I still do but I can't stand playing it competitively just a click fest mess, judged by how quickly you click buttons and bait units, all bullshit and very frustrating so I play casually against AI with friends, fuck real players it's not immersive at all.
I think this also shows how Aoe2 DID survive, the focus is not on one-v-one matches, instead almost all matches are against the ai/coop or large team games, where people can play and not really be responsible for losing. It's a much friendlier learning environment, so people practice vs the ai/ with better players on their side helping them learn
I feel like this is the case with most competitive multiplayer games. Most people who buy a game too late definitely will feel alienated by the highly skilled players that are still left in a dwindling community. This is definitely a very difficult issue to fix in multiplayer games. Thanks for the video!
You are right. Competitiveness will slowly but surely kill the joy out of anything in the long run. As players become better and better, more optimisation and perfection becomes necessary in order to be competitive, and thus it becomes more about being a perfect robot than actually enjoying what you are doing. Everyone will start to copy the latest and greatest build and or playstyle, and the stagnation process is a-going. Those that no longer find it fun, and those that don't have the time or passion to follow the competition will quit, resulting in an even more competitive environment since the casual crowd diminishes. It goes on like this until the game is dead, and when the process is a-going, it usually ends pretty fast. However, without competitiveness, people tend to become bored, lose motivation and purpose as you have nothing to strive towards. It is extremely hard, if not impossible to find a balance between competitiveness and casual fun tbh. But yeah, I completely agree with the analysis in this video, it applies to other games and even things in life as well, but the RTS genre struggles the most with this I think.
The best solution I can think of is to get someone, perhaps multiple people, to play the role of jeagen. Not necessarily throwing matches per se, but definitely fuckin around a lot more then unusual. Maybe having a few more beers then they normally would if new players are coming in that day. The trouble is you need to find some-one to volunteer to do that. Also that person needs to not clown on the other player. Not in a way that's super noticeable. Like for instance, maybe in Starcraft 2 this type of player would ONLY build zerglings. He'd still macro just as hard, it would just become a zombie defense game for the noob. The minigame to survive the zerglings. And if he can do that he pretty much wins. Stuff like that.
Lol, bullock. It is true that it takes a insane ammount of time to get a to a reasonable level. But imagine how hard those pioniers had to work to get to your level... After the start there are more tutorials, tipps and tircks, guides etc. which will push you to gain a faster level than those that had to try it all out by themselves alone ...
Too much competitiveness can certainly suck the fun out of the game. And when the game is old it is pretty much solved: you need to play a certain to win (meta), and to perfection. The game becomes who can perform/execute better under pressure with no space for experimentation and fooling around.
Man, your videos are GREAT. I leave your channel feeling the same sense of gratification that I have when I watch stuff from Spirit of the Law. Keep it going, I really wish that you grow fast!
Thanks! Spirit of the Law was definitely one of my initial inspirations. I've had ideas like these about RTS games for years, I just never thought there was an audience for them...
Haha Ive realised this for years, games are only fun when people are all learning it together. Like when games just come out, then its great. Tried to play Age of Empires 3 after a while, had to make a new account, I was pretty good but got kicked from every server I tried to join cause my account was back to level 1.
RTS Games die because Mutliplayer interest dies when the leaderboard starts to stagnate or the moment a new game comes out and because the Solo Campaign is built purely as an afterthought without any replayability. All the games that were successful in the RTS Golden Age were made with the focus on Solo Campaign and they still are replayed and loved today, despite the ancient AI and even older graphics. There is a reason why classic games like C&C are being republished in HD.
RTS games are not purely for the multiplayer aspect, assuming that the title is more like age of empires 2 than age of empires online, you get plenty of features in a game and online play is only 1 of those features. You get lots of story campaigns to play and while some are easy, others are very difficult. Then you get lots of options to configure the graphics, audio, and other settings to customize the game. Last and most important is the scenario editor where you can make your own maps and there are community sites such as heavengames where you can upload your maps and download maps created by other people. The one feature I hate though is those unobtainable achievements on steam and similar platforms where they require unbelievable amount of time to get as they are numerous and require you to play several thousand games to obtain them.
I generally agree with what you've said, and while it's only tangentially related to the topic, another important part is the campaign. From where I stand, campaigns bring people in, MP keeps those players around.
Have you heard of Callum McCole? He's a CandC Generals shoutcaster who has a ton of videos on rts design and matches. When you talked about making sure to buy rts games I remembered two reviews McCole posted on Grey Goo and Eight Bit Armies, two rts games from Petroglyph. He felt both games were shallow and lacked any good gameplay mechanics, reffering to the second as "almost predatory" due to its marketing. Grey Goo and Eight Bit Armies were both billed as back to basics games with streamlined mechanics and a low barrier to entry. On one hand I can see McCole's point: Grey Goo had no active unit abilities, one resource and relatively slow units, however, the titular faction was incredibly unique. Basically, the goo didn't have buildings, instead using three mobile proteans to create units. They could move at a good speed, climb vision blocking cliffs and each had a slowing melee attack. Finally, the mother protean, which acted as the goo's refinery for resources could gain said resources by attacking enemies, encouraging the goo to be incredibly aggressive. While their units were pretty similar to the other two factions, the goo made some massive changes in their base building to encourage aggression, something that McCole dismissed as unimportant. I agree with him that the rest of the game needed more depth, but I think the goo faction is a breath of fresh air and want to see it expanded upon. While I agree Grey Goo could've used more depth, rts games aren't as common, and if players condemn experiments that don't work out we probably won't be seeing many games. I think there needs to be tolerance for experimentation when it doesn't totally work out, instead of labelling devs that try something and fail as predatory in their marketing, which McCole did for Petroglyph in his review of their next game. Relatedly, I think a major problem facing rts games is a splitting of hteir playerbase into veterans and rookies, and the animosity that comes with that. Maybe I've been looking at the wrong sites, but it seems that oftentimes one side will blame the other for the decline of the genre, the other will respond that it's the first group that caused it and so on. It feels like both sides are becoming possessive of the genre; the veteran players condemn any game that has a low skill ceiling, while rookie players do the same for complex games. I hope there is a happy middle ground, but both sides of the debate seem quite inflexible and quick to attack the other. Good video
more like "how rts games dont recover", but youre right. i tried to get into dow2 last year, and after 3 weeks in which i won a one single match, i gave up. The other question is of course, how do RTS games sink that low, but here id say its just as with all games: if its not good, it dies. just witnessed it with Ancestors Legacy. Game was not bad, but MP has some issues, game didnt get a lot of media coverage -> died in 5 weeks. a shame! same goes for if they make Aoe2DE/AoE4 windows store exclusive. tho ill be honest and say that i really hope AoE4 beats AoE2DE and gets a sizable community of its own. AoE2 is just so oooold, and im not talking about graphics. 5+ minutes of sheep butchering every game
AoE2 isn't likely to die though, it's already a pretty popular game. It just might not reach the level of popularity it otherwise could. HD Edition is generally regarded as a pretty mediocre remastering, and yet it still sold quite well for an RTS game. I'm more concerned that this will hold back the size of AoE4's community.
04:40 I think the problem of developers shut down servers mainly because of the already declining of player base. The lack of online playground is the result of the already decline. Games that widely played today do have crowded servers like Company of Heroes 2 or those of Blizzards. So I think the point is RTS games are already declining by the era of online multiplayers, their golden time date back the LAN era. I think your other points are suffice enough: the pay wall, the learning curve, skills barrier to entry... do make RTS less compelling than MOBA or RPG. Great video of yours indeed.
I link the resurgence of RTS (war games) to the WW3 looming over the world currently. People sense it, and subconsciously are drawn to the related content. What better way to damp this anxiety than to play out your own mini-war on your screen? What's more important, those who were kids in the golden age of RTS (90s) are now adults and come back for that sweet sweet nostalgia. God, so much of current media and entertainment space if filled with nostalgia. Maybe because there's nothing good to look forward to (WW3?).
I understand that this is an old ass vid and you probably don't take a look at the comments, but as a guy who plays supcom pretty regularly what were your issues with it? Liked the vid, just curious as to what your thoughts are regarding that game. Actually shit, the fan-run Forged Alliance Forever client is a reasonably popular system with 4-digit playercounts (not a lot I know but faaaar from dead) is a pretty neat case study regarding dead games. It's still supported with balance patches and there have been like 3 (relatively ofc) major tourneys in the past month, and even the steam edition has a reasonably active playerbase. It's interesting stuff.
as a veteran games, playing games over 30 years, i can say rts games dies because developer kept making bad rts games the most exciting game i played after epic era of wc3, sc 1 and 2 and generals was king arthur
I think this was what brownbear was getting at in some of his videos about how there is no progression system in RTS games that works the same way as in shooters (CoD for example) while also having very little product in them. I'd definitely recommend watching his videos on the Age of Empires 3 Home Card system and the multi-part series on Starcraft 2 he did.
Nice video but hearing you throw "Company of Heroes" - my personal favourite RTS of all time - into the list of RTS games that just don't hold a candle to AOE or SC was painful. In my opinion CoH is the only other RTS game other than AOE or SC series that is fun, unique, and has a high skill ceiling (albeit not mechanically wise, but since the game is almost purely tactical, it's very difficult). The fact that CoH1 still boasts 2000 players online during peak hours 12 years after its release even so it's been abandoned by the developers speaks for itself. You are definitely right about the entry however. I tried one online game in Star Wars Empire at War once. I noticed there were only ~50 players online, which I felt was a bad sign. I did one game and got my ass handed to me, and the loss was accompanied by some verbal berating - "ez noob, l2p". Needless to say I never played this game again.
Super interesting watching this with 4 years of hindsight, especially as an AoE2 player. DE splitting the playerbase was a concern when it was first announced, but overall I'd say it's been a rousing success! Warcraft 3 Reforged, on the other hand...
You really really should do a systems investigation of TA. I don't think you will find another RTS to this day that actually integrates physics into it's game design.
@@Kaaxe ohyah, although there are more and more new players joining the TA community, with new mods and and a passionate user-base still engaged with the game till this day.
ForgedAllianceForever is the best mix between causal fun and competitive. And why that community still lives on. It's what kept Aoe alive, Starcraft, Warcraft and so on Company of heroes would have died had it not been for them opening up the modding community... The mixture of fun and competitive allowing each group get their fun out of it. As time goes on some people bleed over to the other groups in the community. But it also allow people to take a break from each kind of play and so not burn out. Competitive is nothing without the foundation of the game allowing for more than just 1v1 online. All online games struggle with that balance. And the trend is quite clear on the survivors in the RTS world.
I don’t like to hope between games. I usually stick to one game for a bery long time. I think many of the RTS player do that as well, which explains why some games have die hard communities, and AOEII is so successful; all their old fans who basically quit RTS all together, came back to playing this game
One very big problem that most RTS games have is competitive gaming.. There should for example be no penalty for losing a match, like the ladder in starcraft, or losing points.. It should be only for fun like AoE4 does.. If you keep losing and then slowly get put into the noob category, then when you finally reach a high position, you will fear losing and therefore not play anymore.. So instead it should be all reward no punishment. Or dont create a ladder at all, and just have people play for fun.
The issue with RTS is it has a steep learning curve and the build-up excitement in-game is long. Compared with other genre, moba, fps, the build-up action is close to immediate like less than a minute. Usual RTS, even fastest could take like 4-5min to build up but from then on its full-blown war, but because of the first 4-5min preparation, it failed to grab attention of most people. Thus, leave lots people would deemed this genre difficult or too boring due to long in-game preparation and complex understanding of build order / counter unit / advantage point etc..
Age of Empires 2 (back when I played it on dial-up) got around this a little bit via the scenario editor. People could play scenarios as casuals and have instant action. Occasionally dipping into the actual RTS, knowing some basic mechanics.
i think one thing that "killed" the genre as a whole (i dont think its dead but it has shrunk in popularity) is the same thiing that happened to mmos blizzard created games in those genres that were so much better than everything else out that it made it very hard for smaller studios to create a game to compete with them.
Better is up for debate. But Blizzard definitely had very effective marketing and ability to generate awareness for their game that other developers could not match.
As an all time RTS player I found Company of Heroes 1-2 a really good example of how the gaming industry should proceed. At the same time I see the skill level bias at this game too. What was against your liking at CoH?
RTS has always been there, it is just stagnant. If you include survival building like factorio / rimworld, then it is just those part that are actually growing.
Okay, I might be dumb, but can you please explain me, what you ment by devs should advertise tournaments? That costs money... Maybe I miss understood your point. I'm sorry.
Warcraft 3 is by far my favorite RTS of all time. Looking back, that game was a thing of beauty, 4 races almost perfect balanced. The competitiveness of Esports was off the charts back in its prime. The introduction of the hero system which augments strategies in both 1v1 and team games. People say Mobas are easier than RTS but I find Mobas harder than RTS. It is impossible to win every public match in dota because there is just so much factors involved. Dota 2 just way more things to learn than WC3 imo
I think the biggest issue with WC3 was the time to kill for units... you could basically just do hit and run tactics with town portal and come back with your army barely bruised, you could also just steal the enemy heroes farm without incurring so much as a loss since all you needed to do was last-hit and run/teleport. I think it was the problem of Blizzard trying to make the game less punishing for casual play only to end up invalidating high-stakes play, because you could get away just turtling away
Starcraft 2 was an awesome game when it first came out but after a while blizzard started to care more about esports and the game became too fast paced for me and I lost interest I came back after 2 years and I can’t even win in silver league, I used to play in platinum!!!!!!! The horror!!!
No, Starcraft was ALWAYS that bad, you just didn't realize it until now thanks to Starcraft's genre dominating 'easy to learn, hard to master' mechanics. RTS as a genre got kneecapped by Starcraft when it came out, then proceeded to be effectively decapitated when Starcraft 2 came out. Real Time Tactics keep the RTS (outside of Starcraft) alive, but that that is simply a tiny portion of an already tiny market. Given that stockholders rule corporations with an iron fist and they keep demanding an infinite growth industry (exemplified by the bitchfit that Activision's stockholders had when BlackOps 4 didn't outdo it's predecessor) when it appears that the industry is going to hit it's peak or ceiling...
The real problem is that game publishers stop supporting developer to make real RTS game, in the other hand, media and the publishers put all their money on fake RTS like DOTA and LOL, or any other mobile tactics, and left real RTS to die.
If aoe4 gonna be WS exclusive, the community will split again just like you said. Very sad. My only hope is that the game blows up and creates an entire new community.
Men of War Assault Squad 2 Ashes of the Singularity Company of Hearoes 2 Northgard Grey Goo Ancestors Legacy Sudden Strike 4 Spellforce 3 Steel Division 2 Deserts of Kharak Act of Agression RTS is not dead!!!!!!!!
I kind of wonder why people get confuse on Microsoft putting their games in their own store.... I dont see people complaining that steam games are not avaible in Uplay or Origin. Then people make fun of Microsoft for not having "Exclusives", why people dont complain that the Spidergame game isnt on steam then? I mean, Sure having the game on all stores with crossplay betwen them is the best option... but that would pretty much mean microsoft is just giving away an exclusive game for their new (and really lame) online store.
"Why can't I have my cake, and eat it to?" You can either sell AoE4, or sell the microsoft service, but you cannot serve two masters. If we're honest, nobody wants to bother with a "service," and nobody wants to pay money for a game they aren't sure yet they're going to enjoy. Now, AoE4 has legs, it can make it, and they let it, it could fly. The Microsoft store is a malformed monster that probably isn't going to survive for long anyway. Do you really want AoE4 to stop working with the Microsoft store?
you should look into the history of microsoft and ibm and an operating system known as os2. im kinda shocked to hear microsoft is pulling an ibm move x number of years later.
Microsoft store doesn't work. biggest problem with AoE:DE was that people could not download the game. there was workarounds like download candy crush first and then AoE lol
Great analysis and I totally agree. Even now with Company of Heroes, a game I played many years ago, I picked up and restarted but to join the competitive games is just pointless as you face the same 20-30 players and in a 4v4 match up...I just get rushed. Yes I could preserver but I just moved to other games. The 'community' that surrounds a game can make or break it, particularly when retaining existing players or attracting/repelling new players. In Total War Warhammer the same model exists with battle match ups and because the ranking system is broken you can get really broken army composition builds. What worked by comparison with table top competitive tournaments was a clear set of rules - number of heroes, elite choices, or not switching your army race choice in a rock paper scissors effort to use the army that is naturally strong against your opponent (something that really should just be hidden) etc. Interestingly the player community led by some youtubers have started to fashion their own rules to make match ups fairer. For me the real issue in all of this is the fact that most game developers do not see the massive upside of creating and running the community, or at least listening to them. Star Wars Galaxies is the perfect example of how to kill a game over night with a single update. I appreciate that I'm at risk of going off topic but for me it really does come down to the developer creating the ecosystem for its community to grow and recognising that a ranking system gives us all a way of developing our skills in that game. Really pleased you are spotlighting how games can die because there are great games that really should be still active but have just been lost to time and poor player management. As an aside Dungeon Overlord that became Goblin Keeper and is now dead, was so very good but a weak developer/games management company just didn't know how to take the incredibly strong community to the next level. Massive shame.
5:52 ... remember when EA wanted to make generals 2 free to play from the get go? but nooooo the internet had to go crazy over it .. yes i know it´s EA ... which then got us to rivals which is utter garbage for the classic rts-player .. lets see how the announced remaster will turn out and how long that´ll last ... remember how starcraft 2 went f2p after legacy of the void? yea and it´s still supported and people still play it .. now imagine if generals 2 was released as f2p .. sure it would have been primarily bout skirmish and multiplayer at first but that didn´t have to mean there couldn´t have been campaigns with story later down the line ... and the thing is from what many people said bout the closed beta is that the gameplay was GOOD ... but now we got NOTHING of it ... so thx for that i guess ...
I can't blame people for being concerned since EA destroys franchises like its a damned past-time. You might have forgotten Tiberian Twilight, but I fucking didn't. That game was the worst video game I've ever played in my life, blame EA for bringing us beyond low expectations.
Because a good RTS game is too complex (screen size, menus) and requires too many controls (mouse>finger, hotkeys etc.) for a mobile. Iirc AOE2 was available for the PS1 or 2 back in the day, but never got much attention because playing with controller was unfit, AOEII Mobile (actual cell phones) and AOE World Domination (Android) died fast as well, since control wasnt really good/it was too simplified.
no, it´s a different style of rts that you can´t simply compare to TA .. it´s not better nor worse, it´s different .. the way production and economy works in TA is drastically different the way you build cities/bases in rise of nations is different, there is research in RoN were in TA it is not and that doesn´t have to be negative ... TA´s primarily objective is to destroy the enemy commander which can build and fight and is in a way a king piece and that can lead to intresting tactics that may not be possible in other RTS games to win a game despite being on a disadvantage .. in RoN the game is about capturing citycenters ...
Agreed that Rise of Nations is very different from most other RTSes, which is personally why I love it. Unfortunately it came out when my RTS interest was on the wane and I had already bought the superficially-similar Empire Earth, which... is not as good. I didn't get a chance to play RoN until a friend gifted me it on Steam... and I've stuck entirely to singleplayer matches against the AI, for precisely the reasons outlined in this video.
im one of those only kids who choose RTS over pretty much anything else.
me too
OfficialTT5 YT yeah. Mostly are over 18 years old
@@Victor-gh1qs con confirm lol.
That's how I was when I was a kid.
Hell, I still do that now, and i'm 26.
I still do but I can't stand playing it competitively just a click fest mess, judged by how quickly you click buttons and bait units, all bullshit and very frustrating so I play casually against AI with friends, fuck real players it's not immersive at all.
I think this also shows how Aoe2 DID survive, the focus is not on one-v-one matches, instead almost all matches are against the ai/coop or large team games, where people can play and not really be responsible for losing. It's a much friendlier learning environment, so people practice vs the ai/ with better players on their side helping them learn
Starcraft 2 co-op is very popular. Losing is a lot more fun when it's with a freind.
I feel like this is the case with most competitive multiplayer games. Most people who buy a game too late definitely will feel alienated by the highly skilled players that are still left in a dwindling community. This is definitely a very difficult issue to fix in multiplayer games. Thanks for the video!
Thats what i feel in every fps game.... thats why i stoped play fps a very long time ago..
You are right. Competitiveness will slowly but surely kill the joy out of anything in the long run. As players become better and better, more optimisation and perfection becomes necessary in order to be competitive, and thus it becomes more about being a perfect robot than actually enjoying what you are doing. Everyone will start to copy the latest and greatest build and or playstyle, and the stagnation process is a-going. Those that no longer find it fun, and those that don't have the time or passion to follow the competition will quit, resulting in an even more competitive environment since the casual crowd diminishes. It goes on like this until the game is dead, and when the process is a-going, it usually ends pretty fast.
However, without competitiveness, people tend to become bored, lose motivation and purpose as you have nothing to strive towards. It is extremely hard, if not impossible to find a balance between competitiveness and casual fun tbh. But yeah, I completely agree with the analysis in this video, it applies to other games and even things in life as well, but the RTS genre struggles the most with this I think.
The best solution I can think of is to get someone, perhaps multiple people, to play the role of jeagen. Not necessarily throwing matches per se, but definitely fuckin around a lot more then unusual. Maybe having a few more beers then they normally would if new players are coming in that day. The trouble is you need to find some-one to volunteer to do that. Also that person needs to not clown on the other player. Not in a way that's super noticeable. Like for instance, maybe in Starcraft 2 this type of player would ONLY build zerglings. He'd still macro just as hard, it would just become a zombie defense game for the noob. The minigame to survive the zerglings. And if he can do that he pretty much wins. Stuff like that.
Lol, bullock. It is true that it takes a insane ammount of time to get a to a reasonable level. But imagine how hard those pioniers had to work to get to your level...
After the start there are more tutorials, tipps and tircks, guides etc. which will push you to gain a faster level than those that had to try it all out by themselves alone ...
Too much competitiveness can certainly suck the fun out of the game. And when the game is old it is pretty much solved: you need to play a certain to win (meta), and to perfection. The game becomes who can perform/execute better under pressure with no space for experimentation and fooling around.
Every multiplayer map should feel like a mini mission. An strategic challenge. PvAI gives the multiplayer a long life for casual players.
Man, your videos are GREAT. I leave your channel feeling the same sense of gratification that I have when I watch stuff from Spirit of the Law. Keep it going, I really wish that you grow fast!
Thanks! Spirit of the Law was definitely one of my initial inspirations. I've had ideas like these about RTS games for years, I just never thought there was an audience for them...
RTS games never die..they live on in our hearts.
Zug zug
Haha Ive realised this for years, games are only fun when people are all learning it together. Like when games just come out, then its great. Tried to play Age of Empires 3 after a while, had to make a new account, I was pretty good but got kicked from every server I tried to join cause my account was back to level 1.
in the new definitive edition you dont need to level up! try it out
RTS Games die because Mutliplayer interest dies when the leaderboard starts to stagnate or the moment a new game comes out and because the Solo Campaign is built purely as an afterthought without any replayability. All the games that were successful in the RTS Golden Age were made with the focus on Solo Campaign and they still are replayed and loved today, despite the ancient AI and even older graphics. There is a reason why classic games like C&C are being republished in HD.
Dawn of war Soulstorm is getting more and more players overtime, it's weird, but to me it is the best RTS EVER.
Yesss with mod that can play Tyranids is so great 👍
Good video, RTS genre is like the fighting game genre but with mouse and keyboard
more like chess but not turned based
As a developer i can say rts are the hardest to make. I am now working on an rts-rpg chromosome evil
RTS games are not purely for the multiplayer aspect, assuming that the title is more like age of empires 2 than age of empires online, you get plenty of features in a game and online play is only 1 of those features. You get lots of story campaigns to play and while some are easy, others are very difficult. Then you get lots of options to configure the graphics, audio, and other settings to customize the game. Last and most important is the scenario editor where you can make your own maps and there are community sites such as heavengames where you can upload your maps and download maps created by other people.
The one feature I hate though is those unobtainable achievements on steam and similar platforms where they require unbelievable amount of time to get as they are numerous and require you to play several thousand games to obtain them.
Hey man, stumbled upon your channel by an accident. Great stuff, subscribed. Keep up making these interesting videos :-)
I generally agree with what you've said, and while it's only tangentially related to the topic, another important part is the campaign. From where I stand, campaigns bring people in, MP keeps those players around.
Have you heard of Callum McCole? He's a CandC Generals shoutcaster who has a ton of videos on rts design and matches. When you talked about making sure to buy rts games I remembered two reviews McCole posted on Grey Goo and Eight Bit Armies, two rts games from Petroglyph. He felt both games were shallow and lacked any good gameplay mechanics, reffering to the second as "almost predatory" due to its marketing. Grey Goo and Eight Bit Armies were both billed as back to basics games with streamlined mechanics and a low barrier to entry. On one hand I can see McCole's point: Grey Goo had no active unit abilities, one resource and relatively slow units, however, the titular faction was incredibly unique. Basically, the goo didn't have buildings, instead using three mobile proteans to create units. They could move at a good speed, climb vision blocking cliffs and each had a slowing melee attack. Finally, the mother protean, which acted as the goo's refinery for resources could gain said resources by attacking enemies, encouraging the goo to be incredibly aggressive. While their units were pretty similar to the other two factions, the goo made some massive changes in their base building to encourage aggression, something that McCole dismissed as unimportant. I agree with him that the rest of the game needed more depth, but I think the goo faction is a breath of fresh air and want to see it expanded upon. While I agree Grey Goo could've used more depth, rts games aren't as common, and if players condemn experiments that don't work out we probably won't be seeing many games. I think there needs to be tolerance for experimentation when it doesn't totally work out, instead of labelling devs that try something and fail as predatory in their marketing, which McCole did for Petroglyph in his review of their next game.
Relatedly, I think a major problem facing rts games is a splitting of hteir playerbase into veterans and rookies, and the animosity that comes with that. Maybe I've been looking at the wrong sites, but it seems that oftentimes one side will blame the other for the decline of the genre, the other will respond that it's the first group that caused it and so on. It feels like both sides are becoming possessive of the genre; the veteran players condemn any game that has a low skill ceiling, while rookie players do the same for complex games. I hope there is a happy middle ground, but both sides of the debate seem quite inflexible and quick to attack the other.
Good video
more like "how rts games dont recover", but youre right. i tried to get into dow2 last year, and after 3 weeks in which i won a one single match, i gave up.
The other question is of course, how do RTS games sink that low, but here id say its just as with all games: if its not good, it dies.
just witnessed it with Ancestors Legacy. Game was not bad, but MP has some issues, game didnt get a lot of media coverage -> died in 5 weeks. a shame! same goes for if they make Aoe2DE/AoE4 windows store exclusive.
tho ill be honest and say that i really hope AoE4 beats AoE2DE and gets a sizable community of its own. AoE2 is just so oooold, and im not talking about graphics. 5+ minutes of sheep butchering every game
AoE2 isn't likely to die though, it's already a pretty popular game. It just might not reach the level of popularity it otherwise could. HD Edition is generally regarded as a pretty mediocre remastering, and yet it still sold quite well for an RTS game. I'm more concerned that this will hold back the size of AoE4's community.
HarvestBuildDestroy AoE4 is years away tho. They will likely release a DE game every year and then AoE4 will be released.
HarvestBuildDestroy well, the thing in most concerned about is that its made by relic, to be honest.
04:40 I think the problem of developers shut down servers mainly because of the already declining of player base. The lack of online playground is the result of the already decline. Games that widely played today do have crowded servers like Company of Heroes 2 or those of Blizzards. So I think the point is RTS games are already declining by the era of online multiplayers, their golden time date back the LAN era. I think your other points are suffice enough: the pay wall, the learning curve, skills barrier to entry... do make RTS less compelling than MOBA or RPG. Great video of yours indeed.
Well the new age of rts has begun now and I hope you are doing well now.
When you look at online only then you set up to failure. Like live services they don't last. Only is not the alpha and Omega of the game Genre.
Well said.
AGE OF EMPIRES 2 WILL NEVER DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They die by not fixing bugs and releasing expansion after expansion without actually fixing latency or disconnect problems
expansions are basicaly dlcs
Good video, I'd love to see your thoughts on the new RTS resurgence we're seeing.
I link the resurgence of RTS (war games) to the WW3 looming over the world currently. People sense it, and subconsciously are drawn to the related content. What better way to damp this anxiety than to play out your own mini-war on your screen? What's more important, those who were kids in the golden age of RTS (90s) are now adults and come back for that sweet sweet nostalgia. God, so much of current media and entertainment space if filled with nostalgia. Maybe because there's nothing good to look forward to (WW3?).
but have you tried Men of War assault squad 2 !? !? !? !best game ever!
Loved it
I understand that this is an old ass vid and you probably don't take a look at the comments, but as a guy who plays supcom pretty regularly what were your issues with it? Liked the vid, just curious as to what your thoughts are regarding that game.
Actually shit, the fan-run Forged Alliance Forever client is a reasonably popular system with 4-digit playercounts (not a lot I know but faaaar from dead) is a pretty neat case study regarding dead games. It's still supported with balance patches and there have been like 3 (relatively ofc) major tourneys in the past month, and even the steam edition has a reasonably active playerbase. It's interesting stuff.
as a veteran games, playing games over 30 years, i can say rts games dies because developer kept making bad rts games
the most exciting game i played after epic era of wc3, sc 1 and 2 and generals was king arthur
They still around but you mean the classics from the 90's and the early 2000's.
I almost cried. This video is perfect!
FPS players: cannon fodder soldiers
RTS players: Generals/commander
FPS players (in their head): one-man army
I think this was what brownbear was getting at in some of his videos about how there is no progression system in RTS games that works the same way as in shooters (CoD for example) while also having very little product in them. I'd definitely recommend watching his videos on the Age of Empires 3 Home Card system and the multi-part series on Starcraft 2 he did.
Eh, we don't need modern progression systems like those shooters, that's the one of things I hate about modern video games.
Ever since i set my eyes on battle of middle earth I gave up Minecraft and got other games like dawn of war
Jaffus maximus ok boomer
Œøêæ
Nice video but hearing you throw "Company of Heroes" - my personal favourite RTS of all time - into the list of RTS games that just don't hold a candle to AOE or SC was painful. In my opinion CoH is the only other RTS game other than AOE or SC series that is fun, unique, and has a high skill ceiling (albeit not mechanically wise, but since the game is almost purely tactical, it's very difficult). The fact that CoH1 still boasts 2000 players online during peak hours 12 years after its release even so it's been abandoned by the developers speaks for itself.
You are definitely right about the entry however. I tried one online game in Star Wars Empire at War once. I noticed there were only ~50 players online, which I felt was a bad sign. I did one game and got my ass handed to me, and the loss was accompanied by some verbal berating - "ez noob, l2p". Needless to say I never played this game again.
brethren1x it’s that high 😮
Super interesting watching this with 4 years of hindsight, especially as an AoE2 player. DE splitting the playerbase was a concern when it was first announced, but overall I'd say it's been a rousing success!
Warcraft 3 Reforged, on the other hand...
You really really should do a systems investigation of TA. I don't think you will find another RTS to this day that actually integrates physics into it's game design.
TA has some spiritual successors
@@Kaaxe ohyah, although there are more and more new players joining the TA community, with new mods and and a passionate user-base still engaged with the game till this day.
TA was/is indeed a great game and an old favourite of mine, we found games for it on GameRanger.
ForgedAllianceForever is the best mix between causal fun and competitive. And why that community still lives on.
It's what kept Aoe alive, Starcraft, Warcraft and so on Company of heroes would have died had it not been for them opening up the modding community...
The mixture of fun and competitive allowing each group get their fun out of it. As time goes on some people bleed over to the other groups in the community. But it also allow people to take a break from each kind of play and so not burn out.
Competitive is nothing without the foundation of the game allowing for more than just 1v1 online. All online games struggle with that balance. And the trend is quite clear on the survivors in the RTS world.
HarvestBuildDestroy have you played They Are Billions and what do you think of it ?
I don’t like to hope between games. I usually stick to one game for a bery long time. I think many of the RTS player do that as well, which explains why some games have die hard communities, and AOEII is so successful; all their old fans who basically quit RTS all together, came back to playing this game
@5:26 unit stuck inside a construction site! :,D that is why there aren't many RTS around.
One very big problem that most RTS games have is competitive gaming.. There should for example be no penalty for losing a match, like the ladder in starcraft, or losing points.. It should be only for fun like AoE4 does..
If you keep losing and then slowly get put into the noob category, then when you finally reach a high position, you will fear losing and therefore not play anymore.. So instead it should be all reward no punishment. Or dont create a ladder at all, and just have people play for fun.
Starcraft 2. That's why... and the overpopulation and bad clones ones.
I'm so mad bannerman devs stopped working on it. it made a good start, how did it die.
You are a really good speaker, great points!
The issue with RTS is it has a steep learning curve and the build-up excitement in-game is long. Compared with other genre, moba, fps, the build-up action is close to immediate like less than a minute. Usual RTS, even fastest could take like 4-5min to build up but from then on its full-blown war, but because of the first 4-5min preparation, it failed to grab attention of most people. Thus, leave lots people would deemed this genre difficult or too boring due to long in-game preparation and complex understanding of build order / counter unit / advantage point etc..
Age of Empires 2 (back when I played it on dial-up) got around this a little bit via the scenario editor. People could play scenarios as casuals and have instant action. Occasionally dipping into the actual RTS, knowing some basic mechanics.
company of heroes handles this very well as it goes out to full out war in first 1 min
True, the build up is long. I feel that to enjoy RTS games you should also be a fan of building games.
Maybe MOBA was born from rts to be mainstream? rts is for those who know what they want
Happy to say that Microsoft nailed AoE DE.
Empires apart seems like a solution for a poor boi like me
i think one thing that "killed" the genre as a whole (i dont think its dead but it has shrunk in popularity) is the same thiing that happened to mmos blizzard created games in those genres that were so much better than everything else out that it made it very hard for smaller studios to create a game to compete with them.
Better is up for debate. But Blizzard definitely had very effective marketing and ability to generate awareness for their game that other developers could not match.
Impossible creatures was the best if they just remade it and added more content and customizations and made it mod friendly >.
Yeah that game kicked ass.
As an all time RTS player I found Company of Heroes 1-2 a really good example of how the gaming industry should proceed. At the same time I see the skill level bias at this game too. What was against your liking at CoH?
Youve described most online games not just rts
We are a growing genre, help us grow and let it take root on the internet
RTS has always been there, it is just stagnant. If you include survival building like factorio / rimworld, then it is just those part that are actually growing.
These are great vids, I hope you're monetizing them
Okay, I might be dumb, but can you please explain me, what you ment by devs should advertise tournaments? That costs money... Maybe I miss understood your point. I'm sorry.
Isn't die just sleeping.
Warcraft 3 is by far my favorite RTS of all time. Looking back, that game was a thing of beauty, 4 races almost perfect balanced. The competitiveness of Esports was off the charts back in its prime. The introduction of the hero system which augments strategies in both 1v1 and team games. People say Mobas are easier than RTS but I find Mobas harder than RTS. It is impossible to win every public match in dota because there is just so much factors involved. Dota 2 just way more things to learn than WC3 imo
I think the biggest issue with WC3 was the time to kill for units... you could basically just do hit and run tactics with town portal and come back with your army barely bruised, you could also just steal the enemy heroes farm without incurring so much as a loss since all you needed to do was last-hit and run/teleport. I think it was the problem of Blizzard trying to make the game less punishing for casual play only to end up invalidating high-stakes play, because you could get away just turtling away
Both Aoe2de and Aoe4 will be only on win10. So I recommend those who still haven’t upgraded to win 10 to do so. You can still do it for free.
Link? Unless google is lying to me, that promotion ended quite a while ago
HarvestBuildDestroy you can just install through the iso from ms’s website and you licenses will transfer over fine.
"Upgraded"
Yeah, I don't think that's the proper term for Windows 10...
windows store is absolute shit imo
it does not even work properly
i never had so many issues with any other program in my life
Totally agreed. Btw what game is that in the background?
Bannermen (it's in alpha right now)
esport and the dumbing down of making maps smaller and less ressource management and strategi is what is killing rts
Starcraft 2 was an awesome game when it first came out but after a while blizzard started to care more about esports and the game became too fast paced for me and I lost interest
I came back after 2 years and I can’t even win in silver league, I used to play in platinum!!!!!!! The horror!!!
No, Starcraft was ALWAYS that bad, you just didn't realize it until now thanks to Starcraft's genre dominating 'easy to learn, hard to master' mechanics. RTS as a genre got kneecapped by Starcraft when it came out, then proceeded to be effectively decapitated when Starcraft 2 came out. Real Time Tactics keep the RTS (outside of Starcraft) alive, but that that is simply a tiny portion of an already tiny market.
Given that stockholders rule corporations with an iron fist and they keep demanding an infinite growth industry (exemplified by the bitchfit that Activision's stockholders had when BlackOps 4 didn't outdo it's predecessor) when it appears that the industry is going to hit it's peak or ceiling...
Hey HBD you ever play stronghold?
The real problem is that game publishers stop supporting developer to make real RTS game, in the other hand, media and the publishers put all their money on fake RTS like DOTA and LOL, or any other mobile tactics, and left real RTS to die.
Bannermen is a decent game but needs more factions, unfortunately the devs abandoned it.
If aoe4 gonna be WS exclusive, the community will split again just like you said. Very sad. My only hope is that the game blows up and creates an entire new community.
You don't know this is true. I imagine it will be Windows 10 Only. Not Windows Store Only though.
Jermey from pure pwange
Is crying and say noooooo why
Men of War Assault Squad 2
Ashes of the Singularity
Company of Hearoes 2
Northgard
Grey Goo
Ancestors Legacy
Sudden Strike 4
Spellforce 3
Steel Division 2
Deserts of Kharak
Act of Agression
RTS is not dead!!!!!!!!
is this sarcasm?
I think I love you dude...
I love rts games I wish rts get more love
I can feel enormous minoritism when he says "Buying operating system that they'dd never use again" to Windows LOL
wuts d game u play in video?
Ashes of the singluarity is by far my fav game :)
what's the game in thr background?
Bannermen.
@@Strategiain thanks!
zero-k is the answer
I kind of wonder why people get confuse on Microsoft putting their games in their own store....
I dont see people complaining that steam games are not avaible in Uplay or Origin.
Then people make fun of Microsoft for not having "Exclusives", why people dont complain that the Spidergame game isnt on steam then?
I mean, Sure having the game on all stores with crossplay betwen them is the best option... but that would pretty much mean microsoft is just giving away an exclusive game for their new (and really lame) online store.
"Why can't I have my cake, and eat it to?"
You can either sell AoE4, or sell the microsoft service, but you cannot serve two masters. If we're honest, nobody wants to bother with a "service," and nobody wants to pay money for a game they aren't sure yet they're going to enjoy. Now, AoE4 has legs, it can make it, and they let it, it could fly. The Microsoft store is a malformed monster that probably isn't going to survive for long anyway. Do you really want AoE4 to stop working with the Microsoft store?
you should look into the history of microsoft and ibm and an operating system known as os2. im kinda shocked to hear microsoft is pulling an ibm move x number of years later.
Microsoft store doesn't work. biggest problem with AoE:DE was that people could not download the game. there was workarounds like download candy crush first and then AoE lol
Great analysis and I totally agree. Even now with Company of Heroes, a game I played many years ago, I picked up and restarted but to join the competitive games is just pointless as you face the same 20-30 players and in a 4v4 match up...I just get rushed. Yes I could preserver but I just moved to other games. The 'community' that surrounds a game can make or break it, particularly when retaining existing players or attracting/repelling new players. In Total War Warhammer the same model exists with battle match ups and because the ranking system is broken you can get really broken army composition builds. What worked by comparison with table top competitive tournaments was a clear set of rules - number of heroes, elite choices, or not switching your army race choice in a rock paper scissors effort to use the army that is naturally strong against your opponent (something that really should just be hidden) etc. Interestingly the player community led by some youtubers have started to fashion their own rules to make match ups fairer.
For me the real issue in all of this is the fact that most game developers do not see the massive upside of creating and running the community, or at least listening to them. Star Wars Galaxies is the perfect example of how to kill a game over night with a single update. I appreciate that I'm at risk of going off topic but for me it really does come down to the developer creating the ecosystem for its community to grow and recognising that a ranking system gives us all a way of developing our skills in that game.
Really pleased you are spotlighting how games can die because there are great games that really should be still active but have just been lost to time and poor player management. As an aside Dungeon Overlord that became Goblin Keeper and is now dead, was so very good but a weak developer/games management company just didn't know how to take the incredibly strong community to the next level. Massive shame.
try company of heroes 2 it still has big enough community that t has both noobs and good players
Answer: EA Games
yeah my fav genre is FUCKED.. fuck.
5:52 ... remember when EA wanted to make generals 2 free to play from the get go? but nooooo the internet had to go crazy over it .. yes i know it´s EA ... which then got us to rivals which is utter garbage for the classic rts-player .. lets see how the announced remaster will turn out and how long that´ll last ...
remember how starcraft 2 went f2p after legacy of the void? yea and it´s still supported and people still play it ..
now imagine if generals 2 was released as f2p .. sure it would have been primarily bout skirmish and multiplayer at first but that didn´t have to mean there couldn´t have been campaigns with story later down the line ...
and the thing is from what many people said bout the closed beta is that the gameplay was GOOD ...
but now we got NOTHING of it ... so thx for that i guess ...
I can't blame people for being concerned since EA destroys franchises like its a damned past-time.
You might have forgotten Tiberian Twilight, but I fucking didn't.
That game was the worst video game I've ever played in my life, blame EA for bringing us beyond low expectations.
I hope R.U.S.E will never die #Ubisoftweremember
Isnt it dead already? Or do I miss something?
Great
;(
Why are there no good RTS games for moble?
Because a good RTS game is too complex (screen size, menus) and requires too many controls (mouse>finger, hotkeys etc.) for a mobile. Iirc AOE2 was available for the PS1 or 2 back in the day, but never got much attention because playing with controller was unfit, AOEII Mobile (actual cell phones) and AOE World Domination (Android) died fast as well, since control wasnt really good/it was too simplified.
There are hardly ever casuals in RTS communities lol
Very gooood XD
What about Rise of Nations. Its much better than Total Anhilation.
no, it´s a different style of rts that you can´t simply compare to TA ..
it´s not better nor worse, it´s different .. the way production and economy works in TA is drastically different
the way you build cities/bases in rise of nations is different, there is research in RoN were in TA it is not and that doesn´t have to be negative ...
TA´s primarily objective is to destroy the enemy commander which can build and fight and is in a way a king piece and that can lead to intresting tactics that may not be possible in other RTS games to win a game despite being on a disadvantage ..
in RoN the game is about capturing citycenters ...
Agreed that Rise of Nations is very different from most other RTSes, which is personally why I love it. Unfortunately it came out when my RTS interest was on the wane and I had already bought the superficially-similar Empire Earth, which... is not as good. I didn't get a chance to play RoN until a friend gifted me it on Steam... and I've stuck entirely to singleplayer matches against the AI, for precisely the reasons outlined in this video.
Too much focus on building
try zero k
Also; Beyond all Reason (BAR) is good as well.
3:00 The answer to PvP skills disparity is a justified handicapping algorithm.
Then there would be no reason to ever get good.
You say “about” in a funny way... Canadian? lol
Ha