Why did Real Time Strategy genre die out?

[Hell Swarm]

Bro, do you even

Half quoting a post sure is fun!

RTS was the dumbed down version of the X4 genre as it's now known. It took away most of the empire management and shifted towards the action. Now we can have both and not have to cut off parts of the genre to dumb it down. Same way JRPGs used to sacrifice gameplay for world size and now that's not needed either.

 

[Multidirectional]

I don't play BW:R, so who knows? You probably live in some bad region where people don't care to play. As such, waiting before the area of search is extended takes some time.

Yes I live in the middle of nowhere that is center of Europe. I'm sure that's why search times for BW are longer. And SC2 search times being faster must be merely a bug or something. You would know better about it since you don't even play it. You fucking codexers really love your ass-pulls.

 

[Lyric Suite]

RTS was the dumbed down version of the X4 genre as it's now known.

It's a different genre. It's like saying Doom is dumbed down System Shock.

For the record, Dune 2 came out in 1992, one year after Civilization and one year before Master of Orion. And the inspiration of the game was neither, it was actually Popolous. Dune 2 didn't come into being out of a desire to "dumb" down turn based strategy games. Both genres were basically developing at the same time and reached their full form essentially concurrently.

The possibility to add "action" to strategy was just too obvious to ignore and has happened many times through out the 80s until Westwood finally landed on their genre defining game.

 

[Lucumo]

Yes I live in the middle of nowhere that is center of Europe. I'm sure that's why search times for BW are longer. And SC2 search times being faster must be merely a bug or something. You would know better about it since you don't even play it.

Europe was WC3 land, as opposed to the US and South Korea which were BW land. So that's not exactly surprising.
BW is the second most played RTS game (after LoL) in PC Bangs in South Korea. Viewership on livestreams of BW absolutely dwarfs those of SC2. Add to that that many people play via LAN (which isn't even a thing in SC2) or simply not ranked, then maybe you get the idea.

You fucking codexers really love your ass-pulls.

...coming from the person with some personal anecdote, as opposed to deep knowledge and just straight up numbers.

 

[Multidirectional]

...coming from the person with some personal anecdote, as opposed to deep knowledge and just straight up numbers.

I don't think numbers are even required in this case, just basic common sense. BW controls like garbage and would be a massive pain in the ass to play for most people. SC2 controls by comparison are night and day difference. It seems fucking obvious to me that most people would prefer to play SC2.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Not sure what is wrong with the controls in Starcraft.

 

[Lucumo]

...coming from the person with some personal anecdote, as opposed to deep knowledge and just straight up numbers.

I don't think numbers are even required in this case, just basic common sense. BW controls like garbage and would be a massive pain in the ass to play for most people. SC2 controls by comparison are night and day difference. It seems fucking obvious to me that most people would prefer to play SC2.

Yeah, you are just retarded.

By the way, comparison on what people earn (balloons) on just AfreecaTV for Q1-3.

BW:

more

SC2:

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

The controls in Starcraft popularized the notion that APM mattered, that eventually ended up helping in killing RTS games because you had to exploit multiplayer potential for them to be successful. The studio that revitalized AOE did it so it became an APM-ish game, they even created a separate tutorial to ease you into an APM type mindset for gameplay. AOE is esports now. This feels weird and it's part of the reason why I haven't bothered with the newer version that much. The thing that made AOE stand out was the thematic novelty of a relatively accurate combat fucused historical RTS, not any sort of gameplay thing (because it was very run of the mill in that regard).

 

[Johannes]

...coming from the person with some personal anecdote, as opposed to deep knowledge and just straight up numbers.

I don't think numbers are even required in this case, just basic common sense. BW controls like garbage and would be a massive pain in the ass to play for most people. SC2 controls by comparison are night and day difference. It seems fucking obvious to me that most people would prefer to play SC2.

Yeah, you are just retarded.

By the way, comparison on what people earn (balloons) on just AfreecaTV for Q1-3.

BW:

more

SC2:

Scbw has the bigger pro scene (centered in Korea) but sc2 still has more players globally.

 

[Multidirectional]

By the way, comparison on what people earn (balloons) on just AfreecaTV for Q1-3.

I have no idea what this shit even means. Do balloons mean something about amount of people on ladder? Because that's what I'm talking about. If not, I don't know what the fuck your point is. I was contesting specifically your claim that BW is more played today than SC2. I don't give a fuck how many losers watch these games on some streams because they're too scared to actually play them.

 

[Lucumo]

...coming from the person with some personal anecdote, as opposed to deep knowledge and just straight up numbers.

I don't think numbers are even required in this case, just basic common sense. BW controls like garbage and would be a massive pain in the ass to play for most people. SC2 controls by comparison are night and day difference. It seems fucking obvious to me that most people would prefer to play SC2.

Yeah, you are just retarded.

By the way, comparison on what people earn (balloons) on just AfreecaTV for Q1-3.

BW:

more

SC2:

Scbw has the bigger pro scene (centered in Korea) but sc2 still has more players globally.

Like I said on the last page, there is no professional BW scene anymore. It's all amateurs. And you base your "sc2 still has more players globally" on what? I already said all the necessary things to the other guy.

By the way, comparison on what people earn (balloons) on just AfreecaTV for Q1-3.

I have no idea what this shit even means. Do balloons mean something about amount of people on ladder? Because that's what I'm talking about. If not, I don't know what the fuck your point is. I was contesting specifically your claim that BW is more played today than SC2. I don't give a fuck how many losers watch these games on some streams because they're too scared to actually play them.

You already established that you are a retard. So there is no need to do so again. The sad part is that you registered in 2009, so you are probably at least 25 years old. At that point, people usually know how to read, understand things and write.

 

[Hell Swarm]

It's a different genre. It's like saying Doom is dumbed down System Shock.

For the record, Dune 2 came out in 1992, one year after Civilization and one year before Master of Orion.

Yes well actually. No one gives a fuck lyric. Release dates don't mean shit in terms of genre definition and what did things. The RTS you're saying are the most difficult ones are dumbed down even compared to Dune 2.

 

[Raghar]

Well, that depends what is the late game tech. In games like SupCom it's a big rapid fire artillery, or smaller for half price. Now is cost efficient even bother with more than token of T1 units and isn't smarter play to go for eco?

Because a lot of MP games are about eco eco eco and then even person with limited strategic ability wins.

 

[Lyric Suite]

The controls in Starcraft popularized the notion that APM mattered

Imagine being this retarded and still be a functional member of the Codex (oh wait).

ALL RTS games are based on APM. It's in the fucking nature of the genre itself. Real time = action, faster actions = better. There's no way to get around this.

APM mattered in every single RTS ever made, all the way back to Dune 2. Starcraft didn't popularize shit. Faster actions will ALWAYS be better in this genre. Even if you are a faggot and slow the game down in single player, it still probably matters.

Being a slow fuck even against the AI means you are going to fold the second the first rush shows up at your base. There is no way to avoid this besides not playing real time games.

The fact of the matter of course is that the issue isn't even this APM shit. The issue is not that those games require fast actions to win, it's that casuls can't handle the fact they are always going to get their asses kicked online. That's the real problem.

Imagine if real life sports were to be changed so that Joe Schmo gets a "chance" to win against pro-players. What the fuck would even be the point then? Who gives a fuck about Joe Schmo? The whole reason we watch sports is to see the best possible people compete with each other. If Joe Schmo wants to have fun, he can play in his scrub local league with all the other scrub Joe Schmoes.

The reason RTS games or arena shooters "died" is not because the skill cieling was too high. The real reason is that skill was taken out of the equation to cater to the casuls, after which there's no real reason why anybody should give a shit. Overwatch is out there, so why is everybody constantly bemoaning the demise of the arena shooter? Didn't Overwatch fix all the problems with that genre, by making skill irrelevant, pushing for a "social" enviorment instead of a competitive one? The solution has been implemented. What's the deal then? Who wants for the arena shooter to come back now that the "superior" game has been made?

Simply put, we all realize that Overwatch is retarded and nobody should play it. And then, on top of it all, all the efforts to downplay player skill didn't actually prevent the rise of the top player even in games like this. Joe Schmo is likely still getting his ass kicked online, meaning nothing was actually solved because there's always going to be someone better and even if you put balls and chains on the arms and legs of Lebron James he is still likely going to beat Joe Schmo. You didn't prevent the fastest, strongest athlete getting in the top, you just made the game shittier.

 

[Black]

Because retarded publishers (redundant) wanted RTS to become esports like Starcraft and when that didn't work out (as RTS is mainly a single player genre) they pulled their founding.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Because retarded publishers (redundant) wanted RTS to become esports like Starcraft and when that didn't work out (as RTS is mainly a single player genre) they pulled their founding.

Which games did this again?

 

[Hell Swarm]

Because retarded publishers (redundant) wanted RTS to become esports like Starcraft and when that didn't work out (as RTS is mainly a single player genre) they pulled their founding.

This is the same for everything and Smash bros is the only thing I can think of rejecting the hardcore audience's bullshit.

 

[Lyric Suite]

If the game doesn't cater to hard core players, it's not worth playing.

Here's a description of Overwatch from a 6 years old post:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/182930-overwatch/75871091

My dick was shriveling more and more after every sentence in the opening post.

I don't know if MOBAs work like this, but if they do, then the issue has been solved, right? No need to worry about APM, or multitasking, or perfect aim anymore. It's all about teamplay and you can be as casul as you want and still win.

Who needs RTS games or arena shooters after this? Why even ask for the return of those genres?

 

[Damned Registrations]

More micro is obviously always going to be an advantage, but there's no excuse for how heavily it's weighted in modern RTS games. One can easily image a slower RTS (Like say, playing starcraft at *GASP* Normal speed instead of fastest, and suddenly the difference between a new player and someone trying to get arthritis in the next 3 months is like, 10% more resources gained after 30 minutes, instead of 200% more. And if the difference in resources is that small, suddenly strategy can actually swing the fight, instead of being irrelevant because you'll lose even killing at two to one efficiency.

Last time I tried getting into SC2 I was following a guide that was literally about practicing macro. I spent the entire match watching my own base, hurling masses of roach and hydra at my enemy while paying no attention to the fights, or what they were building. The entire point was that I could just have 4000 minerals worth of shit on the field by the time they had 1000. It worked quite well, and I stopped playing because it was boring as fuck. If the game were slower, I'd be able to maintain that kind of output while also making interesting decisions, but I can't, and I'm not willing to spend hundreds of hours practicing so the game will eventually be fun in theory, if played in a very specific and limited way.

 

[Beans00]

I got diamond in starcraft 2 basically by roach rushing 99% of the time. For anyone unaware roach rushing was a quick 3-4 minute rush where you did very simple micro to get 7 mid tier units around the 330-4 minute mark. Easy, simple and I won countless games just by being faster then whoever I was playing against. If I went against someone playing protoss it was almost a guaranteed win because of how slow they were.

This seems more like an issue with SC2 though. I never played it because the campaign made me vomit and that was it, but it's still popular online so i just assumed that part at least was good (guess i was wrong).

In either case, there's no question that speed makes a difference in those kind of games, and in a sense that's expected. They are real time games. The action is just as important as the strategy. Remove the action part, and you might as well make a turn based strategy game.

RTS are action games, and speed matters in action games. My argument is more that speed still doesn't preclude there being steategy or tactics, or the necessity to learn all the meta. Even in your example, you still needed to know about this specific tactic (roach rushing). If it was so successful that no counter was possible, that seems like a fault on the part of the devs. The fact still remains you had to employ a tactic to win, you didn't just brainlessly mash buttons around, which is how a lot of casuals think online game works.

The last RTS game i played online was WC3 and in that game there was a shit ton of stuff i had to learn. What tactics to use and what counter there was for each and so forth. From a casual perspective, it's a fairly complicated game to learn. And then of course there's the APM stuff, the micro, the multi-tasking which is all part of it as well. Even in the single player that stuff matters. There's some missions in TFT that has the normies screech too lol:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warcraft3R...campaign_sentinels_ep_5_balancing_the_scales/

Agree with most of that, although I will say WC3 was generally one of the slowest RTS I have played. Not that you couldn't rush, especially with orcs and night elves. The prevailing strategy in that game as I recall was farming a hero until level 10, then wrecking face.

 

[Lyric Suite]

WC3 is definitely slower than Starcraft. The first couple of minutes you cannot even interact with your opponent. More importantly, your first decision (hero selection) has to be made in the dark. This by itself creates an element of "randomness" to the game that is further amplified by some of the RPG stuff in the game, like items.

APM also won't do anything in those first couple of minutes, which means the beginning of a match will always be calm and atmospheric. And then, you need to spend a few minutes creeping before you can dare to engage with your opponent, at least in most normal matches. Game almost feels like it was intended to be the opposite of Starcraft.

Starcraft 2 of course, had to be Starcraft, meaning it had to focus on macro (micro is still there but like in Starcraft 1 you don't have time to just do everything at once, so sometimes you have to sacrifice the micro for the sake of the macro) and speed.

For me, the difficutly of those games always about making the right decision on time rather than just click faster, but maybe it's because i focused more on WC3 rather than SC.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

WC3 is definitely slower than Starcraft. The first couple of minutes you cannot even interact with your opponent

What the hell you are talking about. Level 1 Far Seer rush to use wolf to harash. Fire Lord harasses. Blade Master harasses. Archmage Water Elemental harasses. Night Elf can do it with Demon Hunter Immolate too.

APM also won't do anything in those first couple of minutes, which means the beginning of a match will always be calm and atmospheric.

It is not in one-to-one unless you play something like Undead mirror. Certain openers certainly will go at you Level 1, a lot of opener will go to your base to harass economy by Level 2 using Heroes and summons.

During this harassment period, you will need to micro heroes while doing your economy and building up early game army.

While WC 3 is not on level of SC2 zerg rush, it certainly is not "calm and atmospheric" in early game.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

So they should forget multiplayer, and even forget massive single player campaigns, and instead focus on depth: introduce super deep supply chains (e.g. mine iron here, smelt it into steel here, have the blacksmith turn the steel into swords, have the peasants train here, give them swords, turn them into men-at-arms, etc)

Ok but now you turned it into a city-builder or at least city-builder/RTS hybrid.

That's fine, the labels aren't important, good gameplay is. The problem with typical city builders is that they are too ... bland and large scale. Too many buildings, too much bland uninspired combat (if any at all, some are peaceful), some nameless peons on the screen. I think RTSs like the ones I described before could step into that space and take the good stuff about city builders and add the intimacy of controlling cool looking large units with actual combat abilities and depth (and even RPG-like skills/stats/appearances), and relatively small number of important structures. Hell, you could even do quests like in Warlords Battlecry. It would be a sort of a city builder/RTS/RPG hybrid, but that's totally fine. Would be fun as hell to play imo, if implemented well.

Ever play Outpost 2? Its probably the closest to a City-builder/RTS hybrid you're describing.
Combat is kinda clunky tho

 

[Multidirectional]

Last time I tried getting into SC2 I was following a guide that was literally about practicing macro. I spent the entire match watching my own base, hurling masses of roach and hydra at my enemy while paying no attention to the fights, or what they were building. The entire point was that I could just have 4000 minerals worth of shit on the field by the time they had 1000. It worked quite well, and I stopped playing because it was boring as fuck.

Yeah that would be boring as fuck. This type of macro exercise is only meant to teach noobs about how powerful macro is, it's not real Starcraft II. The reason some people give advice to do that for a while is because absolute majority of players below Diamond just don't understand the importance of making workers. It's about teaching basic priorities of the game. And I'm guessing the guide you used told you to get up to 80+ workers. You could've tried instead of doing that every game, limit your eco to 2-3 bases and then just pump units for a while. Then when going out to attack resume making workers. That would make it a timing attack and doing those in my opinion is the better way to learn the game than just going for max out and attack move without even looking at fights. Also while using same macro principles you don't actually have to use same unit composition the guide tells you, it's much more fun to experiment with all kinds of units. Roach hydra comp is probably most boring way to play zerg. I didn't even make a single hydralisk in about 2 years now, preferring to stick to zergling/baneling with mutalisks (or corruptors) until Hive tech where I add ultralisks. Roaches get used occasionally in ZvP (when they have archons and I can't make ultras yet) and zvz. Way more fun to play that way.

 

[InD_ImaginE]

I got diamond in starcraft 2 basically by roach rushing 99% of the time. For anyone unaware roach rushing was a quick 3-4 minute rush where you did very simple micro to get 7 mid tier units around the 330-4 minute mark. Easy, simple and I won countless games just by being faster then whoever I was playing against. If I went against someone playing protoss it was almost a guaranteed win because of how slow they were.

This seems more like an issue with SC2 though. I never played it because the campaign made me vomit and that was it, but it's still popular online so i just assumed that part at least was good (guess i was wrong).

In either case, there's no question that speed makes a difference in those kind of games, and in a sense that's expected. They are real time games. The action is just as important as the strategy. Remove the action part, and you might as well make a turn based strategy game.

RTS are action games, and speed matters in action games. My argument is more that speed still doesn't preclude there being steategy or tactics, or the necessity to learn all the meta. Even in your example, you still needed to know about this specific tactic (roach rushing). If it was so successful that no counter was possible, that seems like a fault on the part of the devs. The fact still remains you had to employ a tactic to win, you didn't just brainlessly mash buttons around, which is how a lot of casuals think online game works.

The last RTS game i played online was WC3 and in that game there was a shit ton of stuff i had to learn. What tactics to use and what counter there was for each and so forth. From a casual perspective, it's a fairly complicated game to learn. And then of course there's the APM stuff, the micro, the multi-tasking which is all part of it as well. Even in the single player that stuff matters. There's some missions in TFT that has the normies screech too lol:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warcraft3R...campaign_sentinels_ep_5_balancing_the_scales/

Agree with most of that, although I will say WC3 was generally one of the slowest RTS I have played. Not that you couldn't rush, especially with orcs and night elves. The prevailing strategy in that game as I recall was farming a hero until level 10, then wrecking face.

Most 1v1 MP games in WC3 ends without any heroes getting to Level 6 unless you playing specifically with Heroes rush and playing singular heroes (Usually Demon Hunter, Warden when playing NE. I don't really think any other faction really target specifically Level 6 heroes).