Are we about to witness the return of the RTS genre?

are we about to witness the return of the RTS genre?

youtube.com/watch?v=AT29OGk_Byc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=3JhGcb5fyx4
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

RTS is a halfway point between multiple types of games that ultimately appeals to nobody.

Apart from those who like RTS games

Bold statement, but they appeal to me so you're wrong.

There's nothing to discuss when we know nothing about the game

Only when done wrong which is 90% of recent cases.
People need only to look back and take it from there rather than copying StarCraft for the six thousanth time.

hes right
RTS games that have more realstic physics and proportions tend to play like shit

Competitive RTS is what only appeals to a niche group of mostly Koreans
RTS thrived for years off co-op modes and playing against AI, custom games, and variants on the main game like BGH/Phantom/etc. The average person likes to spend time building a huge army and throwing it at other huge armies, not memorizing build orders and being obsessed with esports

Not really - old RTS games were RTS games, the problem is modern ones keep trying to shove elements of other games, most often RPGs down your throats with hamfisted execution.

Some games like W3 got it kinda right, other games have dropped the ball entirely. There are barely any purebreed RTS games released these days without having some weird spin on the formula instead of just polishing.

>RTS thrived for years off co-op modes and playing against AI, custom games, and variants on the main game like BGH/Phantom/etc.
And all of those work better as smaller scale tactics games.
>The average person likes to spend time building a huge army and throwing it at other huge armies,
Sounds like they're looking for sandbox games.

I'm sorry?
Men of War?
Fucking SupCom?

What the fuck kind of stupid bullshit are babbling about?

RTS will never come back. MOBA has too powerful a grip on casuals, and they're basically RTS games where you control one unit instead of an entire army.

What are you referring to as sandbox games?

This.

e-sports murdered the RTS and ASSFAGGOTS fucked the corpse. When companies appealed to only tryhards, the games suffered for it. The same thing happened for fighting games. Tourneyfags basically ruined any fun that anyone else had playing them, though it was a natural progression. You can't keep tourneyfags out of fighting games when the internet exists and lets them recruit other tourneyfags with videos telling them "This is how you do an infinite combo with Blanka"

>made by a literally who developer with a track record of making mediocre games

We'll see. I like the dieselpunk style though

>objectively bad gameplay is okay because I don't want to be competitive I just want to have 'fun'

Men of War is an RTT.

>you're not having real fun, you're only allowed to have fun playing 1v1 ladder

Is this what people call dieselpunk?

True, but it seems that this game is also RTT.

Fighting games were never good. They have always heavily valued style over substance. You're practically playing in a one dimensional space with obtuse mechanics sprinkled all over to disguise the fact that it's essentially rock paper scissors.

Also, ultimately it doesn't matter whether the game is RTT, Wargame, RTS or whatever when it comes to physics affecting core gameplay.

Competitive video gaming is a joke.

For some reason it gives me vibes from this RTS

youtube.com/watch?v=3JhGcb5fyx4

Maybe it's the giant mechs in a world war

How was The Dwarves anyway? It's by the same company, so it might help on what to expect.

What's an RTT?

yes people who dont want to think and just want to watch the pretty explosions and build lots of units without being challenged are the ultimate casuals

Age of Empires II is fantastic and one of my favorite games of all time because it's simple, it's fun, and it work. Too many RTS's these days try and cram in too much bullshit that's not needed.

Mediocre

RTS without the strategy

If you want to impress me, show me an innovative unit management system.

every successful RTS had a good single player campaign. Every new rts that tryes to appeal to you multiplayer only faggots fail.

But yeah, keep saying single player is not needed, and enjoy your dead genre

Real Time Tactics. Unlike RTS, which usually features 2 aspects of gameplay: macro and micro, RTT usually focuses only on micro (that is "tactics" in the name) with macro-side being either nonexistant due to no basebuilding or traditional resources at all, or heavily simplified, like capping a point will generate you passive resources.

no base building

I can sense this game will be full retard historically (like overrating Britain at the expense of France and the US as often done in WW1 era products)

there's as much strategy in men of war as in any gookclicker "rts"

In short, games with no basebuilding. Just points and units. When you lose units you'll get the points back overtime usually.

no RTS has a good singleplayer campaign except Starcraft 2 and everyone hated that apparently

SupCom singleplayer campaigns were garbage
RoN/EE campaigns were also at most incredibly mediocre and generally didn't really provide good gameplay perspective due to locked eras

>RTS for consoles

You already got your game and it's completely dead. Competitive-focused RTS has universally failed outside of Brood War and, to a significantly lesser extent, WC3 (only alive in China).

Yet, CoH2, BW and SC2 are the only RTS games with somewhat measuarable audience these days.

shut up nigger

just because I dont like casuals doesn't mean I'm a starcuck
singleplayer-focused RTS (if such a thing even exists) are also dead

Shit man this better not be some MOBA shit like DoW 3

>no RTS has a good singleplayer campaign except Starcraft 2
Except this is literally the opposite of truth. SC 2 had a shitty campaign, and every major RTS had great campaigns. From C&C to warcraft and starcraft.

>he thinks Westrash Kombat is representative of fighting games

C&C, Warcraft and Starcraft all have braindead campaigns where you can sit in your base, max your pop cap and go out to win. They're not challenging, only tedious. Starcraft 2 puts some timed gimmick in every level so you at least have to be good at the game to suceed.

How else are you going to make money in the current 'Muricanized gaming climate?

CoH2 has about as many players as the western servers of a game from 1998, which isn't very promising. Most RTSes released nowaday are either RTT, ASSFAGGOTS-likes, or very poor quality like Halo Wars 2. Nobody is playing recent RTSes because they're few and far between and usually mediocre. None of them have custom games or usually anything besides standard multiplayer or sometimes a singleplayer campaign. They're all barebones.

i liked the campaign. for rts campaign it's great since those are usually pretty bad.

Americans don't play anything that needs strategy or tactics anyway, so you shouldn't be targetting them as you'll never sell to the American audience. Target the European one that actually plays managerial and strategy games.

Extreme competitiveness ruined RTS. Its fine to get good at the game but noone wants that trash outside of competitive faggots who will be confused when the queue time gets attrotious because tryhards are cancer and noone wants to be around them.

>puts some timed gimmick in every level
as I said, they had a shit campaign.

>b-but muh challenge
Difficulty isn't everything. People play comp stomp to avoid the "match ends in 5 minutes and you never even see the top tier units" shit from multiplayer. Forcing people to play your campaign like multiplayer is retarded.

>you're a casual
and your genre died because devs thought you "hardcore" gamers were going to be enough to keep it alive. Enjoy starcraft 2 being the only rts around forever.

Not him, but you obviously didn't play most of those games and even if you did then you haven't played beyond 5th mission at most

>which isn't very promising
Promising or not it's doing better than most of the other RTS games, except for few, probably even combined. What a joke of a genre. Broodwar also has a lot of people on Fish, it probably ranks #1 on RTS popularity charts, assuming we count every player. People can argue all they want that competitive shit killed RTS, but in my opinion completitive shit is the only thing that even still holds some of these RTS games together. People wanted to be like SC2 not because of its popularity back in the day, though it was also the case, but because traditional models stopped working.

Pretty much. Tryhard esports faggots whined and stomped their feet at anything that wasn't extremely predictable build order simulator, and developers listened to them because they thought they'd get a piece of the Brood War cake. This led to the genre stagnating massively in terms of mechanics and everyone got bored of it. Even today, almost 20 years later, RTS games are the fucking same except they have shinier graphics.

>Difficulty isn't everything
a game with no challenge isn't a game
it's not even a creative sandbox like minecraft or anything, it's just a failure of a game
if you enjoy a game with no challenge you're mentally deficient

fuck off gookshit

>C&C, Warcraft and Starcraft all have braindead campaigns where you can sit in your base, max your pop cap and go out to win.

You've clearly either not played those games, or haven't played far into them if you think this.

BW and SC2 still have a significant amount of their small populations playing custom games though. Blizzard has said that the co-op mode they released for SC2 with the final expansion is the most played multiplayer mode. If you want an example of a game that thrived on its non-standard multiplayer content, look at WC3.

Starcraft remastered is already out. Whatever that is can fuck off and die like everything else in the genre.

looks neato

it's pre-alpha so I doubt there's any sort of timeline on this thing yet?

>a game with no challenge isn't a game
You are quite literally, by the dictionary definition of the word, wrong.

And even ignoring that, it's not like "easy game" means "impossible to lose". So your point is moot either way

>multiplat RTS

worried

>comp stomps
>impossible to lose
don't underestimate how terrible the average person is at video games

Just because there's an occasional no-base missions (which are also pretty bad for different reasons) or a defense mission doesn't change the fact that 70% are braindead battles of attrition with some tedious trial-and-error mixed in. Out of all the 10 or so C&C games and all the Blizzard games only SC2 could have a campaign that's considered objectively good, maybe WC3 but that's also tedious as fuck

Problem is most recent RTS's are a mishmash of elements from different genres thrown together for no reason.

DoW2, which is basically CoH: Warhammer Edition is the last RTS I can think of that did the bridging of genres right. Engaging enough story with fun levels and customization, fun multiplayer, and last stand as a fun bonus mode.

Now we have DoW3 that has no earthly idea what game it wants to be and it really shows. Elite units because why not,
massive squad cap because why not,
badly thought out building progression because why not.
Weird totally not Assfaggots objectives because why not.
(I liked DoW1 btw)

>Out of all the 10 or so C&C games and all the Blizzard games only SC2 could have a campaign that's considered objectively good,
Just fucking kill yourself shit taste pleb faggot.

A game's purpose is to challenge you and if it doesn't, it's a bad game
Go play Chess against a 5 year old see how fun that is

>that's considered objectively good
No piece of entertainment can be considered objectively good you fucking jabroni

PLEASE be singleplayer focused.

>considered objectively good
your opinions aren't objective m8.

> WC3
>tedious as fuck
and you also have shit taste on top of being a retard.

not a matter of taste, there are ways to objectively criticize gameplay, but it's not like you could have such a discussion when drooling retards on Sup Forums who get angry if you dispassionately criticize their favourite game

>best RTS will never be popular

>A game's purpose is to challenge you
again, literally and objectively wrong. A games purpose is to entertain. And if crushing massively weaker opponents wasn't entertaining, ganking wouldn't be a thing on mmos, pub-stomping wouldn't be a thing in comptetitive fps games, and people wouldn't make new accounts ins SC2 just to shit on new players.

>dispassionately
says the sc2 fanboy

>RTS
>on consoles

It'll be simplistic garbage.

I dont like starcraft

I'm sure you'd tell us all about your objective critique of the gameplay elements if only people here were on your level of intellect.

Fuck off shittaste faggot, your taste is shit and you are evidently under 18, go back to r/gaming.

>objectively criticize
>w3 campaign is bad because its tedious
such objective critique

>used to play a few RTS games as a kid
>always singleplayer since shit internet
>finally at least learned what being good at an RTS looked like in college with SC2
>mfw remembering the shit I used to do (build only one of each building, surround my base in a ring of towers that you could just run through, etc)

>PC, Playstation 4 and Xbox

Shit.

>see picture, get hyped for Silent storm 3
>RTS for cucksoles
Serves me right. Nothing good ever happens.

I already did, nearly every C&C mission is a battle of attrition where you just hold out the AI waves until you've amassed your own force to win. The parts that are challenging are the scripted bits where you have a small force and have to pull of some objective - which just boils down to trial-and-error because you don't know what the AI is scripted to throw at you and when you do you just restart the mission and handle it. Strategy doesn't come into play often. Nearly every single RTS campaign works the same

>every C&C mission is a battle of attrition where you just hold out the AI waves until you've amassed your own force to win

you've failed to point out a reason as to why this is bad.

because it's not challenging or mentally engaging? You place your defense, which can take a few tries to figure out, you amass your force and then win. You barely do any strategizing, it's mostly mindless busywork and waiting

>C&C
There's your problem. C&C always had shitty single-player content.

>because it's not challenging
And?
Your entire argument is literally "it's too easy" but easy doesn't mean bad.
As I said

>if crushing massively weaker opponents wasn't entertaining, ganking wouldn't be a thing on mmos, pub-stomping wouldn't be a thing in comptetitive fps games, and people wouldn't make new accounts ins SC2 just to shit on new players.

yeah but most other games barely rise above it

>nearly every C&C mission is a battle of attrition
like half of them don't even give you a base

Isn't that almost every single RTS game though?

if a strategy game failures to make you strategize it's a bad strategy game. If you want to define a game as something that's entertaining, well everything can be a good game, jerking off can be a good game, if you want to define a game as a competition of skill which is entertaining because it's mentally challenging, RTS campaigns are generally bad games. Most multiplayer gamers do not spend most of their time smurfing

rts has already been solved, and it's pic related.

I wish turn-based tactical would make a comeback, can't believe the genre died out when it's such an awesome formula. I would kill for a modern Jagged Alliance or Silent Storm.

Nani desu ka?

I see.
am I pleb for preferring rtt then?

>define a game as a competition of skill
This definition is wrong no matter how many times you try to present it.
A lot of games are about competition, but it's not a required part of it. What you think is good or bad is not an objective definition.

>if a strategy game failures to make you strategize it's a bad strategy game
You are the only one who says those campaigns make you fail to strategize. Just because they're different and easier than multiplayer vs doesn't mean you don't strategize at all.

>If you ask me
>get ready to fight
What did he mean by this?

>return of rts

let me guess

you don't build anything you are just given some units at the start of missions and you slam it into the enemy