1. Why do you NEED replayability? If a game has a good campaign that keeps you busy for 30-60 hours and then you're done, what's wrong with that?
Because most RTS games already have that, and after you're done with playing this cool game filled with interesting concepts and strategic depth, you might realize that it'd be interesting to measure up against someone online, because PvP in case of RTS games is generally a richer, more compelling experience than beating up the AI. Given the usual glut of vs AI gaming modes, after the campaign, you have your typical AI pile-up that can usually be destroyed 1v7 by employing some sort of wall technique that only works because the AI is stupid, FFA modes that cause the AI to bleed itself to death fighting one another while the player is walled off and turtling. The AI in RTS games simply
gets old, and regarding
thesheeep's point, which I generally liked the perspective of, I think figuring out a half-decent RTS AI is also a pretty tough job. Multiplayer modes, whatever they are (whether compstomps with a few buddies or gritty 1v1 matches) simply offer a greater wealth of interesting plays.
But that is only because vs AI is nothing else than a regular MP match - just vs a bot instead of a human.
That IS multiplayer - but with an opponent who doesn't really change at all.
What I'm (and I'd say others, too) are talking about when it comes to replayability with single player is either a campaign that allows strong variance of some kind (like playing through it with different routes and/or factions). Or a well-done sandbox mode.
But that doesn't change anything about what I said. When you got your money's worth from only a campaign, and there's nothing else, then you got your money's worth.
You just won't come back in a few years, and likely so will nobody else. You just got fond memories (well, if it was good). That was enough for Spellforce 1-3, so why shouldn't it be for any other game?
An RTS doesn't have to have hundreds playing it still after three years in order to be considered a success. That is simply a false assumption. What is important is how many bought it vs production costs, as with any other game, and that's it.
Hell, you don't even need to have a competitive focus in your game just to make it fun enough to play online.
I agree. I wish there were more interesting game modes - SC2 with its co-op is a step in the right direction. But it is lacking the concept of persistance, IMO, so why stop there?
Why isn't there something like a co-op campaign (Emperor: BfD or Warlords Battlecry 3 style, but with some more interesting levels maybe) that allows a handful of players to play whenever they want? Like, you can play two levels per day, but especially early on, many will be against the AI - so you can do it at any time. Playing against another human obviously requires all participants to be online (and if that can't be done it will be AI-resolved after a day or two), of course, but that is just one of multiple things to be done in the campaign.
This is pretty much the norm in games like Total War or EUIV - you play together in the same world, but not everything you do involves other players directly.
I am not sure why, in every single "RTS are ded" discussion people insist that new RTS games aren't made at all (when they are, but nobody ever talks about them) and that they all have dead multiplayer when you can still log in and find a game or a dedicated community for most of them in like 2-3 minutes, tops. On RPGCodex, there's no Warparty thread, there has never been a Tooth and Tail thread, and the thread for a single-player RTS that arguably was a success, Frostpunk, has been deserted for three weeks now, with very few pages and very little discussion.
First time I hear of Warparty, but then again it has only been released a few days ago. Looking at it, I don't really have much to say as the game seems to contain only skirmish for now. Only three factions. Hmmm...
Well, might be worth playing through the campaign and maybe dip a bit into other modes once it is out.
But it also showcases a problem: What exactly does that game bring to the table that isn't already there? Doesn't seem like much to me. To make matters worse, it reminds of that famous failure Paraworld - that might have spoiled dino RTS for me eternally
Anyway, thanks for the mention, wishlisted.
Tooth and Tail was a much better example, IMO.
As for why there is no thread here... I honestly think the furry theme wasn't helping it. Neither on the Codex nor anywhere else.
But I played it and while I did not like it (the randomness in the procedural levels was just too unrestrained and it had some other flaws), it was finally something entirely new. I even bought it despite every fiber of my being screaming at the furry stuff.
Frostpunk never really made the impression of being an RTS to me, to be honest. More of a short-burst survival strategy game. Don't think it belongs in that list.
Nothing stops you from playing your favourite RTS even now.
I do. I play Warlords Battlecry 3 probably once per year, DoW once every two years or so, as well.
Recently played the Age Of Mythology campaign, too...
But this is the
RPG Codex, the strategy forum is really more of niche within our realms, so you can't really expect the same fan base or interest in RTS discussions as for RPGs (even jRPGs
).