Live data from Hacker News

What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

probablydance.com

51–60 of 214 posts

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#52
post #10
post #8

Starcraft is still very much around. But I suspect people went to mobas like League of Legends because they wanted a more social, team based experience and they liked playing a hero.

Also Microsoft is working on Age of Empires IV which will be huge.

I doubt it. Age of Empires 2 is pretty much the entire AoE scene left. And Age of Empires 2 definitive edition (AoE2DE) is coming out soon. And that'll only work if it accurately recreates the AoE2 experience with better graphics and slightly better interface.

I expect any modern non-AoE2 AoE game to be just as bad as any other modern RTS. Even AOE2 DE was/is probably going to be requiring Win 10 just to force people to upgrade. MS is still MS.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#53
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I felt this way about SC2 as compared to SC1. I think one of the largest changes I noticed was an increase in the hardness of counters as well as an increase in the APM necessary to properly wield certain units. For the first point, in SC1, if I had suboptimal army composition against my opponent, I would likely lose any battles that ensued unless my tactics were quite superior- but I'd likely due some da…

That's an interesting view of the situation. I don't think I've ever seen someone say that APM requirements are higher in SC2. Notable enormous APM sinks in SC1 are the unit selection cap, the inability to give orders to multiple factories at a time, and the inability to make workers rally to the mineral line. Whether the counters are harder, I don't have enough knowledge to say.

Those are different uses of APM than what the parent is talking about. The unit selection cap is kind of a similar thing, but in practice, selecting an entire giant army and attacking with them all toward the same target at once is not competitive. So even without the unit selection cap, to win battles at high levels (even platinum and definetely diamond when I was playing) requires controlling small groups of different units in the right way. It does seem like you can get away with lower average APM for macro, but peak APM during key battles may have more of an impact. But I didn't play enough SC1 to really compare, I just mean that it is at least plausible based on my experience with SC2.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#54

Total Annihilation holds a big part in my history. It was a great game for one thing, but annihilated.com inspired me to get into running a website. Thanks to TA and annihilated, I ran my own website based on a game (a Star Trek one), which at peak in 1999 was getting 2000 uniques a day. Taking USD cheques (like $40) from doubleclick into my UK bank in my school uniform in 1998ish was a unique experience. Thanks to t…

I liked TA much more than RA. The strategy felt deeper, plus I liked the idea of the Commander unit representing you on the battle field. Sending him into battle was a risky move. The D-Gun made him extremely powerful, but if he died, you lose. The nukes in RA were also just plain pitiful and not really worth the time to build.

we used to play TA at lunch...but cut it off abruptly after an hour.. . so we'd spend 55 minutes building up epic armies then send them to apocalypse for the last 5 minutes :)

I tried to fire up my TA disk in a Win7 machine a few years ago, but the graphics came out all wrong :( any suggestions for reviving it?

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#55
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure you can. In civ for example, sail your fleet one way under fog of war, move your army another to suck in units. That's not getting around a distracted army. Even if we ignore player focus, and pretend everyone can multitask perfectly, you're still losing options. You can't engage in a big fight on one side of a map just long enough for a flanking force to hit a critical target, then immediately retreat out of…

There are indeed retreat options in Total War.

Can you retreat fast enough to avoid the entire fight? If so that falls under "the big fight is unnecessary"

If there's a time limit before you can retreat, it all seems rather... artificial, compared to having full control on a single map.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#57

I played StarCraft 2 for nearly a decade after it came out. It was always a solid experience. It is surprising that in all that time, there hasn't been a serious competitor to SC2 in the traditional RTS format. This article does a great job of breaking down why that might be. I mean, the mobile revolution did take some steam and excitement out of PC gaming for a while there. As the author points out, game devs tend t…

I remember when the iPad came out I was incredibly excited. This was surely perfect for RTS games!

There was Command & Conquer: Red Alert Mobile, then....

The only other one I remember was an actually really good StarCraft clone by Gameloft (I forget the name).

I always thought mobile would be great for RTS and then it just wasn't. Though when I think about it, the keyboard is pretty important and that kind of fast control is really difficult on a touchscreen, so maybe that explains the lack of 'classic' RTS games on touch devices.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#58
I've been waiting for Warcraft 4 for 15 years now (can't believe it's been that long!).

Warcraft III/Frozen throne are quite simply the best games that I've ever played, none have ever come close. I'd give honourable mention to Age of Empires/Rise of Nations.

I think it was killed due to the success of World of Warcraft.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#59
post #58

I've been waiting for Warcraft 4 for 15 years now (can't believe it's been that long!). Warcraft III/Frozen throne are quite simply the best games that I've ever played, none have ever come close. I'd give honourable mention to Age of Empires/Rise of Nations. I think it was killed due to the success of World of Warcraft.

You're probably correct. Given the amount of mental energy you need to dump into a game to win against your opponent is high, albeit short lived. These bursts of cerebral fortitude can be exhausting and annoying if you are the loser (which there always will be one of).

Given that risk to reward I can totally see why more gentile games like MMOs, Minecraft, hell even MOBAs have taken over. They are a lot easier to slide into (and out) at every skill level, which also equates to more money to the developers due to a lowering of the bar.

Re: What Happened to the Real Time Strategy Genre?

#60

The fact that Homeworld wasn't mentioned until the last paragraph was a major case of "they had us in the first half not gonna lie" for me. Cannot wait for the sequel. I spent so many hours playing HW1. Great balance of macro and micro strategy.

Loved Homeworld too. There really was nothing like it when it came out.
Post reply on HN