Is RTS a dying genre?

[Cyclone Jack]

Just curious why inst dungeon keeper a RTS? And what is the definition of RTS?

An RTS is Real-Time, obviously, and has both base building and unit control. For example:
Command & Conquer
Warcraft
Starcraft
Total Annihilation
Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War
Age of Empires

I've seen many games listed in here that just have the unit control aspect, which is typically referred to as RTT (Real-Time Tactics). For example:
MechCommander
Warhammer 40: Dawn of War II
Sudden Strike
Total War series (technically a combination of Grand Strategy with RTT battles)

Both of these are great genres, but can appeal to different audiences because they feel and play completely different (personally, I enjoy them both). Unfortunately, developers and publishers started to call RTT RTS a number of years back and effectively erased the RTT sub-genre, muddying the waters and making it difficult for players to find the games they want to play. It doesn't help that they still call MOBAs RTS, or worse, when Turn-Based Strategy games are labelled RTS (like, really, Panzer Genreal is RTS?).

As for Dungeon Keeper, while technically an RTS, it has base building and (limited) unit control, I consider it and other games like it (War for the Overworld, Evil Genius, Dungeons, etc) their own sub-genre, since the theme and feel of the game is quite different from your typical RTS. If I'm looking for a game like Dungeon Keeper, I'm typically not looking for something like Age of Empires, or MechCommander, or RimWorld, or Crusader Kings II, or Defense Grid.

While all of the games listed above are both Real-Time and contain elements of Strategy, using the sub-genres help players find the games they want to play. It would be like lumping WoW, FFVII, Diablo, Grimrock, and Disgaea all together, when in fact they are all different sub-genres of "RPG" (MMORPG, JRPG, ARPG, Dungeon Crawler, TRPG).

All that said, outside of Blizzard, I would say that the traditional RTS is not in a good place. I think part of this is because of the above muddying, and players are tired of sifting through myriad of games that are labelled RTS but aren't RTS. The other part is because RTS went competitive for a while (StarCraft) and developers shifted to try and get into that same spotlight, not realizing that they weren't Blizzard. There were plenty of great RTS games before StarCraft, just as there were great MMOs before WoW, but people wanted to imitate instead of innovate, and that really hurt the genre, IMO. Is it a dead genre? No, there are still a few RTS games coming out from time to time, like Grey Goo, Northguard, maybe They are Billions (I'm torn between calling it RTS or Tower Defense, its kind of a mix of both so maybe it still counts).

[Charge me Doctor]

RTS seems like it's dead because no Triple A developer wants to make one anymore. But there's clearly still a market for it but maybe not the Demand.

And there is little to no demand because RTS games aren't showed down the throat of consumers via all the media possible. So the player have to go out himself and find something good to play himself, instead of trusting rock paper shotgun on #1 FPS to buy, or seeing CoD commercial for 20th time on youtube/instagram/facebook/whatever

- - - Updated - - -

Sudden Strike

Kudos to you for bringing it up. That's an old-ass game. Anyways, difference between RTT and RTS is blurry and i don't see a point in this distinction honestly. It becomes even more fun when you bring up wargame genre and everything just crumbles to pieces in an attempt to define genres.

Also when sudden strike was popular (2007?) it was definitely marketed and presented as "RTS with wargame rules with no base building"

[Shinzai]

On a related note, Blizzard's starting a South Korean Starcraft Remastered league.

[Cyclone Jack]

Kudos to you for bringing it up. That's an old-ass game. Anyways, difference between RTT and RTS is blurry and i don't see a point in this distinction honestly. It becomes even more fun when you bring up wargame genre and everything just crumbles to pieces in an attempt to define genres.

Also when sudden strike was popular (2007?) it was definitely marketed and presented as "RTS with wargame rules with no base building"

Well, the biggest difference is base building and no base building. The base building phase of the RTS is more impactful to the outcome of the game than the actual combat.

As for Sudden Strike being called an "RTS without base building", that's the blurring of the lines that developers did to try and bring RTS players into RTT games. They basically erased RTT and threw the RTS label on their games. If you talk to RTS exclusive players and RTT exclusive players and tell them they like the same games, expect a fight.

[Shinzai]

Command and Conquer generals tried the same thing didn't it?


Also, if I remember correctly, Z tried balancing things by having the bases create exactly the same units for both sides all the time, right?

[Scyclone]

This has presented something of a challenge to me, thought process wise.

How do you create an RTS (mechanically) that allows for depth and management but does not require someone to have eight hands like Starcraft where APM makes all the difference. How do you pull RTS away from something physical/mechanical, and yet return it back to tactical and thought process side of things.

With base building, you impact your end result of the game and it allows for a lot of opportunities to build things your own way. That said though... without base building, you are pretty much playing either a mass scale MOBA or just a MOBA in general.

How do you build an RTS that allows for building, doesn't require Korean hand dexterity, encourages replay-ability but doesn't turn them into League of Legends either.

[LazarusLong]

This has presented something of a challenge to me, thought process wise.

How do you create an RTS (mechanically) that allows for depth and management but does not require someone to have eight hands like Starcraft where APM makes all the difference. How do you pull RTS away from something physical/mechanical, and yet return it back to tactical and thought process side of things.

With base building, you impact your end result of the game and it allows for a lot of opportunities to build things your own way. That said though... without base building, you are pretty much playing either a mass scale MOBA or just a MOBA in general.

How do you build an RTS that allows for building, doesn't require Korean hand dexterity, encourages replay-ability but doesn't turn them into League of Legends either.

Tooth and Tail comes to mind.

[Charge me Doctor]

Command and Conquer generals tried the same thing didn't it?


Also, if I remember correctly, Z tried balancing things by having the bases create exactly the same units for both sides all the time, right?

IIRC in Z you could pick which units you want to manufacture from bases, i do vividly remember that you could produce either light infantry or light vehicle from main base. But in case i read your post incorrectly - blue and red were completely symmetrical, their unit pool was exactly the same

- - - Updated - - -

This has presented something of a challenge to me, thought process wise.

How do you create an RTS (mechanically) that allows for depth and management but does not require someone to have eight hands like Starcraft where APM makes all the difference. How do you pull RTS away from something physical/mechanical, and yet return it back to tactical and thought process side of things.

With base building, you impact your end result of the game and it allows for a lot of opportunities to build things your own way. That said though... without base building, you are pretty much playing either a mass scale MOBA or just a MOBA in general.

How do you build an RTS that allows for building, doesn't require Korean hand dexterity, encourages replay-ability but doesn't turn them into League of Legends either.

You don't have to have 8 hands to play starcraft, the thing about RTS games is that you can play them not at your 100%, even pro players make mistakes, you can't be everywhere all the time. Having 200 APM is achievable given enough practice, better you get - more actions you can perform because you spend less time thinking and waiting, spending more time doing stuff instead.

The problem with RTS i see is that players are afraid to play them, because it's too obvious... you know... whose fault it is when you lose, it's too obvious what you did wrong and the idea of losing 50 games, because you are not familiar with the game is not very engaging

[Scyclone]

IIRC in Z you could pick which units you want to manufacture from bases, i do vividly remember that you could produce either light infantry or light vehicle from main base. But in case i read your post incorrectly - blue and red were completely symmetrical, their unit pool was exactly the same

- - - Updated - - -



You don't have to have 8 hands to play starcraft, the thing about RTS games is that you can play them not at your 100%, even pro players make mistakes, you can't be everywhere all the time. Having 200 APM is achievable given enough practice, better you get - more actions you can perform because you spend less time thinking and waiting, spending more time doing stuff instead.

The problem with RTS i see is that players are afraid to play them, because it's too obvious... you know... whose fault it is when you lose, it's too obvious what you did wrong and the idea of losing 50 games, because you are not familiar with the game is not very engaging

And that cycles back to the question I provided above.

Because honestly, if you are to design a game to market it, why would you make a game people are 'afraid' to play, and feel like they have to invest everything into getting to a point of being able to enjoy it. Its like playing Dark Souls with no deaths, can you do it sure, but 99.9% of the people just want to enjoy and beat the game.

The moment, APM + Practice get entered into the equation, the less like a game and more like a Korean eSport it becomes. Let Starcraft keep its niche, the discussion is about keeping the genre vibrant.

---------------

Sorry, just gotta ask it all again

How do you build an RTS that allows for building, doesn't require Korean hand dexterity, encourages replay-ability but doesn't turn them into League of Legends either.

- - - Updated - - -

Tooth and Tail comes to mind.

Never heard of it, but it looks quite interesting

[Charge me Doctor]

Sorry, just gotta ask it all again

How do you build an RTS that allows for building, doesn't require Korean hand dexterity, encourages replay-ability but doesn't turn them into League of Legends either.

I don't think that you are asking the right question here, because players mentality won't change depending on how the game was built. Look at recent quake for example, it's an FPS with really high skill cap and steep learning curve, but new players still enjoy it, because they rarely get roflstomped by good players due to matchmaking, they receive medals for performance, can complete challenges and games are quite short.

In modern RTS games there is none of that afaik, except, maybe, matchmaking. In RTS it's not obvious where you've made a mistake and how to fix it unless you go into replay and see where things go wrong (or you queue for the next game and hope for the best, executing your build better this time and hope that enemy doesn't go for something that counters it), there is no short-term satisfaction from blowing someone with a rocket launcher with quad damage during the game , it's either you win or you lose.
Why do you think term "ladder anxiety" associates with games like dota and SC2? Because of their complexity, but from their complexity comes their greatness, overcoming obstacles and wanting to get better is not something game can make you want, you yourself has to do that.

If you strip RTS games from their complexity in favor of players not feeling anxious to play PvP you end up with... whatever was presented as C&C game at E3

[Scyclone]

I don't think that you are asking the right question here, because players mentality won't change depending on how the game was built. Look at recent quake for example, it's an FPS with really high skill cap and steep learning curve, but new players still enjoy it, because they rarely get roflstomped by good players due to matchmaking, they receive medals for performance, can complete challenges and games are quite short.

In modern RTS games there is none of that afaik, except, maybe, matchmaking. In RTS it's not obvious where you've made a mistake and how to fix it unless you go into replay and see where things go wrong (or you queue for the next game and hope for the best, executing your build better this time and hope that enemy doesn't go for something that counters it), there is no short-term satisfaction from blowing someone with a rocket launcher with quad damage during the game , it's either you win or you lose.
Why do you think term "ladder anxiety" associates with games like dota and SC2? Because of their complexity, but from their complexity comes their greatness, overcoming obstacles and wanting to get better is not something game can make you want, you yourself has to do that.

If you strip RTS games from their complexity in favor of players not feeling anxious to play PvP you end up with... whatever was presented as C&C game at E3

You misunderstand what I am meaning here. I want the focal point of complexity/challenge to be a mental/strategy based driven component. I do not want it to hold itself up with a high physical skill cap.

Stripping complexity isn't the aim, instead if nothing more, increasing it could be fun (if done appropriately). What I want to remove is a Korean robot from being able to play at twice the speed of a normal human, and that being the declaration of victory. When you move that much faster than a normal person wanting to play and enjoy the game, you can fuck up all you want, you'll still win. It'll still crush the gamers enthusiasm and lead to an ever diminishing player base.

That is one thing that MOBAs (specifically League and Heroes of the Storm) do very well. They maintain the fun aspect despite getting absolutely wrecked, and you generally are balanced around the idea of win and lose half your game once you've improved well enough to be about where you'd start to cap out. My thing on is this I want to AVOID twitch hand manuevers, hot key spams, 200+ APMs, and shortcut blasting as a means to being competitive. I know the first statement to that would be: "Why not go turn based then", but surely there is a way to make an RTS that doesn't require dance dance revolution hand skills.



Aside from causing serious physical damage (from a video game...), it also removes so much of the cinematic/content of the game for raw throughput, I mean watch the video - half the time you can't even tell what they are doing because they've given 5 separate orders to different groups of units on the screen they are not even looking at.

[Cracked]

Both of these are great genres, but can appeal to different audiences because they feel and play completely different (personally, I enjoy them both). Unfortunately, developers and publishers started to call RTT RTS a number of years back and effectively erased the RTT sub-genre, muddying the waters and making it difficult for players to find the games they want to play. It doesn't help that they still call MOBAs RTS, or worse, when Turn-Based Strategy games are labelled RTS (like, really, Panzer Genreal is RTS?).

For a while now, I've thought about making a game that is essentially a co-op of 2 players, 1 managing the economy and building, the other having control over the units. I've tried some design concepts, and I think it could be fun, even if very niche. But since it would be pretty much my side project, it would be 5+ years away

Do you think people of both sides could enjoy that? If we put griefing aside, I think the asymmetrical co-op can be very satisfying to play.

It would be though to get it right for single player campaign or story (and wouldn't be my focus at all from the beginning), but for classical multiplayer, 2v2 or (2+2)v(2+2) sounds fun.

[Cyclone Jack]

You don't have to have 8 hands to play starcraft, the thing about RTS games is that you can play them not at your 100%, even pro players make mistakes, you can't be everywhere all the time. Having 200 APM is achievable given enough practice, better you get - more actions you can perform because you spend less time thinking and waiting, spending more time doing stuff instead.

The problem with RTS i see is that players are afraid to play them, because it's too obvious... you know... whose fault it is when you lose, it's too obvious what you did wrong and the idea of losing 50 games, because you are not familiar with the game is not very engaging

Agreed. I think the competitiveness of RTS is a hurdle that many people don't think they can overcome. They see all of these pro games and people with 200 APM and think "Nope!", but what they don't see is that there are a bunch of people who are playing at their level. Additionally, some RTS games have great story driven campaigns. Back in the day, that's what really sold the RTS, because multiplayer was limited to LAN or Modem play. You didn't *need* super fast APM to play Command & Conquer or Warcraft II. You played to have fun; the competitive side didn't really show up until StarCraft, and even then it took a few years to really get to that level of competitive play (and I think that only happened due to the impact it had on Korea).

For a while now, I've thought about making a game that is essentially a co-op of 2 players, 1 managing the economy and building, the other having control over the units. I've tried some design concepts, and I think it could be fun, even if very niche. But since it would be pretty much my side project, it would be 5+ years away

Do you think people of both sides could enjoy that? If we put griefing aside, I think the asymmetrical co-op can be very satisfying to play.

It would be though to get it right for single player campaign or story (and wouldn't be my focus at all from the beginning), but for classical multiplayer, 2v2 or (2+2)v(2+2) sounds fun.

This is something I've thought about for nearly two decades, and it still surprises me that nobody has done this (to the best of my knowledge). Let two (or more) players play on the same team. Let someone be the base builder, let someone be the scouts, let someone drive the main force.

While somewhat similar, yet completely different, there was a game years ago called Savage (not that turd of a remake from a year or so ago) that let someone play the base builder, while each of the troops were controlled by players in 3rd/1st person. It could be pretty entertaining, especially with a good RTS player at the helm. They would build, research technologies, and could select units and ping locations for them to go towards, and those players would see a pillar of light as a guide. And if you had the same team playing for multiple games, they'd learn who played what and would tailor the tech tree to their team.

[endersblade]

Dungeon Keeper is essentially a RTS. It's also kind of a tower defence game before tower defence games were a thing.

Dungeon Keeper is a god/management game more than an RTS. You don't control the minions. Sure you can pick them up and place them down, but they run around doing what they want to most of the time. You build their environment and set them to kill your enemies.

The accepted definition of an RTS is basically Age of Empires. You place buildings, you spit out units, you go fight the enemy. Unlike most other genres, this one is pretty clear cut. Unfortunately some people try to blur the lines by tossing in other games that aren't really RTS by acceptance but might be by definition. Just like in the ARPG thread a while back, there is basically the definition of RTS, and then there's what people think of as RTS.

Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, Command and Conquer, Starcraft, Warcraft, those are what people think of when you say RTS. Yes, Dungeon keeper is a strategy game played in real-time. But again it is more a god game than anything, like Black and White.

[Deleted]

RTS is most certainly not dead. It's still a vibrant genre with a lot of old titles still holding the fort quite well. There's quite a lot of confusion from people here on what dead means. As someone else pointed out, side scrolling shooters are truly dead and not just by comparison. Then there's the confusion about genres and subgenres that is rife as well. Total War games, while being a blast, are not true RTS games for instance. Neither do I consider They Are Billions a true RTS game since there's no MP and a it has a pause feature, and your AI opponent is completely fundamentally different from your side on all levels.

There is also the confusion about why they're failing to draw mass market appeal. Fundamentally, there's a lot of things to blame from player mindsets, koreans(jk), APMs, etc. Blizzard is also to blame in a rather gigantic fashion, because of how Starcraft 2 was designed (where everything is super fast, creates super fast, dies super fast, etc.). It poisoned the well so to speak for other developers and the RTS community. No other RTS game is as fast as SC2. Then there's the issue of people seeing Koreans spam ~300 APM and thinking "no way I'm ever going to get to that level", when in fact, if you really take a close inspection, you'll notice that a HUGE percentage of their actions are just pointless spam that does not correspond with actual in-game commands, that they do in order to tempo themselves and maintain a state of high alertness so that they don't relax. For people with high mental acuity, a large part of this spam is unnecessary.

Let's compare this to some of the more popular titles. Age of Empires 2 for instance (and OP, the HD steam edition looks great and has aged exceptionally well btw), is a much slower paced game and yet its player base will swear that it's probably the best strategy game of all time and they keep playing it to this day. The difference is not huge in terms of speed but everything adds up and it makes for a better game in my opinion, even from a spectator's perspective. It's 20 years old now and still receiving expansions, that should tell you something.

Dawn of War 1 for instance (and only 1, 2 is an RTT/moba, 3 is just a joke) is also slower paced in terms of how fast units die and also happens to be a competitor of Starcraft 2 as they were released around the same time, with Starcraft 2 winning out because of Blizzard's fame hoarding the spotlight and I would argue its presentation and polish, but not because of its combat, where in my opinion Dawn of War 1 wins hands down in all departments, aside from the clunky air combat implementation. I'd rather watch a DoW 1 multiplayer match over SC2 any day, it's just much more fun and it really gets you gripped. Since squads of units aren't wiped out instantly by superior micro like in SC2, opponents have a longer fight in which to make decisions and counter-decisions and it makes for a much more interesting game overall.

Battle for Middle-Earth (and I could list a giant number of games) is also a nice example of how RTS games used to be before SC2 ruined the genre. In terms of older games you really have your work cut out for you if you really want to experience the best of the genre. I doubt you've played ALL of them, none of us really have. Most people when you ask them about RTS games, all they know is Warcraft/Starcraft and maybe Command and Conquer and Age of Empires, but the list is gigantic.

New RTS games are also steadily coming out. Check out Empires Apart (AoE vibe), Forged Battalion (really promising, CnC vibe), Ancestor's Legacy (BFME vibe) and a lot of others that I'm missing. Age of Empires 4 is in the works, Age of Empires Definitive Edition is out (sadly from M$ Store/Win 10 only).

So NO, RTS is not dead and it's not dying anytime soon. People still love the genre, still make games for it and are trying to keep it alive. It's just hit a huge bump mainly because of Starcraft 2, in a very ironic fashion, but it will pass. (Don't take this to mean I dislike SC2, I think it's a great RTS, but it's not even in my top 5).

ALSO very important. RTS games are not for everybody, and never will be, no matter how hard people try and they don't HAVE to be, the more they try to the more they fail. A ton of people play Starcraft 2 but never set foot in multiplayer, being fine with campaign/co-op/arcade. So essentially they're kinda missing out of the entire RTS experience, but they don't care, since they're having fun. If you want a successful RTS nowadays you have to cover your bases with the above things.

In essence RTS games parallel fighting games, especially over their history. Fighting games were also mega popular in their 90s but they also never were for everybody and they had a lot of the same requirements. As gamers became more diversified and grew older and new genres popped up, these two genres (which also favor you being young since as you grow older your reactions and judgements lag more) simply socketed into their more natural position and they will fluctuate back into and out of popularity as time passes like all other games. Devs just need to realize SC2 is not the golden standard and they're starting to.

[Deleted]

Warcraft 3 had a great map editor and many awesome custom maps, which had nothing to do with the original game design though.

Yes, the genre is dying. For me, that is not really a problem. I am not a fan of micro-managing keybinds and units.

As others stated, I would expect this genre to come back some time in the future with the release of some new game that changes just that little something so more people will enjoy it. My guess: more fast-paced action with less micro-managing stuff would lead to a wider audience.

[Charge me Doctor]

This is something I've thought about for nearly two decades, and it still surprises me that nobody has done this (to the best of my knowledge). Let two (or more) players play on the same team. Let someone be the base builder, let someone be the scouts, let someone drive the main force.

While somewhat similar, yet completely different, there was a game years ago called Savage (not that turd of a remake from a year or so ago) that let someone play the base builder, while each of the troops were controlled by players in 3rd/1st person. It could be pretty entertaining, especially with a good RTS player at the helm. They would build, research technologies, and could select units and ping locations for them to go towards, and those players would see a pillar of light as a guide. And if you had the same team playing for multiple games, they'd learn who played what and would tailor the tech tree to their team.

It exists in sc2 and called archon mode

- - - Updated - - -

snip

Well, at this point you have to make a turn based game, it's the only way to make apm not matter. Or slow the game down to the point where it doesn't matter, but it creates kinda boring and sluggish gameplay, and regardless of how you make an RTS game, someone with more apm will always be a better player, due to... you know... being able to execute more actions than other player, there is no other ways to get rid of that, player who makes more actions simply manages to do more stuff in the game using the same amount of time as other guy.

No one forces you into Korean ladder by the way, why even bother comparing yourself to people not from you own league, again, 200 APM is not even high number that requires things you describe or lead to physical damage. I mean, dota2 pro players usually average at 300 APM and you say that dota-likes are less demanding games

[Cyclone Jack]

It exists in sc2 and called archon mode

Was that in there at launch? I don't remember it. (I only played the 1st one, didn't care for it and never played the other two)

[The Stormbringer]

I hope not, I love RTS games.

[Deleted]

Well, at this point you have to make a turn based game, it's the only way to make apm not matter. Or slow the game down to the point where it doesn't matter, but it creates kinda boring and sluggish gameplay, and regardless of how you make an RTS game, someone with more apm will always be a better player, due to... you know... being able to execute more actions than other player, there is no other ways to get rid of that, player who makes more actions simply manages to do more stuff in the game using the same amount of time as other guy.

In regards to pure base-builder RTS games, I absolutely agree with you. I do think that hybrid RTS games akin to Microsoft Allegiance have a far higher leeway in terms of slowing down the pace.

Personally, I think that while RTS is dead right now, that need not be permanent. So far several genres have apparently died out only to reemerge later on.