Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Warhammer Warhammer Age of Sigmar: Realms of Ruin - AoS RTS

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
It's a bit of a problem when combined with a meh story and gameplay.
 

Tyranicon

A Memory of Eternity
Developer
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
5,601
AoS will never escape the stigma of being FB's gravedigger, people are going to be predisposed against anything to do with it from the start.

  • Decide to end a beloved, classic setting
  • We should write End Times so basically 98% of our fans are left dissatisfied
  • Announce a whole new setting with new expensive plastic models
Yeah, AoS was set up to fail regardless of its quality.

Edit:

  • Also, in parallel/after all of the above, have Total Warhammer increase the fanbase of the old setting dramatically.
:nocountryforshitposters:

Somebody hire me as a business consultant. I should be the moron making $$$ doing this shit.
 

fizzelopeguss

Arcane
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
760
Location
Equality Street.
WFB was firmly in third place when it came to GW's wargames. Not even close to LotR, let alone 40k. That's why they killed it for sigmarines.

WH:TW gave the setting a bit of a revival but we'll see if that turns into model sales. By the early looks of things they're going for the massive plastic ornaments of 40k and AoS, rather than regimental splendour.

:dead:
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
Hot take - Warhammer Fantasy wasn't a good setting either. Too kitchen sinky to be coherent.
 

Sarathiour

Cipher
Joined
Jun 7, 2020
Messages
3,262
It's not the setting that's the problem.
It's not the main problem, that's why it was my first argument.

Regarding WFB, part of i doing badly might be because it was in direct competition with the lotr set, and the questionable decision behind the ruleset might not have helped either. It still kinda hard to pinpoint the issue, miniature are a niche hobby.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,705
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Latest versions of Spellforce 3 went back on crazy macro (which is good) and you got heroes to provide active abilities. it is fairly enjoyable to play.
It is just not what modern players want. Stuff like Dota killed classic RTS.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
Crazy macro isn't good in this style of RTS, Blizzard knew what they were doing with WC3.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,705
What these other RTS are doing with making team play part of the main gameplay is what modern players will want while also leaving in 1v1 for all the hardcore ones
 

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,826
Location
Nedderlent
Almost all units have active abilities, which is good
This ruined RTS.
Continued developer antagonism towards macro level gameplay as a concept and perfunctory singleplayer experiences are what killed the genre.
Also that, yes.

SC:BW
CnC3
SupCom
Macro, unit micro instead of ability micro, basebuilding that matters, that's where it's at.

Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Sure why not, if the game's not good it's not good.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
But I'm arguing it failed *because* it had overwhelming macro and almost 0 unit active abilities.
 

HeatEXTEND

Prophet
Patron
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,826
Location
Nedderlent
I understand and was poking fun at that notion, a game can fail with or without those things. The real thing that matters for new "RTS" games is "will there be a team of random people I get to blame for my own stupidity?". If the answer is no, it will fail. Also preferably no 1v1 mode because this will subconsciously hurt their feefees.
 

InD_ImaginE

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
5,314
Pathfinder: Wrath
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Latest versions of Spellforce 3 went back on crazy macro (which is good) and you got heroes to provide active abilities. it is fairly enjoyable to play.
It is just not what modern players want. Stuff like Dota killed classic RTS.

And yet most new non-mobile MOBAS ended up failing, MOBAS is a dying genre, and small-scale, more micro RTS also all failed with the exception of DoW 2.

Blaming Dota/MOBAS for RTS failing is just a misconception. Every RTS catering to MOBAS player pretty much failed while the recently performing one like Age of Empires 4 are just normal RTS

The genre is just dead and hold no appeal to younger people
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,705
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Latest versions of Spellforce 3 went back on crazy macro (which is good) and you got heroes to provide active abilities. it is fairly enjoyable to play.
It is just not what modern players want. Stuff like Dota killed classic RTS.

And yet most new non-mobile MOBAS ended up failing, MOBAS is a dying genre, and small-scale, more micro RTS also all failed with the exception of DoW 2.

Blaming Dota/MOBAS for RTS failing is just a misconception. Every RTS catering to MOBAS player pretty much failed while the recently performing one like Age of Empires 4 are just normal RTS

The genre is just dead and hold no appeal to younger people
Dota2 and LoL playerbase is much bigger than AoE4. Its "success" means nothing.
Only successful RTS in last 15 years was Starcraft 2 and you need to be that successful to be considered a success.
 

Lacrymas

Arcane
Joined
Sep 23, 2015
Messages
17,910
Pathfinder: Wrath
I'd consider an RTS successful if you can queue in the random matchmaking at peak times and get a match within a reasonable timeframe against a person of your ELO. Surprise, surprise, neither SF3 nor RoR managed that. I have no interest in AoE4, so can't comment on that.
 

InD_ImaginE

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 23, 2015
Messages
5,314
Pathfinder: Wrath
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Latest versions of Spellforce 3 went back on crazy macro (which is good) and you got heroes to provide active abilities. it is fairly enjoyable to play.
It is just not what modern players want. Stuff like Dota killed classic RTS.

And yet most new non-mobile MOBAS ended up failing, MOBAS is a dying genre, and small-scale, more micro RTS also all failed with the exception of DoW 2.

Blaming Dota/MOBAS for RTS failing is just a misconception. Every RTS catering to MOBAS player pretty much failed while the recently performing one like Age of Empires 4 are just normal RTS

The genre is just dead and hold no appeal to younger people
Dota2 and LoL playerbase is much bigger than AoE4. Its "success" means nothing.
Only successful RTS in last 15 years was Starcraft 2 and you need to be that successful to be considered a success.

Which has nothing to do with RTS. MOBA today is an independent genre, and nobody playing it is interested in "MOBA-lite RTS". Trying to get those "MOBA market" to play RTS assume that MOBA player has any interest in RTS to begin with but this is incorrect.

While Dota initially was being played by people who play WC3 custom maps it becomes the reverse that people install Warcraft 3 to play Dota. And later people just play LoL/Dota 2 directly. The way you say "Dota kills classic RTS" assumes that the genre would get popular if there is no Moba. It won't, RTS will still be a dead genre. Unlike Fighting Games, there is no casual appeal to playing RTS and casual RTS just miss the target market of RTS player entirely that they fail.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,705
I'd consider an RTS successful if you can queue in the random matchmaking at peak times and get a match within a reasonable timeframe against a person of your ELO. Surprise, surprise, neither SF3 nor RoR managed that. I have no interest in AoE4, so can't comment on that.
Funny shit, last time I tried playing Sc2 was few years back. I mostly played Co-op Commanders at that time. You could find a match fast (usually within 1 minute) and play games. After I maxed out all the free commanders I got bored and told myself to go play 1v1 that I didn't play for a long while.
After 5-10 minutes of queue time I could not get a match LOL so I just played a few skirmish games vs AI.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,705
Spellforce 3 has overwhelming macro and almost 0 active unit abilities, yet it failed and is not a very good RTS.
Latest versions of Spellforce 3 went back on crazy macro (which is good) and you got heroes to provide active abilities. it is fairly enjoyable to play.
It is just not what modern players want. Stuff like Dota killed classic RTS.

And yet most new non-mobile MOBAS ended up failing, MOBAS is a dying genre, and small-scale, more micro RTS also all failed with the exception of DoW 2.

Blaming Dota/MOBAS for RTS failing is just a misconception. Every RTS catering to MOBAS player pretty much failed while the recently performing one like Age of Empires 4 are just normal RTS

The genre is just dead and hold no appeal to younger people
Dota2 and LoL playerbase is much bigger than AoE4. Its "success" means nothing.
Only successful RTS in last 15 years was Starcraft 2 and you need to be that successful to be considered a success.

Which has nothing to do with RTS. MOBA today is an independent genre, and nobody playing it is interested in "MOBA-lite RTS". Trying to get those "MOBA market" to play RTS assume that MOBA player has any interest in RTS to begin with but this is incorrect.

While Dota initially was being played by people who play WC3 custom maps it becomes the reverse that people install Warcraft 3 to play Dota. And later people just play LoL/Dota 2 directly. The way you say "Dota kills classic RTS" assumes that the genre would get popular if there is no Moba. It won't, RTS will still be a dead genre. Unlike Fighting Games, there is no casual appeal to playing RTS and casual RTS just miss the target market of RTS player entirely that they fail.
I only know from people around me. When we were growing up we all loved RTS. After MOBA arrived they all moved to MOBA, only I was left playing RTS. From where I am standing MOBA killed RTS.
As for new players, MOBAs are clearly easier games than RTS with more "fun" stuff happening at all times.
If you want RTS to succeed you need to find a way to get some of those players back.
 

Anomander

Educated
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
78
Starcraft killed the genre, but in the sense that every developer now thinks about multiplayer play. In the old times (before Starcraft) most of the players played the campaign and never played any multiplayer. And multi was only an afterthough for developers. Even for Starcraft (1 and 2) most of the players haven't played any multi, but main focus moved to the multiplayer, so that left like a 5% players or something like that. Most of us doesn't care about "Esport" and so on. But "game journalists" focused on multi and now every game is developed with multi first. And that is wrong premise, but also now it is probably too late. Like was said players moved on.
Let's see how Tempest Rising will sell, but it is probably a lost cause now.
You can check the Lacrymas above:
I'd consider an RTS successful if you can queue in the random matchmaking at peak times and get a match within a reasonable timeframe against a person of your ELO. Surprise, surprise, neither SF3 nor RoR managed that. I have no interest in AoE4, so can't comment on that.
I know some guys that have played RTS in the past and only one ever played any multiplayer game and it was only Local game with friends. Nobody from this guys ever played a game with random guys on the internet.
 

Dr Skeleton

Arcane
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
811
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
I only know from people around me. When we were growing up we all loved RTS. After MOBA arrived they all moved to MOBA, only I was left playing RTS. From where I am standing MOBA killed RTS.
As for new players, MOBAs are clearly easier games than RTS with more "fun" stuff happening at all times.
If you want RTS to succeed you need to find a way to get some of those players back.
That's not entirely wrong, but it works in reverse too. I don't like MOBA, I like RTS, if I see a new RTS and it looks and is marketed like a MOBA there's no chance I'm going to buy it. Why even make an RTS if from the get go they assume RTS can't succeed? Maybe it can't, but these weird pretend RTS / MOBA hybrids don't either, and then the failure gets blamed on lack on interest in RTS.
 

Anomander

Educated
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
78
Yes, probably that is the reason, but it doesn't change the fact that most of the players (with SC1 and 2 fast connections was pretty standard) haven't played multiplayer and didn't care about it.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom