|
On August 15 2017 19:55 saddaromma wrote:
Well, 99.9% games didn't have investment and time dedicated to make A-tier competitive esports game. And, SC2 had a huge fanbase already when it was released. With so many resources it was destined to succeed, however, it didn't.
'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me.
nah, within its time frame SC2 succeeded. the entire genre is sinking and in a lower tide all boats go down.
so many garbage RTS games came out in the early to mid 90s and the genre grew by leaps and bounds. incredible games like CoH1, AoE2, and RA2 come out after that giant growth period and they did just ok. CoH1 didn't hit 0.5 million units sold until THQ sold it for $1.
|
No micro. Big emphasize of hardcounter. Jim raynors call this a great design.
|
On August 15 2017 21:11 Foxxan wrote:
No micro. Big emphasize of hardcounter. Jim raynors call this a great design.
every RTS studio got together and they colluded to all make crap RTS games because every designer wanted to be unemployed and make no money. this is what killed the genre.
more seriously,
many game genres that decline and/or move into a small niche... the games get better.. and paradoxically... the popularity wanes
sometimes, a similar thing happens with music genres.
"isn't it a pity... isn't it a shame... no one ever warned the boy... rock and roll is a vicious game".
|
On August 15 2017 21:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 19:55 saddaromma wrote:
Well, 99.9% games didn't have investment and time dedicated to make A-tier competitive esports game. And, SC2 had a huge fanbase already when it was released. With so many resources it was destined to succeed, however, it didn't.
'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me. nah, within its time frame SC2 succeeded. the entire genre is sinking and in a lower tide all boats go down. so many garbage RTS games came out in the early to mid 90s and the genre grew by leaps and bounds. incredible games like CoH1, AoE2, and RA2 come out after that giant growth period and they did just ok. CoH1 didn't hit 0.5 million units sold until THQ sold it for $1.
I think thats what you want to believe.
Here are some examples that contradict your idea:
1. Hearthstone. Online card games were out there for decades, but they never got popular until Hearthstone was made. Suddenly, there are lots of players and clones. Is this because genre is growing? I think not. Bunch of talented developers made a good game, then scene emerged.
2. Battle Royal. Arma3 had mods long ago. But the popularity kicked in only after Daybreak made a decent game.
3. CS GO. This one is actually prime example of what should happened to SC2. Remember how CS and 5x5 tactical shooters started dying after release of CS Source. The game wasn't really good, because mechanics were clunky and it didn't resemble what CS originally was. Then valve correctly identified the problem and got back to the roots and made original cs with better graphics - CS GO. At start it wasn't really popular but devs actually listened to community and improved the game, which sadly didn't happen to SC2.
|
I'll just say this;
SC2 did great. 2010-2013, SC2 was dominant and everyone in the gaming world knew of or followed the game and its tournaments.
Then started the era of team games. Nerds turned to easier-to-learn-games with less pressure on you as the sole player. Dota, LoL, Overwatch, Counter-strike, the era of team games had begun, and thus the popularity of RTS fell.
SC:R will see the same fate, but perhaps this time people won't blame Blizzard or the game itself. This is simply how the world works. The RTS-era is past. It's not dead by any means, neither SC2 nor Brood War, but its popularity will stay small. Korea has a slightly different popularity system, but the RTS popularity was severely damaged by LoL.
My whole point is... It doesn't matter what kind of RTS game you make. You can make the most amazing and brilliant RTS game and it still would not gain huge popularity. Unless you find a way to make it a good team game.
The same is true for the era of any competitive 1on1 game. Just look at the Quake games. Now, Quake Champions is gaining some popularity because of its release, but will soon fall as well.
SC2 did great, Brood War did great. No RTS (or competitive 1on1 game in general) will do great anymore. End of story.
|
many game genres that decline and/or move into a small niche... the games get better.. and paradoxically... the popularity wanes
You are right.
Having little to none control of your units is the way to go. When you fight each other, instead of relying on tactics and micro, you relie on which unit you made and how good you are at a-moving. Games has this little thing called unit control, so the player doesnt have to use its brain to much.
Building stuff and eating pizza at the same time is superior over things actually happening in the game. When I and You start a game, we dont want to use our brain to much, right? If we wanted that we would do math+balance our body at the same time. We are after all here to play games and what better way than to eat pizza and let a.i do the rest for 10min straight.
This evolution of the genre is remarkable. Its a shame the genre is after all DECLINING just as you have said for the last years. You are very correct about it, doesnt matter what kind of argument someone make against that, THE RTS GENRE IS DECLINING, look at the gameplay its a superb design right through.
I think thats what you want to believe.
Here are some examples that contradict your idea:
I dont think you can contradict facts. The rts games that are coming out are so bloody good that each time i dont know which to play and then i end up not playing any at all.
That is one more big reason why the rts genre is declining, the gameplay isnt bad or anything, its the opposite really.
|
On August 15 2017 21:31 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 21:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 15 2017 19:55 saddaromma wrote:
Well, 99.9% games didn't have investment and time dedicated to make A-tier competitive esports game. And, SC2 had a huge fanbase already when it was released. With so many resources it was destined to succeed, however, it didn't.
'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me. nah, within its time frame SC2 succeeded. the entire genre is sinking and in a lower tide all boats go down. so many garbage RTS games came out in the early to mid 90s and the genre grew by leaps and bounds. incredible games like CoH1, AoE2, and RA2 come out after that giant growth period and they did just ok. CoH1 didn't hit 0.5 million units sold until THQ sold it for $1. I think thats what you want to believe. Here are some examples that contradict your idea: 1. Hearthstone. Online card games were out there for decades, but they never got popular until Hearthstone was made. Suddenly, there are lots of players and clones. Is this because genre is growing? I think not. Bunch of talented developers made a good game, then scene emerged. 2. Battle Royal. Arma3 had mods long ago. But the popularity kicked in only after Daybreak made a decent game. 3. CS GO. This one is actually prime example of what should happened to SC2. Remember how CS and 5x5 tactical shooters started dying after release of CS Source. The game wasn't really good, because mechanics were clunky and it didn't resemble what CS originally was. Then valve correctly identified the problem and got back to the roots and made original cs with better graphics - CS GO. At start it wasn't really popular but devs actually listened to community and improved the game, which sadly didn't happen to SC2.
from 1982 to ~1996..the genre grew by leaps and bounds as the abilities of teh most powerful piece of tech in the household grew the ability to display giant army battles. the RTS games themselves were not very good... but watching your army slowly grow and then having 10000 units kill each other was such a buzz. you couldn't get that on your SNES or your Apple Newton or your Palm Pilot. only 1 place to go.. that giant desktop PC in your den.
by 2010, you can slowly painstakingly build your giant army and have 1000 units fight in a crescendo of epic action on your smartphone, tablet.. literally any where... literally anytime...this has watered down the demand drastically.
such is the state of tech today and this is why the feverish demand of early 90s PC RTS is no longer present and never will be again, ever.
it was fun while it lasted though.
i'll have to bail at this point... i've got a big Clash of Clans fight happening on my Galaxy Note 16..
|
On August 15 2017 22:06 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2017 21:31 saddaromma wrote:On August 15 2017 21:10 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On August 15 2017 19:55 saddaromma wrote:
Well, 99.9% games didn't have investment and time dedicated to make A-tier competitive esports game. And, SC2 had a huge fanbase already when it was released. With so many resources it was destined to succeed, however, it didn't.
'Wrecked' might be a harsh term, but its close enough for me. nah, within its time frame SC2 succeeded. the entire genre is sinking and in a lower tide all boats go down. so many garbage RTS games came out in the early to mid 90s and the genre grew by leaps and bounds. incredible games like CoH1, AoE2, and RA2 come out after that giant growth period and they did just ok. CoH1 didn't hit 0.5 million units sold until THQ sold it for $1. I think thats what you want to believe. Here are some examples that contradict your idea: 1. Hearthstone. Online card games were out there for decades, but they never got popular until Hearthstone was made. Suddenly, there are lots of players and clones. Is this because genre is growing? I think not. Bunch of talented developers made a good game, then scene emerged. 2. Battle Royal. Arma3 had mods long ago. But the popularity kicked in only after Daybreak made a decent game. 3. CS GO. This one is actually prime example of what should happened to SC2. Remember how CS and 5x5 tactical shooters started dying after release of CS Source. The game wasn't really good, because mechanics were clunky and it didn't resemble what CS originally was. Then valve correctly identified the problem and got back to the roots and made original cs with better graphics - CS GO. At start it wasn't really popular but devs actually listened to community and improved the game, which sadly didn't happen to SC2. from 1982 to ~1996..the genre grew by leaps and bounds as the abilities of teh most powerful piece of tech in the household grew the ability to display giant army battles. the RTS games themselves were not very good... but watching your army slowly grow and then having 10000 units kill each other was such a buzz. you couldn't get that on your SNES or your Apple Newton or your Palm Pilot. only 1 place to go.. that giant desktop PC in your den. by 2010, you can slowly painstakingly build your giant army and have 1000 units fight in a crescendo of epic action on your smartphone, tablet.. literally any where... literally anytime...this has watered down the demand drastically. such is the state of tech today and this is why the feverish demand of early 90s PC RTS is no longer present and never will be again, ever. it was fun while it lasted though. i'll have to bail at this point... i've got a big Clash of Clans fight happening on my Galaxy Note 16..
While i think there is truth to that, mobas which are somewhat close or at least comparable to rts games show that there is still a market for these types of games on the pc. Mobas are successful because the direct control of the units is fun.
Most rts games these days don't have this aspect, they lack direct control, uits are sluggish, etc.
So i don't think that "rts games got better and better", at least not in the imo most important aspect. How fun is it to actually control your army/units, how much fun are the unit interactions.
All these grey goos had extremely unfun unit control, how can that ever be successful? RTS needs to work on that aspect the most. The thing is that sc2 kinda nails this (for the most part), so it's obviously not everything which matters.
The macro itself might be something modern players aren't really interested in, it's hard to find a formula for modern rts, but i think it's doable.
|
I cant believe this thread is still open. What if I made a thread "What wrecked BW?". It would be closed under an hour.
|
On August 15 2017 23:11 404AlphaSquad wrote:
I cant believe this thread is still open. What if I made a thread "What wrecked BW?". It would be closed under an hour.
Because it's full of civilized discussion where people are giving their subjective experiences, and it has interesting posts to read. And the conversation has not been successfully derailed by anyone yet?
|
France2027 Posts
lol @crystal ball of jimmy, I think he just gets a kick trying to spell disaster for rts fans tbh, while just embracing it himself. But his story doesn't really work, because you'll hardly find a RTS fan who is truly interested in stuff like clash of clans to the point of dropping RTS forever. It's not like ppl don't have any time to discover more games and become interested in good RTS when they find one either^^
the mobas took some away from UMS users probably, still not quite all of them, just a portion. It's not like everybody wants to play the same UMS repeatedly and go competitive on it and face the moutains of knowledge barriers characteristic of most mobas. Its by and large a new demographic, not one that draws from RTS, after all it's not even the same genre. There are also tons more gamers today than before 2000.
|
I think the most powerful evidence against "RTS games are getting better while the market is shrinking" is the fact that we can point to a lot of genre defining classics from the early nineties and the 2000's.
It's true that the RTS genre got more standardized and incorporated more new technology and in general added more bells and whistles and made the interface a bit smoother. But it also got blander, and there weren't really any heavy hitters coming out.
From the golden age I can point to games like SC:BW, Total Anihilation, Warcraft 3, Age of Empires 2, Red Alert 1, Red Alert 2 (even though I hate that game and that people like it, and would rather place Tiberian Sun as a classic), C&C1, etc and people will have no problem acknowleging them as classics and genre-defining.
Now point to any games that came out after 2004 that are unanimously hailed as classic must-haves for RTS fans.
If we got so much better at making them, where are the classics? Arguably SC2 and Supreme Commander? What else? Battle for Middle Earth 2? Warhammer Dawn of War? Age of Empires 3? Would anyone anywhere consider them classic must-haves in the genre?
How is the genre supposed to survive when no new classics were released and all we got were basic generic games?
From my experience of gaming, the only games that suffer from a contraction of a genre are the imitator games and not the flagship games in the franchise. 3D platformers have declined yet Super Mario Galaxy sold as much as Mario 64. 2D platformers have delined yet New Super Mario Bros sold similar numbers to the first AND vastly outsold Mario 3 and World.
|
United States33093 Posts
Aight this has run its course
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
