What happen to RTS games?

Guys, I dont want sim games.

I want sandbox building town, army, gathering resources and fighting.

I aint interest in MOBAS, Sims and all other crap like that.

If I want to play simulators I play Civ5
 
does "battles" mean multiplayer? or basically multiplayer against bots? other?
 
Guys, I dont want sim games.

I want sandbox building town, army, gathering resources and fighting.

I aint interest in MOBAS, Sims and all other crap like that.

If I want to play simulators I play Civ5

Makes me think of Command & Conquer: Red Alert.
 
I don't subscribe to the idea that league and DOTA are RTS's just from playing them.

I know for me the difference was getting into 4x games. I like how they bridge the game between tradition RTS and big view games like Civ.
For other people I think the problem is the learning curve is even more brutal than MOBA's which has to hinder the competitive scene.
I feel you on that, and I think the biggest difference is that originally RTS was all about managing a ton of units, not a single hero. WCIII shifted to micromanagement of a lot fewer units than WCII. It was like they were trying to combine Heroes of Might and Magic with Warcraft when they made the third game. Then came the mods.
Those are not RTS games
Yeah, Civ is pure TBS.
 
I think TS should look around and there are some really good games. And as someone mentioned already, Frostpunk is a really awesome. As of late, indie developers has really been improving both in movie and game world. Now I feel like creating a new thread with a particular game in mind.
Frostpunk is fantastic, but it's much more of a city builder/survival game than an RTS.
 
They are billions is worth a try, I liked it.
 
yeah, that's what someone else said. but then i asked what "battles" meant...

Single player has a turn based campaign map then you lead your armies in real time battles against the computer.

Or you can just do online battles player vs player.

 
oh, aiight. i might check that out then. although, iirc - the company that makes these just went all triggly'd (assuming this is the same company that made "total war: rome" or whatever it was). so maybe not.
 
I think the competitive gaming aspect had become very stratified. I was nasty Undead player when I was 15 playing Warcraft 3, but to get there I had to pump a lot of hours in, and hours I knew I'd suck in. There was no reward mentally, I was either crushing a worse player or getting handled bya better one. The people still playing RTS game online are increasingly the latter. In a game like Overwatch, I, a run of the mill Gold player, am gonna get wrecked here and there. But I'll have my moments, my ults and point holds and stuff, that will keep me thinking I'm pretty good at this game.

I also don't think people really feel like playing extended campaigns through the medium of real-time strategy. That many of these feel tacked on and not Brood War quality is another problem. It's a genre you get actively worse at as you age, and I feel the generation replacing us never really had that game that showed them stuff like micromanaging, scouting, and unit counters can be fun.
 
Blitzkrieg 3 and Sudden Strike 4 both came out fairly recently. I've not played either, but I remember enjoying some of the older ones in those series.
 
It's far easier to be a casual and play 4x turn based games than micromanage in real time against autistic savants.

Still love command and conquer red alert 2 though.
 
I miss C & C type of games I think the last I played was Red alert 3 the one wth the Samurai robots, which wasnt as fun. The last RTS I played extensively was Generals.

I think the genre was just taken over by DOTA like games and FP'S
 
It's because RTS games are too hard, zoomers want babbyfied games that deliver instant gratification.
 
Back
Top