, but Rise of Nations is definitely one of those RTS I still pull out from time to time and play for awhile

Yeah gotta second rise of legends as a fun game.

Also I really liked one called Impossible Creatures...Was a game where you'd use animal DNA to make a new creature..So say a lobster and a rhino would have crazy high defense with the lobsters body decent attack with the rhinos head the ability to swim with the lobsters tail and then use the rhinos legs for faster movement..

Though I think a personal favorite was a killer whale bee combo...

Was pretty cool how different mixes would give you different stats

[Rumred]

I hope we a nearing the end of the RTS downward trend and hopefully we will see a uptick and resurgence in the next few years. RTS has always been a niche that was been mostly built around PCs. Today's gaming market most game devs want something they can put out onto PC and Consoles and lets be honest controllers are not the best way to play a RTS and alot of console gamers dont care for RTS games.

I dont think we will ever see RTS back to what it was at its peak but i think its due for a uptick in quality and quantity soon..........at least i hope.

[Kryos]

This is the next gen of RTS:
http://www.uberent.com/pa/

[Zaydin]

i get what he mean,outside of starcraft 2 there hasnt been real RTS in ages
all the games you listed are old.
nowdays i see alot of strategy games but not RTS, i guess they gave up when blizzard released Starcraft 2

Company of Heroes 2 came out earlier this year, and that's an RTS.

[Djuntas]

May90@ Its true that AOE2 is slower than Starcraft but in-game minutes is 40 secounds at normal speed, and 30 at fast speed. Im an odd ball noob player (Well Fast speed aint normaly played by pro's cause its hard to micro units with it) it seems that preffer fast speed.

The longest game I've had vs the AI (3 AI's vs me on Black forest...never again) was about 2:45, so thats only 165 minutes.

Useally my games online are over before the 50 minutes (By 60 in-game minutes, or 30 minutes real time, I would have an "endless" eco, with all upgrades np) mark. The fastest win I've had vs the AI is about 35-38 minutes, and online faster ofcourse, cause there you don't need to destroy buildings :P

So SC2 is faster sure, but AOE2 aint to bad aswell - Its defiantly not relaxed if you play on open maps where you can't wall.

[Wildmoon]

No, I agree with Achaman here. Starcraft is too fast-paced. Two supply-capped armies can destroy each other in less than 30 seconds. One single DT can win the game in case the opponent is just a little bit late with detection. One luckily placed Widow Mine can kill 20 Zerglings that would otherwise screw the Terran. One Medivac drop can destroy 20+ workers in case the opponent's army is far away and he/she is not Protoss. For extremes, watch Day9 Burrowed Banelings Funday Mondays, where a few well placed Banelings destroy the whole opponent's army in less than a second.
Normally Starcraft 1v1 game lasts 10-15 minutes, sometimes 5-6 minutes (timing push), and very rarely over 20 minutes. In Age of Empires 2, for example, game can last 2 hours, and two capped armies won't destroy each other in 5 minutes, at least, if the players are good.

Also, Starcraft is too simple in terms of general strategy. Economy is just lacking: you have a few resource nodes in fixed positions arranged the same way, and that's it. Generally the game is like this: scout, build counters, scout, build counters, scout, build counters. There is no struggle for multiple resource nodes, unlike Age of Empires 2, no strategic points to hold with castles/towers...

Actually, I haven't played ladder in SC2 in quite a while (3 months or so). Custom Maps, on the other hand, are amazing. Micro Tournament 1.26, Desert Strike HotS, Squadron TD, Micro Arena EU and Bx Monobattles never bore me. And those maps are what differs Starcraft 2 from all other RTS games. Warcraft 3 had quite a lot of good maps too, but Starcraft 2 perfected it.

I don't think you actually know how deep strategy in SC is. More types of resource=/= deeper. A lot of strategic decisions go into every click in SC and you have to do it fast. Also a lot of SC games go over 20 min. For every devastating units out there there are always ways to go around it. That's the beauty of StarCraft. For a strategy to be effective you have to execute it well with your hands too.

[Charge me Doctor]

@May20
Probably, you will like WH40k games, often, they are long (if you don't horrible fail at it and won't get rushed by dark eldars/orks).
SC2 is very complex is terms of general strategy. It lacks of obvious strategic points (game won't just point at them, you have to figure them by yourself), but you will find a lot of places which gives you huge advantage over enemy (tanks+marines on HG behind your mineral lines for example). Some spots will allow you to react quickly to enemy expanding, moving for attack, transferring units and such.
And SC2 games don't end instantly when you lose 20 workers to terran drops (usually, if you lose 20 workers to drop, it means that enemy is desperate enough to move big chunk of his army to break your assault or to deny you getting more units) usually it leads to:
1) base race
2) base trade
3) breaking assault

Same with DT, one DT won't do a shit against terran or zerg players (getting detector is very easy and fast). If you have 3 or 4 on your base, well, you are seriously fucked and enemy did good job and hiding them from you, because, you know, they are not completely invisible, and usually you try to wall off your base from enemy.

SC2 and AoE are two different kinds of games, SC2 indeed "too fast-paced" if you compare it to AoE, but AoE is too fast-paced to WH40k, because, often you just throw your cheap units at enemy units in hope to hold them off to get your big units to turn tides of battle. Or after losing whole your army, you manage to keep enemy with only 2-3 points and kill-off half of his army because you have greater position and defense points, then you retaliate, get strategic points, push enemy to his base and this shit can go on forever because resources are almost unlimited

[Rahix]

I heard one game named Star Quest-2 has RTS. I think RTS games make us more realistic in the games.

[May90]

@May20
Probably, you will like WH40k games, often, they are long (if you don't horrible fail at it and won't get rushed by dark eldars/orks).
SC2 is very complex is terms of general strategy. It lacks of obvious strategic points (game won't just point at them, you have to figure them by yourself), but you will find a lot of places which gives you huge advantage over enemy (tanks+marines on HG behind your mineral lines for example). Some spots will allow you to react quickly to enemy expanding, moving for attack, transferring units and such.
And SC2 games don't end instantly when you lose 20 workers to terran drops (usually, if you lose 20 workers to drop, it means that enemy is desperate enough to move big chunk of his army to break your assault or to deny you getting more units) usually it leads to:
1) base race
2) base trade
3) breaking assault

Same with DT, one DT won't do a shit against terran or zerg players (getting detector is very easy and fast). If you have 3 or 4 on your base, well, you are seriously fucked and enemy did good job and hiding them from you, because, you know, they are not completely invisible, and usually you try to wall off your base from enemy.

SC2 and AoE are two different kinds of games, SC2 indeed "too fast-paced" if you compare it to AoE, but AoE is too fast-paced to WH40k, because, often you just throw your cheap units at enemy units in hope to hold them off to get your big units to turn tides of battle. Or after losing whole your army, you manage to keep enemy with only 2-3 points and kill-off half of his army because you have greater position and defense points, then you retaliate, get strategic points, push enemy to his base and this shit can go on forever because resources are almost unlimited

I probably oversimplified my point, so some of my statements were a bit wrong. But, still, there is no way you lose in Age of Empires series or in Dune series to a few units while you have 30 units.

This is one of the reasons why I couldn't play Starcraft back in 1998. Even if these things are relatively easy to counter, it just felt wrong that I could lose in equal position to a single Ghost nuking my workerline, or to 2 DTs coming to my expansion before I manage to finish cannon there, or to a few Dark Archons turning my army against itself, or to a Reaver drop (that was a real nightmare for me), or to a few cloaked Wraith catching my army separated from Overlords... Just so many ways to die quickly to a small mistake. In Age of Empires 2 you can only lose strategically, unless you are too bad and die to early rush. But in Starcraft there are dozens ways to lose in a won position just by missing something small. Yes, again, they are easy to counter when you know what you are doing. But they make the game feel... wrong. Unstable.

[Wildmoon]

I probably oversimplified my point, so some of my statements were a bit wrong. But, still, there is no way you lose in Age of Empires series or in Dune series to a few units while you have 30 units.

This is one of the reasons why I couldn't play Starcraft back in 1998. Even if these things are relatively easy to counter, it just felt wrong that I could lose in equal position to a single Ghost nuking my workerline, or to 2 DTs coming to my expansion before I manage to finish cannon there, or to a few Dark Archons turning my army against itself, or to a Reaver drop (that was a real nightmare for me), or to a few cloaked Wraith catching my army separated from Overlords... Just so many ways to die quickly to a small mistake. In Age of Empires 2 you can only lose strategically, unless you are too bad and die to early rush. But in Starcraft there are dozens ways to lose in a won position just by missing something small. Yes, again, they are easy to counter when you know what you are doing. But they make the game feel... wrong. Unstable.

That's a good thing about StarCraft. It keeps you on your toe for the entire match. You have to know every little timing to gain all the little advantages. Those little advantages could potentially snowball.

[Charge me Doctor]

I probably oversimplified my point, so some of my statements were a bit wrong. But, still, there is no way you lose in Age of Empires series or in Dune series to a few units while you have 30 units.

This is one of the reasons why I couldn't play Starcraft back in 1998. Even if these things are relatively easy to counter, it just felt wrong that I could lose in equal position to a single Ghost nuking my workerline, or to 2 DTs coming to my expansion before I manage to finish cannon there, or to a few Dark Archons turning my army against itself, or to a Reaver drop (that was a real nightmare for me), or to a few cloaked Wraith catching my army separated from Overlords... Just so many ways to die quickly to a small mistake. In Age of Empires 2 you can only lose strategically, unless you are too bad and die to early rush. But in Starcraft there are dozens ways to lose in a won position just by missing something small. Yes, again, they are easy to counter when you know what you are doing. But they make the game feel... wrong. Unstable.

Haha, i couldn't play Cossacks RTS for long because you could lose to couple of units. If you leave your peasants/guns undefended couple of horsemans can capture them and you will lose all your resource income/major firepower (and if you had big mercenary army and you lose you gold income, well, you are fucked if you won't get there gold mines back). Or ramming army of horsemans into pikemen line will lose all your horsemans no mater how many you had. And i think it's good, because you can't mass-produce one type of units, because enemy will scout it and counter your army.

And, to be honest, there mistakes you made wasn't even close to "small mistake". If fact, there shouldn't be "small mistakes" in strategy games, there could be "wow enemy didn't get the opportunity due to my mistake, and dealt less damage to me than he could", but nothing like "small mistakes"

[Achaman]

A lot of people in this thread seem to be confusing RTS (Real Time Strategy), Starcraft being the best example, and TBS (Turn Based Strategy), ala Might and Magic/Fire Emblem.

i meant in general since people are talking about every rts now so w.e

- - - Updated - - -

http://novusaeterno.com/

This one is said to come out in April 2014 so keep an eye out for that.
It's a MMORTS though so I don't know if it counts.

mmorts just means its always online

[Rooflesstoofless]

Might not be what you are looking for, but probably have more hours with Kenshi than any other game in my Steam library. Its not an easy game as you can get your army wiped out (and its perma-death in this game) and you have to work your way up to the point where you are building bases, but its pretty good RTS with some very light RPG elements thrown in.

Planetary Annihilation is the one I'm currently watching. Spent $200 on the kickstarter for it. Really looking forward to it.

You spent $200 on the kickstarter, wouldn't you have beta access and be able to play right now? Not being snarky...I was genuinely curious.

[Sting]

Any decent RTS out there with base building? I'm specifically NOT looking for turn-based/MMO/squad based/domination focused gameplay.

[Charge me Doctor]

Any decent RTS out there with base building? I'm specifically NOT looking for turn-based/MMO/squad based/domination focused gameplay.

Cossacks, SC and Warcraft series, WH40k (has "domination" victory option, but everyone ignores it), Earth 21**, Permimeter (semi-domination focused gameplay, domination is part of getting resources (more land you have: more units you build, LOTS of terra-morphing)), Dune

[May90]

That's a good thing about StarCraft. It keeps you on your toe for the entire match. You have to know every little timing to gain all the little advantages. Those little advantages could potentially snowball.

I don't know. I don't like games in which you can ruin a very good position just by not placing a Photon Cannon in time, or by running with a group of Lings and forgetting to scan for a single Widow Mine.

There was a great game, Jedi Knight 2. One of the most popular modes in 1v1 was "Lightsabers only": no use of Force, no weapons - only Lightsabers. And it was a lot of fun, until... Until someone discovered a very strong combination which kills your opponent right away, if successful. Now, it is quite easy to counter a single attack like this. But when it is used 10 times, 100 times during battle, you are very likely to make a mistake and, even if you are very good, die to this cheesy move.
As a result, the duels turned into both players constantly making this move and, at the same time, dodging the same move made by opponent. I've heard there were even clans in which it was forbidden to use this move whatsoever, since otherwise the game became a clickfest in hope that your opponent makes a mistake sooner than you and dies.

This is what I don't like about Starcraft. If you are VERY good, like top 100 players or something, your game will be very solid and you won't lose to cheese. But if you are just a decent player, many games will end up just to a small mistake that shouldn't have ended the game like Age of Empires or Dune. For example, you are siegeing your opponent's Zerg base with Tanks supported by Marines and Vikings - very common situation. Everything goes smooth, until you move the screen to your base to add 2 Factories... and hear, "Our forces are under attack"... and see all your Marines slaughtered by a few dropped Banelings. Then Mutas come in and finish the job. Yes, on VERY high level players won't miss Baneling drops. But on average level, people will from time to time turn their attention away from a minimap, just for 3 seconds - and these 3 seconds might be fatal.

I would say, it's like the difference between medieval warfare and modern warfare. In medieval times, there were very few ways to defeat overwhelming force of enemies, no matter in what position you are. No matter how strong your army is and how defended the position is, 10 footmen just will never kill 1000 horsemen. In modern warfare, however, it's all about scouting and preventive strikes: should you have missed a single stealth flyer-bomber - and your entire camp may be destroyed in seconds. One man with grenade can kill 100 men in bunker, if they make a mistake and don't see him coming in time.
I prefer the old good medieval battles, where everything was clear, where you always knew how you were doing. Not like now, when you can be winning for a long time, but then miss a single missile strike - and your top command is dead and army is disoriented. That's exactly like in Starcraft, where you can be dominating and then miss a single nuke killing off half your army.

And, to be honest, there mistakes you made wasn't even close to "small mistake". If fact, there shouldn't be "small mistakes" in strategy games, there could be "wow enemy didn't get the opportunity due to my mistake, and dealt less damage to me than he could", but nothing like "small mistakes"

By "small" mistakes I meant mistakes that are really easy to miss, but that may have a devastating effect soon after. Like with a wallet: it's really easy to forget your wallet somewhere in pub when you are drunk, but the next day you discover that all your important documents, credit cards, etc. have been lost - and you are in for a lot of trouble. I prefer games in which such situations are as rare as possible.

[Charge me Doctor]

Baneling drop when you have Vikings flying around and marines? Sorry, but these things don't happen is SC2. Yes, you can run whole your army in enemy banelings losing 60-90% of it, but that's why you need upgrades, but this kind of "mistakes" are same as throwing your soldiers to attack walls with only swords, enemy archers will laugh at you at kill everything.
I don't know much about Jedi Knight 2, but i've played Jedi Academy, and i remember huge hype about dual-wielding swords. I can say one thing: one Heavy-style ligthsaber beats the crap out of it. I think same shit was with Jedi Knight 2, there should be something to counter that combo, if not - this game is poorly balanced and shouldn't be played until fixed.

In medieval times there was many ways to defeat overwhelming force of enemies, it was called tactics and formations. I've learned this from Cossacks, when you basically but your pikemen in front, musketman (or buckshot cannons) behind and enemy will have to lose around 50% of their army to even close distance (footman will die to buckshot/musketman, horsemans won't pass pikeman).

If i understand correctly, you want a game where you will explore for resources, build huge army and engage enemy at 40m-1h point where everything solved by having bigger army?

All you need to not do "small" (i would call them "stupid") mistakes, is to play game more. You will get into it. Like, spending 3 seconds to drop 2 factories? Is it takes that long to F1>workers>V>F>shiftclick>click>doubletap army? It barely takes more than 1 second. I think there is no reason to make slow-paced RTS anymore, because turn-based games are basically is what you would want.

And again. In SC2 your army is not everything that matters. Even if you lose half of your army (implying you dominated your opponent) you will recover MUCH quicker because of superior economy (more moneyz on productionz) and map control (he can't take expansions safe).

Even in AoE, priests could steal your weak units in a blink of an eye, or you could lose all your infantry (or even important buildings) due to sneaky catapult barrage.

Try out Europa Univesalis 4, it has great siege mechanic (you have to supply your troops and if you won't break enemy walls fast enough, your troops will get hungry, cold, sick and such and will perform much worse. Same goes for defending side, if they don't break siege/capitulate, whole population can die off due to sickness/starvation/unrest). It's very complicated strategy, but it's turn-based, because of shit you have to do lots of shit on your turns.

Oh, and Iron grip:warlord (released in 2008) is very good