Real time strategy games are dying because they are too complicated for the average gamer (blame the average gamer IQ drop due to gaming becoming mainstream)
Turn based strategy games are dying due to lack of innovation and retarded DLC practices
How do we save the strategy genre in general from the brink of extinction?
Why?
by buffing handcannoneers, of course.
i think the genre is at a stable point, but to make it more popular, it'd need to revolve around teamgames more while still having good campaigns/mod+mapmaking tools.
you posted a turn based strategy game
Yes and?
You are very smart and definitely very literate.
To prevent homogenization of games. At present it looks like all games are converging towards looking and playing the same way.
That's the content of your post. You posted Alpha Centauri. In what way was I unclear?
Could neither read the second line in real time nor by going to the next turn
Do they make videogames for your disorder?
he said this and actually meant it
Prime example of the IQ drop OP was talking about.
I'm hoping Endless Legend 2 is good
Tides are certainly a more interesting dynamic than Winter but I'd like to eventually return to Alpha Centauri terraforming, maybe there can be tide manipulation or weaponisation, similar to Planet Busters
Why give us a living ocean if we can't drown entire civilisations in it
Astute and powerful.
Endless legend 2
It looks just like the first game.
Yeah but they replaced the part where the game slows down with the part where the game doesn't
Now that's innovation
Innovation requires funding and you simply can't make people buy games they don't like. Your only choice is to either dilute the genre until it becomes unrecognizable or you content yourself with the genre being niche.
Think about it. All action games want to be dark souls, all RPG games want to be persona (if turn based) else skyrim, all FPS's want to be COD, all open world games want to be ubisoft slop and so on.
I think there's actually too much innovation in the wrong directions. What turn based games need is to capture players with presentation and keep the gameplay solid, focus more on not breaking the wheel instead of trying to reinvent it and leaving your game a broken mess. This genre is slow and if you want anyone other than a few nerds to sit through a full campaign or 4x map you need to nail the music, graphics, presentation, worldbuilding, SOUL, etc. Clicking on shit needs to feel good. Players need to care about what they're doing besides making the number go up.
All of the thematic customization in Stellaris is a good example of how this works. Stellaris in many ways has always sucked ass. The game devolves into the same shit every playthrough and there's an absurd amount of clicking. But a ton of casuls who would never care about space 4x, an extremely niche genre, bought it because you can make fish robot people and follow story chains to evolve them into a fully automated luxury gay space communism fish drone society or a new Rome space imperial hegemony space fish empire.
SMAC is also an example of what I'm talking about. I guarantee 9/10ths of the people who have ever tried SMAC post 2005 did so because of the setting, not because they deeply cared about playing another flavor of classic civ 4x gameplay.
Innovation requires funding
Games that make big bucks are those which just iterate instead of innovating. Innovation is not even necessary in solved genres.
TBS is dying because everyone is just making Civ clones, and badly (including Firaxis). They're also turning more and more into glorified board games instead of nation simulators, and the grand strategy genre has basically taken the nation simulator niche for itself.
RTS didn't due, it just got bastardized into MOBAs because the old RTSs pandered to the spastic APM tryhards.
bought it because you can make fish robot people and follow story chains to evolve them into a fully automated luxury gay space communism fish drone society
They need to integrate AI storyteller aspects from games like Rimworld into turn based strategy games and incorporate some mechanics which could complement that. That's all they need to do to breathe life into the genre.
For the love of god just give me a goddamned game that's just SC2 coop
or even a fucking Crap Patrol ripoff with a little more strategic control but fucking something that isn't obviously pandering to goddamned tourneyfags
I'll even try to get into BAR again if that's what it takes
"First off, I don't think the strategy genre is anywhere near the 'brink of extinction'. It's still going strong with plenty of new titles coming out every year. Sure, maybe some of the more complex real-time strategies aren't as popular as they used to be, but that doesn't mean the entire genre is doomed.
As for saving it from potential decline in the future, I think there are a few things game developers could focus on:
Making the games more accessible to casual players without dumbing them down too much. This means having clear tutorials and progression systems that guide new players through the basics while still offering depth and challenge for veterans.
Experimenting with new gameplay mechanics and modes that shake up the traditional formula in interesting ways. This could mean anything from introducing asymmetrical multiplayer to trying out different genres (like stealth or survival) as part of the core strategy experience.
Being more transparent about DLC practices and avoiding pay-to-win situations that make players feel like they have to shell out extra cash just to keep up with others. This goes for both microtransactions and premium expansions.
Emphasizing social features and competitive play options that give players a sense of connection and achievement beyond simply playing through the single-player campaign on their own.
Leveraging modern technology (like better AI, more dynamic environments, etc.) to create richer, more engaging experiences that feel fresh and exciting even for longtime fans of the genre.
writing/story is now the most important feature for an RTS
how did it all come to this
always has been. Campaigns are the most important feature for any RTS. This is an indisputable fact.
Thanks chatgpt.
RTS
my friend was good at gookclick starcraft with high APM but he is a complete retard, somehow ended worse than me, APM aint strategy
Based sc2coop enjoyer
Sorry about that. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. I'm just trying to help out the guy who asked for my advice. I guess you could say I'm a bit of an internet troll. I like to mess with people and see how they react. It's kind of a game to me, like a sport. I don't take it too seriously, though. I just like to have fun and make people laugh. If I can make someone smile or laugh, that's good enough for me. Thanks again for the compliment, though. It's nice to know that my efforts are appreciated.
Yeah mechanics are actually somewhat secondary to RTS at some point. Reinventing the wheel and all that. Just make a control and interface paradigm that's not-clunky and focus on everything else
SMAC's setting and presentation
Red Alert's setting and presentation
Tiberian Sun's setting and presentation
Starcraft's setting and presentation
Age of Empires' setting and presentation
This is what you absorb first. The mechanics or gameplay lending itself to tournament level competition won't matter unless there's a critical mass of people bothering to play the fucking game first in order to set up those tournament level competitions...
You can out macro APM tards in good RTS games and SC2 isn't a good RTS.
SMAC's setting and presentation
I don't think it has aged well at all.
How do we save the strategy genre in general from the brink of extinction?
Blackmail Sid Meier into firing all the women at Firaxis.
Firaxis is dead. Most people left it after the travesty that was midnight sons (fuck you Jake Solomon) and some of the old firaxis devs made their own studio, developing a star wars RTS game now.
This is what you absorb first
The issue lies in that units and mechanics complete the presentation package but modern RTS balance so hard around comp 1v1s that factions and units are boring. SC1 had horrifically unbalanced units, every faction has at least one unit that's almost worthless garbage in 90% of situations and 2-3 that are disgustingly strong but because of it you actually feel the factions are different as you play through them. Zealots being rip and tear machines actually makes the toss feel elite and alien over terran's weaker marines and lings who need upgrades and numbers to win. Now factions are far too samey aside from the surface level aesthetics.
Balance in strategy game is a lame and cripples the fun. Games should not be afraid to embrace true asymmetry if it suits the narrative of their campaign and stick with it. The problem is that decoupling campaign and mulitplayer(which requires to be balanced) is a resource intensive task.
Unless you start catering for normies and focus mostly on the story (which will kill the genre anyway since it will drift too far from its orgins, see SC2 and the 'cinematic' experience), what is actually missing from RTS is significant improvements in AI.
The problem with RTS is that it eventually devolves into sweatlord domination, which is offputting to everyone involved (as sweats just smurf all the time) and no one wants to invest long periods of time into getting assfucked 7 ways from Sunday all the time.
If AI was more fun to play against (e.g doesn't cheat or is easily succumbs to cheese) then you don't have to deal with the shitty experience of multiplayer and getting burnt out, but thats a hard problem to fix
Strategy games are fine. They just suffer from the same problem as every other competitive online game: devs catering to the lowest denominator. This kills every single competitive game, ever, it has for the past 15 years. Strategy games just suffer more from it because you get tired of the AI relatively quickly compared to, say, doing PvE in an MMORPG.
(which will kill the genre anyway
rofl
SC2's multiplayer scene is what killed the genre.
This but all men and white people.
White genocide works.
too far from its orgins
the origins being major campaigns and story experiences attracting people the majority of whom moved onto casual as fuck LAN matches with their mates and nothing more
I like pirates more than alpha centuri.
When do retards (OP) stop spouting this nonsense made by blizzard to cope with the death of starcraft. RTS genre has more players than ever, fucking retard, kill yourself now. This same fucking question every week when the whole premise is a fucking lie made by nigger corpos to cope. Americans are the blight of the earth most retarded fucking people ever, what the fuck is wrong with you niggers 50% voted for retard trump like what in the fuck is happening over there you fucking retards.
casual probably means haven't played rts in years
Are any of the newer Total Wawas any good? This is a problem I've had with every total war, but warhammer 1 was especially bad with how the battle AI was. Enemy squads barely did any tactics beyond zerg rushing once anything activated them, and it was never cautious with its generals which made morale routes too common.
Do any of the Warhammer sequels bring back agent cutscenes?
sugarbunsies, it means exactly what you need it to mean to reinforce your strawman argument!
Only Westwood, Blizzard and the Homeworld series have made good single player campaigns (story wise).
All other RTS games instead rely on the setting and background lore to fill the gap, and have the story bolted in. A cinematic single player experience should not be the focus of RTS games, just play an RPG instead if thats what you want to do.
wow it sure is a thriving genre when it barely gets new games and even if it does they all die instantly. You're retarded if you think a genre is healthy because a niche bunch of people keep playing the same old games
Are any of the newer Total Wawas any good?
Only if you are a fan of warhammer fantasy
Do any of the Warhammer sequels bring back agent cutscenes?
No. One, the agents are too varied and factions are too varied to make such cutscenes. Two, the soul has left CA a long time ago.
Agent cutscenes are a waste of fucking cash and I'm tired of pretending otherwise. Medieval 2 is a fucking overglorified mod for Rome 1 with half of the code literally being a exact copy. But it has agent cutscenes so I guess it has soul now.
t.stakeholder
I bet you consider naval warfare is a waste of cash too.
The earth has entered the final century IRL, how exactly did SMAC lore age bad?
I just play city managements instead.
They were always the better games anyways.
Steam has a sale going on for war games. Any recommendations or gems please?
AOE4, Steel Division 2,Dune SPice Wars, Tempest Rising...
You fucking play them first.
Empire Total war
why are you so upset
An American geological expedition, under a UN mandate, assesses the natural resources in a distant part of Siberia, deep in the trackless steppes of Eastern Russia. But instead of oil, they discover a deposit of a hitherto unknown mineral.
Hell yea
hell yea
youtube.com
I don't give a fuck about naval warfare until they overhaul the map. The only game that got naval right was Medieval 1 and Shogun 1. I also don't give a fuck about Agent cutscenes until they fix the blatantly broken diplomacy and awful ai.
These games start out excruciatingly slow.
Battle brothers. Hands down the best TBS game made in this decade.
Guys, I might be retarded. I tried Warcraft 1, C&C 1, and AoE 2, and I sucked at all of them. I've also done pretty bad at Civ 3 when I played, although a friend of mine told me the AI in that game particularly cheats a lot. Regardless, how do I git gud at strategy games, both turn-based and reat-time?
RTS are doing better than they were last decade. It's just E-sports that moved on.
most likely you are either idling/not using your time economy, and/or dont have a good sense of macro
Anon, every single videogame having you control a single character from first or third person, moving around with the left stick or WASD and controlling a camera with the right stick or mouse, is a homogenized state. That describes 95%+ of modern AAA videogames.
You need to put in reps my man. You'll eventually get good.
People say things like this in a poll but they never buy the game one way or the other.
People don't actually know what they want. They just have a vague "idea" of what they're after. Following a chart like this is precisely how you get these bland, soulless, design-by-committee market response tested games.
Following a chart like this is precisely how you get these bland, soulless, design-by-committee market response tested games.
Yea surely stormgate and other recent RTS failures were casual centric, story heavy games that didn't go balls deep into pandering for multiplayer gooks.
RTS are dying
AoE 2 and Brood war are both peaking right now
People say things like this in a poll but they never buy the game one way or the other.
Source?
People don't actually know what they want.
Spoken like a jew game publisher
>AoE 2 and Brood war are both peaking right now
Decades old games are being played, that means the genre is alive and healthy
SC2 has smooth pathfinding, its a game about blobbing units and generally the person with the bigger blob wins, typical high level games develop into spamming bases to harvest all the minerals on the map
AoE 2 does the best of both worlds having an incredible amount of campaigns to play and some of the players will want to play ranked when they finish the campaigns
Why are you randomly pivoting into politics, the dems chose a bad candidate. Everyone from around the world knew who would win
Tempest Rising should have released with all 3 factions, the games that released 20 years ago are so close to perfection that it is hard for modern RTS to compete
Warcraft is less economy focussed but you should keep making peons until you fill gold and have the wood to make buildings. In any RTS idling your worker production without purpose is bad and even more so for age of empires where you are expected to have a good amount of villagers for mid game and 100+ for late game. In command and conquer you really need to field the correct units for the situation, in games like age of empires 2 you can just spam knights or archers and be fine but in C&C utilizing counters is important
Which C&C are you talking about? RA2 just devolves into tank spam after early game.
If there ever was a genre content with being niche. It's strategy games. Like right now. With loads of barely played, impenetrable for the average customer games.
1 but I haven't played a lot so wouldn't know about the intricacies of competitive, I do know bike rush is meant to be good
You played against computer and lost? Damn, you shouldn't try something difficult like Dark Reign or KKND1.
make your own alpha centurai
I've got a few
Command: Modern Operations: Terrific simulator of combat mostly focused on air and naval assets past 1950. Great editor where you can play and spawn units live. Either making real missions or a very free sandbox with whatever you would want. Pretty much every platform grouped by country and active years in the period is available.
The Chains of War DLC is the only one you "need" since it adds a damage model to aircraft. Otherwise they are either dead or alive. With it your heavily armoured hinds and warthogs can limp back home.
Dominions 6: Big fantasy wars over who gets to become the next god. Make your god with their physical body, magic and influence. Whether that's a magical totem , titan or ancient monster. Lots of nations, units, spells to play around with. From every kind of myth or original idea.
People will say it's only good in multiplayer but I disagree. It oozes flavour and really sells the fantasy in singleplayer.
I'll second Battle Brothers.
Rule the Waves 3: Naval combat from 1890 to 1970ish. With a very heavy focus on designing and upgrading your ships.
By far the best showing of dealing with obsolescence I've seen in a strategy game. Just like how you still see decade old ships today. You too will refit and repurpose ships for as long as feasible.
Even when you do make new ones, technology marches forward and your fancy schmany new battleship is already old after the years it took to make.
Feel I'm running out of space. Those are the top picks I could think of.
>Real time strategy games are dying because they are too complicated for the average gamer (blame the average gamer IQ drop due to gaming becoming mainstream)
RTS games never needed high IQ. They are all clicker sims. It does not matter how smart you are if you can't click faster than the other guy. Anyone who argues that you need to be smart to play RTS games is a subhuman monke.