Yea man, I still have the disc. I loved how at the end of the game it told you the Battles between each faction, like Battle of York, with each sides' starting strenght and losses. I love that game
I personally wouldn't call the battles in Total War games an example of RTS games being alive and well. Total War mixes turn-based strategy on the campaign map with real-time tactics for its battles. Both TBS and RTT are in my opinion distinct from RTS and should be treated as their own separate thing.
yeah Total war games have stagnated completely in terms of gameplay systems. Warhammer total war have the most fun battles sure, but the campaign gameplay mechanics are so barebones. CA are one of those companies that are creatively bankrupt. They obviously have some good devs coming up with systems like 3k supply and politics, Troy economy etc. but then whoever is in charge decides not to add it to the total war formula for later games. The whole only being able to recruit units into an army with a general and having a limited number of generals has been a thing since Rome 2 and is objectively terrible game design since it exists soley because of the AI. .
Is Emperror Battle for Dune not an RTS then? It also has a turn based campaign with territories. That is a very wrong take. Two typical RTS modes are skirmish (vs AI or another players) and narrative campaign. Total war turn based campaign just adds gameplay to campaign where instead of individual missions deriving context from the pre-written narrative, they derive context from the malleable situation on the map. Skirmish battles, multiplayer, ranked ladder and so on remain fully real time. In fact, you could add a completely turn-based campaign to Starcraft 2 and 99.9% of players would not even notice any change. But according to you, it would no longer qualify as an RTS anymore
@@mrsswindon imagine having this steamy terrible take Warhammer series has so many different campaign features and abilities that even two of the same sub factions tend to have different gameplay mechanics
@@brycehoward4139 worst supply system in the entire total war series. non existent politics. Basically no empire wide management beyond building up your cities. Factions that get a random buff every 20 turns isnt exactly what i consider to be a high quality gameplay mechanic. So sure, they all have tiny little different gemplay mechanics but they are pretty basic. I was talking about the general level of depth that exists in warhammer total war 3 which disapointed me when i realised they didnt incorporate any new systems they made for other total wars since the release of WH1 and 2.
I think that it depends on the fact that games cost a lot more to make now, so companies play safe. For instance I see a lot of innovative ideas in the field of city building where one man or very few people studios can actually produce a game
It is not merely a matter of real-time strategy games, but rather the broader realm of modern gaming as a whole. Despite impressive advancements in graphics, there appears to be a corresponding decline in gameplay innovation. This trend is observable even in the sequel iterations of popular titles, as exemplified by the Man of War and Total War series. In summary, while there are commendable strides being made in graphical technology, there seems to be a corresponding degradation in the improvement and innovation of existing gameplay mechanics.
That was articulated very well and is 100% on the money. We all know the underlying cause for this stagnation is the adoption of the mobile gaming business model across the entire industry. Everyone’s looking for the next Fortnite live service game. As a 30 year old gamer I often reminisce in the good ol’ $15 DLC map packs of the early 2000s. As crazy as that sounds. Just think back to BF3 era of gaming. You would get a complete game on launch and each DLC pack was multiple maps and weapons. Now take BF2042 which launched disastrously and only released 4 maps since its release on 10/6/21. The game had a fraction of BF3’s guns and still does, had no campaign and had less destruction than an game released 10 years prior. They had 4 seasons with a map released each season alongside a “specialist” character. All locked behind a season pass which would be like $10 each season. It’s such a worse deal for the consumer than the DLC era. What’s scary too is how in love the younger generation is in with cosmetics. My nephew often will spend just as much time changing his character around in Fortnite than he does playing the game. He’ll join creative lobbies that are just a fashion show that judges the accuracy to the skin and the emote to the theme. What in the hell is that? It’s a sign they molded a generation to this business model.
@@JgorinacIt appears to me that the notion of downloadable content, or DLC, was not yet a prevalent concept in the early 2000s. Instead, expansion packs were the norm, with The Sims being a prime example of a game that took this approach to an extreme degree. Furthermore, it seems that updates that included additional maps, skins, or other content were freely provided to PC gamers at the time. From my recollection, it was not until 2008 that the DLC trend began to gain traction, largely due to its proliferation in console games. Moreover, the advent of paid cosmetic items on PC was largely attributed to the influence of Warcraft, a game that I personally did not engage with. In addition, I would like to emphasize that games released during that era were not as broken or glitch-ridden as many of today's offerings tend to be. In fact, one could argue that the contrast between the two is akin to night and day. Moreover, there was a clear incentive to own a console in those days, as the process of playing a game was straightforward and uncomplicated. You simply inserted the CD into the console and began playing without any of the technical hurdles that one often encounters today. In contrast, contemporary consoles typically require the user to download large files and perform software updates, which can potentially destabilize the system. As someone who has witnessed the evolution of gaming firsthand, I must admit that I am somewhat dismayed by the present state of affairs. It appears that many modern gamers are unaware of the relative simplicity and convenience that was once the hallmark of gaming. Furthermore, they seem to be consistently subjected to a range of questionable practices, such as being charged exorbitant fees for DLC and other add-ons. While some may attribute this trend to inflation, it is important to remember that physical discs and packaging were once an essential component of the gaming experience. In contrast, developers now receive a far smaller percentage of sales revenue than they did in the past, while publishers often reap the lion's share of the profits. In my view, this represents a glaring example of greed within an industry that is all too often characterized by a lack of regulation, and it is consumers and developers alike who are paying the price.
@@Rogue_Tiger The fact that I am acquainted with this individual dating back to when he only had 900 subscribers is hardly a coincidence, given my extensive experience with strategy games.
Oh man, you wanna make us cry 😭. I grew up playing RTS games with friends, family and strangers (here in Argentina we had places called "cybers" where you paid the hour to use a PC and play games or whatever you want and I spent many hours playing RTS with people there). The fact that we still play the same videogames from 20 years means that those were great games but aren't doing new ones like those before.
I think they are worried about alienating their core audience . They experimented with Dawn of War 2, 3 and look where that took them. You must understand that making games is expensive now and it takes a lot of time unlike in the 90's, which were consider golden age of RTS games. You need to have a cash cow series so that you can earn money in other to test innovations on some other titles.
Dawn of war 2 gameplay was great. They just needed to add COH basebuilding back plus bigger maps/more factions and Dark Crusades' story based grand campaign. From what I read about it, they couldn't add bigger maps due to engine limitations at that time and the factions were limited cause it was the only factions they could work on with rhe license they acquired from GW Didn't really like the limited basebuilding and small unit cap myself, but they chose to go with it to save dev time and test out a new gameplay type that was more focused on small unit engagements. Dawn of War 3 on the other hand, was complete and utter shit, and all blame goes to creative assembly for that one cause Most of the Relic devs that worked on CoH/Dow/Dow2 had already quit at that time after THQ folded just before CA acquired them, so they staffed them with devs that used to work on TW games and for some reason they decided that the games signiture cover system and iconic kill/execution animations was too much of a bother to work on so they intentionally chose to remove it and go with a more simplified (not lore based) unit gameplay and a more moba style heroes we have today which is why we now have, bubble shields for cover, smaller uninspired map design and a blood raven Chapter Master in full Terminator armor doing backflips, they basicly killed a successfull RTS franchise to save money, and to some degree we can kinda see that cost cutting measures and lack of experience working on the COH series in COH3
Yes, despite DoW2 not having base building, I accepted it as a decent title and gave it some time, because I liked DoW1. DoW3 was a complete joke though, it's like they wanted to turn RTS into a MOBA because LoL was popular? Idk
@@jamesFX3 I'm still waiting for more DoW2/CR. The campaigns were fantastic in most every area, I absolutely *adored* the blending of RTS and RPG. That it perfectly fits the idea of a Space Marine campaign, a handful of elite super soldiers desperately fighting back against many hostile factions at once, is a bonus. I really want more games like this, with or without the 40k label.
@@SoftisNelaris @SoftisNelaris Yeah, there's just nothing like it. The only other games kinda like it are its predecessors, DoW: Dark Crusade and DoW : Soulstorm (with unification Mod), both have a turn based grand Campaign + RTS combat similar to DOW2 but with base building, and each faction is playable making each playthrough unique. Though I have seen some good games you may be interested in, like Aliens : Dark Descent and Miasma Chronicles, both of which are mostly squad focused, story driven rpgs. then there's X-COM 2 (modded) if you're OK with turn based combat And if you're into historical stuff, Total War : Shogun 2 (just dont buy the fall of the samurai without playing the base game first). Total War Rome2 & Warhammer series I would recommend playing only after you've played Shogun 2, cause CA devs kinda regressed in these games when it comes to unit armor system (stat based instead of physical), sieges (complete downgrade), and naval combat (none in warhammer series).
@@duskworker8469 after all this years i still yet have to understand how DoW3 resemble a moba, this reminds me of a dude on reddit talking shit with me about the game and 20 min into the argument i realized he didn't know basebuilding in the game is a thing, people that didn't even played the game killed it, and we are not going to see W40k game ever again after that backlash
Yes and then Sega bought them and all the talented devs left and formed BBI blackbird interactive which is why homeworld 3 will be great and made with passion and why Dow 3 and age 4 and now coh 3 are all souless trash 🗑️💩 follow the "devs" not the company name relic died years ago ! If people stopped pre ordering 💩 crap and consuming junk half assed games and cash grabs the industry wouldn't be in this state it's the sheeple peasants 🐑 fault!
DOW 1 was before COH and did most of the things. Game engine is OLD and was not their making, but now it can run on everything, even first intel HD and looks fine enough, thanks to art style. It is probably the only one RTS, which has it all: -morale -accuracy on the move, -meele units, which force other to melee stance -assault units, which can jump for raid -artillery and disorganisation (unit mass stats) -hero units with abilities -armor type for infantry, vehicles, buildings -simple but efective cover system -great, different races, with a large enough lore to care about them, almost every one of them is diffrent playstyle -strategic point resorces, but with energy made by buildings -mines -infiltration -critical locations -"relic" elite units -not bad balance, if you learn to counter "op" plays, being dynamic is a key to victory... They aimed for funny esport. -sync kills ............................................... I will never get bored of Dreadnought, but imagine how many animations they could add to remake, to not repeat actions. I don`t need a new crap, I need polished DOW 1 remake. Anyway, I am enjoying COH 3. I skipped COH 1 online, and whole COH2, so it`s great fun to play with other "new ones" players and relic veterans...
I agree with you: It's not just RTS or even games, it's movies too. In fact, the entire culture industry. It's about so much money that no studio can afford a complete flop and so they'd rather throw out the 7th sequel than dare to innovate. And the buyers seem to agree with them. At the moment the innovation is at most in the indie area, not with AAA studios.
The buyer has no choice if he wants a AAA. Sure there is the indi scene but it's a niche market we don't talk about Billions revenue. Minecraft is ONE exception.
I think it has to do with the demand of content consumption. There is so much demand that studios pump out mediocre content as fast as possible to meet the demand. Consumers end up settling because they'd rather be entertained by medocrity than not. I think the industry needs to grow massively for good content to come back.
I agree but at the source it is not the companies at fault but the customers Who willingly give them money for what they know is not the best they could have gotten If we stop buying the games they will change. But nobody wants to stop buying the games For whatever reason It’s a very weird phenomenon
I'm glad you mentioned Age of empires 3. It's truely ambitious and fearless in it's new direction. That's why it's my favorite rts. The card system makes the game so replayable and why there is still an active multiplayer community to this day (even though it's not as famous as AoE2 or 4)
@@AndysTake lol, I remember when it launched any nobody could play it because of how high of PC requirements it required to run. That did not deserve a lot of praise.
I agree age 3 is amazing. Although it undermines the point of the video. Aoe3 was actually innovative in some ways ane people hated it :/ I think rts target playerbase is really tough to please. Bunch of people in their late 20 and early 30 that wanna feel like they felt when they were kids but also demand innovation. Just look at age as a whole series. Aoe2 was great. Aoe3 was innovative and people disliked that. Aoe4 went back to aoe2 roots and people dislike that.
You explained it yourself why people do not iterate and try no changes with your own examples. Age of Empires 3 considered by the majority of the Age fanbase a mistake, it sold worse than 2 and essentially it's bad reception killed the IP for almost a decade and half Companies out there to make money, they cannot risk a new, innovative but financially failure when now days games takes 3-5 years to make
@@AndysTake the question is how many? as compared to aoe2 the numbers are not much. I said this in another video but I think we put too high of expectations on these companies. We also expect too much from our own selves where we expect new innovation from game companies and then expect majority of us to atleast accept the changes. Do note that my favorite aoe is 3 and I think it is the best but not "everyone" like it. Unfortunately, companies only look into "everyone", with their money.
The problem with age lll is that it has to compete against some beast ( war lll, DOW 1, in 2006 against the best RTS of all time COH) there was no chance for age lll, it has a stupid campaign and card system es s big mistake, when you have a franchise you cannot go far away from roots or Dow lll will happen, when you see this kinds of videos ask yourself if the person have a clue about was is an RTS
Dawn of War 3 is another example, they tried to innovate the formula (or blend it with another genres) and it was considered a massive failure. I'm pretty sure if they had another opportunity, they would play it safe and do something similar to the first Dawn of War.
Nobody liked age 3 when it came out. Age 4 is more of a return to roots. Age 4 is a great game too but it seems like everyone is stick with age 2 de. Probably because of how much content it has plus it can run on a potato
Relic tried to change one of their RTS franchises, Dawn of War 3, and people hated it and the game as promptly killed. I don’t blame them for sticking to a safer approach instead of trying to reinvent the wheel when these franchises have an audience and they know what works. The big draw for Company of Heroes 3 imo is the new theatre of the war, we get too see Italian units and a lot of new tanks and weapons not seen before in the series. Additionally small changes like elevation playing a role and tank riding + vehicles towing guns makes the game feel like a refined version of previous iterations.
There is more to it though. DoW2 was already a major departure from DoW1, so half of the fanbase expected a return to the classic gameplay style, while the other hoped that Relic stuck to a DoW2 style. In the end, both parts of the fandom got neither.
I don’t buy into the idea that “every new game has to be revolutionary”.It seems to me in the RTS field consumers always ask for refinement of the same core mechanics rather than innovation. You can see many attempts to innovate in the “tactical RTS” genre and so many are financial and critical failures, and when that happens to small studios they often don’t get another chance to innovate. Also requiring every new game to be a dangerous investment to innovate and change the genre is too big of an ask. If every game was brand new and innovative it wouldn’t make those breakout hits that changed the field special anymore, and it jus towards to the same splurge of mediocrity, but instead with change being mediocre. I dunno, something about this stance just doesn’t seem feasible to me.
I think complaining that the visuals don't look that different is a bad argument, as one you reach a certain standard of visual fidelity, every improvement after seems small. Think of viewing distances for monitors, or how apple has their "Retina" displays. We will never again see the visual jump in quality that CoH one brought, as we already passed the threshold of visual fidelity when that was released. Not to mention visuals aren't that important.
Visuals not being important is a subjective take of course, as is every other take. But COH3 could have had a much bigger jump in quality from COH1/2 than it has, that’s just a fact, as there are games out that look so much better. If that matters to you is another thing though - for me it just reeks of complacency and “this is good enough” mindset
@@AndysTake Let's say that the developers spent the time and money to improve the graphics to be "significantly" better. They would have to pull resources from other parts of the game to do so. So they weak set of new features that you critiqued would be even worse. Not to mention that they would then limit the player base who could play the game. Great graphics require great graphics cards, and great graphics cards are expensive.
@@micahbonewell5994 sure… I’m just saying other companies deliver games that feel fresher and look better than this, and it doesn’t make sense to me when Company of Heroes used to be so innovative and truly pushed the envelope. We’re paying for this game, we have a right to expect more than what we’ve been given in the past.
@@AndysTake Consider the people that made COH 1 and 2, probably all moved on and the base code for COH 3 either has been dusty for 15 years, or had to be rewritten from scratch. It's very possible the team that made COH 3 is just plain worse than the original team. Budgets for game development have gotten worse every year, and most good software developers don't touch gaming with a ten foot stick nowadays. They all got burned.
@@micahbonewell5994 CoH2 ripped a ton of animations from CoH1 for example while CoH3 actually had to remake the animations from the ground up; hence why some models often lack the proper animation or aren't even properly weighted. One reason being that unit models have personalized animations in a squad now, where sure you can see some similar animations yet for the most part the entire squad all animate differently and isn't just a copy paste of 1 animation set for one soldier and instead a copy paste of a set of animation sets. And if you look at the majority of the critiques CoH3 has, it's mostly all regarding visual and UI issues with occasional technical bugs; way better than having reviews all regarding technical and mechanical issues that's for sure. In a perfect world both graphical and mechanical aspects would have been polished before launch, but with how the industry is now with crunch and deadlines, I'm glad they at least focused on what's important to the game whilst keeping the easily fixable issues for later.
Age of Empires III is my favorite, by far, base/army based type of rts. It even has physics and ragdolls and puts even aoe IV to shame. I feel that was base building rts peek and one of the last real forays into innovation. 8 personally loved the shipment system and the colonial/renaissance representation of economic and even military and technological reforms was represented in a game in a brilliant way. The general transition from medieval, pike shotte, and then line warfare was actually sort of existing here, though in a gamey way that was just so fantastically supported by the gameplay loop. It made for endless depth of combat and the game could be seen as warfare with a game of constant reforms, which few other strategies took to a competitive theatre, although this exists in other genres of strategy.
Yet, it is the least loved of AoE games, precisely because it departed from what players of the previous games loved. It's difficult to persuade developers to innovate when gamers repeatedly reject games that depart from tradition.
@@danspencer4235 i don't really know about least loved. It is more loved than Aoe IV. It has gotten a lot of love over the years and rightfully so. I never understood the dislike. It's my favorite base building rts of all time by a long shot.
I think "laziness" as a criticism in the video game industry is a poor choice of words. The people at CA or Relic or wherever are not just deciding to rock up to work at half past eleven every day or taking two hour lunch breaks or whatever; in fact quite the contrary, the video game industry is one of the most intense to work in. Instead, there's a myriad of problems that contribute to disappointing output on the consumer end, ranging from managerial and creative issues to technical problems. At it's root, it is a communication problem; we as consumers don't know most of the problems and challenges that occur in day-to-day game development, and there are plenty of reasons why they can't tell us. If companies want to reduce how much they get called lazy, they need to improve communication, and find ways to keep fans updated without spoiling marketing. Transparency also does wonders in rooting out problems and encouraging creative solutions to issues that would just be accepted as "part of the process" in a closed environment.
have to agree, this 'laziness' critique is ironically itself, lazy. games are infinitely more complex and are more costly/manpower intensive than games 2 decades ago- its no wonder that publishers would rather play it safe
This is of course true - “lazyness” as I said it does not refer to the developers being “lazy”, not at all, but to playing it safe, to being “lazy” with coming up with new ideas and features that weren’t there before. Basically why take the time and effort to come up with something new when you can just focus on making the same old same old. Perhaps lazyness was a poor choice of words, but it was not at all meant in the context you’re using it in
We're being too unfair with these games. I don't think it is passion what's lacking but simply money, it's very easy to realize the strategy genre is not as lucrative as it used to be. Relic cannot afford to risk it with these franchises (not even CA does), and the only thing I genuinely hate about CoH3 is the fact that it released unfinished, showing huge unprofessionalism from part of Relic. You mention AoE3 as a role model but truth is that game received a lot of hatred when it was released, no wonder companies are taking baby steps to innovate. As I said, this genre does not generate enough revenue and the few fans that exist are too hard to please.
From what I understand, AOE4 is a response to the community’s reception on AOE3’s uniqueness. Fans wanted something much more similar to AOE2. It’s a return to one’s roots in a sense (to AOE2) without making it too complicated. I loved AOE3 most though. It wasn’t afraid to be less serious and wild.
The problem these last decade, at least, has been that gaming is now part of big money companies that only look for a safe return on investment. Why innovate and risk pissing off your profits when you can sell more just remaking an old game and profit thanks to the nostalgia or an already big established IP. And they're not entirely wrong, fans of rts are also really set in their ways and some very vocal part of it hates changes. Even in total war you get a big division with the warhammer way and the historical way, with commanders acting as heroes able to take 100 men vs the historical elite bodyguards. Both Troy and 3K had to play both ways to make everyone happy, but that is another cost added to development.
This might be a hot take, but I don't think innovation really factors significantly into sequels. They don't have to reinvent the wheel for the sequel to be good game, and I don't think it's fair nor realistic to think that they do.
Also, I think sequels are the wrong place for large innovations. If I buy a sequel, I expect the same game as the prequel, only with some added bells and whistles.
I mean yes and no. The campaigns have changed significantly in complexity with three kingdoms and there exists a wide diversity of factions for the Warhammer game now. Also the option to play titles like Troy as a historical title, a Warhammer like mythical experience, or a hybrid of the two with individual hero units/units inspired by the mythos. They're at least doing something different with each title.
@@qtipmotha for the campaigns yes, for the battles no. 99% of battle mechanics are the same since Warhammer 1. New units or having the option to have 30 or 1 dude in your general isn't a new battle mechanic
@@grandengineernathan it's pretty easy to understand why the battles mechanics themselves haven't changed. Since the very beginning total war Warhammer was intended to be a trilogy with each installment building upon the previous one with the biggest bonus being new factions which have completely different playstyles in the campaign and on the battlefield with different unit compositions. But if they changed the battle mechanics every game then factions that were in previous titles would have a disadvantage since they weren't designed with those mechanics in mind. The whole point is that despite the base mechanics being different every faction is so unique that you get a different experience with each one. For instance playing the empire on the battlefield is absolutely nothing like playing Tzeentch or Khorne and even similar factions like the Empire and Grand Cathay still have unique mechanics and aesthetics that set them apart.
This issue is affecting other genres across the board. It's not just RTS. It feels like almost every game is broken on release nowadays, or it relies solely on microtransactions and cosmetics.
Miss the golden era of strategy games but there are some good ones still out there! Total war, Xcom, Battle tech, war on the sea, chaos gate, Steel division/wargame
@@PedroIgori The Warhammer games are very good and 3 kingdoms was a really great Total War game as well. Atilla was a good game too. Of course on the other hand we have Troy and Britannia which are beyond garbage but I would not say Total War has fallen.
CA is doing their most ambitious and grandest project yet, so I would not say that they have fallen. In fact the WH series/game/monstrosity is pretty much the most ambitious game dev project ever tried.
@@XMysticHerox The TW warhammer games have a lot of variation on the surface (many different races) but the game mechanics feel dated, and I say this as a relatively new TW fan. Same fixed starting locations, same pre-battle setups, same terrible siege battles, no naval battles. So many game systems feel limited or restricted in some way or another. There's definitely room for improvements but CA barely attempts to do so with each iteration.
This is kind of a bad take - for several reasons but I'll highlight two of them. The biggest one being that RTS's have been stagnant. As you said yourself the RTS gameplay has evolved into the MOBA space. Keyword being 'evolve'. There are many reasons for this but chief among them is that the standard RTS core gameplay is exceedingly demanding of a player - especially in a multiplayer environment. You are asking a player to master a complex game with a multitude of decisions at any given moment that requires an APM of over 100 to not get slaughtered. MOBAs are a natural evolution (right from the Warcraft 3 custom game scene) to cater to the player base which found RTS too difficult for a casual experience and they still thrive today. This isn't "appealing to the masses". This is servicing the population with a product they want. The other big mistake you are making is that innovation = player count and success. Building a sequel is very difficult in that you have to keep the existing gameplay within the same rails of the previous games or split the fanbase yet you have to offer something new. Making a sequel that deviates too far from the original titles is exactly why AoE 3, a game you praised has a lower player count than either AoE 2 or AoE4. The fact is AoE4, the retread you claim is killing the genre' has a higher player count to this day by a factor of 3. AoE 2 DE has a player count that is 5 times that of AoE3. This is what happens when you "innovoate" but don't service the masses. Your game dies. See how DoW 3's "innovation" did. Neither satisfied the MOBA fans or the hardcore RTS fans. What Relic has done is try to bring the old formula back with modern updates to service those who want the core pressure cooker experience of old RTS games. CoH 3's move away from CoH 2's gameplay and back toward's COH 1's pacing is deliberate. To give fans who didn't like CoH 2 a new game with a fresh coat of paint. The innovations on the singleplayer side are small and likely deliberately so to keep as many player onboard as possible. Even now though, you can see on forums people who want the old scripted linear campaigns. It also isn't killing innovation with these releases. There has been the rise of real time system simulations that are direct evolutions of RTS gaming that started with Banished 2014. The Real Time Grand Strategy sub genre that Paradox is so famous for is another innovation. The emphasis isn't on combat but it is still "Real Time Strategy". The trend continues. Falling Frontiers is a game I am watching closely. RTS isn't dead and it never died or went away. It is bigger than ever before. But people keep thinking it is dead because they focus on the calling the specific economy management into warfare model only as RTS. A sub genre that appeals only to a significant minority, especially in the multiplayer realm. This is like saying board games are dead because Chess isn't very popular anymore and ignoring the wide range of games which are now classified under board games.
I am surprised you didn't mention World in Conflict. In my opinion, it is the best modern RTS that has ever been made. And I'm a big fan of classic and modern RTS games. Don't tell me you've missed out on that gem. Also, there was another cool, unique RTS called Ruse. Where is it now? Apparently completely forgotten. And you ask companies to take risks and try new things... Also, I was now reminded of Paraworld - amazing game, apparently I'm one of the three people that ever played it.
About ruse. Yeah the devs Eugen went on to make the wargame series and steel divisions normandy44 and steel division 2 with warno being the latest release all taking lessons from ruse
I was gonna post it! World In Conflict was the last of its breed, a complete mind blowing title! The cinematics, story & innovation was out of this world and sadly they never went forward for more!
I think one thing RTS is really lacking is interesting gamemodes, that would be casual enough for most people and having some catch that would keep people playing for longer at the same time. One mode that kind of does that is SC2 Co-op. But if you look at AoE4 or CoH3, they are kind of bare bones in terms of gamemode variation.
The CoH3 campaign innovated in game modes, but it definitely needs a co-op. Game modes is what keeps you playing indeed, either soloist or multiplayers!
I don't think just because some RTSs are similar to their predecessors or other games that makes it bad. My concern is, is it well made. And I get people who don't like playing similar games but to me it is a none issue. What I care more about is if the story is different.
To be fair, I think Relic is still testing the waters and wanted to see if they could even do an RTS that sold well after trying to innovate and failing miserably with Dawn of War 3, a game so reviled by the community it might have killed the whole franchise forever.
I play a lot of both AOE 2 and 4 they are very different games. AOE 4 has innovated from previous AOE games. Units and buildings have multiple different attacks that can attack at the same time. Example keeps having arrow attacks and cannon attacks, elephant archers having melee and ranged attacks. Walls being walkable. building gates and towers on the walls rather than in between or behind them. Units building siege equipment in the field. The landmark victory condition Civ bonuses that effect how you build your town. Example Ottomans will build their production buildings around blacksmiths, Mongols will build their buildings right next to their villagers then move them to there ovoo. All the Delhi sultanate technologies are free and their research speed is tied to how many scholars they have working in mosques
Relic innovated, hard.. and they came up with Dawn of War III. Need I remind you how abysmal that game was? back-flipping terminator armor, throwaway squads that are meant to be cannon fodder to hero units, and a campaign that ends with MOBA-esque gameplay. So now I think they are in the right direction, they began listening more to feedback. Innovation and change is good - but be bloody careful with it. Besides COH3 is supposed to resemble COH1, and AOE4 takes heavy inspiration form AOE2 - so why the hell would anyone expect heavy changes?
The question for me is, why would anyone want a game that’s just basically a spiritual reboot of games they already own, if they could have something fresh and ambitious instead?
@@AndysTake Because sometimes I just want more of something i love. Fresh and ambitious is great when it works but I don't need every game to be revolutonary. I have some games series that hit a sweet spot for me in some way or another and i really just want more (and maybe some refinement.)
Hey there, sometimes changing things for no other reason than innovation is the worse decision concerning RTS. Look at StarCraft 1, it is still being played to this day because of how competitive the game is, the same goes for a game like age of empires 2. I get casual player base will get bored of an rts after a while, like I did before I started playing competitively. But RTS draws it's strength from competitive gameplay and how good you can get at it, which has no limits in a good RTS. Many of Relics RTS were done in that innovation for the sake of it light without taking into consideration competition, balancing or core aspects/mechanics like pathfinding, unique unit control and so on. And so did publishers like EA from the battle for middle earth series. Those games brought new cool toys but forgot about the most important depth and aspects of RTS making them unworthy of long competitive replayability, for various reasons depending on the game. CoH has a crappy pathfinding and the squad system deprives you of single units micro while having auto ressources by capping points which deprives you of ressources and workers management. Dawn of war had similar problems and the sequel number 2 was a micro only game with no macro aspects what so ever, the focus of these games being theatricality before gameplay quality. To the casual player base, this was quality, to the experienced RTS players who is seeking in depth gameplay, this was unpolished and greatly lacking. There is a reason 1998 StarCraft is still being played to this day, competitively, while being such an old game with terrible core mechanics we now take for granted, it's because you can never be good enough on it, you can always improve, and that is the core value of RTS. Your success is determined by your actions and not by crappy balance or bad mechanics or lame powers etc... Which are fun until they aren't anymore. The core aspect of RTS is a never ending state of constant change done by the players in the gameplay, the constant on going battle to get better and fight ever stronger opponents. That is made possible by the game giving more and more possibilities to the players in term of freedom of play. For example: instead of having kill death animations that stops the unit in its track just to have theatricality because it looks cool, have it move around smoother, handle itself better, be able to do more stuff! Because that's what's fun about RTS being able to do more and more with the same cards we were given when we started playing, when a unit, a strategy, a build order, an action becomes more than what you were capable of doing before simply because you are learning how to push the boundaries of yourself and the game is built to do that. Enter StarCraft II which improved upon everything his predecessor did and pushed again the boundaries of what was possible in RTS gameplay. Not necessarily in term of big innovations or new mechanics but improving upon the basic gameplay and giving the players more control, more possibilities in what *they* could do. Relics games were amazing, I played a great deal out of them but as any casual player I moved to other games, until I played back a classic and became competitive on it, the battle for middle earth 2 extension with community patch balancing. I plunged into it and became a competitive RTS player even though the scene was dead on that for the reasons I cited above, so I know very well where you come from and where all casuals come from. That's why Age of Empire latest entry IV is a big success, sure it's not been taking risk in the setting or "new" mechanics but it's done a great job at giving the player more freedom and brought back the depth of older RTS like aoe2. Even so, the competitive scene while being a bit limited compared to say SC2 is growing and improving and probably will one day be bigger and reach a wider audience. That's due to the fact that the game did things right in its core and will continue improving balance and bugs as for an RTS that game is but a baby (think SC1, SC2 and others) so it will grow. My advice in term of RTS is to push the boundaries of casual play and you will see what an RTS is above a cool game making battles, which total war games do, that's why they've been very successful in pleasing that casual player base get more "cool battles" while the real cool battles happen at the tip of your mouse while microing mutas and spreading creep or by microing knight while shooting mangonels and raiding your opponent's base while harvesting a relic :D. I hope I managed to open your mind a little more about what an RTS is supposed to be and why it is so hard to try to please a casual audience that wants big explosions and easy units with big powers while the experienced and professional audience wants more control over their units, interesting balance and mechanics and more freedom to make stuff happen :)
You should check out Beyond All Reason. It's a community driven remake of Total Annihilation filled to the brim with features that slap your head and wonder where they've been in our games all these years. Most importantly you can have 32 players in one game swarming the map with thousands if not tens of thousands of units while everything is carpet bombed with nukes and artillery and the game won't skip a frame. If the industry won't deliver, the gamers will.
Removing some, adding others. Doesn’t mean you have to like the changes, but it’s a fact that many features have been added that weren’t there before, but again, for better or worse.
nah they been adding new pointless features like half assed political systems, irrelevant general level ups an crap that we dont give a fk about and never had in the oldies
World in Conflict, Men of War, Supremme Commander, Homeworld, Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, Wargame Red Dragon, etc. Those were inovation, 99% of rts are AoE or Starcraft clones
I think the main issue RTS as a genre had was the struggle to transition to 3d games. A trope of the early to mid 00's was how bad many of them looked, Age of empires 3 and c&c general's for example, compared to the sprite based games that shortly proceeded them. Company heroes was the main exception for a long time and only Total War really continuously improved. Many games have become stagnant during the 00's with games like Empire at War and C&C 4 (ok 2010) that tried to go outside the box being seen as too repetitive. These games burned a lot of the attempted innovation and forced those making RTS games to keep it safe. Hell even the total war series in it's historical games have been complained of making the games too user friendly at the cost of the older role playing elements
Sounds like you grew up on the same RTS games as me. Really the only one I grew up on that wasn't on your list was RTS (actually called that. Very niche old game, was basically an RTS where ya command plastic toy army men. Was pretty good and to my knowledge unique in that when your troops died you could harvest the plastic they left behind to refund some of thier cost. Kinda morbid when ya think about it.) But yeah RTS may have been my first RTS but I spent way more time growing up with Empire at War, Command and Conquer Generals, and Age of Empires 2. Remember I had the discs for them and for age of Empires 2 it had a little fold out thing for the expansion disc. Me as a 7 or so young kid never thought to look for that, think I found that second disc like 7 or 8 years later and only because I dropped the case and both discs fell out. Sorry for rambling TLDR: like your video, played the same games growing up +1, and I was dumb as a kid missed out on the AOE 2 expansion for 7 or 8 years.
I gonna say something strange, wrong or kind of true: Hey you can't reimagine the wheel every day. There is so much and little you can improve in a game concept. Surething, they play safe nowadays so less innovation but it is like the movies. EVERY topic of a movie has been done already at least 1 time. So that's the limitation too.
Is it tried and true? Sure. But I think AoE 4 is remarkable rn as basically the only RTS that's come out in the past couple of years with such a large and dedicated multiplayer scene. I'd say that's because it does the traditional formula so well and the constant balancing and shifting of the different civs ingame has been done masterfully. At a time when quality RTS games with a consistent player base is hard to find, I'm more than happy with AoE 4. Also, relic definitely learned from Planetary Annihilation, a fun completely crazy RTS which went a bit too far off the beaten path and suffered from a stale gameplay loop by focusing on the wrong aspects. I'd much rather an RTS hamper down the basics and nail those then swing for the fences with a shaky foundation.
I do agree that games nowadays hardly try to feel fresher and mostly go back to familiarity rather than innovation, but that's the entire industry as a whole now. Big games back then were made as games first, while big games now are made as IP and Brand first. Hence why Indies have gotten popular, since they don't get the weight of corporative influences onto them while also being open to creating new IPs and Brands; yet even some indies end up in the same path or are one and dones. And that's the thing, your examples of CoH or Empire at War sure were revolutionary when they came out, but that's because they are _new_ in every shape and form when they _did_ come out. The critique of innovation and being revolutionary would bear more on newer IPs and Brands than on existing ones; not saying that we shouldn't criticize existing IPs and Brands for not trying something new, but that the weight should be less. When it comes to innovation there is the question on "When is too much innovation?" that it becomes a different thing entirely. Like the Ship of Theseus but instead of replacing the old parts you instead just add on to it. For example, what is there for CoH3 to innovate on now without entirely turning it into something completely detached from the core of CoH? How much innovation and things can be added that it'd still _be_ CoH? People can think of many features to implement and remove in games, but don't realize that adding and removing features slowly changes the identity of the game bit by bit. CoH3 for the most part has innovated a bunch already both on the mechanical and technical aspect; the only aspect that I guess could use some innovation/touching up would be the graphics/visuals/audio like what majority of the complaints people have for CoH3 are. Weapon towing, tank riding, side armor, height advantage, a more physics based building destruction system, auto reinforcing, halftrack recrewing, preplaced quick base building, breaching, these are all mechanically innovative for this franchise whilst not being too much that it removes from how CoH feels. It has more technical/mechanical innovations than CoH2 had at launch to CoH1, and even CoH2 had a lot of innovative ideas (how good or bad it was is up to debate)
Something else I want to add to this, especially recalling the glory of those old games. It's been many, many years since they were done, and I think it's safe to say the guys that made those games what they were retired or moved on to other things. One way or another. You can see this in some other dev studios that seem to have regressed compared to their successes in the 1990s and 2000s. Maybe even the very early 2010s. DICE, Blizzard, BioWare, Creative Assembly, etc. It's been many years. A lot of players think fondly of the glory years of some dev studio and think they're always going to be great. They never are. Time flies, people move on, the guys that made the classics, made the company what it was, have moved on.
Even though I globally agree with you, I think you could have talked about AoE3. It was fairly different from the 2nd one and people hated it, gathering a small player base. When AoE4 was announced, the first comment was "I hope it'll be AoE2 but updated", so I believe the players are also to blame. If Coh3 was too far away from the first and second, people would have hated it
I think the problem of RTS isn't the innovation at all, it is more about the people who is incredibely nostalgic of those great RTS games from before (and in general, any person is as well atached to the games that were most impactful to them, some sort of "loyalty" and "resiliancy to changes"), so any new RTS will never really be that popular; it will happen the same to MOBA's, after LOL and DOTA, nothing will really replace them at all.
Don't know much about Relic Entertainment beyond the games they make. It is quite interesting how "RTS" games just faded into obscurity over the past 10 years. Like Besides the ones you mentioned the only Major Franchise left is HOMEWORLD, specifically Homeward 3 which comes out this year if i recall. On a side note, let it be clear their is a difference between "RTS" and "RTT" games. Strategy is for the "General" or "Commander" to worry about, while Tactics is for the "Captain" or "Sargent" to consider. Their is one thing that sticks out to me though, WHY HAS NO ONE MADE A GAME LIKE EMPIRE AT WAR?! Ignore the fact its a Star Wars game for a second, Empire At War is a "RTS" with "RTT" battles. It combines the "Grand Strategy" and "Tactical Battles" into one Real Time package, thus appealing to a wider audience. Their is the phrase "if it aren't broke don't fix it", but the problem is "repetition". Like....oh god whats that STEAMPUNK game that everyone compared to company of heros thats based off a painting? That game was clearly "inspired" by Company of Hero's so naturally it got compared to it. And given i can't even remember its name right now tells you something.
@@AndysTake Thats the one. Looked pretty fun, but you could call it a "reskin" of Company of heros just with MECHS instead of TANKS. Not saying thats a bad thing, Company of Heros is certainly a good example to "copy" from. But yeah RTS just hasn't Changed in like 10-20 years. You get of 3 mission types: build a base and crush the opposing force, Defend a Base, or you play a more "tactical" mission with limited units or you pick up units as you go. (as i said if it aren't broke, don't fix it, that does not excuse lack of Improvement) And the Game industry just seems to have left it to die, with a few exceptions like Homeworld or Relics various titles.
Not blaming anyone at a company --> makes a video called The Company Killing the RTS Genre. If you thought Relic was the end of RTS, you haven't been around that long. Arguably, RTS has been for nearly 10 years. Once PUBG-like games came along, they completely overwhelmed the multiplayer game market. Kids were now playing FPS multiplayer games and not Command and Conquer or StarCraft (like myself when I was a kid).
There's a couple of thoughts I have about why there isn't any radical evolution of the genre; 1) Innovation costs a lot of time and money and is not guaranteed to lead to success. I'm sure a lot of RTS devs have some really cool ideas for the genre but too much of a change could see the audience not receive these ideas positively. If an RTS game comes out that drastically changes the formula and sells incredibly well then we'll start to see more drastic changes, but its a big risk to take initially. 2) Devs know what the players want. Whether its the real time battles of Total War or the resource and base building focus of Company of Heroes or Age of Empires there is a known formula that has a proven track record when it comes to sales. It coincides a little with point 1 but why would a dev team risk their company going under when a tried and true formula is still hugely popular. I would have liked to hear your own thoughts as to what exactly you think should be innovated on and changed up drastically in the RTS space. I think it would help add a little more to the video and a little less surface level with the assessment. I think your take on Creative Assembly is wildly incorrect too, especially if we're talking about the lack of innovation in the RTS genre.
Tried AOE4 on game pass and couldn't believe what a watered down game it was compared to 3. Most of the people giving it rave reviews just seemed to dislike 3's setting and would have been better off playing 2 remastered.
I can't believe there aren't a ton of new modern RTS games on console since it would be so easy to use any usb mouse. We need this genre to make a serious come back.
Coh3 inovation goes into multiplayer, auto vault, height mechanic, better unit reaction, totally different factions and one specific very different from previous games ( DAK), the game has small issues yes, but it improved a lot and people praise its multiplayer,
I have nothing bad to say about Relic, they at least do something despite not being ready to take risk. Unfortunately making RTS makes little financial sense in our time. If you create such a game you are looking to selling say 10 million copies at best case (if you get to Starcraft level of success and eSport dominance) raking 600 million over lifetime. Decent conventional RTS on the level of BFME 2 or Tib Wars will sell around 1.5 million raking 90 million which is very little relative to other games. You can't monetise RTS too much as you can't split your multiplayer with too much disparate DLCs and there can be no loot boxes. It's much more profitable to make FIFA or Diablo Immortal to rake a billion per year. If you want to get decent RTS and games in general you need to influence your legislators,MPs or whatever sit in your legislature to ban loot box mechanics in your country (like in Belgium) to make the crap unprofitable. Also pressure anti-monopoly bodies to remove exclusive licenses and replace them with fixed royalties. In that way publishers like EA and Activision will be forced to make games again.
Been making several videos on the topic on my own channel trying to develop some ideas of how the genre could innovate. At the moment, I've made videos on a Gas Giant Homeworld Game, Dawn of War 4 and most recently Starcraft 2.
@@AndysTake Been thinking about this for a while, but if you wanted to do any kind of reaction video on those videos I talked about in my above comment then I'm all for it.
Gotta say Rise of Nations is my all-time favorite. BHG were able to make the different factions play very differently and gave them unique flavor despite almost identical unit rosters. You could have a lot of fun whether going all the way from the ancient age to the modern day or whether limiting age advancement to only a couple of eras.
I don't think it's only the lack of innovation or the absence of passion. The CoH3 release indicates that there was not enough time: animations, physics, audio and graphics look unpolished. Also, seeing two German factions for the Axis third time in a row is tiresome. Where are the Italians, the Vichy French, the Japanese?
AOE4 and CoH3 are both reboots. Not sure why you paint this as some grand relevation. These are franchises that were brought back after more than a decade. Of course they are basically reboots. Changing anything too major does not tend to go too well after such a long time. Victoria 3 is a good recent example.
@@AndysTake Not in my opinion and that of many others. The player numbers also show that it is hardly a hit even if it is not exactly on a Imperator level. Which is what matters to publishers. Dawn of War 3 is another example. When publishers see this they aren't going to risk innovating when reviving a franchise. It's not limited to RTS games either.
I have to say, I appreciate your take, but I think you really missed the mark. Relic is not the company responsible for this state of RTS. In fact, I would argue that Relic is the ONLY company even bothering to hold back the death of RTS. I believe its the players themselves who have put RTS into this state. Players DEMAND the same and outright reject and berate attempts at innovation. Relic learned this lesson the hardest way possible with DoW3. arguably the single worst launch of an RTS in history. DoW 3 was universally reviled by fans of the series because it took too much of a departure from the previous iterations. Hordes of screeching fans review bombed it for being different on top of the actual normal criticisms for bad choices they made. And the game certainly was flawed but it was easily their most ambitious attempt at innovating the genre EVER. Problem is. Fans of old school RTS dont want change, they want the same game but better. and non RTS fans who they were trying to bring in fresh blood with the innovations never even got a chance to form a fan base around it because of how intense the backlash was. It was so bad that IMO Relic decided then and there that they will pull the plug on DoW and then in the future NEVER mess with the formula fans love, instead attempting QoL changes and minor variations to add flavor. And then we see again with the launch of AoEV and CoH2 yet another screeching pile-on of fans panning the game because they don't understand why the brand new game isn't as polished and good as the previous one it's based on that has 10 plus years of development post launch. I wouldn't be surprised if we see relic announce, "we have heard the fans and have decided no longer to produce RTS games at all." Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think we have no one to thank but ourselves. for viciously punishing any attempts at making RTS in an already nearly dead market. (Not to say normal criticism isn't warranted, just that people need to change their expectations with new releases or see the genre die completely) We have signaled as RTS consumers that, "RTS is almost dead, it may not even have the player-base to make a profitable game any longer, AND, the environment is so toxic and elitist that even attempting to take a risk and fund a large RTS will likely be met with intense scorn and backlash."
Not really thinking of CoH3 as a money maker when it's store page isn't even open yet. I feel it's important to weigh it against the previous release states of CoH games. And I'm patient to see where things go. There isn't a huge playerbase for RTS but that's ok. We should just focus on making the best product possible. CoH3 runs pretty well for me, exceptionally well. And good lord I hated bulletins and the store/rewards for CoH2. Anything but that...
To some extent there is only so much you can do to innovate a game without changing its core gameplay. Coh3 makes small improvements and changes to most areas but ultimately is the same core gameplay loop of the previous games.
I'm just guessing, but it makes a lot of sense that relic plays it safe atm, after dawn of war 3. I wish they'd played it safe with that too, where it would basicly just be dow2 with better graphics, more races and units, a solid foundation onto which they could add some smaller "innovation" without removing the things that worked.
TLDW: I grew up playing the main OG RTS games. I played so much games throughout for a decade that if my brothers don't invite me to play co-op and/or if it's not the theme or features that I like, chances are I may will skip it. Apart from that, RTS is the general genre, and inside that general genre, it branches to more genres or its own variants, heck if you go to wiki and search for RTS games, you will see Crusader Kings, Warno on that list. Chances are you probably want the OG RTS like COH, C&C, EE, etc. While those games are great, I grew up playing them, especially COH, times changes, the players changes and their taste/play style changes. Younger kids, heck even adults nowadays, prefer Battle Royale style games more than playing RTS type games. For me, I still like the RTS style games but I branches to more genres. True that the main age of the OG RTS game passed, but the RTS genre is never fully gone, it just modified itself to other variants
I’ll disagree strongly with putting lacking of ambition and innovation as a bad thing because this was the exactly right moment to go back for the their roots. We rts players were begging for a new age and coh game that was basically a remake of ideas that worked well cause the previous titles were already more than 10 years old and we already have many rts games trying new things (which is great, dont get me wrong) but playing safe was the best choice relic did cause we needed a new stepping stone to quench our thirst for classic, familiar experiences. Im so glad relic designed their new games with familiar mechanics and tested formulas so we have now great new things to play so they can experiment with other titles. Some games have very defined expectations and although i think cod, assassins or fifa can go f themselves, we dont have early releases of coh, homeworld, aoe etc, so im completely fine with them the only modernizing their core formulas. Edit: im still sad that dow 3 didn’t worked out. I love dow2 and really wish they give one more shot with dow series. I don’t even care if they go for dow1 style, just make a new game relic, pleaaaase.
One gem of the RTS genre is a game called ParaWorld where you can have armies of prehistoric creatures. It had Amazing music too! Anyone remember or know ParaWorld?
I do. ParaWorld was awesome, the unit promotion mechanism was interesting, and obviously, the theme was awesome - dinosaurs and steampunk! What a shame that it now lies forgotten.
1 company cant innovate alone. Thats not how innovation work. They are just modernising what people loved years ago. Innovation comes from rival companies trying to best each other's games or one studio trying to perfect a game like elden ring and baldur's gate.
It's just the RTS AAA scene the one that's dying. The more indie you go, the more innovative it is. They are billions, Diplomacy Is Not An Option. The same with other genres of games, shooters, card games, etc.
This take is a little shortsighted unfortunately, and doesn't understand the broader strategy gaming sphere, player taste, as well as the market driving these decisions. "Relic" didn't make any of these decisions. Microsoft told them to make an Age of Empires 2 reboot, so they did. Sega told them to make a game more like Company of Heroes 1, because it was safe. Any studio owned by a publisher, you can basically bet that the publisher is going to be handling most of the 'creative' decisions. Safe makes money. Honestly, consumers are stupid and like having the same thing. A newer game can be made that is better than the original, and people will still claim the original game is better, regardless of if the statement is true. Take Eugen Systems' WARNO, for example. It is functionally a much more modern Wargame: Red Dragon, with a lot of UI and QOL features that put the original Wargame to shame. Yet people still stan Red Dragon. Why? The unit selection or something. Then take into account that WARNO and Steel Division and Wargame are all more complex, interesting, evolved real-time tactics games, with deep, thoughtful gameplay that requires a long time to learn and master, and yet these games are basically sinking in the modern gaming landscape. The honest truth? People like imbalanced games with stupid "I win" buttons and dumb 1-unit strategies that are completely thoughtless and take no effort to learn or play. COH1 was an imbalanced mess of a game, and still is, yet people won't stop talking about how it's mechanically better than 2 and 3 despite all evidence to the contrary. It isn't Relic's fault. It's an ecosystem of publishers making safe bets and a playerbase who honestly could care less about strategy and tactics.
As someone who has been on the inside looking out in many of the mentioned titles, the problem with the current studios is this idea that rts players are looking for something new, they are not. In fact there looking for something old and familiar. You can have the best intentions yet come up short. Company of heroes 1 and 2 were about the experience of the soldiers. Coh 3 unfortunately moved away from that model.
Every word you've said is what I think about new RTS continued version of older famous games, well almost. I'm a big fan of aoe series. As much as I tried to stay satisfied with aoe4 well I was not really. This cartoonish game is not what we wanted after almost 15 years of not releasing any really new pc game. But TBH I am really thankful for what the developers have done so far. Only I wish they actually do what they did in the past perfectly.
some of my favourite RTS games lately have been Eugen's Games WARNO/Steel Division, and Battlefronts Combat mission. Both games series have a virtually identical set of mechanics between their respective games, but because they are often set in different eras, the way they are played changes drastically between games.
WARNO is probably one of the best newer RTS right now along with their previous Wargrame red dragon. Its gives a feel of world in conflict but way more units to control. You get jets, ships, infantry in modern era and replays super well.
Coh 3 doesn't need to be all new or revolutionary, it needs to be good quality, whch it is not. They put a lot of love into the details in the previous games. Take the sound design for instance. Coh 3 doesn't have that.
I want to comment on the stagnation, and part of the problem not necessarily talked about, that the RTS playerbase can be the most persnickety people about change or innovation. I played CoH2 at launch and played it on and off until CoH3 came out, and I had played CoH1 before as well. CoH2 introduced a number of new mechanics, including inclement weather and terrain, and all units being called from off-map. I liked all of these changes, and fealt that it was a solid step forward from CoH1. It wasn't all perfect, but it was new. But then, the stalwarts from CoH1 began complaining that the game had changed too much. They wanted the infantry to spawn from the buildings rather than arrive from off- map like in CoH1. They didn't want to play around the inclement weather or terrain. So, they continually asked for all of these features to be removed,because it wasn't enough like CoH1. If you play the campaign or theatre of war, you can still see a lot of these mechanics, but play online in quick play? These new, innovative mechanics are completely removed, because of a playerbase that disliked change. I think it shows in CoH3, where in many aspects it more closely resembles CoH1 than CoH2. On a more personal level, there was another game, Empire Earth, I game I had always preferred to AoE (although I did also love AoE). Well over a decade after it came out, a friend and I found a community that still played the game on a dedicated server. So we joined and played, and naturally got wiped. Now, what was the reaction? Joy that new people had found this server for this ancient game? No, it was mostly derision and asking where these noobs came from. There was one exception, and I wish I could remember the guy's name, but he tried to help us get better and coach us, but no-one else was friendly and so we gave up. It's a bit of an essay, and I am NOT trying to say that this is somehow all on the players, even if people complained, the company still made the decision to make the changes. The RTS genre has absolutely been stagnant for awhile and I 100% agree with everything Andy has said. I just figured I would also show that there does exist a force that argues for stagnation, that wants things to stay the same. Even if it comes as a detriment to the genre or community as a whole.
@@AndysTake have you tried them? Real time tactics with ai that can actually be surprisingly competent. Especially gates of hell, they've optimised it and you can have quite a lot of troops and armor. Definitely some of the best strategy games when it comes to satisfying battles and immersion imo.
With CA, I've come to expect cut or dumbed down features over pushing the bar further. Seems like every Total War release gets farther and farther away from what originally made me fall in love with the series (Medieval 2 spoiled me forever lol).
I think the problem is mainly the players. If they take a new lead, people will hate it for being different and if it is actually bad that could be the end of the series. They may wind up being good in the end but the initial release might just break it if the launch is bad. Examples: No Man's Sky was different but hated. Battlefield made hardline and was hated for being "not battlefield" although good in its own right. Tbh the problem is the title not the games.
Relic died years ago with sega it's not the same devs they are at BBI blackbird interactive and homeworld 3 is going to be lit 🔥!!! Follower devs not company's there's a reason why age 4 Dow 3 and now coh 3 all have the same complaints and no inovation because the talent from relic is at BBI blackbird interactive!!!
Relic announced that they would take a conservative development for COH3 after what happened to DOW3, where they went for full innovation and no one liked sadly as fans wanted more of the exact same but with better graphics
The biggest obstacle to innovation are the fans. In Age of Empires 4, the developers oriented themselves extremely towards AoE2 because otherwise the fans would have torn it up. We saw it in Dawn of War 3. What was actually a very good game was destroyed by the fans because it wasn't a DoW1 copy.
For me, it's more of the opposite. I get turned off by new RTS games, because they try too much to be different. Forged Battallion had the whole "Create your own Faction" gimmick, Dawn of War 3 had too much focus on the heroes and their new MOBA like mode, Crossfire Legion had you pick and chose which units you want to have available during your match and Etherium had a system, where you only had limited building space you needed to have a steady connection with your base to keep those buildings powered. And I don't want any of that. I just want my Dawn of War 1/ Command and Conquer/ StarCraft styled RTS game, where I build up my base, build up my army and then Attack move towards the enemy and watch the spectacel unfolding. Personally, I see innovation in the graphical fidelity. More realistic graphics, realistically scaled units, more features that make units look alive, like CoH1 did and more gore. Basically, make an RTS with the graphics of Battlefield 5.
I was born in 2005 and haven't played many early 2000s games but I can definitely tell a lot of games these days are more reaching for money than actually trying to entertain their community
Relic isn't so much risk-averse, just seems that the few experimental stuff they do just never end up becoming more widespread. The Ardennes Assault for COH2 was a turn-based campaign for the Americans post-Normandy, which as an idea was fun, but it was clearly a COH version of their Dawn of War II campaign design. I can't help but feel that Relic is more like hobbled by very bad, conservative, bare-minimum management, so that is what the staff will do: survive, not thrive. Their latest games all reflect this, focus on absolute game breaking bugs, but greater focus on an in-game store, DLCs and marketing.
There was an underrated RTS from the early 2000's called Empire Earth. That game was such a good game.
YEEEESSSS!!!!!
Yea man, I still have the disc. I loved how at the end of the game it told you the Battles between each faction, like Battle of York, with each sides' starting strenght and losses. I love that game
Is there a way to play the EE games today?
@@AndysTake YES! On GOG!
And there was a community made multiplayer thingy, but I forgot its name.
I personally wouldn't call the battles in Total War games an example of RTS games being alive and well. Total War mixes turn-based strategy on the campaign map with real-time tactics for its battles. Both TBS and RTT are in my opinion distinct from RTS and should be treated as their own separate thing.
I agree when I think of RTS it would be company of heroes, battle for middle earth 1&2 and age of empires and northgard to name a few
yeah Total war games have stagnated completely in terms of gameplay systems. Warhammer total war have the most fun battles sure, but the campaign gameplay mechanics are so barebones.
CA are one of those companies that are creatively bankrupt. They obviously have some good devs coming up with systems like 3k supply and politics, Troy economy etc. but then whoever is in charge decides not to add it to the total war formula for later games. The whole only being able to recruit units into an army with a general and having a limited number of generals has been a thing since Rome 2 and is objectively terrible game design since it exists soley because of the AI. .
Is Emperror Battle for Dune not an RTS then? It also has a turn based campaign with territories.
That is a very wrong take. Two typical RTS modes are skirmish (vs AI or another players) and narrative campaign. Total war turn based campaign just adds gameplay to campaign where instead of individual missions deriving context from the pre-written narrative, they derive context from the malleable situation on the map.
Skirmish battles, multiplayer, ranked ladder and so on remain fully real time. In fact, you could add a completely turn-based campaign to Starcraft 2 and 99.9% of players would not even notice any change. But according to you, it would no longer qualify as an RTS anymore
@@mrsswindon imagine having this steamy terrible take Warhammer series has so many different campaign features and abilities that even two of the same sub factions tend to have different gameplay mechanics
@@brycehoward4139 worst supply system in the entire total war series. non existent politics. Basically no empire wide management beyond building up your cities. Factions that get a random buff every 20 turns isnt exactly what i consider to be a high quality gameplay mechanic.
So sure, they all have tiny little different gemplay mechanics but they are pretty basic. I was talking about the general level of depth that exists in warhammer total war 3 which disapointed me when i realised they didnt incorporate any new systems they made for other total wars since the release of WH1 and 2.
RTS genre is hit especially hard, but the stagnation and decline is clearly visible in every genre now.
100%. It's also true of mobas. There's hardy any new releases and nearly all take 99% of the League formula as a given, instead of innovating.
At least Battlebit: Remastered is [now] showing these AAA devs how to make a game lol. It’s such a good game.
I think that it depends on the fact that games cost a lot more to make now, so companies play safe. For instance I see a lot of innovative ideas in the field of city building where one man or very few people studios can actually produce a game
It is not merely a matter of real-time strategy games, but rather the broader realm of modern gaming as a whole. Despite impressive advancements in graphics, there appears to be a corresponding decline in gameplay innovation. This trend is observable even in the sequel iterations of popular titles, as exemplified by the Man of War and Total War series. In summary, while there are commendable strides being made in graphical technology, there seems to be a corresponding degradation in the improvement and innovation of existing gameplay mechanics.
That was articulated very well and is 100% on the money. We all know the underlying cause for this stagnation is the adoption of the mobile gaming business model across the entire industry. Everyone’s looking for the next Fortnite live service game.
As a 30 year old gamer I often reminisce in the good ol’ $15 DLC map packs of the early 2000s. As crazy as that sounds. Just think back to BF3 era of gaming. You would get a complete game on launch and each DLC pack was multiple maps and weapons.
Now take BF2042 which launched disastrously and only released 4 maps since its release on 10/6/21. The game had a fraction of BF3’s guns and still does, had no campaign and had less destruction than an game released 10 years prior. They had 4 seasons with a map released each season alongside a “specialist” character. All locked behind a season pass which would be like $10 each season. It’s such a worse deal for the consumer than the DLC era.
What’s scary too is how in love the younger generation is in with cosmetics. My nephew often will spend just as much time changing his character around in Fortnite than he does playing the game. He’ll join creative lobbies that are just a fashion show that judges the accuracy to the skin and the emote to the theme. What in the hell is that? It’s a sign they molded a generation to this business model.
Speed wolf??? Didnt expect to find you here..
@@JgorinacIt appears to me that the notion of downloadable content, or DLC, was not yet a prevalent concept in the early 2000s. Instead, expansion packs were the norm, with The Sims being a prime example of a game that took this approach to an extreme degree. Furthermore, it seems that updates that included additional maps, skins, or other content were freely provided to PC gamers at the time. From my recollection, it was not until 2008 that the DLC trend began to gain traction, largely due to its proliferation in console games. Moreover, the advent of paid cosmetic items on PC was largely attributed to the influence of Warcraft, a game that I personally did not engage with.
In addition, I would like to emphasize that games released during that era were not as broken or glitch-ridden as many of today's offerings tend to be. In fact, one could argue that the contrast between the two is akin to night and day. Moreover, there was a clear incentive to own a console in those days, as the process of playing a game was straightforward and uncomplicated. You simply inserted the CD into the console and began playing without any of the technical hurdles that one often encounters today. In contrast, contemporary consoles typically require the user to download large files and perform software updates, which can potentially destabilize the system.
As someone who has witnessed the evolution of gaming firsthand, I must admit that I am somewhat dismayed by the present state of affairs. It appears that many modern gamers are unaware of the relative simplicity and convenience that was once the hallmark of gaming. Furthermore, they seem to be consistently subjected to a range of questionable practices, such as being charged exorbitant fees for DLC and other add-ons. While some may attribute this trend to inflation, it is important to remember that physical discs and packaging were once an essential component of the gaming experience. In contrast, developers now receive a far smaller percentage of sales revenue than they did in the past, while publishers often reap the lion's share of the profits. In my view, this represents a glaring example of greed within an industry that is all too often characterized by a lack of regulation, and it is consumers and developers alike who are paying the price.
@@Rogue_Tiger The fact that I am acquainted with this individual dating back to when he only had 900 subscribers is hardly a coincidence, given my extensive experience with strategy games.
@@TheRealSpeedWolf you are looking in the wrong place is all.
Oh man, you wanna make us cry 😭. I grew up playing RTS games with friends, family and strangers (here in Argentina we had places called "cybers" where you paid the hour to use a PC and play games or whatever you want and I spent many hours playing RTS with people there). The fact that we still play the same videogames from 20 years means that those were great games but aren't doing new ones like those before.
Exactly right 😭
We also had loads of cybers in poland, best thing ever, really missing them now
no quieras sentirte especial los cyber cafes existen en todo el mundo
Me gustó mucho ir a los cybers
@@BardachKOT Poland!!
I think they are worried about alienating their core audience . They experimented with Dawn of War 2, 3 and look where that took them. You must understand that making games is expensive now and it takes a lot of time unlike in the 90's, which were consider golden age of RTS games. You need to have a cash cow series so that you can earn money in other to test innovations on some other titles.
Dawn of war 2 gameplay was great. They just needed to add COH basebuilding back plus bigger maps/more factions and Dark Crusades' story based grand campaign.
From what I read about it, they couldn't add bigger maps due to engine limitations at that time and the factions were limited cause it was the only factions they could work on with rhe license they acquired from GW
Didn't really like the limited basebuilding and small unit cap myself, but they chose to go with it to save dev time and test out a new gameplay type that was more focused on small unit engagements.
Dawn of War 3 on the other hand, was complete and utter shit, and all blame goes to creative assembly for that one cause Most of the Relic devs that worked on CoH/Dow/Dow2 had already quit at that time after THQ folded just before CA acquired them, so they staffed them with devs that used to work on TW games and for some reason they decided that the games signiture cover system and iconic kill/execution animations was too much of a bother to work on so they intentionally chose to remove it and go with a more simplified (not lore based) unit gameplay and a more moba style heroes we have today which is why we now have, bubble shields for cover, smaller uninspired map design and a blood raven Chapter Master in full Terminator armor doing backflips, they basicly killed a successfull RTS franchise to save money, and to some degree we can kinda see that cost cutting measures and lack of experience working on the COH series in COH3
Yes, despite DoW2 not having base building, I accepted it as a decent title and gave it some time, because I liked DoW1. DoW3 was a complete joke though, it's like they wanted to turn RTS into a MOBA because LoL was popular? Idk
@@jamesFX3 I'm still waiting for more DoW2/CR. The campaigns were fantastic in most every area, I absolutely *adored* the blending of RTS and RPG.
That it perfectly fits the idea of a Space Marine campaign, a handful of elite super soldiers desperately fighting back against many hostile factions at once, is a bonus.
I really want more games like this, with or without the 40k label.
@@SoftisNelaris @SoftisNelaris Yeah, there's just nothing like it. The only other games kinda like it are its predecessors, DoW: Dark Crusade and DoW : Soulstorm (with unification Mod), both have a turn based grand Campaign + RTS combat similar to DOW2 but with base building, and each faction is playable making each playthrough unique.
Though I have seen some good games you may be interested in, like Aliens : Dark Descent and Miasma Chronicles, both of which are mostly squad focused, story driven rpgs. then there's X-COM 2 (modded) if you're OK with turn based combat
And if you're into historical stuff, Total War : Shogun 2 (just dont buy the fall of the samurai without playing the base game first). Total War Rome2 & Warhammer series I would recommend playing only after you've played Shogun 2, cause CA devs kinda regressed in these games when it comes to unit armor system (stat based instead of physical), sieges (complete downgrade), and naval combat (none in warhammer series).
@@duskworker8469 after all this years i still yet have to understand how DoW3 resemble a moba, this reminds me of a dude on reddit talking shit with me about the game and 20 min into the argument i realized he didn't know basebuilding in the game is a thing, people that didn't even played the game killed it, and we are not going to see W40k game ever again after that backlash
Relic revolutionized not one or 2 but 4 times the RTS genre, with Homeworld, Impossible Creatures, Company of Heroes and DoW2 Chaos Rising.
DOW 1 dude, DOW2 was a mistake, DOW is company of heroes in space, they had to use the same COH engine due to budget limits and pressure
Yes and then Sega bought them and all the talented devs left and formed BBI blackbird interactive which is why homeworld 3 will be great and made with passion and why Dow 3 and age 4 and now coh 3 are all souless trash 🗑️💩 follow the "devs" not the company name relic died years ago ! If people stopped pre ordering 💩 crap and consuming junk half assed games and cash grabs the industry wouldn't be in this state it's the sheeple peasants 🐑 fault!
@@diego2817 DoW2 was amazing. Schizos cope harder.
DOW 1 was before COH and did most of the things. Game engine is OLD and was not their making, but now it can run on everything, even first intel HD and looks fine enough, thanks to art style.
It is probably the only one RTS, which has it all:
-morale
-accuracy on the move,
-meele units, which force other to melee stance
-assault units, which can jump for raid
-artillery and disorganisation (unit mass stats)
-hero units with abilities
-armor type for infantry, vehicles, buildings
-simple but efective cover system
-great, different races, with a large enough lore to care about them, almost every one of them is diffrent playstyle
-strategic point resorces, but with energy made by buildings
-mines
-infiltration
-critical locations
-"relic" elite units
-not bad balance, if you learn to counter "op" plays, being dynamic is a key to victory... They aimed for funny esport.
-sync kills
...............................................
I will never get bored of Dreadnought, but imagine how many animations they could add to remake, to not repeat actions. I don`t need a new crap, I need polished DOW 1 remake.
Anyway, I am enjoying COH 3. I skipped COH 1 online, and whole COH2, so it`s great fun to play with other "new ones" players and relic veterans...
@@zbigniew2628 nice wall of text, zibi. There are meds for that for sure.
I agree with you: It's not just RTS or even games, it's movies too. In fact, the entire culture industry. It's about so much money that no studio can afford a complete flop and so they'd rather throw out the 7th sequel than dare to innovate. And the buyers seem to agree with them. At the moment the innovation is at most in the indie area, not with AAA studios.
Yeah, this seems to be true for many big budget titles in both industries.
The buyer has no choice if he wants a AAA. Sure there is the indi scene but it's a niche market we don't talk about Billions revenue. Minecraft is ONE exception.
I think it has to do with the demand of content consumption. There is so much demand that studios pump out mediocre content as fast as possible to meet the demand. Consumers end up settling because they'd rather be entertained by medocrity than not. I think the industry needs to grow massively for good content to come back.
I agree but at the source it is not the companies at fault but the customers
Who willingly give them money for what they know is not the best they could have gotten
If we stop buying the games they will change.
But nobody wants to stop buying the games
For whatever reason
It’s a very weird phenomenon
Every field nowadays wants to cut quality for more profits
I'm glad you mentioned Age of empires 3. It's truely ambitious and fearless in it's new direction. That's why it's my favorite rts. The card system makes the game so replayable and why there is still an active multiplayer community to this day (even though it's not as famous as AoE2 or 4)
Exactly, it really deserves a lot of praise!
Except.... it didn't sale well. Just that's it for compagny nowadays.
@@AndysTake lol, I remember when it launched any nobody could play it because of how high of PC requirements it required to run. That did not deserve a lot of praise.
AoE4 is more popular? Really? That game felt so vanilla for a modern RTS.
I agree age 3 is amazing. Although it undermines the point of the video. Aoe3 was actually innovative in some ways ane people hated it :/
I think rts target playerbase is really tough to please.
Bunch of people in their late 20 and early 30 that wanna feel like they felt when they were kids but also demand innovation.
Just look at age as a whole series.
Aoe2 was great.
Aoe3 was innovative and people disliked that.
Aoe4 went back to aoe2 roots and people dislike that.
You explained it yourself why people do not iterate and try no changes with your own examples. Age of Empires 3 considered by the majority of the Age fanbase a mistake, it sold worse than 2 and essentially it's bad reception killed the IP for almost a decade and half
Companies out there to make money, they cannot risk a new, innovative but financially failure when now days games takes 3-5 years to make
Age 3 also went into a time period that is more niche though - it is considered the best game in the entire series by many.
@@AndysTake the question is how many? as compared to aoe2 the numbers are not much. I said this in another video but I think we put too high of expectations on these companies. We also expect too much from our own selves where we expect new innovation from game companies and then expect majority of us to atleast accept the changes. Do note that my favorite aoe is 3 and I think it is the best but not "everyone" like it. Unfortunately, companies only look into "everyone", with their money.
The problem with age lll is that it has to compete against some beast ( war lll, DOW 1, in 2006 against the best RTS of all time COH) there was no chance for age lll, it has a stupid campaign and card system es s big mistake, when you have a franchise you cannot go far away from roots or Dow lll will happen, when you see this kinds of videos ask yourself if the person have a clue about was is an RTS
Dawn of War 3 is another example, they tried to innovate the formula (or blend it with another genres) and it was considered a massive failure. I'm pretty sure if they had another opportunity, they would play it safe and do something similar to the first Dawn of War.
Nobody liked age 3 when it came out. Age 4 is more of a return to roots. Age 4 is a great game too but it seems like everyone is stick with age 2 de. Probably because of how much content it has plus it can run on a potato
petroglyph wants to make empire at war 2 after the world war one game
@Someone Somewhere i think petrogliph will deliver
Omg you played empire earth! Love the airport mechanic
Also isn't empire at war 2 already out like 15 years ago?
@@verihimthered2418 you mean empire earth empire at war is star wars
@@verihimthered2418 empire Earth is a historical game
and Empire Earth has 3 titels
Youre telling me that a company that is known for a certain type of RTS is still producing the same type of RTS. Thats crazy man
It’s wild, bro
Relic tried to change one of their RTS franchises, Dawn of War 3, and people hated it and the game as promptly killed. I don’t blame them for sticking to a safer approach instead of trying to reinvent the wheel when these franchises have an audience and they know what works.
The big draw for Company of Heroes 3 imo is the new theatre of the war, we get too see Italian units and a lot of new tanks and weapons not seen before in the series. Additionally small changes like elevation playing a role and tank riding + vehicles towing guns makes the game feel like a refined version of previous iterations.
I agree, and the ability to breach occupied buildings as well.
There is more to it though. DoW2 was already a major departure from DoW1, so half of the fanbase expected a return to the classic gameplay style, while the other hoped that Relic stuck to a DoW2 style. In the end, both parts of the fandom got neither.
I don’t buy into the idea that “every new game has to be revolutionary”.It seems to me in the RTS field consumers always ask for refinement of the same core mechanics rather than innovation.
You can see many attempts to innovate in the “tactical RTS” genre and so many are financial and critical failures, and when that happens to small studios they often don’t get another chance to innovate.
Also requiring every new game to be a dangerous investment to innovate and change the genre is too big of an ask. If every game was brand new and innovative it wouldn’t make those breakout hits that changed the field special anymore, and it jus towards to the same splurge of mediocrity, but instead with change being mediocre.
I dunno, something about this stance just doesn’t seem feasible to me.
I think complaining that the visuals don't look that different is a bad argument, as one you reach a certain standard of visual fidelity, every improvement after seems small. Think of viewing distances for monitors, or how apple has their "Retina" displays. We will never again see the visual jump in quality that CoH one brought, as we already passed the threshold of visual fidelity when that was released. Not to mention visuals aren't that important.
Visuals not being important is a subjective take of course, as is every other take. But COH3 could have had a much bigger jump in quality from COH1/2 than it has, that’s just a fact, as there are games out that look so much better. If that matters to you is another thing though - for me it just reeks of complacency and “this is good enough” mindset
@@AndysTake Let's say that the developers spent the time and money to improve the graphics to be "significantly" better. They would have to pull resources from other parts of the game to do so. So they weak set of new features that you critiqued would be even worse.
Not to mention that they would then limit the player base who could play the game. Great graphics require great graphics cards, and great graphics cards are expensive.
@@micahbonewell5994 sure… I’m just saying other companies deliver games that feel fresher and look better than this, and it doesn’t make sense to me when Company of Heroes used to be so innovative and truly pushed the envelope. We’re paying for this game, we have a right to expect more than what we’ve been given in the past.
@@AndysTake Consider the people that made COH 1 and 2, probably all moved on and the base code for COH 3 either has been dusty for 15 years, or had to be rewritten from scratch. It's very possible the team that made COH 3 is just plain worse than the original team. Budgets for game development have gotten worse every year, and most good software developers don't touch gaming with a ten foot stick nowadays. They all got burned.
@@micahbonewell5994 CoH2 ripped a ton of animations from CoH1 for example while CoH3 actually had to remake the animations from the ground up; hence why some models often lack the proper animation or aren't even properly weighted. One reason being that unit models have personalized animations in a squad now, where sure you can see some similar animations yet for the most part the entire squad all animate differently and isn't just a copy paste of 1 animation set for one soldier and instead a copy paste of a set of animation sets.
And if you look at the majority of the critiques CoH3 has, it's mostly all regarding visual and UI issues with occasional technical bugs; way better than having reviews all regarding technical and mechanical issues that's for sure. In a perfect world both graphical and mechanical aspects would have been polished before launch, but with how the industry is now with crunch and deadlines, I'm glad they at least focused on what's important to the game whilst keeping the easily fixable issues for later.
Age of Empires III is my favorite, by far, base/army based type of rts. It even has physics and ragdolls and puts even aoe IV to shame. I feel that was base building rts peek and one of the last real forays into innovation. 8 personally loved the shipment system and the colonial/renaissance representation of economic and even military and technological reforms was represented in a game in a brilliant way. The general transition from medieval, pike shotte, and then line warfare was actually sort of existing here, though in a gamey way that was just so fantastically supported by the gameplay loop. It made for endless depth of combat and the game could be seen as warfare with a game of constant reforms, which few other strategies took to a competitive theatre, although this exists in other genres of strategy.
same thing with me age 3 is my favorite
Yet, it is the least loved of AoE games, precisely because it departed from what players of the previous games loved. It's difficult to persuade developers to innovate when gamers repeatedly reject games that depart from tradition.
@@danspencer4235 i don't really know about least loved. It is more loved than Aoe IV. It has gotten a lot of love over the years and rightfully so. I never understood the dislike. It's my favorite base building rts of all time by a long shot.
@@ivansalamon7028 I completely understand your point. Do you understand mine?
@@danspencer4235 i do.
I think "laziness" as a criticism in the video game industry is a poor choice of words. The people at CA or Relic or wherever are not just deciding to rock up to work at half past eleven every day or taking two hour lunch breaks or whatever; in fact quite the contrary, the video game industry is one of the most intense to work in. Instead, there's a myriad of problems that contribute to disappointing output on the consumer end, ranging from managerial and creative issues to technical problems. At it's root, it is a communication problem; we as consumers don't know most of the problems and challenges that occur in day-to-day game development, and there are plenty of reasons why they can't tell us. If companies want to reduce how much they get called lazy, they need to improve communication, and find ways to keep fans updated without spoiling marketing. Transparency also does wonders in rooting out problems and encouraging creative solutions to issues that would just be accepted as "part of the process" in a closed environment.
have to agree, this 'laziness' critique is ironically itself, lazy. games are infinitely more complex and are more costly/manpower intensive than games 2 decades ago- its no wonder that publishers would rather play it safe
This is of course true - “lazyness” as I said it does not refer to the developers being “lazy”, not at all, but to playing it safe, to being “lazy” with coming up with new ideas and features that weren’t there before. Basically why take the time and effort to come up with something new when you can just focus on making the same old same old. Perhaps lazyness was a poor choice of words, but it was not at all meant in the context you’re using it in
We're being too unfair with these games. I don't think it is passion what's lacking but simply money, it's very easy to realize the strategy genre is not as lucrative as it used to be. Relic cannot afford to risk it with these franchises (not even CA does), and the only thing I genuinely hate about CoH3 is the fact that it released unfinished, showing huge unprofessionalism from part of Relic. You mention AoE3 as a role model but truth is that game received a lot of hatred when it was released, no wonder companies are taking baby steps to innovate. As I said, this genre does not generate enough revenue and the few fans that exist are too hard to please.
From what I understand, AOE4 is a response to the community’s reception on AOE3’s uniqueness. Fans wanted something much more similar to AOE2. It’s a return to one’s roots in a sense (to AOE2) without making it too complicated.
I loved AOE3 most though. It wasn’t afraid to be less serious and wild.
The problem these last decade, at least, has been that gaming is now part of big money companies that only look for a safe return on investment. Why innovate and risk pissing off your profits when you can sell more just remaking an old game and profit thanks to the nostalgia or an already big established IP.
And they're not entirely wrong, fans of rts are also really set in their ways and some very vocal part of it hates changes. Even in total war you get a big division with the warhammer way and the historical way, with commanders acting as heroes able to take 100 men vs the historical elite bodyguards. Both Troy and 3K had to play both ways to make everyone happy, but that is another cost added to development.
Yup, this is probably part of the reason it’s stuck in its ways
This might be a hot take, but I don't think innovation really factors significantly into sequels. They don't have to reinvent the wheel for the sequel to be good game, and I don't think it's fair nor realistic to think that they do.
Also, I think sequels are the wrong place for large innovations. If I buy a sequel, I expect the same game as the prequel, only with some added bells and whistles.
Coh3 is a great RTS imo. Im addicted to it
Total war who did not change their battles since 2016: looks away and pretends to have not seen that
The sad thing is that Total War changed their battles for the worse, they used to be better in the old games.
I mean yes and no. The campaigns have changed significantly in complexity with three kingdoms and there exists a wide diversity of factions for the Warhammer game now. Also the option to play titles like Troy as a historical title, a Warhammer like mythical experience, or a hybrid of the two with individual hero units/units inspired by the mythos. They're at least doing something different with each title.
@@qtipmotha for the campaigns yes, for the battles no. 99% of battle mechanics are the same since Warhammer 1. New units or having the option to have 30 or 1 dude in your general isn't a new battle mechanic
@@grandengineernathan it's pretty easy to understand why the battles mechanics themselves haven't changed. Since the very beginning total war Warhammer was intended to be a trilogy with each installment building upon the previous one with the biggest bonus being new factions which have completely different playstyles in the campaign and on the battlefield with different unit compositions. But if they changed the battle mechanics every game then factions that were in previous titles would have a disadvantage since they weren't designed with those mechanics in mind. The whole point is that despite the base mechanics being different every faction is so unique that you get a different experience with each one. For instance playing the empire on the battlefield is absolutely nothing like playing Tzeentch or Khorne and even similar factions like the Empire and Grand Cathay still have unique mechanics and aesthetics that set them apart.
@@gstellar96 if you're ok with that, great for you
This issue is affecting other genres across the board. It's not just RTS. It feels like almost every game is broken on release nowadays, or it relies solely on microtransactions and cosmetics.
Miss the golden era of strategy games but there are some good ones still out there! Total war, Xcom, Battle tech, war on the sea, chaos gate, Steel division/wargame
Total war has fallen pretty badly after rome 2
@@PedroIgori The Warhammer games are very good and 3 kingdoms was a really great Total War game as well. Atilla was a good game too. Of course on the other hand we have Troy and Britannia which are beyond garbage but I would not say Total War has fallen.
CA is doing their most ambitious and grandest project yet, so I would not say that they have fallen. In fact the WH series/game/monstrosity is pretty much the most ambitious game dev project ever tried.
@@XMysticHerox it's the same 3 warhammer games in a row m8
@@XMysticHerox The TW warhammer games have a lot of variation on the surface (many different races) but the game mechanics feel dated, and I say this as a relatively new TW fan. Same fixed starting locations, same pre-battle setups, same terrible siege battles, no naval battles. So many game systems feel limited or restricted in some way or another. There's definitely room for improvements but CA barely attempts to do so with each iteration.
This is kind of a bad take - for several reasons but I'll highlight two of them. The biggest one being that RTS's have been stagnant. As you said yourself the RTS gameplay has evolved into the MOBA space. Keyword being 'evolve'. There are many reasons for this but chief among them is that the standard RTS core gameplay is exceedingly demanding of a player - especially in a multiplayer environment. You are asking a player to master a complex game with a multitude of decisions at any given moment that requires an APM of over 100 to not get slaughtered. MOBAs are a natural evolution (right from the Warcraft 3 custom game scene) to cater to the player base which found RTS too difficult for a casual experience and they still thrive today. This isn't "appealing to the masses". This is servicing the population with a product they want.
The other big mistake you are making is that innovation = player count and success. Building a sequel is very difficult in that you have to keep the existing gameplay within the same rails of the previous games or split the fanbase yet you have to offer something new. Making a sequel that deviates too far from the original titles is exactly why AoE 3, a game you praised has a lower player count than either AoE 2 or AoE4. The fact is AoE4, the retread you claim is killing the genre' has a higher player count to this day by a factor of 3. AoE 2 DE has a player count that is 5 times that of AoE3. This is what happens when you "innovoate" but don't service the masses. Your game dies. See how DoW 3's "innovation" did. Neither satisfied the MOBA fans or the hardcore RTS fans.
What Relic has done is try to bring the old formula back with modern updates to service those who want the core pressure cooker experience of old RTS games. CoH 3's move away from CoH 2's gameplay and back toward's COH 1's pacing is deliberate. To give fans who didn't like CoH 2 a new game with a fresh coat of paint. The innovations on the singleplayer side are small and likely deliberately so to keep as many player onboard as possible. Even now though, you can see on forums people who want the old scripted linear campaigns.
It also isn't killing innovation with these releases. There has been the rise of real time system simulations that are direct evolutions of RTS gaming that started with Banished 2014. The Real Time Grand Strategy sub genre that Paradox is so famous for is another innovation. The emphasis isn't on combat but it is still "Real Time Strategy". The trend continues. Falling Frontiers is a game I am watching closely.
RTS isn't dead and it never died or went away. It is bigger than ever before. But people keep thinking it is dead because they focus on the calling the specific economy management into warfare model only as RTS. A sub genre that appeals only to a significant minority, especially in the multiplayer realm. This is like saying board games are dead because Chess isn't very popular anymore and ignoring the wide range of games which are now classified under board games.
I am surprised you didn't mention World in Conflict. In my opinion, it is the best modern RTS that has ever been made. And I'm a big fan of classic and modern RTS games. Don't tell me you've missed out on that gem. Also, there was another cool, unique RTS called Ruse. Where is it now? Apparently completely forgotten. And you ask companies to take risks and try new things... Also, I was now reminded of Paraworld - amazing game, apparently I'm one of the three people that ever played it.
World in Conflict is already decade and half old. Andy was talking about new games, AoE4 and CoH3 especially
About ruse. Yeah the devs Eugen went on to make the wargame series and steel divisions normandy44 and steel division 2 with warno being the latest release all taking lessons from ruse
I was gonna post it! World In Conflict was the last of its breed, a complete mind blowing title! The cinematics, story & innovation was out of this world and sadly they never went forward for more!
I think one thing RTS is really lacking is interesting gamemodes, that would be casual enough for most people and having some catch that would keep people playing for longer at the same time. One mode that kind of does that is SC2 Co-op. But if you look at AoE4 or CoH3, they are kind of bare bones in terms of gamemode variation.
The CoH3 campaign innovated in game modes, but it definitely needs a co-op. Game modes is what keeps you playing indeed, either soloist or multiplayers!
All my hopes are on Manor Lords to give me a new RTS experience
Yesss hyped for it
Manor Lords is a city builder game, completely different type of game
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf Amigo battles and multiplayer are also on the plate but come later
@@Lukaskovac-ex4nf sssh
@@WarlordMSM yes, but what I understand, the main part of game would be city-building like in Tropico, anyway i wish You to have a fun with that
I don't think just because some RTSs are similar to their predecessors or other games that makes it bad. My concern is, is it well made. And I get people who don't like playing similar games but to me it is a none issue. What I care more about is if the story is different.
To be fair, I think Relic is still testing the waters and wanted to see if they could even do an RTS that sold well after trying to innovate and failing miserably with Dawn of War 3, a game so reviled by the community it might have killed the whole franchise forever.
I play a lot of both AOE 2 and 4 they are very different games. AOE 4 has innovated from previous AOE games. Units and buildings have multiple different attacks that can attack at the same time. Example keeps having arrow attacks and cannon attacks, elephant archers having melee and ranged attacks.
Walls being walkable. building gates and towers on the walls rather than in between or behind them. Units building siege equipment in the field. The landmark victory condition
Civ bonuses that effect how you build your town. Example Ottomans will build their production buildings around blacksmiths, Mongols will build their buildings right next to their villagers then move them to there ovoo.
All the Delhi sultanate technologies are free and their research speed is tied to how many scholars they have working in mosques
Relic innovated, hard.. and they came up with Dawn of War III. Need I remind you how abysmal that game was? back-flipping terminator armor, throwaway squads that are meant to be cannon fodder to hero units, and a campaign that ends with MOBA-esque gameplay. So now I think they are in the right direction, they began listening more to feedback. Innovation and change is good - but be bloody careful with it. Besides COH3 is supposed to resemble COH1, and AOE4 takes heavy inspiration form AOE2 - so why the hell would anyone expect heavy changes?
The question for me is, why would anyone want a game that’s just basically a spiritual reboot of games they already own, if they could have something fresh and ambitious instead?
@@AndysTake Because sometimes I just want more of something i love. Fresh and ambitious is great when it works but I don't need every game to be revolutonary. I have some games series that hit a sweet spot for me in some way or another and i really just want more (and maybe some refinement.)
Hey there, sometimes changing things for no other reason than innovation is the worse decision concerning RTS. Look at StarCraft 1, it is still being played to this day because of how competitive the game is, the same goes for a game like age of empires 2. I get casual player base will get bored of an rts after a while, like I did before I started playing competitively. But RTS draws it's strength from competitive gameplay and how good you can get at it, which has no limits in a good RTS.
Many of Relics RTS were done in that innovation for the sake of it light without taking into consideration competition, balancing or core aspects/mechanics like pathfinding, unique unit control and so on. And so did publishers like EA from the battle for middle earth series. Those games brought new cool toys but forgot about the most important depth and aspects of RTS making them unworthy of long competitive replayability, for various reasons depending on the game.
CoH has a crappy pathfinding and the squad system deprives you of single units micro while having auto ressources by capping points which deprives you of ressources and workers management. Dawn of war had similar problems and the sequel number 2 was a micro only game with no macro aspects what so ever, the focus of these games being theatricality before gameplay quality. To the casual player base, this was quality, to the experienced RTS players who is seeking in depth gameplay, this was unpolished and greatly lacking. There is a reason 1998 StarCraft is still being played to this day, competitively, while being such an old game with terrible core mechanics we now take for granted, it's because you can never be good enough on it, you can always improve, and that is the core value of RTS.
Your success is determined by your actions and not by crappy balance or bad mechanics or lame powers etc... Which are fun until they aren't anymore. The core aspect of RTS is a never ending state of constant change done by the players in the gameplay, the constant on going battle to get better and fight ever stronger opponents. That is made possible by the game giving more and more possibilities to the players in term of freedom of play. For example: instead of having kill death animations that stops the unit in its track just to have theatricality because it looks cool, have it move around smoother, handle itself better, be able to do more stuff! Because that's what's fun about RTS being able to do more and more with the same cards we were given when we started playing, when a unit, a strategy, a build order, an action becomes more than what you were capable of doing before simply because you are learning how to push the boundaries of yourself and the game is built to do that.
Enter StarCraft II which improved upon everything his predecessor did and pushed again the boundaries of what was possible in RTS gameplay. Not necessarily in term of big innovations or new mechanics but improving upon the basic gameplay and giving the players more control, more possibilities in what *they* could do. Relics games were amazing, I played a great deal out of them but as any casual player I moved to other games, until I played back a classic and became competitive on it, the battle for middle earth 2 extension with community patch balancing. I plunged into it and became a competitive RTS player even though the scene was dead on that for the reasons I cited above, so I know very well where you come from and where all casuals come from.
That's why Age of Empire latest entry IV is a big success, sure it's not been taking risk in the setting or "new" mechanics but it's done a great job at giving the player more freedom and brought back the depth of older RTS like aoe2. Even so, the competitive scene while being a bit limited compared to say SC2 is growing and improving and probably will one day be bigger and reach a wider audience. That's due to the fact that the game did things right in its core and will continue improving balance and bugs as for an RTS that game is but a baby (think SC1, SC2 and others) so it will grow. My advice in term of RTS is to push the boundaries of casual play and you will see what an RTS is above a cool game making battles, which total war games do, that's why they've been very successful in pleasing that casual player base get more "cool battles" while the real cool battles happen at the tip of your mouse while microing mutas and spreading creep or by microing knight while shooting mangonels and raiding your opponent's base while harvesting a relic :D.
I hope I managed to open your mind a little more about what an RTS is supposed to be and why it is so hard to try to please a casual audience that wants big explosions and easy units with big powers while the experienced and professional audience wants more control over their units, interesting balance and mechanics and more freedom to make stuff happen :)
You should check out Beyond All Reason. It's a community driven remake of Total Annihilation filled to the brim with features that slap your head and wonder where they've been in our games all these years. Most importantly you can have 32 players in one game swarming the map with thousands if not tens of thousands of units while everything is carpet bombed with nukes and artillery and the game won't skip a frame. If the industry won't deliver, the gamers will.
I have to disagree, the total war games have been removing features with each new release. Bless the mod community. the true keepers of the rts flame
Removing some, adding others. Doesn’t mean you have to like the changes, but it’s a fact that many features have been added that weren’t there before, but again, for better or worse.
nah they been adding new pointless features like half assed political systems, irrelevant general level ups an crap that we dont give a fk about and never had in the oldies
World in Conflict, Men of War, Supremme Commander, Homeworld, Company of Heroes, Sins of a Solar Empire, Wargame Red Dragon, etc. Those were inovation, 99% of rts are AoE or Starcraft clones
YES, World in Conflict was a absolutely ambitious. Loved that game for the sheer scale!
I think the main issue RTS as a genre had was the struggle to transition to 3d games.
A trope of the early to mid 00's was how bad many of them looked, Age of empires 3 and c&c general's for example, compared to the sprite based games that shortly proceeded them.
Company heroes was the main exception for a long time and only Total War really continuously improved.
Many games have become stagnant during the 00's with games like Empire at War and C&C 4 (ok 2010) that tried to go outside the box being seen as too repetitive.
These games burned a lot of the attempted innovation and forced those making RTS games to keep it safe.
Hell even the total war series in it's historical games have been complained of making the games too user friendly at the cost of the older role playing elements
Sounds like you grew up on the same RTS games as me. Really the only one I grew up on that wasn't on your list was RTS (actually called that. Very niche old game, was basically an RTS where ya command plastic toy army men. Was pretty good and to my knowledge unique in that when your troops died you could harvest the plastic they left behind to refund some of thier cost. Kinda morbid when ya think about it.) But yeah RTS may have been my first RTS but I spent way more time growing up with Empire at War, Command and Conquer Generals, and Age of Empires 2. Remember I had the discs for them and for age of Empires 2 it had a little fold out thing for the expansion disc. Me as a 7 or so young kid never thought to look for that, think I found that second disc like 7 or 8 years later and only because I dropped the case and both discs fell out. Sorry for rambling TLDR: like your video, played the same games growing up +1, and I was dumb as a kid missed out on the AOE 2 expansion for 7 or 8 years.
Haha that’s awesome! How did you feel when that second disk fell out?!
@@AndysTake like Christmas, birthday and any other day I might receive gifts came early and all came on the same day lol
The plastic toy soldier RTS game you are referring to is Army Men RTS, based off of the Army Men games which is focused on the army men toys.
@@jandamz1119 yes that is correct someone else knows about it :)
I gonna say something strange, wrong or kind of true: Hey you can't reimagine the wheel every day. There is so much and little you can improve in a game concept. Surething, they play safe nowadays so less innovation but it is like the movies. EVERY topic of a movie has been done already at least 1 time. So that's the limitation too.
Is it tried and true? Sure. But I think AoE 4 is remarkable rn as basically the only RTS that's come out in the past couple of years with such a large and dedicated multiplayer scene. I'd say that's because it does the traditional formula so well and the constant balancing and shifting of the different civs ingame has been done masterfully. At a time when quality RTS games with a consistent player base is hard to find, I'm more than happy with AoE 4. Also, relic definitely learned from Planetary Annihilation, a fun completely crazy RTS which went a bit too far off the beaten path and suffered from a stale gameplay loop by focusing on the wrong aspects. I'd much rather an RTS hamper down the basics and nail those then swing for the fences with a shaky foundation.
I do agree that games nowadays hardly try to feel fresher and mostly go back to familiarity rather than innovation, but that's the entire industry as a whole now. Big games back then were made as games first, while big games now are made as IP and Brand first.
Hence why Indies have gotten popular, since they don't get the weight of corporative influences onto them while also being open to creating new IPs and Brands; yet even some indies end up in the same path or are one and dones.
And that's the thing, your examples of CoH or Empire at War sure were revolutionary when they came out, but that's because they are _new_ in every shape and form when they _did_ come out. The critique of innovation and being revolutionary would bear more on newer IPs and Brands than on existing ones; not saying that we shouldn't criticize existing IPs and Brands for not trying something new, but that the weight should be less.
When it comes to innovation there is the question on "When is too much innovation?" that it becomes a different thing entirely. Like the Ship of Theseus but instead of replacing the old parts you instead just add on to it.
For example, what is there for CoH3 to innovate on now without entirely turning it into something completely detached from the core of CoH? How much innovation and things can be added that it'd still _be_ CoH? People can think of many features to implement and remove in games, but don't realize that adding and removing features slowly changes the identity of the game bit by bit.
CoH3 for the most part has innovated a bunch already both on the mechanical and technical aspect; the only aspect that I guess could use some innovation/touching up would be the graphics/visuals/audio like what majority of the complaints people have for CoH3 are.
Weapon towing, tank riding, side armor, height advantage, a more physics based building destruction system, auto reinforcing, halftrack recrewing, preplaced quick base building, breaching, these are all mechanically innovative for this franchise whilst not being too much that it removes from how CoH feels. It has more technical/mechanical innovations than CoH2 had at launch to CoH1, and even CoH2 had a lot of innovative ideas (how good or bad it was is up to debate)
Something else I want to add to this, especially recalling the glory of those old games. It's been many, many years since they were done, and I think it's safe to say the guys that made those games what they were retired or moved on to other things. One way or another.
You can see this in some other dev studios that seem to have regressed compared to their successes in the 1990s and 2000s. Maybe even the very early 2010s. DICE, Blizzard, BioWare, Creative Assembly, etc. It's been many years.
A lot of players think fondly of the glory years of some dev studio and think they're always going to be great. They never are. Time flies, people move on, the guys that made the classics, made the company what it was, have moved on.
Bioware is best case for that
Even though I globally agree with you, I think you could have talked about AoE3. It was fairly different from the 2nd one and people hated it, gathering a small player base.
When AoE4 was announced, the first comment was "I hope it'll be AoE2 but updated", so I believe the players are also to blame. If Coh3 was too far away from the first and second, people would have hated it
I think the problem of RTS isn't the innovation at all, it is more about the people who is incredibely nostalgic of those great RTS games from before (and in general, any person is as well atached to the games that were most impactful to them, some sort of "loyalty" and "resiliancy to changes"), so any new RTS will never really be that popular; it will happen the same to MOBA's, after LOL and DOTA, nothing will really replace them at all.
Don't know much about Relic Entertainment beyond the games they make. It is quite interesting how "RTS" games just faded into obscurity over the past 10 years. Like Besides the ones you mentioned the only Major Franchise left is HOMEWORLD, specifically Homeward 3 which comes out this year if i recall. On a side note, let it be clear their is a difference between "RTS" and "RTT" games. Strategy is for the "General" or "Commander" to worry about, while Tactics is for the "Captain" or "Sargent" to consider.
Their is one thing that sticks out to me though, WHY HAS NO ONE MADE A GAME LIKE EMPIRE AT WAR?! Ignore the fact its a Star Wars game for a second, Empire At War is a "RTS" with "RTT" battles. It combines the "Grand Strategy" and "Tactical Battles" into one Real Time package, thus appealing to a wider audience.
Their is the phrase "if it aren't broke don't fix it", but the problem is "repetition". Like....oh god whats that STEAMPUNK game that everyone compared to company of heros thats based off a painting? That game was clearly "inspired" by Company of Hero's so naturally it got compared to it. And given i can't even remember its name right now tells you something.
Iron Harvest!
@@AndysTake Thats the one. Looked pretty fun, but you could call it a "reskin" of Company of heros just with MECHS instead of TANKS. Not saying thats a bad thing, Company of Heros is certainly a good example to "copy" from.
But yeah RTS just hasn't Changed in like 10-20 years. You get of 3 mission types: build a base and crush the opposing force, Defend a Base, or you play a more "tactical" mission with limited units or you pick up units as you go. (as i said if it aren't broke, don't fix it, that does not excuse lack of Improvement) And the Game industry just seems to have left it to die, with a few exceptions like Homeworld or Relics various titles.
@@jaywerner8415 You’re exactly right in the money with those three mission types, geez. Tragic.
Consumers hate it when you change it , they hate it when you keep it the same.
Not blaming anyone at a company --> makes a video called The Company Killing the RTS Genre.
If you thought Relic was the end of RTS, you haven't been around that long. Arguably, RTS has been for nearly 10 years. Once PUBG-like games came along, they completely overwhelmed the multiplayer game market. Kids were now playing FPS multiplayer games and not Command and Conquer or StarCraft (like myself when I was a kid).
There's a couple of thoughts I have about why there isn't any radical evolution of the genre;
1) Innovation costs a lot of time and money and is not guaranteed to lead to success. I'm sure a lot of RTS devs have some really cool ideas for the genre but too much of a change could see the audience not receive these ideas positively. If an RTS game comes out that drastically changes the formula and sells incredibly well then we'll start to see more drastic changes, but its a big risk to take initially.
2) Devs know what the players want. Whether its the real time battles of Total War or the resource and base building focus of Company of Heroes or Age of Empires there is a known formula that has a proven track record when it comes to sales. It coincides a little with point 1 but why would a dev team risk their company going under when a tried and true formula is still hugely popular.
I would have liked to hear your own thoughts as to what exactly you think should be innovated on and changed up drastically in the RTS space. I think it would help add a little more to the video and a little less surface level with the assessment. I think your take on Creative Assembly is wildly incorrect too, especially if we're talking about the lack of innovation in the RTS genre.
Tried AOE4 on game pass and couldn't believe what a watered down game it was compared to 3. Most of the people giving it rave reviews just seemed to dislike 3's setting and would have been better off playing 2 remastered.
I can't believe there aren't a ton of new modern RTS games on console since it would be so easy to use any usb mouse. We need this genre to make a serious come back.
The Great War: Western Front is shaping up to be a really good RTS. Releases this month.
I’ll hold my excitement until I’ve played it fully - I already have a video up on the game and it’s far from perfect
Coh3 inovation goes into multiplayer, auto vault, height mechanic, better unit reaction, totally different factions and one specific very different from previous games ( DAK), the game has small issues yes, but it improved a lot and people praise its multiplayer,
This content just made me appreciate what Sunspear games is doing in the RTS genre
I have nothing bad to say about Relic, they at least do something despite not being ready to take risk. Unfortunately making RTS makes little financial sense in our time. If you create such a game you are looking to selling say 10 million copies at best case (if you get to Starcraft level of success and eSport dominance) raking 600 million over lifetime.
Decent conventional RTS on the level of BFME 2 or Tib Wars will sell around 1.5 million raking 90 million which is very little relative to other games. You can't monetise RTS too much as you can't split your multiplayer with too much disparate DLCs and there can be no loot boxes.
It's much more profitable to make FIFA or Diablo Immortal to rake a billion per year.
If you want to get decent RTS and games in general you need to influence your legislators,MPs or whatever sit in your legislature to ban loot box mechanics in your country (like in Belgium) to make the crap unprofitable. Also pressure anti-monopoly bodies to remove exclusive licenses and replace them with fixed royalties. In that way publishers like EA and Activision will be forced to make games again.
Been making several videos on the topic on my own channel trying to develop some ideas of how the genre could innovate. At the moment, I've made videos on a Gas Giant Homeworld Game, Dawn of War 4 and most recently Starcraft 2.
Good stuff, we need more coverage of innovation on this topic
@@AndysTake Been thinking about this for a while, but if you wanted to do any kind of reaction video on those videos I talked about in my above comment then I'm all for it.
i don’t know why developers/modders don’t just mod old rts games instead. And just use a HD mod filter
Less work involved than designing a new game
Gotta say Rise of Nations is my all-time favorite. BHG were able to make the different factions play very differently and gave them unique flavor despite almost identical unit rosters. You could have a lot of fun whether going all the way from the ancient age to the modern day or whether limiting age advancement to only a couple of eras.
I wanna make an indie RTS game. What features/ mechanics would you like ?
I play games from the 90s and 00s. There doesn't seem to be too many good games at after 2010. They're there but rare.
OK
I don't think it's only the lack of innovation or the absence of passion. The CoH3 release indicates that there was not enough time: animations, physics, audio and graphics look unpolished.
Also, seeing two German factions for the Axis third time in a row is tiresome. Where are the Italians, the Vichy French, the Japanese?
AOE4 and CoH3 are both reboots. Not sure why you paint this as some grand relevation. These are franchises that were brought back after more than a decade. Of course they are basically reboots. Changing anything too major does not tend to go too well after such a long time. Victoria 3 is a good recent example.
Victoria 3 is amazing though so
@@AndysTake Not in my opinion and that of many others. The player numbers also show that it is hardly a hit even if it is not exactly on a Imperator level.
Which is what matters to publishers. Dawn of War 3 is another example.
When publishers see this they aren't going to risk innovating when reviving a franchise. It's not limited to RTS games either.
I have to say, I appreciate your take, but I think you really missed the mark. Relic is not the company responsible for this state of RTS. In fact, I would argue that Relic is the ONLY company even bothering to hold back the death of RTS. I believe its the players themselves who have put RTS into this state. Players DEMAND the same and outright reject and berate attempts at innovation. Relic learned this lesson the hardest way possible with DoW3. arguably the single worst launch of an RTS in history. DoW 3 was universally reviled by fans of the series because it took too much of a departure from the previous iterations. Hordes of screeching fans review bombed it for being different on top of the actual normal criticisms for bad choices they made. And the game certainly was flawed but it was easily their most ambitious attempt at innovating the genre EVER. Problem is. Fans of old school RTS dont want change, they want the same game but better. and non RTS fans who they were trying to bring in fresh blood with the innovations never even got a chance to form a fan base around it because of how intense the backlash was. It was so bad that IMO Relic decided then and there that they will pull the plug on DoW and then in the future NEVER mess with the formula fans love, instead attempting QoL changes and minor variations to add flavor. And then we see again with the launch of AoEV and CoH2 yet another screeching pile-on of fans panning the game because they don't understand why the brand new game isn't as polished and good as the previous one it's based on that has 10 plus years of development post launch. I wouldn't be surprised if we see relic announce, "we have heard the fans and have decided no longer to produce RTS games at all."
Maybe this is an unpopular opinion, but I think we have no one to thank but ourselves. for viciously punishing any attempts at making RTS in an already nearly dead market. (Not to say normal criticism isn't warranted, just that people need to change their expectations with new releases or see the genre die completely)
We have signaled as RTS consumers that, "RTS is almost dead, it may not even have the player-base to make a profitable game any longer, AND, the environment is so toxic and elitist that even attempting to take a risk and fund a large RTS will likely be met with intense scorn and backlash."
Company of Heroes 3 feels like a downgrade to the Company of Heroes 2, especially in balance between factions, the UI, and the music departments.
Not really thinking of CoH3 as a money maker when it's store page isn't even open yet.
I feel it's important to weigh it against the previous release states of CoH games. And I'm patient to see where things go.
There isn't a huge playerbase for RTS but that's ok. We should just focus on making the best product possible.
CoH3 runs pretty well for me, exceptionally well. And good lord I hated bulletins and the store/rewards for CoH2. Anything but that...
To some extent there is only so much you can do to innovate a game without changing its core gameplay. Coh3 makes small improvements and changes to most areas but ultimately is the same core gameplay loop of the previous games.
I'm just guessing, but it makes a lot of sense that relic plays it safe atm, after dawn of war 3. I wish they'd played it safe with that too, where it would basicly just be dow2 with better graphics, more races and units, a solid foundation onto which they could add some smaller "innovation" without removing the things that worked.
Same. Though i hoped they would take DoW1 as the base. I like it much better than 2.
TLDW: I grew up playing the main OG RTS games. I played so much games throughout for a decade that if my brothers don't invite me to play co-op and/or if it's not the theme or features that I like, chances are I may will skip it.
Apart from that, RTS is the general genre, and inside that general genre, it branches to more genres or its own variants, heck if you go to wiki and search for RTS games, you will see Crusader Kings, Warno on that list. Chances are you probably want the OG RTS like COH, C&C, EE, etc. While those games are great, I grew up playing them, especially COH, times changes, the players changes and their taste/play style changes.
Younger kids, heck even adults nowadays, prefer Battle Royale style games more than playing RTS type games.
For me, I still like the RTS style games but I branches to more genres.
True that the main age of the OG RTS game passed, but the RTS genre is never fully gone, it just modified itself to other variants
I’ll disagree strongly with putting lacking of ambition and innovation as a bad thing because this was the exactly right moment to go back for the their roots. We rts players were begging for a new age and coh game that was basically a remake of ideas that worked well cause the previous titles were already more than 10 years old and we already have many rts games trying new things (which is great, dont get me wrong) but playing safe was the best choice relic did cause we needed a new stepping stone to quench our thirst for classic, familiar experiences. Im so glad relic designed their new games with familiar mechanics and tested formulas so we have now great new things to play so they can experiment with other titles. Some games have very defined expectations and although i think cod, assassins or fifa can go f themselves, we dont have early releases of coh, homeworld, aoe etc, so im completely fine with them the only modernizing their core formulas.
Edit: im still sad that dow 3 didn’t worked out. I love dow2 and really wish they give one more shot with dow series. I don’t even care if they go for dow1 style, just make a new game relic, pleaaaase.
One gem of the RTS genre is a game called ParaWorld where you can have armies of prehistoric creatures. It had Amazing music too!
Anyone remember or know ParaWorld?
I do. ParaWorld was awesome, the unit promotion mechanism was interesting, and obviously, the theme was awesome - dinosaurs and steampunk! What a shame that it now lies forgotten.
Recorded at the Berlin Orchestra if I remember my CD box well enough ^^
1 company cant innovate alone. Thats not how innovation work. They are just modernising what people loved years ago. Innovation comes from rival companies trying to best each other's games or one studio trying to perfect a game like elden ring and baldur's gate.
It's just the RTS AAA scene the one that's dying. The more indie you go, the more innovative it is. They are billions, Diplomacy Is Not An Option. The same with other genres of games, shooters, card games, etc.
This take is a little shortsighted unfortunately, and doesn't understand the broader strategy gaming sphere, player taste, as well as the market driving these decisions.
"Relic" didn't make any of these decisions. Microsoft told them to make an Age of Empires 2 reboot, so they did. Sega told them to make a game more like Company of Heroes 1, because it was safe. Any studio owned by a publisher, you can basically bet that the publisher is going to be handling most of the 'creative' decisions. Safe makes money. Honestly, consumers are stupid and like having the same thing. A newer game can be made that is better than the original, and people will still claim the original game is better, regardless of if the statement is true.
Take Eugen Systems' WARNO, for example. It is functionally a much more modern Wargame: Red Dragon, with a lot of UI and QOL features that put the original Wargame to shame. Yet people still stan Red Dragon. Why? The unit selection or something. Then take into account that WARNO and Steel Division and Wargame are all more complex, interesting, evolved real-time tactics games, with deep, thoughtful gameplay that requires a long time to learn and master, and yet these games are basically sinking in the modern gaming landscape.
The honest truth? People like imbalanced games with stupid "I win" buttons and dumb 1-unit strategies that are completely thoughtless and take no effort to learn or play. COH1 was an imbalanced mess of a game, and still is, yet people won't stop talking about how it's mechanically better than 2 and 3 despite all evidence to the contrary.
It isn't Relic's fault. It's an ecosystem of publishers making safe bets and a playerbase who honestly could care less about strategy and tactics.
Keep it up buddy your content just gets better and better 💪🏼 @Andy’s Take 💪🏼💪🏼
I will, mate! Thank you so much!
As someone who has been on the inside looking out in many of the mentioned titles, the problem with the current studios is this idea that rts players are looking for something new, they are not. In fact there looking for something old and familiar. You can have the best intentions yet come up short. Company of heroes 1 and 2 were about the experience of the soldiers. Coh 3 unfortunately moved away from that model.
I absolutely love that you mentioned SW: EAW
Game recognize game, Peter!
Every word you've said is what I think about new RTS continued version of older famous games, well almost. I'm a big fan of aoe series. As much as I tried to stay satisfied with aoe4 well I was not really. This cartoonish game is not what we wanted after almost 15 years of not releasing any really new pc game. But TBH I am really thankful for what the developers have done so far. Only I wish they actually do what they did in the past perfectly.
some of my favourite RTS games lately have been Eugen's Games WARNO/Steel Division, and Battlefronts Combat mission. Both games series have a virtually identical set of mechanics between their respective games, but because they are often set in different eras, the way they are played changes drastically between games.
WARNO is probably one of the best newer RTS right now along with their previous Wargrame red dragon. Its gives a feel of world in conflict but way more units to control. You get jets, ships, infantry in modern era and replays super well.
I would like to know modded games that make the ai extremely smart and adaptive without resource cheating.
Coh 3 doesn't need to be all new or revolutionary, it needs to be good quality, whch it is not. They put a lot of love into the details in the previous games. Take the sound design for instance. Coh 3 doesn't have that.
Did you ever try 0 A.D.? Its a a great open source RTS game.
Good points made, I Like your videos man. You got yourself a new sub.
Thank you, Vivek!
I want to comment on the stagnation, and part of the problem not necessarily talked about, that the RTS playerbase can be the most persnickety people about change or innovation.
I played CoH2 at launch and played it on and off until CoH3 came out, and I had played CoH1 before as well. CoH2 introduced a number of new mechanics, including inclement weather and terrain, and all units being called from off-map. I liked all of these changes, and fealt that it was a solid step forward from CoH1. It wasn't all perfect, but it was new. But then, the stalwarts from CoH1 began complaining that the game had changed too much. They wanted the infantry to spawn from the buildings rather than arrive from off- map like in CoH1. They didn't want to play around the inclement weather or terrain. So, they continually asked for all of these features to be removed,because it wasn't enough like CoH1.
If you play the campaign or theatre of war, you can still see a lot of these mechanics, but play online in quick play? These new, innovative mechanics are completely removed, because of a playerbase that disliked change. I think it shows in CoH3, where in many aspects it more closely resembles CoH1 than CoH2.
On a more personal level, there was another game, Empire Earth, I game I had always preferred to AoE (although I did also love AoE). Well over a decade after it came out, a friend and I found a community that still played the game on a dedicated server. So we joined and played, and naturally got wiped. Now, what was the reaction? Joy that new people had found this server for this ancient game? No, it was mostly derision and asking where these noobs came from. There was one exception, and I wish I could remember the guy's name, but he tried to help us get better and coach us, but no-one else was friendly and so we gave up.
It's a bit of an essay, and I am NOT trying to say that this is somehow all on the players, even if people complained, the company still made the decision to make the changes. The RTS genre has absolutely been stagnant for awhile and I 100% agree with everything Andy has said. I just figured I would also show that there does exist a force that argues for stagnation, that wants things to stay the same. Even if it comes as a detriment to the genre or community as a whole.
Idk man. Sometimes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
I would love if you could cover the men of war games and maybe Call to arms Ostfront for RTS
Maybe I will, what’s so good about them?
@@AndysTake have you tried them? Real time tactics with ai that can actually be surprisingly competent. Especially gates of hell, they've optimised it and you can have quite a lot of troops and armor. Definitely some of the best strategy games when it comes to satisfying battles and immersion imo.
With CA, I've come to expect cut or dumbed down features over pushing the bar further. Seems like every Total War release gets farther and farther away from what originally made me fall in love with the series (Medieval 2 spoiled me forever lol).
I think the problem is mainly the players. If they take a new lead, people will hate it for being different and if it is actually bad that could be the end of the series. They may wind up being good in the end but the initial release might just break it if the launch is bad.
Examples: No Man's Sky was different but hated.
Battlefield made hardline and was hated for being "not battlefield" although good in its own right.
Tbh the problem is the title not the games.
@Andys_Take is this real?
I've never really been into the traditional AoE style RTS, so I'm actually pretty happy with strategy games in general right now.
Relic died years ago with sega it's not the same devs they are at BBI blackbird interactive and homeworld 3 is going to be lit 🔥!!! Follower devs not company's there's a reason why age 4 Dow 3 and now coh 3 all have the same complaints and no inovation because the talent from relic is at BBI blackbird interactive!!!
Relic announced that they would take a conservative development for COH3 after what happened to DOW3, where they went for full innovation and no one liked sadly as fans wanted more of the exact same but with better graphics
The biggest obstacle to innovation are the fans. In Age of Empires 4, the developers oriented themselves extremely towards AoE2 because otherwise the fans would have torn it up.
We saw it in Dawn of War 3. What was actually a very good game was destroyed by the fans because it wasn't a DoW1 copy.
Supreme commander 3 would save us
a supreme commander with actual good unit responsiveness and doesnt run like crap yea
skill issue
this man should play Beyond all reason
E.A.R.T.H 2150 now that was an RTS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY ahead of it's time.
For me, it's more of the opposite. I get turned off by new RTS games, because they try too much to be different. Forged Battallion had the whole "Create your own Faction" gimmick, Dawn of War 3 had too much focus on the heroes and their new MOBA like mode, Crossfire Legion had you pick and chose which units you want to have available during your match and Etherium had a system, where you only had limited building space you needed to have a steady connection with your base to keep those buildings powered.
And I don't want any of that. I just want my Dawn of War 1/ Command and Conquer/ StarCraft styled RTS game, where I build up my base, build up my army and then Attack move towards the enemy and watch the spectacel unfolding.
Personally, I see innovation in the graphical fidelity. More realistic graphics, realistically scaled units, more features that make units look alive, like CoH1 did and more gore. Basically, make an RTS with the graphics of Battlefield 5.
I was born in 2005 and haven't played many early 2000s games but I can definitely tell a lot of games these days are more reaching for money than actually trying to entertain their community
Relic isn't so much risk-averse, just seems that the few experimental stuff they do just never end up becoming more widespread.
The Ardennes Assault for COH2 was a turn-based campaign for the Americans post-Normandy, which as an idea was fun, but it was clearly a COH version of their Dawn of War II campaign design.
I can't help but feel that Relic is more like hobbled by very bad, conservative, bare-minimum management, so that is what the staff will do: survive, not thrive.
Their latest games all reflect this, focus on absolute game breaking bugs, but greater focus on an in-game store, DLCs and marketing.
The renaissance is coming. Tempest Rising, Homeworld 3, Dust Front RTS, D.O.R.F. RTS, Zero Space and more.
2:08 so basically they split into three new genres, city builders, tactical games and grand strategy?