RTS games no longer exist?

Because RTS don't make money any more?

-Hard to port to console
-seriously gonna charge monthly fee?
-Always online BS? (D3) or every one(many people is the right word wink~) get privated copy
-Cash shop -> sell what? units? avatars? Probably

Anyhow, if any one want try some MMORTS, check out shattered galaxy, windows 98 graphic but fun. Dying badly though.
and YES, it is macro > micro but micro hold a place.
Edit: and oh, you dun need farm creeps...........

 

^^^Since when Diablo 3 became RTS.

 

Just saying how RTS cant make (much) money.

 

the first homeworld was epic and the homwworld 2 had awesome graphics but was an abysmal failure. I miss base building games like stronghold age of empires and stuff like that. They did make a new stronghold game this year. Haven't played it or seen reviews though.

 

I think the inability to translate the concept to consoles is what's hurting RTS games more than anything else you listed.

 

Very valid points. SC2 Multiplayer is not fun. Even the single player campaign, while innovative, is not that fun either.

 

Multiplayer is fun for me and my friends *shrug*

I enjoyed the single player

 

I don't really get your point about APM being measurable... you don't get extra points for having a high APM. If blizzard included it just as another interesting tidbit of info... does that some how ruin the game?

Most maps have ramps to the main etc that act as a main point of attack/defence.

I get your point about having to 'turn and shoot' in comparison to CoH - but it makes sense in CoH because they are running (relatively! ) crappy WW2 tanks and half tracks etc. Modern tanks with the new stabilisers etc would have much smoother target acquisition... that said, many of the units in SC (battlecruiser, Thor) DO have to rotate in order to face an enemy to engage it.

The same unit behaviour that exists in CoH that you are talking about exists in every modern RTS game - whether it be CnC or SC. The only difference is that unit lethality is fairly low in CoH, hence you don't notice a misplaced unit being instantly pulverised.

You are looking for some sort of tower defence game then? Because CoH is definitely not constructed to play like that, holding a solitary point. I fail to see how that scenario in anyway relates to SC2. If anything, you can be FAR more defensive in SC2 whereas in CoH you will be ripped apart if you aren't always pushing and being aggressive.

I get what you are saying about feeling the pressure laddering in SC2; but then again - if you don't like laddering, don't ladder!

Please note I am not here arguing that SC2 is the greatest RTS ever. While I played it a bit, I've virtually stopped for half a year as I dislike the death ball mechanics that are in the game...

It just seems you are seeking some RTS where you only play against an AI, mistakes are not punished as mistakes... whilst such an RTS might exist in a very niche market, multiplayer is the primary selling point of RTS's and is what confers longevity to the game - its ALWAYS the hardcore MP crowd that keeps the game going. RTS's survive on thinking - and continually IMPROVING your thinking - whether it be getting the right unit mix, get timings right, improving your understanding of the game... I fail to see the appeal in games where this development does not occur.

Its why chess has survived all this time.

 

Let's just agree to disagree. SC2 is fun for some, but really sour for many. Sure I have fun time and again with a romp with my friends, otherwise SC2 has little to no value for me. I will likely try to get back and at least finish the single player campaign though since I did buy the damn game. People take the game WAY too seriously though. That's what I find so disconcerting. People literally get angry at you if you play 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 if you're not up to their skill level.

 

I HATE tower defense games

What you're saying about CoH isn't accurate, especially if you consider the British faction with their trenches and heavy artillery. Oddly enough, though, I don't like playing with the British, because I agree this is really not the point of the game.

I do know how to play CoH, and I do get the upper hand and win against tough AIs here and there and I can play offensively pretty well, but I also can enjoy messing and goofing around with the game and do stuff that isn't necessarily just the ruthless way to win as quickly as possible.

I disagree about your point in selling points of RTS games, especially since there are many such games that really don't cater to the competitive multiplayer crowd, SoaSE is just a recent example. And even though it may look that way, not all FPS games cater to the competitive multiplayer crowd, either. It's just that this crowd is the most vocal...

Chess has nothing to do with this subject, IMO, and definitely doesn't explain why it has survived all these years. While I understand your example and your reference, I really don't think they're that much alike. Chess is hardly a competitive one on one race, but a very slow thinking-man's game (unless 'sudden-death' rounds commence due to long draws).

I just don't appreciate the boasting of multiplayer gamers that believe that if they're able to defeat others, or beat a game in the hardest difficulty it means they're some sort of master tacticians or something (e.g: please see HTWingNut's example on team games directly above me). Plus, no offense, honestly (and I apologize in advance if I do) but I don't appreciate their self importance about how only their preference matters, and it's their way or the highway. Chess players are usually anything but that.

 

Why has no one mentioned Age of Empires Online?? Its actually pretty damn fun and time fulfilling.

 

Total War, even though i can see that as not being an exact RTS. Sins of Solar Empire IMO is a FANTASTIC RTS and it deserves more treatment. Company of Heroes which i dont know how old it is, but im seeing youtubers play it, and it looks like a LOT of fun. Wargame European Escalation isnt an RTS true to its roots, but its an idea that is really cool and i cant wait to play it! men of war, although again i think its pretty old. But still, to me the idea of a true RTS isnt what makes Strategy games fun, its the limits that the games set.

 

I play Command & Conquer 3 and the Tiberium Essence Mod more than any other game. 1.51 beta has been released and is even better, I just thought the 1.4 trailer was better than the other clips. There are so many great mods that I never get bored and have played the campaign so many times.

<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XIlsK3qZF0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8XIlsK3qZF0?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width='420' height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

 

APM is measurable sure for the geeks, but pros also have low APM and do great.. Looking at White-Ra here. Anyway, RTS meaning Real-time strategy. Everything about SC2 calls for making strategic maneuvers in real time, on the fly. One mistake against a very good player can cost you dearly. I don't believe that just because you do move quickly rather than having to take time to set up something means it's not strategic. Chess is strategic right? I feel like SC2 is often a lot like chess, IMO. You react to what's being played by the opponent, both you do a ton of strategizing in your head but in SC2 you put a lot of those thoughts into mouse clicks and kb clicks, but you still need to use your brain. There's a HUGE difference in thinking hmm if I move my army this way to attack in the center map or just hold back and fight near home base vs oh man there's a guy that just ran by me, *twitch joystick and pull trigger*

 

Depends on what level you're at. The game is actually very straightforward until you get to the 90th percentile or so. Up until that level, the differences between players largely depends on attrition, or who can get more stuff and do more with it, which depends on your manual ability to multitask the game as fast as possible.

 

wait is baka and baii two different members? i thought ti was a name change...so confused.

Anyways for me it is:

Star Wars empire at war

Any age of empires

lords of the realm 1 and 2

C&C red alert aftermath. Long live chrono tanks and mamoth tanks

C@C generals is a bore now...been that way for years. murdered that game in high school

Empire Earth is a good one when playing with friends. Get the 5k unit mod and have some epic battles

Battle for middle earth

Only play COH with friends..online is . So many people are so damn good its pointless

Dawn of War is fun with friends but not my favorite.

I forget the name of this. It was a cool RTS you have under ground map and above ground map so you have to fight two lvls on the map. It was a lot of run but had way to few unit cap. it was 100 or 200 tops and some units are like 5-20 points :/
(well after like 15 mins of googling I figured out its name Armies of Exigo. Would be so much cooler if it had high pop counts

Sumpreme Commander is cool but boring vs AI...AI is so stupid. It is the worse AI I have ever seen. A pure trickle tackic AI. The only difference in difficaulty is the fact AI produce more resources and have better units. No improved tactics. Also unit control is horrible. Like playing Age of Empire 1.

Age of mythology is an awesome one I never got to play :/ If i cnna get my hands on it I will so play it

I am sure I am missing a few good ones but this is most of them. I am about to start playing battle for middle earth again but i over played that one so I am kinda still against playing it again. Kinda drawn because it was fun but I feel I should play a different game.

 

The comparison with Chess is simply to suggest that the reason its still played is because you constantly improve... and I disagree about it being particularly 'slow' - most games get decided in around 25 moves or so, game length is not measured in seconds in chess. Barely see how its a slow thinking old's man game. That last comment begs the question - why do you play rts at all? Not trying to sound condescending, but its a genuine question - what draws you to the genre?

Its great you highlight the current crop of FPS's that are released - the fact that game companies are producing one shot 5 hour campaigns and lame multiplayer experiences without thinking - what can I actually do to make this a challenge for players - is what is fuelling the Call of Duty's, Medal of Honors, and I am sorry to say, even Battlefield 3's of today.

 

And how do you figure?

 

No figuring about it. Starcraft 2 counts.

 

Oh, but chess is indeed a slow-thinking 'old's man' game. First and foremost, this is arguably, the ultimate turn-based game. Second - Look at who are the best players in the world of Chess and compare them to the best players in the world of SC2, for example. And like I said, I understood exactly what you meant, but I still disagreed with the whole notion.

Why I like RTS? Well, I like amassing armies, I like the pressure before a major attack and the ensuing chaos, I like watching my armies in motion, and yes, I also like base building and upgrading my units very much.

Let me guess - tower defense, right?

No, tower defense is a simplistic, static casual sub-genre which requires a certain set of actions to get the result of killing brainless units marching to their doom. RTS, on the other hand, is much more dynamic, much more intricate. I can set the best defense, but if I'll just leave it static the enemy will eventually breach it.

An excellent RTS that did it right IMO was Empire Earth. I could plan my defenses, and they would stand firm against even a strong army. Yet if I would slow down in the tech race for one second, forget to build my counter army in case of a breach, or underestimate the enemy forces, the enemy would be inside my walls and I'll have to rebuild everything.

And since I like building bases so much, why won't I just play Simcity/Anno, then? Well, who said that I haven't?
And second, these games have completely different approaches. Your challenges in those games are resources and racing against the clock of your objective. RTS games require combat handling, staying on your toes for any new threat and defeating your enemy instead of just amassing enough lumber. It's my way of fun, and I find it valid.

Regarding your last point about FPS, tell me - why do people keep pestering Valve for Half Life Episode 3? Just because of the multiplayer? And what about Crysis 3? Farcry 3? Also because of multiplayer? These games are valid and have a right to exist, they keep their genre alive, bring it forward and have a following just as well as the Battlefields and Medals of Honor.

 

You actually have the Pros to blame for this. The default speed was originally 1 notch slower and at the request of the professional players that were beta testing Blizzard increased the speed. I agree this has turned it into more of a clickfest than strategy game. The micro aspect of the game has completely overwhelmed the macro. Unfortunately I don't see the sequels revolutionizing the game the way Brood War did for Starcraft 1.

 

I loved the original SC and Brood Wars especially. I was half-way decent too. For some reason SC2 just feels totally like who can create units the fastest for initial rush. If you don't you lose. Rarely can you ever make it to the more advanced units in the game. Just a bunch of basic units rushing each other which imho is boring. But I'll leave it at that. There are clearly enough people that enjoy the game for what it is. I'm just not one of them.

 

As for best I would have to say Starcraft: Brood War, Kohan: Ahriman's Gift and Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

 

Using girl image as avatar doesn't automatically make them the same person...

And I dun talk the way she does XD.

 

i actually got hitched on Strategy by Civilization 3 (100 man stacked units FTW) and then branched off from that with Sins of a Solar Empire. Then SC2, because i will admit that i bought it because of all the positive feedback. Then Total War series, and then now im here, and still waiting for U.S. Customs to finish clearing my Laptop.

 

Amirfoox,

So, you seem to like the visual spectacle of an RTS... is that right? All your posts paint a picture of defending against a wall of enemies. And w/ever thats your prerogative, but to me it seems ridiculously easy to wear out such games, hit the skill cap very early, limiting the life such games have.

I like being challenged, being forced to out think opponents, understand the implications of selecting one option over another, where its not so black and white, but really grey - and thats what I am trying to argue with the whole chess comparison. You still don't get the fact that chess is NOT SLOW just because they are allowed time to make moves. Does not equate to 'slow'. A slow game is something with loose (or no!) win conditions, or where it is difficult to translate advantages into the game (forcibly evening the playing field).

HL 3 etc are wanted because nobody wants to play crappy attempts at catering to a bland, generic modern fps genre anymore. As for the single player experiences, it has a totally different mindset to RTS's (obviously - catering more to story, atmosphere, occasional puzzles etc).

But whatever, I am seeking an RTS that can redefine the genre. You seem to want a game that you can play for a couple of bursts and then forget about.

Its coz Blizzard are idiots and actually CONSTRUCTED Protoss V Terran (in SC2) to play like that i.e. Terran with the advantage early and Protoss late. So the Terran has to try and win in the first 15 min or so, otherwise the Protoss will win. I mean, how stupid can you be?

Stopped playing a while back, maybe Heart of the Swarm can get me back into it.

 

lol no i never seen baiii before until like a week ago and i didn't see any post from baka in the last two weeks so i thought it was a name change

 

Is civilization any good? Never tried that... gameplay videos seem pretty decent... anyone here play?

 

niharjhatn,

Yes, 'easy' and 'forgettable' (I just admitted that a few pages ago), challenging and competitive, call it what you will, your last post is basically exactly the bottom line I was trying to achieve with this whole debate: that this is what you like, and that is what I like, and neither one negates the other.

I wholeheartedly agree about HL 3 as well, but I'll sum up with this: do bear in mind that while you call this type of multiplayer FPS generic and bland, you're on their same side, it seems, when it comes to the RTS genre. These mutli-FPS fans could also argue that the single player experiences of HL3 etc are easy and forgettable, while they keep playing their Battlefields and Medals of Honor indefinitely, improving themselves constantly as well.

Think about it.

aban714, Civ is a pretty good empire building game, yeah. Please note it is quite slow and requires some practice to win above the most basic of difficulty levels.

 

Civilization is an insane amount of fun. 4 was a little bland to me, but 5 is probably different from the rest. I started on 3, and jumped to 5. I would highly reccomend it to almost anyone. 5 was on sale a while ago and it probably will be soon. Buy the GOTY and then i have to still buy God and Kings which is supposed to make the game an INSANE amount of fun by readding religion, like 7 new nations, and i think it was like 150 new units so..... ITS A LOT OF FUN.

 

I have to agree with you for the msot part. I do love slower pasted RTSs. Largely why I play with friends because we dont rush....rushing is no fun. We like to drag the games out and have fun with them.

 

Also Hearts of Iron si fun but ridiculously hard and takes a whole month to beat a single game. Being the AXIS is ridiculously hard. Allies got it easy.

Also about empire building and strategy. My friend and I loved Age of Empires and Empire Earth because you could build awesome bases and have great battles. Of course the game could be a rush fest but it could also be an awesome base building and strategic attacks. My friend and I played a game for like 6 hours and had huge bases and armies. We each heavily used air to try to cause as much damage with little loses. He controlled an Island that was his air base. It had an ungodly amount of anti air. I had to build a 1k air force to bomb it. He knew i had a large air force but not ~30 air fields lol.(note we capped it at WWII tech with nuke plans) I first launched the attack and he was ahhh man that is a ton of air. I am still shooting it down like it is cool. (i lost every plan at first) but then I started landing a few hits on his AA and gained some ground. Then my first nuke landed. He was like nooooo. Then he was said this is a ton of plans and I told him he hasn't seen anything yet. All a sudden he say 8 nuke plans and was like NNOOOOOOO. All of a sudden his base started blowing up and about 15 nukes went off and I was screaming with joy! Then!!! Then!!!!! The game crashed :/ I called it a victory for me because he would have lost his whole air force and died after that. Was the best battle ever!

 

EXACTLY what I was talking about! Excellent post!

I wish I could play with you guys, that's exactly how I play my games. And I also cap at WW2, because the future techs really ruin it. It sounds awesome!

 

pm me some time maybe we cna make a game session been dieing to play...all my friends are too busy to play :/ I am kinda too busy too but i cna squeeze it in

 

what about COH!!!!!!

 

is it still worth getting at its age? or should i just wait for CoH 2? i want to play the series either way (i was watching ChilledChaos, EatMyDiction1, Junkyard1234 and GaLm play it the other day) and it looks like an insane amount of fun. I still have to buy the rest of the Shogun 2 DLC and get Civ 5 Gods and Kings, but its #3 if its worth it...

 

CoH is a must have when it goes on sale when steam does their summer event. You don't need Tales of Valor, just CoH gold edition.

Anybody here play ruse?

 

That isn't true. You can adjust game speed as well as difficulty. Mods are awesome and numerous for HoI. But I like this game because it can be so challenging.

 

I'm currently playing tropico 4 even though it not a RTS game.

 

oh universe at war looks awesome but never played it

 

It made by a few of the former westwood studio guys but it not the type of rts games I like.

 

Do yourself a big favor and avoid it altogether.

Its main premise is the alien faction with the huge upgradeable walkers, but this is fun for one fight, maybe two and then it loses its charm. And the worst thing about it - in order to emphasis the size of the walkers, the devs kept the camera all zoomed in without an ability to zoom out. This prevents you from preparing for an enemy strike, selecting your units (when playing the two other, useless and much weaker factions) and forces you to move frantically around the map. You just can't play RTS games properly that way.

They really screwed the pooch on that one

And yeah, I would love a fun, laid-back EE game whenever you feel like/have time for it.

 

looks like steam is taking yet another $50 out of my pocket for a steam card.

 

One of the problems with SC2 is APM is very much a big part of the skill level. So much so that it often trumps strategy. Another big issue is the Death Ball mechanic someone mentioned. I gravitate towards RTS games with a very high skill level that shine in 4x4. Blizzard didn't even ship SC2 with the necessary tools to play a good 4x4 although the tech climb is too fast to make it a good 4x4 game even if they did. From the reading I've done about Heart of the Swarm its going to be a huge change in gameplay but I don't think its going to fix the game the way Brood War did. I just don't think they get it anymore. Short of Rob Pardo demoting himself and totally redesigning the game I think HotS will actually be worse.

 

i am still playing age of empires 2, its a classic

 

My sentiments exactly. At least one person understands where I'm coming from.

 

I miss Red Alert 2 and all its mods. A fun part of RTS gaming was also modding the rules.ini files, and messing with game mechanics (Should I make resources grow 3x as fast? How about giving the Mammoth tank dual artillery shells? Ore Truck with rockets?)

Remember Mooman's Mod?

 

talking about the APM? I find it annoying when games are all based on APM. i like RTS to be slow and strategic and fun...not a rush fest

 

Yeah, go figure. RTS with actual strategy...

 

I wish game companies would release more RTS games.

RTS (and TBS) is my favourite genre.

- Command & Conquer 3 / KW
- Command & Conquer Generals / ZH
- Total Annihilation

...are my ultimate favourites. I was never a fan of the Starcraft series much. My best personal record thus far has been world top 50 for C&C3. Although rushing was a norm, I always favoured massive end-game battles that lasted an hour. I'm looking forward to C&C Generals 2 ...I just hope the franchise doesn't get butchered.

@amirfoox
Agreed. I tried Universe at War and even gave it a second chance, but it just seemed like it was severely lacking.

@gcrain
I also prefer bigger teamwork matches (3v3/4v4/5v5) in RTS games - it makes it so much more enjoyable.