Age of Empires designer believes RTS games need to finally evolve after decades of stagnation
Age of Empires designer believes RTS games need to finally evolve after decades of stagnation
Even as an RTS fan, I'm starting to think the genre is dead. AOE 3 actually had some nice updates to the genre, they abandoned most of it though. Sc2 improved on the DoW2 campaign, but it's been nothing since.
Part of the problem is the focus on competitive formats. Pretty much everyone admits it's the least popular format, but it also gets the most attention. Campaign, comp stomps, and co-op are by far the most popular formats, but they get little or no support. Part of it is the pressure to release so early, and competitive is just easier to focus on while fleshing out mechanics and factions. Another problem is listening to pro players of other games, they don't know shit about making a good game, they know what they like about an existing game and want that as much as possible.
Another big problem is focusing on players of well established games. The people still playing ladder on SC2 or AOE2 aren't moving anywhere, there's probably 20x players that have stopped with those games that would love something new. Instead all that gets released are shallow copies trying to get players to move off a game they've played for a decade.
Slightly different, but I stopped playing Rocket League not long after they abandoned all the cool weird arenas because it got boring playing exactly the same map with a different skin.
They standardised the arenas after listening to what the pro players wanted.
I swear, standardization kills fun and creativity.
Which kinda proves that Nintendo is right with how to balance Smash Bros: it's a game to be played for fun, not for pro player tournaments (no items final destination fox only).
It must be playable for casual and single player gamers for sure.
I've never seen a casual friendly multiplayer RTS I believe. The FPS genre manage to do this, so I think it should be possible. Hmm.. Nothguard, Dune: Spice Wars, Line Wars and maybe Total War. These could maybe be considered casual friendly multiplayer RTS.
Though I must admit I want a good e-sport RTS I can watch and maybe dip my toes in, now when SC2 and AOE both feel quite dead. It's the only e-sport that really entertains me. (we'll maybe chess is an e-sport as well nowadays)
The ultimate casual RTS is a moba.
https://sunspeargames.com/skill-ceiling/ immortal has this figured out, after playing in both playtests and seeing how the devs handle new ideas I'm set
I'm still extremely salty over Homeworld 2, that I waited like the messiah, for this...
I watched the trailer and the evolution they're going with is apparently not making an RTS anymore, but an Action Roguelike. If that's the kind of evolution we're talking about, I feel we've already stuff in a similar vein (dunno specifically about roguelike though).
And that, too, isn't new. It's been done since at least the Spellforce series, or Dawn of War 2.
If you want to see what an "innovated" RTS looks like, check out Beyond All Reason. The base formula is Total Annihilation, but with nearly 30 years of player driven improvements and QoL. That game's UX is extremely smart, and you can keybind or automate so many things on the fly, freeing you up to make strategic and tactical level decisions , instead of spamclicking for micro. Which, you can also do if you want to.
There's plenty of "evolved" RTSs in the indie scene:
The genre is far from dead, but the problem might be audience. When they demand "evolution" that means it should pander to recent trends like survival crafting and roguelikes and whatnot. Problem is some of these formulas don't usually pan out well for RTS games. Then there's multiplayer and, like other commenters mentioned, ranked multiplayer usually devolves into a bunch of strangers playing the same few maps over and over, but gamers still demand multiplayer.
Alas, I see the genre as not dead but in a "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" spot. Meanwhile I'm sitting here waiting for a regular old historic RTS like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations.
I'd add They are Billions as another evolutionary branch that's doing something different. Starting to see some clones of this formula.
That said, I don't think Against the Storm or Manor Lords are the kind of games Pottinger is talking about. Against the Storm doesn't even have combat. Those are more in the city builder realm.
True, they're a bit off the mark, but they were the ones off the top of my head. Also, in my defense, I don't think Pottinger knows what he's talking about either. The man glorifies Age3 like crazy, saying they had to scale back some features, fearing they'd prove too revolutionary. I love Age3, but the game was hardly world-shaking. Take its contemporary Rise of Legends, now that was a title that went balls out.
Still, I'm curious what they're cooking up in that new studio.
They are Billions is a very interesting game, but stupidly stressful. It takes ONE fucking zombie getting past your defenses to completely fuck your base
I just want an RTS I can actually play with my wrist in its current condition. I can do the earliest C&C campaigns, but that's partially because the AI isn't good enough to require fast and precise mouse movements. I just physically can't do micro anymore and attempting it hurts, but most RTS games are designed in such a way that micro is required.
RTS always requires micro - it's real time. If micro is not required, strategy is not requires in an RTS.
Ashes of Singularity tends to be easy on the action-per-minute requirement, since there's no micromanaging individual units, unless it's the larger ships, so you can probably have a good time with it.
I hear you! Stopped playing RTS when starcraft came out :-/ For me it's like another type of game based on adrenaline and quick mouse movements. Guess it sells better.
Loved the old Warcraft, ough-da! and C&C & Red Alert ofc. The golden age.
Gamers don't demand multiplayer, companies wanting to sell skins do. When your content is zero effort, mods easily outdo you.
As long as the evolution doest involve micro transactions.
I thought everything just went to the 4x formula and/or the micro/hero focused route. I actually wish there were more simplistic Warcraft 1/2 or C&C type games to come out, but I'll admit I haven't paid much attention to the genre for awhile, pretty much since StarCraft 2.
I actually wish there were more simplistic Warcraft 1/2 or C&C type games to come out
So do I. There are a few but these are indie projects and in turn their scope is smaller than even those 1990s games. I guess the closest thing is Five Nations which is currently on sale on Steam for under 10 Euro. It's like a slice of Starcraft 1 where they have taken only the missions with just flying units. At that price point I cannot complain but I'd also like a full price scifi RTS. Not a fan of AoE4 simply because of its "realistic" backdrop. I'm rooting for Tempest Rising after Stormgate was a severe let down.
Beyond All Reason (open source with FOSS engine), Stormgate (proprietary but made by ex-SC2 devs) are separate attempts at what I would call innovating the RTS genre.
AoE2 DE by Microsoft is tried, true and super popular still but many aspects are still from the original game 20 years ago. AoE 4 seems to kind of be the attempt at improving the formula, seems okay.
The Starcraft 2 engine is amazing but now under Microsoft ownership, I was hopeful initially but it looks as though it will continue to be left to rot. If only they could give it a Halo makeover using the same engine that would be awesome.
How is Stormgate innovating? Genuine question--I've been avoiding it largely because it looks so much like StarCraft (and Pottinger even calls it out specifically in the article as something not innovative).
Hey you bring up a good point. I consider it innovative because they are trying to develop a non-Microsoft owned IP story/lore behind the Stormgate characters, even if in terms of game mechanics they are trying to achieve "Starcraft 2 with a new coat of paint and business model".
How is Stormgate innovating?
By selling three short, yet super boring single player missions for 10 Euro.
If they pull off what they are promising, it could be interesting, but it doesn't look like that will happen.
At best it did a good job with the quick macro system. It's a good way to allow players to have better macro without hurting the skill ceiling for pros.
As someone who loved sc2 and had high hopes for Stormgate, it's pretty hot garbage in its current state. Micro-transaction central before it's even in a close to finished state.
Micro-transaction central before it’s even in a close to finished state.
10 Euro for 3 missions isn't even a micro-transaction. If one mission was 1 Euro, we'd ad least get full campaign for regular price but that shit's just a lazy ripoff.
I'm sorry but stormgate is ass
you should really check out the development in immortal gates of pyre, it is my perfect rts as a huge starcraft II nerd
IMO the problem is learning curve, it makes it difficult for non-rts players to get into it
And the menuing in the trailer (tech trees) seems to exasperate this issue
This is why RTS shouldn't focus on the PvP portion of the game. A good campaign and arcade is what Blizzard did and it worked. The greatest thing Blizzard ever ever did was to add in the custom map creator which was fully featured.
Agreed, it's always a bit of a commitment to learn the options at first.
This is why I believe immortal gates of pyre will win
Devs or more specifically the parasitic executives who want nothing that a money machine look no further than Factorio as a shining example of how to innovate a gaming experience and genre. It is as easy or difficult and as simple or complicated as the player wants it to be and it's not because difficultly settings. Your playstyle is the difficulty setting and it feels like there is ALWAYS something new to do, or a wildly different ways to do the same things. Also, their mod support and integration is unparalleled as far as any other game that comes to mind. No micro transactions, no ads, just an excellent game and experience. Sure, Factorio isn't for everyone but the way it has been build, supported and all of those other elements that make it what it is beyond the core factory building sim ARE FOR EVERYONE. These aspects can be applied to other RTS games in general and can make it feel like a brand new experience while still being exactly what draws players into a specific RTS game.
Mmhhmm, factorio team is top tier. Excited to see what they make next.
Beyond all reason is next gen of RTS. I'm a huge beyond all reason simp so..
For real. Imo the best RTS out there currently. I feel so much more in control of the camera and the units. Whenever I go back to old RTS games now they feel dated and clunky.
The AI is also surprisingly enjoyable for a more casual player like me. It doesn't cheat (as far as I'm aware) by getting resources or having vision where it shouldn't. But it does exploit its high APM and it is very aware of what it can get away with in fights. This results in an AI that never does outright bullshit, but in one that does just sneak past the 2mm space not covered by turrets or units and ruins your entire economy. Give it a large open map and it'll demolish me, but on smaller maps with choke points it's easier to handle.
How does it differ from Zero-K or Supreme Commander (or any other TA clone)?
Found the answers in the Bar FAQ: https://beyondallreason.info/faq/what-are-the-differences-between-bar-and-zerok
TLDR: Zero-K and BAR are based on the same FOSS engine. Zero-K is less micro with better unit AI. BAR delivers a more vanilla and micro intensive Total Annihilation experience.
Supreme Commander is proprietary closed source and has some different mechanics. Larger but worse maps.
More modern graphics and less unit types but more micro opportunity. Also zero k has buildable terrain in the form of ramps and walls. Bar has terrain deformation but can't actively do it with contractors.
Idk I haven't played Zero K but it's a good rts as well.
BAR 4 leif
I've discovered this project this month but haven't played it yet nor am I an RTS player. What do they do differently?
I was an extremely casual rts player for years playing mainly aoe3. Beyond all reason captured me instantly with the controls. Basically other rts games control difficulty with limited control scheme so you require high apm. Bar gives players as many quality of life controls as they want and allows for long action queues. I can queue up a unit to operate for 10mins while I focus on other parts of the game.
Bar also has basically no pop limit so you're only limited by the resources you control it also doesn't incentivize storing large amounts of resources. So wealthy is income focused. This means if you have more map control you have more wealth but because units drop a %of their cost in wrecks if you're behind and you win a good fight and can control the wreckage field you can catch up.
There is also so much more like the ability to transfer units, metal, energy to other players at 0 cost means working together is op. Strats involve a lot of "communism" and communication to decide where on the map needs the resources.
Example I might have won my side of the map and I'll send some metal over to another player who is losing so they can stay in the fight. Or my eco player will make units and sell them to players for their metal costs. Which means front players don't need to pay the metal and energy cost of building a t2 lab they just pay the unit cost.
I hope we will se more non-micro RTS games. More like HOI4, but that takes less than 1 hour to finish a game. Dune and Line Wars are on the right track.
No one was even close to do something as good as starcraft 2. How they will evolve the genre?
Immortal gates of pyre are going to overthrow it, they have such an amazing team and the game looks fucking awesome
I hope so
Some of them already evolved into a tounerous new goblin of a subspecies (MOBAs) to fill a different niche, the rest stayed the same because they were already good as is. That's literally how evolution works. You don't improve RTS by drastically changing the formula, you improve then with graphics, lore, and interesting mechanics within the existing framework. If you evolve the formula then it's not an RTS anymore.
AoE4 strikes a nice balance between old AoE and more modern games if you ask me. You can even play it with a controller if you want.
Sc2 WoL is one if my favourite games, and no RTS has come close to it in my eyes
that was also my favorite... but now it's immortal gates of pyre, they have a perfect team to overthrow it.
If anything, I think RTS need to go back to its roots. I’m not a huge RTS fan, and I’m not particularly nostalgic about the genre, but I have played a few games. My favorite? AoE2! It’s just a damn good game.
They are evolving. Just look at battle aces
That's what it was called, I tried to remember the game from a couple of months ago, when a bunch of big RTS streamers were suddenly all playing it for a few days. I've never seen a game that got boring so fast.
Typical micro-only focus with basebuilding and economy completely automated and a extremly limited pre-selected tech tree.
It was fun to play. Early Access / beta access ended which is why everyone stopped playing it.
Looking forward to release
It's people that need to evolve, not games
If you want to see a good modern take on an RTS, check out Mechabellum.
Yeah usually "innovation" comes with pandering to mobile users and microtransactions. So we're good, thanks.
I'd be happy if they pandered more to controller players without removing the decision making in base building, like Halo Wars did. I always look to Cannon Brawl as an indication of what RTS can still be (by which I mean, not exactly like Cannon Brawl).
Have you checked Tooth and Tail? I don't think it has base building, but is a very controller friendly RTS
And the AoE franchise tried that at least twice and failed.