Why did Real Time Strategy genre die out?

[RaggleFraggle]

As I’ve said before, I suspect Unreal not having built-in support for RTS is probably a big offender. What do you think? Any technical insights?

 

[ghardy]

As I’ve said before, I suspect Unreal not having built-in support for RTS is probably a big offender. What do you think? Any technical insights?

Here's something I googled:

https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/en-US/product/real-time-strategy-toolkit

Also note that if you want to create a game like "Total War" with hundreds of units this toolkit is not suitable but RTS Toolkit is great for games like "Warcraft" or "Age of Empires".

I assume "marketplace" means that it's third party.

So support isn't built-in, but it can be done by the looks of it.

 

[Lyric Suite]

More like the death of blizzard, and you're too much of a fanboy to try anything else.

It's a simple argument.

The genre was on the decline already close to 2010. When SC2 was announced we all expected it to bring it back to forefront. Sequel to one of the greatest RTS games of all time, form one of the pivotal companies that defined the genre?

So when they shit the bed it definitely had an impact.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

Here's something I googled:

https://www.unrealengine.com/marketplace/en-US/product/real-time-strategy-toolkit

Does that actually help, tho? Have any professional RTS projects used that? All the devs I've chatted with said they had to invent their own framework from scratch every single time.

 

[ghardy]

Does that actually help, tho? Have any professional RTS projects used that?

No idea. It's just what random googling turned up. But I do believe you when you say that RTSes are built mostly from scratch. The RTS, as a genre, is a very odd duck in that regard.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

No idea. It's just what random googling turned up.

I'm checking the reviews and its turns out that it doesn't support multiplayer, has no documentation, is very buggy, and is outdated.

The RTS, as a genre, is a very odd duck in that regard.

Odd? That's a way to put it. RTS has unique needs compared to every other genre. Off the top of my head: networking code, pathfinding, and AI.

The networking code relies on deterministic lockstep and the like for two reasons: 1) when RTS was first developed, internet speeds were very low so they had to reduce their bandwidth. 2) they needed to optimize space for replays, otherwise individual replay files would be ridiculously huge. While the former is not a problem for modern ISPs, the latter is still an issue and arguably worse due to software's tendency to bloatware. Other more popular genres don't have replays, so it was never important for shared engines like Unity or Unreal to develop it. Without deterministic lockstep, a replay would need to save the entire game state from moment to moment and this results in replay files ballooning to many gigabytes in size.

The pathfinding is a no brainer. When you have hundreds of units with collision detection fighting on the battlefield, you need them to be able to maneuver. Other genres don't have hundreds of units operating at once and interacting, so they never needed to develop that degree of pathfinding.

The AI is the same. You need an AI that manages hundreds of units with variable capabilities at a time. Again, other genres don't do this and thus the design elements were never picked up by popular engines.

There are open source RTS engines like OpenRA and SpringRTS, but almost nobody uses them because they don't have extensive documentation and dedicated support like Unreal does. Not to mention that graphically they're over two decades out of date now.

 

[Cat Headed Eagle]

More like the death of blizzard, and you're too much of a fanboy to try anything else.

It's a simple argument.

The genre was on the decline already close to 2010. When SC2 was announced we all expected it to bring it back to forefront. Sequel to one of the greatest RTS games of all time, form one of the pivotal companies that defined the genre?

So when they shit the bed it definitely had an impact.

RTS games were already dead and buried by 2010, and Starcraft is an outlier, people play it because of the brand, but not because it's a strategy game.

 

[Damned Registrations]

RTS has unique needs compared to every other genre. Off the top of my head: networking code, pathfinding, and AI.

Interestingly, that has some overlap with fighting games. Networking code/replays in particular, but AI gets tricky too if you want it to behave remotely like a human instead of either a training dummy or a psychic murder machine and need to factor in a large roster and the weird shit humans might do. Could draw some parallels to diablo clones too, though the number of units involved is obviously smaller. But then again, not all RTS games need to have hundreds of units running around at once. That's just kind of some number bloat the genre has created over the years honestly. You can also skip pathfinding as a problem if your RTS is IN SPAAAAAACE, but then again, feeling smart for using choke points and such are a big reason people play RTS games. But I think that kind of shakeup would be good for the genre. AI War trends towards 4X territory, but it's still a good example imo of creative gameplay that works when it's well thought out. The genre's honestly got a lot of room to explore cool mechanics if people would stop trying to clone Warcraft 30 years after the fact.

 

[Morgoth]

Global decline in IQ might have a bit to do with it. Phones and MOBA's just have eviscerated attention spans.

 

[Johannes]

Aren't you sort of proving my point?

I already said the genre was in a rut. SC2 was supposed to be the next big thing, the one that would have turned the trend around.

Then it comes out and it's obvious Blizzard was no longer the same company. That's what sealed the deal for me.

I'm actually genuinely confused what you're crying about at this point lol.

The death of the RTS genre.

How would it be the practical difference for an rts playeur if the genre was alive?

You would be able to play wider variety of different games? Or versus a bigger pool of other players? Or play a better quality of games? You could watch tourneys with bigger production and prize money? You would be able to go to the pub and discuss Rts's with the lads?

 

[Storyfag]

Part of me thinks mankind doesn't deserve any RTS after allowing Westwood to die. We are like people yelling at corn and wheat for not growing after we saw EA come in and napalm the land.

Westwood lives in death. You can't kill the Messiah.

 

[Bohrain]

I reckon the genre leaned too much on the competitive multiplayer as a selling point when in reality that appealed only to a smaller subset of the audience. I mostly played the campaigns and liked trying dumb shit on AI skirmish on games like RA2 and WC3 as a kid. We did multiplayer a bit on LAN but usually had to come up with handicap rules if any individual had some semblance of skill compared everyone else. Having half decent micro and macro skills in RTS games is very similar skill threshold as having that sort of skill floor in fighting games where you can do special inputs and BnB combos without really thinking too much about it. Getting beyond the button masher equivalent in RTS games takes effort which naturally makes it a niche genre unless the particular game also has some aspects that attract people who want to play something akin to a city builder. In a way you can see this with Total War Warhammer these days. It has a multiplayer scene, but only something like 2% of the playerbase plays multiplayer at any capacity.

 

[RaggleFraggle]

In a way you can see this with Total War Warhammer these days. It has a multiplayer scene, but only something like 2% of the playerbase plays multiplayer at any capacity.

I don’t remember the source, but it’s commonly mentioned that 80% of RTS players never touch competitive multiplayer. RTS devs have continually tried to convince these players to go into competitive multiplayer because esports is where the money is or something, but have consistently failed.

Like, this holds true even for Starcraft 2. It has the biggest competitive multiplayer esports scene, but that is still no more than 20% of the playerbase. Vastly more players played co-op when it released and Blizz devs were blindsided. So naturally their response was to wind down support over time until the game reached its present legacy mode.

An RTS game is immensely flexible. Using a single game you can do a bunch of game modes like tower defense, survival, MOBA, deathmatch, co-op, campaign, etc. That’s what players like to play. But RTS devs have consistently failed to monetize that aspect.

 

[Ol' Willy]

RTS has unique needs compared to every other genre. Off the top of my head: networking code, pathfinding, and AI.

Interestingly, that has some overlap with fighting games. Networking code/replays in particular, but AI gets tricky too if you want it to behave remotely like a human instead of either a training dummy or a psychic murder machine and need to factor in a large roster and the weird shit humans might do. Could draw some parallels to diablo clones too, though the number of units involved is obviously smaller. But then again, not all RTS games need to have hundreds of units running around at once. That's just kind of some number bloat the genre has created over the years honestly. You can also skip pathfinding as a problem if your RTS is IN SPAAAAAACE, but then again, feeling smart for using choke points and such are a big reason people play RTS games. But I think that kind of shakeup would be good for the genre. AI War trends towards 4X territory, but it's still a good example imo of creative gameplay that works when it's well thought out. The genre's honestly got a lot of room to explore cool mechanics if people would stop trying to clone Warcraft 30 years after the fact.

Deterministic replays are to be found among many genres, Doom has it with demo records, as well as first gen Il-2. It's just optimal

 

[Inec0rn]

In a way you can see this with Total War Warhammer these days. It has a multiplayer scene, but only something like 2% of the playerbase plays multiplayer at any capacity.

I don’t remember the source, but it’s commonly mentioned that 80% of RTS players never touch competitive multiplayer. RTS devs have continually tried to convince these players to go into competitive multiplayer because esports is where the money is or something, but have consistently failed.

Like, this holds true even for Starcraft 2. It has the biggest competitive multiplayer esports scene, but that is still no more than 20% of the playerbase. Vastly more players played co-op when it released and Blizz devs were blindsided. So naturally their response was to wind down support over time until the game reached its present legacy mode.

An RTS game is immensely flexible. Using a single game you can do a bunch of game modes like tower defense, survival, MOBA, deathmatch, co-op, campaign, etc. That’s what players like to play. But RTS devs have consistently failed to monetize that aspect.

Agree with this one as well, they end up putting no effort into campaign / story and fail 80% of the audience that would shill their game if it was good. That shilling brings the MP audience. It's probably cheaper to forego a campaign and solely do multiplayer but i don't exactly see how MP opens up new revenue streams to make that the sole focus.

I've played a lot of Tiberian Sun mods this year and some of the campaigns are really good even with the limited RTS Iso + text story-telling.

 

[ghardy]

Global decline in IQ might have a bit to do with it.

A reverse Flynn Effect, then?

 

[Curious_Tongue]

That Pirate Software guy who used to work at Blizzard said flatout that the money Blizzard made from Starcraft 2 was dwarfed by a single popular DLC in WoW.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

I've played a lot of Tiberian Sun mods this year and some of the campaigns are really good even with the limited RTS Iso + text story-telling.

One good thing about AI is that hopefully we can have mods for games that have the polish of 90s/early 2000s level studio quality.

 

[Lyric Suite]

That Pirate Software guy who used to work at Blizzard said flatout that the money Blizzard made from Starcraft 2 was dwarfed by a single popular DLC in WoW.

I heard it was a cosmetic lmao.

 

[Elttharion]

It was this mount

IIRC it was a $25 when it launched.

 

[Necrensha]

And now you shall understand why there are so many gambling/gacha games.
Did you know that Monopoly Go! made 3 billion dollars? Why would anyone bother with a ''normal'' game anymore?

 

[Storyfag]

Do you really think most of the players care about that?

That's nothing to do with the genre. Most people are casuals in any genre.

Though a difference seems to be, a lot of clueless people too have hot takes about what RTS's are really about.

RTS is about building cool, symmetrical bases with one building each.
RTS is about making bizarre unit compositions that'd make enemy AI blush.
RTS is about being told by surprisingly charismatic bald men to commit war crimes and gleefully doing so.
RTS is about having sick soundtracks that have no biness being that good.
RTS is about having cool as fuck cutscenes as a reward for beating missions.

RTS is NOT about apm, multiplayer or gookclicking.

Strange, I do not recall making this post. Made a lot of sense, though. Whaddya think Spectral Pontifex?

 

[duke nukem]

AI plays big part in this. Every rts ai acts like braindead, so its boring to play against. It should not be that hard to even make ai that acts like a human, but people who makes rts games dont play rts games themselfs so they have no clue.
Shit campaings also attributes to nobody liking rts games. They are always filled with filler missions where you just control handful of units, making it really boring. Why the fuck i would want to play tactical gameplay on a rts when i could actually play a tactical strategy game that actually plays really well, because it was designed from the beginning to support such a gameplay?

Oh, also letting competetive players design the game...another shitty idea..(even heromarine hates it)

 

[Lyric Suite]

You can always play against actual humans, but then you'd complain about all the try hard people relying on the meta (meta being human intelligence seeing through the system and figure out what actually works).

 

[Mangoose]

You can always play against actual humans, but then you'd complain about all the try hard people relying on the meta (meta being human intelligence seeing through the system and figure out what actually works).

Meta = adapting each "balance" patch. It's playing the system. It's like playing chess against chess itself so you can find out its current loopholes, except you do it with everybody else in the world also theorycrafting and then you all use that knowledge against each other because that makes sense.

Intelligence = Seeing through the opponent and figure out what actually works against your opponent, because strategy is exploitation of what someone does NOT know. (Thus the priority of reconnaissance and screening, regardless of what you think meta is)

No meta will change war strategy.