235
Age of Empires designer believes RTS games need to finally evolve after decades of stagnation
(www.videogamer.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
235 points (96.8% liked)
Games
33052 readers
512 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's plenty of "evolved" RTSs in the indie scene:
The genre is far from dead, but the problem might be audience. When they demand "evolution" that means it should pander to recent trends like survival crafting and roguelikes and whatnot. Problem is some of these formulas don't usually pan out well for RTS games. Then there's multiplayer and, like other commenters mentioned, ranked multiplayer usually devolves into a bunch of strangers playing the same few maps over and over, but gamers still demand multiplayer.
Alas, I see the genre as not dead but in a "doomed if you do, doomed if you don't" spot. Meanwhile I'm sitting here waiting for a regular old historic RTS like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations.
I'd add They are Billions as another evolutionary branch that's doing something different. Starting to see some clones of this formula.
That said, I don't think Against the Storm or Manor Lords are the kind of games Pottinger is talking about. Against the Storm doesn't even have combat. Those are more in the city builder realm.
True, they're a bit off the mark, but they were the ones off the top of my head. Also, in my defense, I don't think Pottinger knows what he's talking about either. The man glorifies Age3 like crazy, saying they had to scale back some features, fearing they'd prove too revolutionary. I love Age3, but the game was hardly world-shaking. Take its contemporary Rise of Legends, now that was a title that went balls out.
Still, I'm curious what they're cooking up in that new studio.
They are Billions is a very interesting game, but stupidly stressful. It takes ONE fucking zombie getting past your defenses to completely fuck your base
I just want an RTS I can actually play with my wrist in its current condition. I can do the earliest C&C campaigns, but that's partially because the AI isn't good enough to require fast and precise mouse movements. I just physically can't do micro anymore and attempting it hurts, but most RTS games are designed in such a way that micro is required.
Ashes of Singularity tends to be easy on the action-per-minute requirement, since there's no micromanaging individual units, unless it's the larger ships, so you can probably have a good time with it.
RTS always requires micro - it's real time. If micro is not required, strategy is not requires in an RTS.
Micro is actually tactics since it's on the level of a single engagement. Strategy is more about the game as a whole, like scouting and map control.
I hear you! Stopped playing RTS when starcraft came out :-/ For me it's like another type of game based on adrenaline and quick mouse movements. Guess it sells better.
Loved the old Warcraft, ough-da! and C&C & Red Alert ofc. The golden age.
Gamers don't demand multiplayer, companies wanting to sell skins do. When your content is zero effort, mods easily outdo you.