'It went in the wrong direction by dropping everything else to chase esports money. Casual players were completely alienated by the half-assed token singleplayer modes and the sweatlord audience they were trying to win over kept saying that every new game was shit compared to Brood War and refused to buy in.';

'bitchy fans
rts attracts the faggiest, whiniest, kpopwatchingest irritants in all of gamedom.';

'>>1741019
>>1741259
The greatest challenge of any game developer is identifying the autistic fans and tuning them out.';

'>>1741013
>What really caused the fall of RTS
Gookclicking. Once people realized it's just a quirky action game (ie upon touching the multiplayer), they dropped it in favor of more specialized strategy genres.';

'RTS isn't a single genre. It's either action based or puzzle based. C&C was a puzzle game in the skin of a strategy game.';

'>>1741274
>C&C was a puzzle game
Really? I never really got into C&C too much, what makes it so puzzle-like mechanically?';

'>>1741274
same with warcraft 2

it's less min-maxing, more playing a scenario, failing, knowing what the opponent is about to do and finding a solution. it reminds me more shoot-em up games, even, more than puzzle games, you learn the patterns and adjust to them.

warcratt, starcraft, aoe2 pretty much perfected the genre. rts-es died, because there's nothing to add.';

'>>1741290
The AI acts in prescribed ways. Each mission on the first go seems to be about reacting to threats and beating the ai in a battle but afterwards you realize the AI is just following a script, and knowing is half the battle.';

'>>1741290
Nta. But a lot campaigns missions in the series were puzzle-like in that you had use a finite amount of units to accomplish your goals.
The earliest prototype is the GDI Poland where you have to take 3 APC and attack a 'village.' It just ramps up in the Czech mission where you use 1 commando + transport Heli to assault a base, and continues on.
Even Red Alert 2 had missions where you need to use a ally spy to start a base, fuck up enemy power, etc. Soviets had a similar one but with Yuri mind controlling everything.';

'>>1741013
Women are disgusting and I will never touch one with my peepee, I love RTS btw';

'They don't work on consoles, and AAA studios need all their games to be multiplat nowadays.';

'>>1741013
You might be onto something in that the popularity of rts in the past was in making the player feel smart. Total war is like that in and retains its popularity.';

'>>1741013
me';

'>>1741013
God the remaster looks good. We desperately need one for the other 2D games. They are just so unreadable now.';

'>>1741433
>Total war is like that in and retains its popularity
Total War's popularity was flagging until it started making Warhammer games and brought in that fanbase of notorious consoomers, but even they soured on the series by the end of the TW Warhammer trilogy and now the series is struggling pretty hard again';

'literally gookclickers. Gooks hijacked the genre and made it about Starcraft, insist the genre should only be about Starcraft and generally undermine confidence in the genre from a producer stand point.';

'>>1741481
>Total War's popularity was flagging
maybe on planet retard';

'>>1741433
TW was the first time i felt an rts truly got the strategy part right.


Gookclicks arent *really* rts. They are arcadey games that revolve around tactics.';

'>>1741013
>RTS
>fall
choose one. lots of people still play RTS games, people still play chess, people still play HOMM3, etc.
>but AAA titles aren't being released!!1!
>wahh, where are my new releases?!!!
this doesn't mean RTS has fallen, it means it has elevated beyond the need for new titles to be shit out of a soulless industry to be gobbled up by mindless drones stuck in the new release cycle like addicts. RTS "dying" has purged the hobby of casuals. good riddance
LONG LIVE RTS';

'>>1741500
The person who made this has never played Starcraft or Age of Empires.';

'rts were big just before companies started dumping tons of money into the call of duty franchise.
gaming became strictly associated with console gaming, as most people around the time of xbox never knew you could play games on a pc.
the death of rts was basically fat cats feeding devs and publishers to pump out new versions of call of duty, or medal of honor.';

'>>1741484
broodwar was so perfect that even the flaws just made it a better game';

'>>1741484
this, rts was a really innovative and creative genre prior to esports shit
The idea of what an rts was, was so broad and imaginative.';

'>>1741489
it's a voloundite talking point, feel free to ignore';

'>>1741526
no it wasnt, the best innovations they came up with was doing fps rts with battlezone 98, and sacrifice. otherwise it was just copy paste of command and conquer or warcraft.
>>1741484
koreans saved the rts industry from absolute oblivion.
with koreans and their love of starcraft, we wouldnt have gotten dawn of war.';

'>>1741531
Nope you are completely wrong. theres more varied rts before esports took over than just C&C clones.
Its not even debatable you can clearly see the types of rts before and after.

Gookclickers weaselly try to reinvision this point of history by declaring every rts game that isnt exactly like Starcraft/C&C isnt a real rts.

>koreans saved
hilarious, No rts died at the exact point koreans made SC an esport.';

'>>1741013
Simple, gamer stupidity.';

'>>1741533
kingdom under fire.
one of tthose hidden gems that were incredibly innovative. guess who made that one?
but if you think im wrong then tell me about all the breakthroughs rts made just before assfaggots broke the surface.';

'>>1741544
you mean the game that literally is a starcraft/warcraft 3 clone? you gooks are morons. There was NOTHING innovative about the first Kingdom under fire game you fucking idiot.';

'>>1741013
Lots of rts games are simply antiquated and devs listen to the autistic player base that doesn't want change. The last rts game that impressed me was supcomFA and that was ages ago. All of the spinoffs and spiritual successors were shit. Like why would you play aoe 23 when it's just aoe2 with fancy graphics?';

'>>1741545
so i prove my own point that rts dont innovate, or rather they innovate just as much as call of duty.';

'>>1741549
what? you prove that Koreans can't innovate and created a starcraft clone. Seriously you are mentally retarded. You didn't prove anything but prove my point.';

'>>1741550
im still waiting fir you to talk about all the other innovative rts games we got between starcraft and starcraft 2.';

'>>1741546
funny thing is theres been a constant stream of innovative rts being made for about 2 decades.
But because of the vocal minority that dont want change none of these get much attention.';

'>>1741551
You lost the argument idiot';

'>>1741013
Simple: RTS cannot be adapted for PvP. Howevery zoomies think PvP is the only way of competitive play.';

'>>1741553
just more shit rhetoric who sees everything as a strategy game.
waitibg for all those awesome innovate game vthat push the genre beyond just base building , resource collecting and blobs.';

'>>1741489
You aren't old enough to remember what it was like back then.';

'line war is getting ai to play against and there is not even a single thread about it, wtf';

'>>1741550
>>1741533
>>1741545
theres no point arguing with gookclickers all they do is lie and move the goalposts. You can provide dozens of examples they'll just say they aren't rts and continue shitting up rts discussion.';

'>muh esports
>muh gookclick
How come all other genres with esports are alive.';

'>>1741568
faggots want to call mate before the end of the match.
dont mention any rts becuase they wont call them rts.
this is a cuck strat.
you are a cuck.';

'>>1741544
>kingdom under fire.
>innovative
Nta, but no. It was an interesting take on Warcraft 2 + Diablo 1 + other 90s RTS, but it's not really innovative from an mechanical perspective. Now in defense, it does predate Warcraft 3 in being a hero-centric, but honestly in-terms of gameplay it's basically Starcraft abilities in one unit (also there's Total Annihilation: Kingdoms that predates both).
Now Kingdom Under Fire: Crusade that was actually kinda innovative take on Musou and Squad Command!';

'>>1741568
in this case it's your anti-gookclicker boy who called the game a clone
at the same time your anti-gookclicker boy hasn't mentioned a single title';

'>>1741571
how many genres have esports?';

'>>1741571
Esports killed arcade racing, fuck you.';

'>>1741508
???
You can definitely shoot arrows through walls in AOE2.';

'>>1741429
>They don't work on consoles, and AAA studios need all their games to be multiplat nowadays.
Ironic as most RTS series had console ports/exclusivity in the 90 and 2000s.
A side note: This could be also because ownership of PCs are like lower in general now. Zoomers and even younger Millennials tend to now use the Phone and not the PC (let alone a desktop). Majority of gaming now maybe shifted/-ing on the mobile and console market.

>>1741489
He's kinda right in that Warhammer took over as their main cash cow. Rome 2 had very rocky start and it recovered, but of all the historicals that came after and built-on it only Three Kingdoms kinda came close in sales (as you market to China). Attila, Britannia, and let's not talk about fucking Troy and Pharaoh, they all kinda failed to build on top of their foundation of Rome 2.';

'>>1741013
Classic RTS, despite its popularity in places like Korea, is largely a niche game that only caters to about 200,000-250,000 people in the US alone. Yes you read that right that and it is not a typo, a quarter of a million people tops as the core audience and everyone else being additive with conditions attached (like warhammer fanboys). With such a small fanbase it isn't worth it to invest in a lot of money and they are all more then happy to stick with multiplayer mods to keep pace with planned obsolescence. Any RTS you see or hear about breaking this mold of popularity tries a very different approach from the classics like AI War 2 relying on pure macro management.
The reason for this is simple, classic RTS demands that you think fast at all times combined with a strongly entrenched multiplayer community. The single player games can be done casually if you don't give a fuck but the multiplayer element requires you to be able to formulate a strategy and execute all the required tactics within about 5-15 seconds of the match starting. No, even before the match starts the other players have already know all of your strategies and memorized every single popular map. So after a few minutes while you are casually goofing around having a good time your base gets ass raped 7 minutes later by ice dragons on a common WC3 map.

This is a complete doorstopper, anyone who concentrates on the reason it is called gooclicking are too stupid to realize that all their opponents can mind read based on a single enemy blip on their map or screen. Purely because they have a decade or more time in memorizing every single pixel of their favorite maps.';

'>>1741612
you have the same spergs in fps shooters.
it sounds like video gaming has become too competitive';

'>>1741013
I think it's many many things anon, it's hard to point at one specific thing that caused RTS to fade into obscurity.

>High time investment needed for potentially low or no reward
So newbie's in multiplayer build up their base, build a few units and get absolutely demolished. Rinse and repeat in subsequent games, this can't be that fun for them. That's always been an RTS problem.

>Other games are more fun for less time investment
MOBAs for example, LoL scratches a similar itch to RTS minis any upfront time investment. Ya die? Respawn. Lose the game? Immediately into the next one. And there's less complete wipe outs as well. I mean they still happen when one team over matches another but I feel it happens significantly less.

>Other games are more fun for less time investment 2
So again going back to LoL they have other game modes like ARAM. Just there for fun. Now Starcraft absolutely did this right with battlenet 1.0 and UMS maps. Plenty of just for fun low pressure stuff to play. Blizzard did not realise this and did not fucking follow on from it with StarCraft 2 at least on release. The map editor was too complicated, battle net 2 was a hollow shell compared to 1 and the UMS games were listed in pages based on popularity. So basically like Google search, if your game you host isn't on the first page noones gonna join. And StarCraft was the only fucking RTS game that had a significant playerbase for games like this. Warcraft 3 as well but since we never got Warcraft 4 it's a bit of a non issue.

>The development time and money is not worth the reward
So couple of problems here. It's easier and cheaper and more profitable to make some other kind of game than an RTS generally speaking. And for those who still make RTS they try to casualise it or dumb it down. Alienating existing fans and because of my previous points not really attracting much new fans.';

'>>1741632
cont...
>Competitive multiplayer became the focus
This ties in with my earlier point about upfront time investment. There's many many people who didn't spend 1998 to 2008 playing solely BGH or Lost Temple but instead played the fun mini games in the UMS maps. Starcraft 1 stumbled onto this by accident. Starcraft 2 did not embrace this fun alongside the competitive multiplayer aspect and instead focused entirely on competitive multiplayer. League of Legends embraces fun alongside competitiveness which is absolutely the right move. Competitive multiplayer makes no fucking money without viewers, you don't get viewers if they get bored of your game and move onto something else. Even people who had 0 interest in Starcraft 1 competitions and spent their time larping as Frodo on a Lord of the Rings map are still playing StarCraft. They're still talking to their friends about StarCraft and they're still in the community. All that is lost without any focus on fun low pressure stuff.

>Tl;dr
Other game types are cheaper and more profitable.
Other game types are ultimately more fun for most people.
RTS didn't really evolve to combat it's short comings and other games ate it's breakfast so to speak.

There's likely other factors im missing but that's what's at the top of my head at least.';

'>>1741623
Thinking like that is falling into the same trap that guys who vainly insist gookclicking is arcade action thinks has fallen into. FPS games do not rely on multi-tasking simultaneously different mental skillsets they are made and dare i say perfected to seamlessly removing the need to think while you reflexively react to visual and auditory stimulus. This makes getting into games and playing them far, far easier in online multiplayer where people care more about their kill scores then actually winning matches.';

'>>1741641
you are over intellectualizing rts, becuase only nerds play rts.
to say that sound design isnt an important factor in "signaling" to user in rts is horribly nieve position for game design.
you could argue that platnium players all do it out of reacting without thinking as the big meta to cometition is muscle memory shit.';

'>>1741635
>League of Legends embraces fun alongside competitiveness which is absolutely the right move.
They gutted both iterations of 3v3 and dominion in favor of funneling all players into 5v5, they enforce metas like jungling that used to be optional and champion balance changes are made with high level winrates in mind. ARAM still existing and alternative game modes sometimes being in rotation (though they still try to make balance changes to these for whatever reason) is the only effort they make towards not enforcing an e-sports 5v5 mentality to the game.';

'>>1741325
That's usually just initial stages of missions. Majority then turn into base building. There's comething about maps in C&C that's just fantastic. They're very simple, yet they offer a lot of strategy.';

'>>1741013
It's a number of things. The audience for RTS games never really grew alongside the industry so they got relatively smaller and less relevant. Devs thought the solution was multiplayer so started neglecting singleplayer games. Only whoops, here come MOBAs, there goes your multiplayer audience. Meanwhile the starved singleplayer fags have created Tower Defense games and are playing those instead.

All this in the awkward transition to 3D which ran horribly and looked even worse.';

'>>1741552
>funny thing is theres been a constant stream of innovative rts being made for about 2 decades.

Which ones are you talking about? I think that one of the problems is just innovation. They all try to do more with the genre than what is good for gameplay. Make it simple, base building, big open maps, a few but diverse units, and quality ai. Instead we get clusterfuck of shit that never works. Upgrades, XP, tech trees, city maps with buildings, rpg elements, and it all quickly becomes confusing and overwhelming for the newbies that subsequently never go into the genre.';

'>>1741650
i used to have so much fun with wierd builds before they made everything conform to a meta by streamlining everything';

'>>1741013
>RTS fanbase consolidates from numerous RTS games of varying quality to the more polished big budget franchises
>command and conquer dies after red alert 3 flops and generals 2 gets cancelled
>age of empires goes into hiatus after age of empires 3 fails to become as large as 2, playerbase gets fractured
>dawn of war was never as popular as the other games but 3 flops completely
>warcraft 3 and TFT are massive hits but all warcraft focus is shifted onto wow
>starcraft 2 was (and still is) massively successful but seemingly fails to foster the same casual and custom game community as sc1/wc3 had, sc2 gets a reputation for being THE gookclick e-sports game
Now we're stuck in limbo where people are just playing old games and there aren't any studios left that can produce high quality RTS games with the polish (pathfinding, visual readability, good art direction, balance, proper hotkeys and quick commands etc) that we take for granted until we play a game without it, or newer titles like Stormgate generating no hype because it looks like it's just trying to replicate the 1v1 Starcraft latter with everything else being an afterthought.';

'>>1741685
rts "fans" dont specialize in only rts.
much less "big budget franchises" .
theres a few indie rts that got a decent following.

command and conquer died when they made it into a mobile game , just like dungeon keeper.

age of empires went into hiatus becuase microsoft wanted more 360 titles and development on windows 8.

dawn of war was as popular as age of empires and most everything else except starcraft.
warcraft 3 and tft even dota predates wow by about two years

im not really familiar with the starcraft 2 community other than stuff destiny talks about.

but you just outed yourself as
1.a newfag
2. a blowhard bullshitter who dont know what they are talking about.';

'>>1741725
not that anon but i'd rather out myself as a newfag than out myself as a destiny watching terminally online brainrotten autist';

'>>1741685
Yeah, all that desu.';

'>>1741725
Ntg but he's spot on with his points. You sound like an angry virgin.';

'>>1741725
>rts "fans" dont specialize in only rts.
I never said they did
>much less "big budget franchises"
You used to be able to pick up random no-name RTS games from demo disks found in cereal packages. Most of the consistent players gathered around a few titles, if you ask what his favorite RTS was he wasn't going to say "oh Ant Warz from 1997", it was either going to be a Blizzard title, CnC title or AoE title, very occasionally you get some BFME/Spellforce/SupCom/DoW players but some games absolutely dominated the market.
>theres a few indie rts that got a decent following.
Decent enough to keep the genre alive on their own and to develop new titles or is the total playerbase a tenth of Garena's daily DotA players?
>command and conquer died when they made it into a mobile game , just like dungeon keeper.
Rivals was released in 2018, RA3 was released in 2008. It had been dead for a long time before the arrival the mobile game.
>age of empires went into hiatus becuase microsoft wanted more 360 titles and development on windows 8.
AoE 3 did get a lukewarm reception, but sure, Microsoft fucked up Ensemble for stupid reasons, so either way that's one of the big RTS devs gone
>dawn of war was as popular as age of empires and most everything else except starcraft.
I find that hard to believe. Just by skimming through the numbers it says DoW sold around 4 million copies in five years, AoE2 sold around 2 million copies in the first three months alone, with incredible sales continuing the following months, and just by looking at the steamdc charts right now you can see that AoE2 DE has more concurrent players than all Dawn of War titles put together.
>warcraft 3 and tft even dota predates wow by about two years
...Yes, they release one game, stop working on it and then after XX months of development time they ship another game. Are you unaware that games have a development time or what's your point?';

'>>1741013
>What really caused the fall of RTS?
Editors&Developers focusing exclusively on multiplayer e-sport ready PvP with symmetrical map and easy to balance.
It's cheaper to just let players replace your AIs
Plus a rejection of non-player controlled game mechanic outside dumb AI.

Result:
Few coop RTS game
Singleplayer campaign is just a byproduct of the multiplayer
generic basebuilding & easily exploitable economy
generic units & 1:1 mirrored enemy units equivalent
generic mirrored maps, no complex environments to traverse with bridge to destroy/rebuild, no weather';

'>>1741571
>How come all other genres with esports are alive.
Is it "alive" if 99% of the esport game are cheap clones that die on release?
And the 1% that do sales (if they aren't F2P P2W) eventually die with the buzz as they have no SP content, the players move on.';

'>>1741612
>Classic RTS
You entire post read if classic RTS was the only RTS genre that mattered.
Plus implied
>get good!
The strategy in those games is grossly overrated, more often it's plain management and the top players just learned how to outproduce their enemy.
Strategy is typically defined by choosing the action over time but modern game against players want match that remain short.
That's why SP game are much more appreciated by players.
It's just a shame SP game AI is typically easily exploitable and will not do a move unless the player is ready and trigger the next step.';

'>>1741664
>than what is good for gameplay
NTA but what you listed isn't systematically good for gameplay.
>Make it simple
Simple typically mean "easy to break" with minmaxer
>base building, big open maps
not systematic, frankly they should learn to do more strategy without "unit production"
>few but diverse unit
As long as it apply only to one faction and you don't just mirror the unit on the others factions

>Instead we get clusterfuck of shit that never works.
What you list here are all potentially good mechanic that don't bother newbies much.
>Upgrades, XP
Basics mechanism to encourage you to keep your units alive instead of sending them to their death
>tech trees
Replayability, rare in RTS mostly SP.
>city maps with buildings
How the fuck is that a problem? Having building the infantry can take refuge in is good, difficult to design right but good.
>rpg elements
Work fine in Spellforce 3 and it's basically just more custom hero unit.';

'>>1741750
>AoE2 DE has more concurrent players than all Dawn of War titles put together
Well yeah, one's still getting updates and the other isn't.';

'>>1741685
>seemingly fails to foster the same casual and custom game community as sc1/wc3 had, sc2 gets a reputation for being THE gookclick e-sports game
Why wouldn't a game where you don't have to worry about dragoons going around the whole map before they go where you tell them to be less gookclicky?';

'It was supplanted by more refined genres such as 4x, moba, and grand strategy.';

'>>1741648
>sound design
Streamlined design =/= sound design. Very different implications ESL.
>>1742103
OP topic is classic RTS unless otherwise stated.
>Strategy is typically defined by choosing the action over time but modern game against players want match that remain short.
Total nonsense. Blaming the match time is an excuse to pull hairs.';

'>>1741013
probably the waiting and building puts a lot of people off. people want instant action
also feeling stupid, spending 10-15 minutes building only to lose to someone who made 150 marines
i stopped playing wc3:ft online due to sheer autism of others. getting kicked/backstabbed because someone wanted a team of only shadowhunter heroes
also the backstabbing thing, turning on allies at the end always sucked';

'>>1742757
>unless otherwise stated.
Denied.
That logic is how you killed RTS
>Blaming the match time is an excuse to pull hairs
Game pacing is a science, too long and no one have time to play online, too short and it feel like a phone game';

'>>1741013
The genre simply split into better subgenres.
>players who liked basebuilding went to city builders, colony managers, Factorio, etc
>players who liked the micro went to genres like MOBAs
>those that liked the simulational and military aspects went to more in-depth games like Men of War, Wargame, Graviteam, etc
>macro players went to 4x/grandstrat
>sweaty gookclickers either stayed on Starcraft or fucked off to whatever new sweaty sauna game their esport idols and streamers hyped up next
>the ones that wanted all of them in one aren't numerous enough to sustain a single game, let alone a whole genre
Back in the day RTS was the best you could do, but nowadays there's usually a few games filling the niche you're looking for. I played a tonne of RTS games in the 90s and early 2000s but I'd never go back to them from MoW, Wargame, Combat Mission, etc.';

'>>1741013
Gookclicking killed rts the same way console "arpgs"(read action games) killed crpgs.
Basically video game producers didn't want to invest in crpg games that will fail financially vs more advanced games.
Similarly for rts no one wanted to invest in new innovative rts when they couldn't be as big as gookclicker Starcraft (because it has an artificially boosted esport community unique to one country)
eg why throw money at something if its not going to be the next SC just like SC?

Similarly this happened with mmos, companies stopped making singleplayer large rpgs because everyone wanted to chase the wow killer.
Only issue is WoW is WoW and few mmos could obtain the popularity. It's like that with rts, no rts can reach the money making of gookclicking esport, so why make them?';

'>>1743200
Read OP, he is implicitly asking about C&C 1995 type RTS games and explicitly highlights age specifically when making this comparison.';

'>>1743338
half of the examples you've given have less players on steam than AOE2 by a substantial margin.
I don't even know why you would bother bringing up MOW/Wargame/Graviteam as an example, they're even more niche and less popular than standard RTSs unless you count COH, and even then AOE2:DE has far more players. And why would you mention 4x when Civilizations predates RTS as a genre?
You are correct that the subgenres of RTS have contributed to there being less of a playerbase for classic RTSs, but to imply that they're superior to them, or that there aren't enough players left to sustain a game, is retarded.';

'>>1743931
OP is obviously comparing C&C to every newer RTS and the various direction they took. The old kind of classic versus everything else if you insist on giving it a label.
Just look at everyone else answers, you can't even answer OP without addressing the full genre.
OP is wondering if C&C shouldn't have embraced multiplayer which now stand as the basis of the "new" kind of classic, the one with MP focus, mirrored armies&map, made to be e-sport ready.
Versus the now dead genre of RTS that made singleplayer come first.';

'I don't understand why some of you are arguing about this stuff, all the points brought up are not mutually exclusive. All the mentioned shit together killed RTS.';

'>>1741725
>admitting to watching destiny
Ancestor cry.';

'>>1741558
Everyone talks shit about Empire, but it went out pretty damn strong compared to Shogun 2 - which every Boomer TWfag swears is the most GOATed entry into the franchise.';

'>>1741013
A combination of the overall lowered intelligence of the population and diminishing quality in the games themselves.';

'Accessability is the main issue. Examine other popular games to see what RTS does not have that grants mass appeal. Matches are not drop in/drop out, game can't be played on console or without a full keyboard and mouse setup, there is no flexibility in team sizes to support groups of friends playing, defeated players are eliminated from the round and have no further interaction in a match that could take 20-30 mins or more, the game is difficult to learn comparatively since a large portion of your enemies' actions are obscured from you and thus it is harder to learn from your losses, there is no down time in a match, it requires constant focus and action or you're putting yourself at a severe disadvantage. Basically everything about most RTS games makes them horrible for casual or social play to the average person, which is bad because those average people are most of your player base and the source of the dev's income. Obviously all of these issues can be avoided with focused design but most of them have never been addressed and that is why we don't have much in the way of big market RTS games.';

'>>1741013
RTS have always been the FPS of the strategy genre, fast gameplay for adderall kids, there are better games for those people now and most of the RTS kids growed up to be more chill and play more realistic and immersive strategy games';

'>>1744467
>Boomer TWfag
Boomer TWfags would say Shogun 2 was the only decent entry of the TWs running on the Warscape engine, but it is still miles behind Rome 1 and Medieval 2. If they say anything else, they're zoomers trying to pass as boomers.

t. boomer TWfag who has been playing since Shogun 1';

'>>1744342
You're missing the point entirely, each individual game (or even entire genre) having a smaller playerbase doesn't change anything, those are still players that would have been playing RTS back in the day. Start summing them up instead of looking at each individual game and the amount of players becomes substantial.';

'>>1741274
>>1741295
You are the cancer that killed RTS.';

'>>1744366
>The old kind of classic versus everything else if you insist on giving it a label.
Yes, classic RTS you mongoloid.';

'>>1743338
Gooklick went to osu';

'>>1741013
I think that balancing these games was really difficult';

'>>1744971
They're not, unless the main selling point in multiplayer and you need to enforce an even winrate across the factions';

'>>1744924
versus everything else, low effort kid.';

'>>1744978
>They're not,
stopped reading there.';

'>>1745159
You read the whole post and have no retort';

'>>1741013
got some things mixed up
your genre still sucks lmao';

'>>1741013
The losers who can't handle taking a loss in a video game. That's why team games are popular. If you are shit at the game you can blame someone else.';

'gookclickers don't even know what RTS means. It simply means "real-time" strategy game. They think it means Starcraft with basebuilding, the dumber gooks think League of Legends is an RTS, maybe because of single unit campaign editor maps in SC and its clones.';

'>>1741013
>What really caused the fall of RTS?
Normalfags getting into vidya in the mid-00s. Studios wanted their money and they were all playing on consoles, but RTS really don't work well with a control pad so studios stopped making them.';

'>>1745726
thats actually a good point, rare in these threads. They did actually make rts for early consoles for years but they are awkward on game pads. I mean the first rts ever was on console.';

'Never been a fan of gookclicking. I always leaned towards the more spectacle-type stuff (Total War battles, SupCom, etc.) Let me just throw a bunch of my guys at a bunch of the other guy's guys and watch them kill each other.';

'>>1745730
it seems like strategy is almost trapped by the keyboard and mouse.
seem to remember some rts that worked on voice commands but that didnt work very well.
it seems like its all just a skill to see how fast you can navigate menus.';

'>>1744467
Empire is great on the campaign map, but falls apart on the battlefield. It was a great attempt though and most people thought CW would build on that.
Then of course they went backwards starting with Rome 2.';

'>>1745770
tactical games like party rpgs work well on touch pad tablets imo.
Maybe they work well for rts too';

'you can tell by reading esport fags posts they are basically niggers.
I'd bet they don't even play rts, they naturally gravitate to anything seen as a "sport" or competitive. Then they shit up video game discussion with their nigger tier posts when all they do at most is spectate and obsess about Edrama.';

'>>1745835
they ported company of heroes to mobile.
im kinda curious how well it plays on the cell phone.';

'>>1741013
What caused EA to make tiberium twighlight and kill the successful series';

'>>1741583
asking for examples when you can just look it up yourself is the classic cuck move, you are the cuck, you tranny.
>>1741585
Look at this gook boy, lists a literal gook starcraft clone as innovative, gets laughed at for being a dumb faggot.
>>1741584
You are arguing with literal korean incels of course the stupid faggots will literally cite a korean Starcraft clone as "innovative". The hero thing in KUF wasn't innovative at all it was literally just ripped from Starcraft custom maps.
Actually hilarious an asian thinks ripping off blizzard/western games is "innovative"';

'My advice is to just ignore esport fags in rts discussions.
Curious thing about this board is how majority of the threads and posters aren't about esports or Starcraft clones. Because the majority of actual strategy fans dont care or like that type of game. They are boring.
Yet every fucking rts discussion thread has the same retard esport fag spam it with muh gookclicks are important. no they are not.';

'>>1745857
>look it up
>was intended for the "asian market"
Gooks. Always gooks';

'>>1741013
I VIOLENTLY suck at RTS to the point where I can lose at the easiest setting, but I keep insisting on it because I love the sprites';

'>be me 28
>fitgirl a new strategy game everyone says is great
>take one look at the UI and overwhelming tutorial
>close and uninstall';

'>>1745726
I'm a gold shitter in aoe4 and I get matched a lot against console/gamepad users in ranked duels. Team games and FFA are even more popular among them (and in general). The narrative that classic RTS games are gookclickers and are unplayable on consoles is just cope.';

'>>1745959
let me sum up your post
>be me 28
>retarded';

'>>1741013
>There is some jank with unit pathfinding,

>SOME
l o l';

'As a casual single player RTS lover from the childhood Immortal Empires from Total War: Warhammer 3 is everything I ever wanted or needed from strategy game';

'>>1741271
>>1741484
>>1741533
>>1741568
>>1743882
>>1745712
Can anyone show me a single 'real' RTS this guy is talking about? For real I'd like to play them.';

'>>1741013
MOBAs and people getting lazier killed RTS. Combined with the excitement of team vs team games being more fun to play and fun to watch compared to 1v1s.';

'>>1741013
Man, RTS is just what we had at the 90's-00's outside board games, other than that, troop combat is done WAY better by games focused on it now, strategy, specially macro is done WAY better by games focused on it, and city building is also done WAY better by games focused on it, there's no point in playing them anymore';

'>>1746181
this guy has been here making these posts for years now and to my knowledge he has adamantly refused to name a single game for all this time. i've never seen it at least.';

'>>1741013
People would rather play other games. RTS games didn't take a huge nose dive in quality the general populace of gamers just lost interest in the genre.';

'>>1745730
Of course it'd be rare, they want to blame the exact opposite of normies.';

'>>1745770
>some rts that worked on voice commands but that didnt work very well.
i think that was in the early promotional material for endwar but i don't remember hearing anything about it after release. someone correct me if i'm wrong';

'>>1741013
don't you fucking retards get sick of having this exact same thread over and over?';

'>>1741013
the fans of RTS are old and nostalgic so they dont like new things';

'Greed.
The industry got hijacked by kikes and rts has little room to exploit people for infinite wealth.
RTS also depends on power to the players in the form of map editors and hosting your own games to set your own rules. All things that wall street actively prevents.
That said....
>dead
Yet another ASL tournament is going on.
Beyond all reason is great fun.
AOE 2 is still getting new content.';

'>>1745835
Rusted Warfare is a serviceable mobile rts, and I thought its controls were pretty damn solid. It took some getting used to, but after that it played nicely. I think round times/optimization are probably the limiting factors in mobile RTSs, at least on the multiplayer side. The worst experience I've ever had with mobile rts controls was when I tried to emulate C&C RA1 on my phone with dosbox lol.';

'and what genre isn't dead?

when was the last good single player fps?';

'>>1746181
There isn't one. It's just a nostalgic boomer wishing for the "good old days" and conveniently ignores the continued release of RTS games. It's not by huge companies anymore, but there is always new games.';

'>>1746722
what fps isnt an rpg or survival crafting sim also?';

'>>1744537
World in Conflict was a very accessible game. It had many of the features you mention (minus console support), sold a million copies, received glowing reviews, and attracted many who otherwise weren't interested in RTS games. Despite this, it failed to attain the longevity of other, more traditional RTS franchises. Amongst some other issues, I think the engagements were a bit too simplistic, with not much depth to them.

Perhaps a WiC2, addressing these issues would've been able to establish team-based, multiplayer-focused strategy (or tactical) games as the evolutionary path which RTS design should've taken. The timing was favorable as MOBAs were beginning to take off. But we'll never know now because Bobby Kotick told Massive to get rid of themselves just as design work was starting on WiC2.

Some people speak of Broken Arrow as WiC's spiritual successor, but to me it looks more like Wargame with some WiC features as gimmicks. In any case there's definitely an interest in these types of games as can be seen from the continued popularity of the Wargame franchise, its sequels and imitators, and this in spite of their poor accessibility.';

'WAHHH WAHH ITS NOT DEAD BECAUSE WE HAD 3 GOOD GAMES THIS LAST DECADE AND SOME INDIE SHITE WAHHH WAH Hahahhaha';

'>>1741750
DoW1 isn't steam-only and was abandoned, that and DoW2 rely on mod players. AoE2 is officially supported and still developed.';

'>>1742089
>eventually die with the buzz as they have no SP content, the players move on.
There's a fuckton of GaaS shooters that disagree with you heavily. Fuck, even just L4D2 proves you wrong.
SP content is not the issue.';

'>>1747266
>GaaS
If they aren't dead it just mean there's still a service provided.
There's MegaFucktons of game that died and aren't playable anymore, as most you can say they were too shitty to play in the first place but the point remain.

>L4D2
Those have SP content and even MP AI, they are not GaaShit. Even L4D would still be playable.';

'C&C franchise could've been easily reinvigorated with a Red Alert 2 remake following the Remastered Collection. But that takes a little bit effort, which is more than EA would probably like.';

'I think the main reason is the exact same why HoMM died. Their target audience is a bunch of neckbeards who keep playing the old games and refuse to buy the new ones.';

'>>1747096
The WiC/Wargame model of RTT, I thought, had promise to be the next archetype of popular MP RTS game, but I was wrong. It’s hard to know if the design isn’t good or if it is just the games we happened to get didn’t quite make it.

WiC was popular but never got a sequel
Wargame was a cult classic and gaining some steam but it was pretty intimidating for new players, and then also Eugen effectively committed suicide after Red Dragon. In an alternate universe Wargame 4 could have done it
Then a bunch of other people are trying again recently but the results aren’t promising. Regiments is boring as hell and broken arrow is a big TBD but looks kinda like a mess but maybe will be good, but I doubt has any mass appeal, based on what I’ve seen it just appeals to the disaffected Wargame fans';

'RUSE was fucking kino btw but you faggots didn't appreciate it enough';

'>>1747976
who the fuck plays THE coop game in SP?';

'>>1741013
Either the RTS genre went into more streamlined direction (MOBAs are essentially the evolution for the fast style) or introduced new variables / went more in-depth like Total War etc. C&C and WarCraft were somewhere in the middle ground and people just probably got a little sick of them, it was THE genre of the late 1990s / early 2000s but they were really fizzling out hard by the time C&C came out.

Even for C&C a lot of things people are nostalgic towards it for is largely not the gameplay but other things like music, cutscenes etc.';

'>>1748215
it wasnt THE genre.
doom and consoles dominated.
it was wads, mudds, and scumm games
not that many people knew about warcraft until WoW came out.';

'>>1748215
lol there it is a brainlet saying mobas are rts

Retard mobas came from the map editor creations of people trying to emulate rpgs and genres like that';

'remember faggots that use "RTT" to refer to actual rts, are gookclickers seething';

'>>1741013
Macro players switched to 4x games, and micro players switched to MOBAs.';

'It seems like about half the posters in this thread think appealing exclusively to mulitplayer (or "gook click...") is what killed RTS.

Do you think developers are having similar a realisation?';

'i actually appreciate what they did with the newer aoes and their DEs where they actually put up scenarios and tutorials as challenges that test how good you are at the game. it's not much but im very proud of having done the ottoman challenge in aoe4.';

'>>1748560
you esport fags are retards';

'>>1748377
Why wouldn't they be RTS? They're real time. They're strategy games. Gotta say this is where the autism reveals itself most often.';

'>>1746317
I visits to /vst/ are usually weeks or months apart and that is always here every single time posting the same shit over and over.';

'>>1748378
Actual RTS has no base building?';

'RTS "died" because gaming as a whole got bigger and RTS couldn't stay viable as AAA genre against all the other ones.
Linear mission based campaigns also died out in other genres, the only FPS that still does them is CoD because it's just an entrenched part of it and it was popular for its spectacle something RTS can't really replicate.
I've talked to zoomers who played the wc2 campaign and they say its boring and wastes your time.
People want to see open world or non-linear campaigns now.';

'>>1748581
no they aren't you dumbass fuck. Theres an implied strategy element of commanding an army.
A single unit is just a 3rd person game.
God damn gookclickers are some of THE dumbest shits alive.
people don't play rts to command one unit.';

'>>1748592
theres no requirement for basebuilding in rts. Thats a convention, that some fans enjoy. That some idiots have misinterpreted as being somehow part of the acronym RTS.
RTT was a term coined by the TA creator to say games like Starcraft are NOT RTS.
Then assblasted Gookclickers obviously took this term and started applying it to RTS games that were not like Starcraft.';

'>>1748612
>what is meepo, chen, beastmaster
Even if we went with your autistic definition you lose.';

'>>1748598
>RTS cannot replicate spectacle
I don't disagree with your overall point but this isn't seem true at all. In fact many good campaigns had it as a point of attraction. C&C comes to mind for example.';

'>>1748615
you are an idiot';

'>>1748618
What a high IQ army general you are anon';

'>esport gooks think mobas are rts
all you need to know that this argument is heavily shilled by Korean esport shills.
For some schizo business reason korea needs to own the rts genre to promote games Korean esport fags enjoy like mobas and starcraft.
You can see rts slowly means from their mong pov that anything Koreans play competitively is an rts.
Its the same reason you see koreans shilling literal rpgs and sim games on here that arent strategy games at all';

'>>1748621
You dumb nuggets need to either explain why you're gatekeeping the term rts or stfu';

'>>1748614
>RTT was a term coined by the TA creator to say games like Starcraft are NOT RTS.
>Then assblasted Gookclickers obviously took this term and started applying it to RTS games that were not like Starcraft.
Provide evidence.';

'>>1748617
>In fact many good campaigns had it as a point of attraction. C&C comes to mind for example.
sure in the late 90/early 2000s dropping a super weapon was cool. It pales even in comparison to CoD killstreaks by 2010 and even those are old hat and overdone in 2024.
RTS is just old, it's like asking why people don't like Shmups anymore. There actually was AA shmup released in the past half year but I can't even remember its name. I think it was published by Square Enix. That's how little people care about that genre. Even when you put money into the story and voice acting they don't come.';

'>>1748666
Can you be more specific about what CoD is doing that's so impossible to recreate?';

'>>1741013
Its not fun to get stomped by some Korean kid chugging monster and ADHD meds';

'>>1748712
Automatic matchmaking ensures that your casual ass will never get matched against someone like this.';

'>>1748719
except when the game dies and only sweats play';

'Other genres are just more fun, duh';

'>>1748971
When the game dies, sweats stop playing it.';

'>>1741013
Looking at this image automatically generated a soul/soulless image macro in my head.';

'>>1741500
I don't understand why the first one has two projectiles but all the others only have one projectile.';

'>>1749159
TA's siege artillery is innacurate as fuck to compenate for them being able to kill almost everything in a single shot and having a realistic maximum range for that sort of weapon (i.e. in most of officiaI maps that don't support more than 4 players, they'll cover 75% of it even if built directly at your spawnpoint)';

'>>1749315
Does it shoot two projectiles per shot?';

'>>1741013
>It got me wondering if the genre moved into the wrong direction by embracing multiplayer, or if they simply focused on the wrong design elements.
Players are still retarded and companies still a bunch of cowards.';

'Imo it appealed to many different types of players and it split apart and specialized for each one of them.
Like some people are into basebuilding, some into twitchy gameplay, some into the battle tactics/strategy so they got games that appealed to them specifically and so a whole RTS became less interesting.';

'>>1741013
>It got me wondering if the genre moved into the wrong direction by embracing multiplayer
The only alive games are Multiplayer ones you scrub. There have been 4 SO RTS in the past half decade and they sold less than AoE 4, CoH3 and Warno.

RTS didn't die. The market conditions that created the glut of RTS games died. In the 90s most people had a PC and that PC was more powerful than home consoles. So making PC centric games was the financial move, and you could differentiate your game via more technically demanding means. At the same time 100 IQ plus White people made up the majority of the games market, so you would want to make not completely brain dead games. Video Games were also not seen as serious back then so there was no major political BS push like today and you could make your Nazi fan fic game and not get in trouble.

Now it's current year. Investors focus on Mobile and Console games with micro transactions so there is little money to make RTS. The games market is dominated by 90 IQ spics and others. And you could put all the effort and technology in a game and it will still sell like shit, so why bother. Also if you make a game about anything remotely realistic you need to suck tranny dick.

RTS as a genre is still alive. Nothing stops me from booting up CnC, AoE, CoH, MoW or RD. And every year I get something that might hold my attention for a bit like the Terminator and Starship Trooper games. But there will not be another RTS craze like back then. And the market changing is also why stuff like Zombie, Modern Miltiary shooters crazes happen and the Banished clone craze we live in.';

'>>1748029
Used to play RUSE while listening to MLP fan fiction in my teenage years.
Good times.';

'>>1741433
Fr, I really felt like I WAS the Commander, and everything depended on me leading these units against a formidable intelligence. when you won, you felt like a military theorist and the game usually sucked your dick in the next cutscene';

'>>1741013
>What really caused the fall of RTS?
The way I see it, there were two main factors:
>1) everyone wanted to be Starcraft
Basically most of the RTS's that came out after Starcraft were all trying to be "Starcraft but with X". I never got gud at any RTS, but I have tried out a lot of them during the genre's heyday, and this was the impression that I got. Dawn of War was "Starcraft but things get produced faster" (I think that was the gimmick there? I remember something was done faster, can't remember if it was buildings getting built instantly or you getting resources instantly or something, I need to replay it), Company of Heroes was "Starcraft but in WWII", so on and so forth. Because of that, all these different franchises relied on Starcraft's popularity to survive, so once Starcraft 2 shat the bed all the rest of them either died completely or are barely surviving off of a dedicated fanbase that never grows. The only ones that managed to survive properly are the ones that really set themselves apart by having truly unique elements, such as Total War and fucking Pikmin.
>2) MOBA's
I never played Warcraft III, but from what I've heard the game survived as long as it did because of Dota 1. Then you had all these other Dotas come out that didn't require WC3 to function and that's what people went for since it was something fresh that wasn't a Starcraftlike. I think there were a lot of casuals in the RTS scene (like me lol) that kinda struggled along without ever being able to git gud, so once this "simpler" RTS became a thing they all jumped to that instead, leaving proper RTS's to only work with their dedicated fans from the Starcraft days.

As an aside, all the people in this thread and on /vst/ in general that say RTS's can't work on console have clearly never played Pikmin.';

'Starcraft II killed it.
What's more surprising is that it's one of the few genres that really work so much better on PC that it might as well be a PC exclusive genre but the recent PC boom had nothing to do with new RTS games and was mostly just brought on by the new console generation being a dud.';

'They became a vehicle to try and get competitive multiplayer scenes instead of focusing on the campaigns, which is what people really cared about';

'>le rts is dead
Then why are the C&C remasters making the top sellling list in multiplayer regions?
Just make a fun game with a good single player campaign and a good story, and modern AI';

'>>1741013
>What really caused the fall of RTS?
FPS
it's way more stimulating for the average man, who is now a zoomie that can't keep his attention focused for more than 5 seconds at a time';

'>>1755689
>just do what even the biggest studios don't do these days
also, as you've noticed, remasters. that's part of the issue. nobody's doing anything new. it's either remasters or blatant rip-offs. creativity is dead.';

'>>1741013
AI was dumb and had to cheat (like rebuild buildings detached from base in exact spot) in order to be challenging. Everything in missions was basically scripted, even movement paths for attacking groups.

In the original game, AI could be walled off with sandbags and stuck there.

Then again, it was somewhat pioneer in RTS genre and a huge improvement from Dune 2 <yes I'm a dinosaur>';

'>>1752039
>Dawn of War was "Starcraft but things get produced faster" (I think that was the gimmick there? I remember something was done faster, can't remember if it was buildings getting built instantly or you getting resources instantly or something, I need to replay it), Company of Heroes was "Starcraft but in WWII",
You have no idea what you're talking about';

'>>1749159
it's to show that the shots are modeled in a detailed way where terrain matters';

'>>1741013
Better games killed them.

Most rts like C&C just had really poor balance so people who wanna play competitive go elsewhere or stick to Starcraft or Warcraft, and the people not into fantasy went to Age of Empires. And then for the more casual crowd they just want their power fantasy and base building so single player games with simplified mechanics are more their speed.';

'>>1741013
They all play the same at the end of the day.';

'>>1741325
The first optional mission in the Nod campaign in Tiberian Sun is like that (I'm playing it right now for the first time). You start out with about 5 light infantry and 4 light vehicles and you need to bust out some officer from a heavily fortified prison, you also need to protect and extract him too.
I had to restart it several times but I loved it in the end.
What you actually need to do is to scout BEHIND you, to find a small canyon, beyond it some small garrison you need to take out, then go through a tunnel, take over a lightly defended supply base that is cut off from the prison and rescue 3 engineers that you need to use in a very specific way to convert SOME buildings in that supply base since you can't build anything.
What I didn't know the first time around is that if a harvester is in the refinery when you convert it, you get the harvester too and if it isn't, you don't.
So esentially the strategy for this OPTIONAL mission is to capture the refinery + harvester to be able to generate more income so that you can build a small army, then you need to scout EVEN FURTHER AWAY from the prison to find the only good way in, since your troops get fucked by turrets otherwise, and looking at the map it looks like there is nothing there at first, you legit have to scout in this game, unlike many other RTS games. You literally have to think and play patiently instead of just spamming eco and overproducing the AI.';

'>>1741013
Every other answer is wrong. The real reason is just technology. RTS games are heavy on kinds of processing other kinds of games aren't, and stress computing challenges we've made essentially no progress on in 30 years, like efficiently querying large internal memory databases.

As the triple A market grew and demand for bigger, fancier and prettier games grew with it, RTS couldn't keep up, because the advances in technology weren't actually benefiting their development or capabilities, but repeatedly stressing their production to fit better and better graphics into their already struggling processing budgets. This contributed to a progressive 'dumbing down' as designers tried to free up processing budget for graphics and presentation by reducing the overhead caused by the actual gameplay elements, cannibalizing gameplay in the process. MOBA was such an attractive prospect not just because it was trendy, but because it essentially eliminated that processing overhead.

A further issue is that because the challenges in RTS production are fundamental to computing, professionals qualified to work with them well are very expensive. Triple-A studios have ballooned not by expanding their number of codemonkeys but by vastly expanding their number of texture and model artists, many of whom pull double duty as designers. RTS development forces most of its budget to be sucked up by the people who can make the database work and design within the very strict limits of what it can handle. It's just really hard explaining these challenges to a consumer without getting slapped with "well just hire someone better" or "just be better at your jobs, it's so easy" when half of the staff of the average RTS is pouring over MIT PhD papers on computer science looking for ideas to solve novel programming challenges that have never been overcome before.';

'Strategyboomers shit slinging like they're 13 years old again is the funniest thing, never stop /vst/';

'A lot of factors led to the decline of RTS games, you can't just blame gookclick for everything wrong with the genre, especially when that didn't really take off until after RTS games were already dead.

EA holds a lot of blame for gutting Westwood. The loss of that talent being concentrated under one roof seriously set the genre back. Petroglyph, bless their hearts, have never been able to live up to their predecessor.
Blizzard got greedy after WoW. They lost the will to stick with their roots once they realized how big gookclick had gotten, which then led them down the path that SC2 ultimately ended with.
What really hit the genre hard was the console domination of the gaming market from 2000 until 2010-ish. It's hard to believe it with the pitiful state that PlayStation and Xbox are in today, but during the peak PS3/X360 years, people were loudly proclaiming that PC gaming was dead, and they were kinda right at the time. Most publishers did not want to greenlight a game unless it could be played on consoles, which RTS games have always struggled with. Trying to get that to work is what killed Ensemble. Trying to develop a game without a publisher in the years before digital distribution became mainstream was suicide. Steam was still in its early years, it wasn't until 2007 that the storefront became viable for third party sellers to sell their games on there.

Publishers didn't want RTS games because they didn't work on consoles, the infrastructure to support the PC gaming market was not yet in place, and the studios and talent behind all the classic RTS games were either shuttered or downsized, or they got preoccupied with other non-RTS projects that pulled them away from the genre.
Then gookclick happened, and the RTS genre got poisoned beyond repair.';