|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On May 17 2014 00:26 Plansix wrote:
I am pretty much done arguing with. You mostly see what you want and then make grand claims based on that. Like with blizzard. There was no SC2 on the investor call because they are putting out a D3 expansion, WoW expansion and Heathstone. That is a lot if stuff for one year. Development on LotV likely won't happen until heroes is done. It has nothing to do with RTS games, but that they put out hots last year and it's different games this year.
i do not even know your position on the matter. my position is that the RTS genre is declining. if you are claiming its growing or maintaining its position. well.. your position is untenable and its best you stop at this point.
SC isn't even on Blizzard's main page any longer.
sad stuff.
only Diablo, Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, and WoW.
Blizzard is slowly moving away from RTS.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IJpg4kh.jpg)
and, u say i can't "see inside organizations"..
well tough guy.. Ray Shero was just fired... and GUESS WHO CALLED IT?
|
It's easy to be right when you place 50/50 bets and then ignore the ones you get wrong. And your argument must be pretty desperate if you are using Blizzards main page as evidence. SC2 isn't there because they hearth stone, the WoW expansion, the d3 expansion and heroes on the page. Those are games comming out or that were released this year. It's not weird they would feature their new products on their main page.
|
so you're acknowledging there is very little RTS content on the way from Blizzard.
you're just proving my point.
from 1994 to 2003 Blizzard made RTS games non-stop... now its not even on their main page.
if Blizzard is now down to making 1 RTS title every 15 years.. i wouldn't really call it an active RTS game maker.
|
Jimmy boy, what is right under the game selection tab from blizz's site of the picture you posted?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 16 2014 20:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
Unit selection isn't that bad with Protoss because the units occupy more space and are big, it's a lot more irritating at times with the other races, especially if you're rusty.
That said I like the mechanical aspect of RTS, perhaps it doesn't appeal to your average casual gamer, but has RTS ever really done that? When I was a youngling not everybody played games, not everyone was hardcore to the max but the average gamer was more willing to do things that were 'hard'. Partly due to UIs not being as developed/explored as well.
This isn't just RTS either, the original X-Wing games were closer to flight sims than their modern counterparts for example
I don't think this has fundamentally changed. The existence of things like r/pcmasterrace and communities like TL shows that there is still an interest in more mechanical/demanding games. That said, these games have never been the most popular kind of games and they never will be. This is not cause for alarm. If you check out this list, its clear that RTS games have never been the best selling games, and even if you go to the PC section, where more complicated games are generally more successful, RTS games are underrepresented (with the exception of SC and SC2).
The best selling PC game of all time is the Sims 2. It outsold AoE by a factor of 7 and AoM by a factor of 20. Yet we don't think that RTS gaming was dead in 2004 when Sims 2 was released, and nobody would say that those 2 games weren't successful. Just because some other game sells more/makes more doesn't mean that RTS is dead. Its always been a smaller market, but it's lasted this long because it's a stable market.
|
On May 17 2014 00:48 Sapphire.lux wrote:Jimmy boy, what is right under the game selection tab from blizz's site of the picture you posted? + Show Spoiler +
sigh, Plansix already covered that.
its all about new content.
there is no new content for RTS on the way in the foreseeable future.
also, there is no SC2 content on...
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/
and NA is supposed to be this big important market right?
just to get back to this.
my opinion is the genre is declining... not dead.
if u think the RTS genre is in growing... well .. just LOL.
|
Don't argue with Jimmy, I forget how terrible it was. His main route of argument is to take a vague statement like "no RTS development in the foreseeable future" and the continue to amend the meaning of "foreseeable future" so he is always right. It's an easy way to make arguments on the internet. And once you beat that argument into the ground, he just moves on to some other weird fact to "prove" that RTS games are never going to be made again, or it's in "decline" whatever the fuck that means.
|
On May 17 2014 00:48 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
so you're acknowledging there is very little RTS content on the way from Blizzard.
you're just proving my point.
from 1994 to 2003 Blizzard made RTS games non-stop... now its not even on their main page.
if Blizzard is now down to making 1 RTS title every 15 years.. i wouldn't really call it an active RTS game maker.
What RTS did they make between BW and WC3? Nonstop my ass...
That's 4-5years, meanwhile HotS was just 1year ago.
|
On May 17 2014 00:52 JimmyJRaynor wrote:just to get back to this. my opinion is the genre is declining... not dead. if u think the RTS genre is in growing... well .. just LOL.
The options aren't growing vs dying. You can have a stable scene/market/player base.
|
On May 17 2014 00:58 Plansix wrote:
Don't argue with Jimmy, I forget how terrible it was. His main route of argument is to take a vague statement like "no RTS development in the foreseeable future" and the continue to amend the meaning of "foreseeable future" so he is always right. It's an easy way to make arguments on the internet. And once you beat that argument into the ground, he just moves on to some other weird fact to "prove" that RTS games are never going to be made again, or it's in "decline" whatever the fuck that means.
Ha, yeah, i know Jimmy, we had discussions before.
Just to tackle the "not in development/ on the main site(us)" argument. Blizz has been working for a long time on a new MMO and some say that is where the majority of their efforts are, yet there is no info on the site...how strange. It's like they only advertise games that have been recently released or that are about to be released in the near future. Stupid PR spin no doubt.
|
On May 17 2014 00:58 Plansix wrote:
Don't argue with Jimmy, I forget how terrible it was. His main route of argument is to take a vague statement like "no RTS development in the foreseeable future" and the continue to amend the meaning of "foreseeable future" so he is always right. It's an easy way to make arguments on the internet. And once you beat that argument into the ground, he just moves on to some other weird fact to "prove" that RTS games are never going to be made again, or it's in "decline" whatever the fuck that means.
the proof of the decline in the RTS genre is in the OP...and it is also my position.
now, you are also smearing my comments.
i think SC2 is the last AAA level RTS game we'll see.
i base this on the number of studios that pump out AAA games that specialize in RTS.
will stuff like Grey Goo and the CoH2 expansion come out? sure they will... are these AAA level games? no.
|
On May 17 2014 01:06 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 00:58 Plansix wrote:
Don't argue with Jimmy, I forget how terrible it was. His main route of argument is to take a vague statement like "no RTS development in the foreseeable future" and the continue to amend the meaning of "foreseeable future" so he is always right. It's an easy way to make arguments on the internet. And once you beat that argument into the ground, he just moves on to some other weird fact to "prove" that RTS games are never going to be made again, or it's in "decline" whatever the fuck that means. Ha, yeah, i know Jimmy, we had discussions before. Just to tackle the "not in development/ on the main site(us)" argument. Blizz has been working for a long time on a new MMO and some say that is where the majority of their efforts are, yet there is no info on the site...how strange. It's like they only advertise games that have been recently released or that are about to be released in the near future. Stupid PR spin no doubt.
Also it would be a little silly for them to be trying to develop another RTS game when they still have LotV on their plate for the future.
|
and its not due out for a long time because Blizzard isn't even putting it on their main page.
so Blizzard is just as active in the RTS genre as it was 15 years ago because its produced one $40 expansion in 5 years.
ok, cool.
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
On May 17 2014 00:48 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2014 20:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
Unit selection isn't that bad with Protoss because the units occupy more space and are big, it's a lot more irritating at times with the other races, especially if you're rusty.
That said I like the mechanical aspect of RTS, perhaps it doesn't appeal to your average casual gamer, but has RTS ever really done that? When I was a youngling not everybody played games, not everyone was hardcore to the max but the average gamer was more willing to do things that were 'hard'. Partly due to UIs not being as developed/explored as well.
This isn't just RTS either, the original X-Wing games were closer to flight sims than their modern counterparts for example I don't think this has fundamentally changed. The existence of things like r/pcmasterrace and communities like TL shows that there is still an interest in more mechanical/demanding games. That said, these games have never been the most popular kind of games and they never will be. This is not cause for alarm. If you check out this list, its clear that RTS games have never been the best selling games, and even if you go to the PC section, where more complicated games are generally more successful, RTS games are underrepresented (with the exception of SC and SC2). The best selling PC game of all time is the Sims 2. It outsold AoE by a factor of 7 and AoM by a factor of 20. Yet we don't think that RTS gaming was dead in 2004 when Sims 2 was released, and nobody would say that those 2 games weren't successful. Just because some other game sells more/makes more doesn't mean that RTS is dead. Its always been a smaller market, but it's lasted this long because it's a stable market.
10/10 for accurately summing this whole debate up and making more sense than most others. And for people saying RTS are not getting made anymore, check out Wargame: Red Dragon which was released last month. Pretty good offering now I've had a chance to play it. So there are RTS getting made and RTS getting supported, no idea how that equals death of the genre but there you go.
|
RTS age has moved on. No one makes RTS anymore really.
The 90's/early 2000 were all about the RTS, so many of them existed. I can say the only one of them that kept in the game was Blizzard(and I am pretty sure this was because they felt they could cash in on the whole "Esport thing" since SC1 was already established)
People dont want slow-paced, semi-action games.
They dont care. They want razzle dazzle fast pace wop wop wop.
Thats why Leagues is succeeding(also for the fact that you can cheer for a team like a real sport) and even hearthstone is starting to blow up.
Needs to be casual, needs to be exciting. Thats all you need these days.
I moved on from SC2 to hearthstone for that reason.
Sometimes i miss SC2 for the skill based-mechanical game it is, but then again I remember the strategy in the game is actually not as in depth as people make it seem.
|
On May 17 2014 01:15 NihilisticGod wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2014 00:48 packrat386 wrote:On May 16 2014 20:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
Unit selection isn't that bad with Protoss because the units occupy more space and are big, it's a lot more irritating at times with the other races, especially if you're rusty.
That said I like the mechanical aspect of RTS, perhaps it doesn't appeal to your average casual gamer, but has RTS ever really done that? When I was a youngling not everybody played games, not everyone was hardcore to the max but the average gamer was more willing to do things that were 'hard'. Partly due to UIs not being as developed/explored as well.
This isn't just RTS either, the original X-Wing games were closer to flight sims than their modern counterparts for example I don't think this has fundamentally changed. The existence of things like r/pcmasterrace and communities like TL shows that there is still an interest in more mechanical/demanding games. That said, these games have never been the most popular kind of games and they never will be. This is not cause for alarm. If you check out this list, its clear that RTS games have never been the best selling games, and even if you go to the PC section, where more complicated games are generally more successful, RTS games are underrepresented (with the exception of SC and SC2). The best selling PC game of all time is the Sims 2. It outsold AoE by a factor of 7 and AoM by a factor of 20. Yet we don't think that RTS gaming was dead in 2004 when Sims 2 was released, and nobody would say that those 2 games weren't successful. Just because some other game sells more/makes more doesn't mean that RTS is dead. Its always been a smaller market, but it's lasted this long because it's a stable market. 10/10 for accurately summing this whole debate up and making more sense than most others. And for people saying RTS are not getting made anymore, check out Wargame: Red Dragon which was released last month. Pretty good offering now I've had a chance to play it. So there are RTS getting made and RTS getting supported, no idea how that equals death of the genre but there you go.
hopefully, one day they'll have the budget to pull off a "AAA" level game like was possible years ago with RTS games.
but, i doubt it.
|
Northern Ireland174 Posts
Who cares about AAA? Do you look for that when deciding on a game? I certainly don't when I pick up a game. Sooo many indie devs these days, kickstarters etc. It doesnt have to be AAA to be a good game and simply by virtue of being AAA won't made it good either.
Fact is RTS are still getting made, can't dispute that. Fact is people still play RTS and come to places like this to discuss them. Which forces the conclusion that as a genre RTS is not dead or dying. Not as popular doesn't = death. Be realistic.
|
On May 17 2014 00:48 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 16 2014 20:28 Wombat_NI wrote:
Unit selection isn't that bad with Protoss because the units occupy more space and are big, it's a lot more irritating at times with the other races, especially if you're rusty.
That said I like the mechanical aspect of RTS, perhaps it doesn't appeal to your average casual gamer, but has RTS ever really done that? When I was a youngling not everybody played games, not everyone was hardcore to the max but the average gamer was more willing to do things that were 'hard'. Partly due to UIs not being as developed/explored as well.
This isn't just RTS either, the original X-Wing games were closer to flight sims than their modern counterparts for example I don't think this has fundamentally changed. The existence of things like r/pcmasterrace and communities like TL shows that there is still an interest in more mechanical/demanding games. That said, these games have never been the most popular kind of games and they never will be. This is not cause for alarm. If you check out this list, its clear that RTS games have never been the best selling games, and even if you go to the PC section, where more complicated games are generally more successful, RTS games are underrepresented (with the exception of SC and SC2). The best selling PC game of all time is the Sims 2. It outsold AoE by a factor of 7 and AoM by a factor of 20. Yet we don't think that RTS gaming was dead in 2004 when Sims 2 was released, and nobody would say that those 2 games weren't successful. Just because some other game sells more/makes more doesn't mean that RTS is dead. Its always been a smaller market, but it's lasted this long because it's a stable market.
Diablo3 has sold more units, and in less time, than BW? Diablo3 must be the true Blizzard esport!
|
On May 17 2014 01:33 NihilisticGod wrote:
Who cares about AAA? Do you look for that when deciding on a game? I certainly don't when I pick up a game. Sooo many indie devs these days, kickstarters etc. It doesnt have to be AAA to be a good game and simply by virtue of being AAA won't made it good either.
Fact is RTS are still getting made, can't dispute that. Fact is people still play RTS and come to places like this to discuss them. Which forces the conclusion that as a genre RTS is not dead or dying. Not as popular doesn't = death. Be realistic.
In fairness to Jimmy, he did start out saying that RTS was dead followed by "Real RTS" is dead followed by "AAA RTS" is dead.
Which means we still don't know what the final transformation of his argument is.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Lets say I have a box of chocolates and you like chocolates, just because you ask me for a chocolate doesn't mean I have to give you one. Now lets say I have a box of chocolates and a box of dog poop shaped like chocolates. You asked for chocolate but I gave you dog poop shaped like chocolate. That's pretty much how I feel about all video games, I mean a good Rogue like game with PvP racewars and a full loot system is my chocolate but instead all I get is this dog poop shaped like chocolate. I'm not saying these games are bad or lack depth. I'm just still asking for chocolate but no one cares because they have everyone hooked on chocolate shaped dog poop like CoD that releases every six months. Lets face it ask all CoD players what an RTS is, how many will actually answer the question correctly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://oi59.tinypic.com/20ur8g4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/386/286/881.jpg)
