What is the future of the RTS genre to YOU?!

There was an interview with one of the developers of C&C about the future of the RTS genre here on GS.

I didn't really understand what he meant by this:

"In summary, RTS games have developed more complexity, kept the same base mechanics, and have become burdened by incremental evolution. The genre needs a discontinuous event."

Also this was interesting:

"I'm concerned that some attempts at "lower barrier to entry" games are simply dumbed-down, basic RTSes with a big license attached."

I would assume by licence he was referring to Halo Wars - that is the only one I can think of. I don't know if they are becoming dumbed down. Company of Heroes in particular has really taken this genre by the horns and evolved it without being dumbed down. 

So where do you see the future of the genre? I don't see it being placed in voice automated controls. I want to feel like I am in control (See: mouse) rather than talking into a mic. I don't think thats as responsive or interactive. 

I think gamers are tired of the basics.

Devs. need to stop it with these dune clones and start makeing a new innovative RTS like Company of heroes and starcraft.

Every game should follow one simple rule that Blizzard allways use :

SIMPLE TO PLAY that even your mum who never touched games in her life could play it - but complex and customizable!

Just look @their games

Gameplay is perfect when you click on something you know that you clicked unlike some games when you must triple click while holding ctrl + f1 + K just to select unit than while rotating camera press "restart" key on your pc to attack unit :lol:

End War and World in Conflict esque games are not the future thats for sure... I miss the Age of Empire Days up until the third came out... And of course games like Homeworld and Ground Control need to be redone.

Does anyone Remember Dungeon Keeper 1 and 2?

things should be SIMPLE + FUN

not MICROMANAGEMENT and complex

Its rather ironic that he would criticise the genre for being "dumbed down" given that COH came out and then a couple of years later RA3 was released which has provided no innovation to the genre at all. biggest_loser

but i do want to see more innovative IPs  in the RTS genre. not neccesarily more difficult to control...just more innovative...

im sure something will come that will offer some of this.. whether it be branded with teh C&C  theme.. or  starcraft theme... or warhammer theme..

or some completely new and original peice of work.

Every game should follow one simple rule that Blizzard allways use :

SIMPLE TO PLAY that even your mum who never touched games in her life could play it - but complex and customizable!

Just look @their games

Gameplay is perfect when you click on something you know that you clicked unlike some games when you must triple click while holding ctrl + f1 + K just to select unit than while rotating camera press "restart" key on your pc to attack unit :lol:

_rpg_FAN

I have never played a RTS with a control scheme that you mentioned. I thought blizzard's scheme was rather rough. In WC3, each hero had different abilities that were tied to different keys (t for divine light, b for blizzard, so on and so on).

Anything Relic or Creative Assembly does is the future for me.Whiteblade999

Yeap this is pretty much it

Easy to pick up hard to master...

Starcraft 2 and I will be checking out DoW2 as well as Total War...all in good fun...who knows how I'll handle all these rts games I may have to split it up.. 

I would assume by licence he was referring to Halo Wars - that is the only one I can think of. I don't know if they are becoming dumbed down. Company of Heroes in particular has really taken this genre by the horns and evolved it without being dumbed down. 

 

biggest_loser

You do know that the next CoH expansion is incredibly dumbed down, right? There's no micromanagement, no economy, no big armies...

"There is definitely a drive to make a more casual, friendly experience and it's something we take very seriously here," confirms designer Chris Degnan.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=310363

You do know that the next CoH expansion is incredibly dumbed down, right? There's no micromanagement, no economy, no big armies...

Baranga

No because I haven't played it yet. 

StarCraft 2 for me, and the next C&C, wether its another Tib. game or Generals 2.

I am really enjoying the more complex RTS games such as CoH, Sins, SupCom, and Earth 2160.  Sins and SupCom both have really great interfaces that really simplify the complex gameplay. (yes I realize there are much more complex games out there)  Company of Heroes interface is not bad either.  I really like games where I can quickly select all of one type of unit onscreen with a hotkey or double clicking. Grouping and being able to select all combat units on screen with a hotkey is also useful.

I really don't like how overly balanced games are becoming. I prefer sides to play completely different such as in Universe @ War, Star Craft, Earth 2160, Zero Hour, Tiberian Sun, or Dawn of War.  I really dont like different sides feeling like tweaked versions of the other armies in the game.  Games feel like they are becoming too balanced.  Any unit army #1 has, army #2 has a variation of the same unit.  I really really hate this.  It is becoming so common place.

Units need to have behavioral settings.  I hate my units just randomly chasing after emeny units, because the enemy player is aggro-ing my units that have a mind of their own.  Units also need to be able to be set up in different formations.  Also the direction you want them facing when moving them.  Such as in CoH, it allows me to back my tanks out of conflicts so they dont get hit in the rear armor.  Units also need to be able to take cover.  I don't care if it is a space game, the ships should be able to cover in asteroid fields or nebulas.  

Heroes are another aspect of the game I really enjoy.  I thought Battle for Middle Earth II did a great job with this.  I only played WarCraft III a tiny amount and a long time ago but from what I remember it did a great job too.  I really like to see levels and veterancy incorporated into RTS games. Upgradable units are also a plus. I was also pleased to see units drop weapons when killed in CoH.

Populations caps don't usually seem to be a problem and it doesn't bother me when they dont exist. However in Star Wars: Empire at War in multiplayer the cap was too low.  Especially for how long it took to destroy units or structures in the game.  I played a friend and I captured enough points that my cap was 8 and his was 2.  Needless to say 2 wasn't enough to take out Obi wan Kenobi. This was while Obi wan was taking hits killing his defense and taking hits from his 2 units groups.  I would get Obi wan's heal ability before he could finish Obi off.  Also with Obi and the rest of my army of 8 groups I could barely destroy his structures before he rebuilt them.  Needless to say the above scenario lasted for a long time and was not fun at all and I was winning.

Flanking, this is something I would like to see more games incorporate.  There should be some benefit to attacking units from the side/back or catching them off guard.

Pathfinding. This needs to be improved. This has been kinda sketchy throughout RTS history.  Especially when moving large groups of units. I also think way points are necessary or queing up actions.

Games with more than one resource type need simplified ways to gather resources (if the game requires you to gather resource as opposed to capturing points)  Such as in Empire Earth 2 (granted I didnt like this game, I liked the simplicity in gathering resources)

Tech trees need to exist in RTS games.  None of them should look like the tech tree out of Earth 2160, that is way too complex. Unless it is a slow paced rts.

Base building is one of the most enjoyable aspects of RTS games for me.  I don't really care for over simplified base building.  I especially don't care for the crap they pulled in the first Battle for Middle Earth game.

Defense is pretty useless in a fair number of RTS games.  I realize this prevents players from becoming super turtles.  There needs to be a way around the defense, not just make the defense worthless. Powers(commander abilities) or superweapons are great for this.  Ranged units are good too. Granted the turtle can just sit back and use these too.  I think powers and superweapons should require the use of resources.  This allows a player to cut off resources to the turtle  preventing them from just spamming them.

Resources, thats another problem.  Some games like to run out of them, FAST. Eh em Dark Reign 2, Command and Conquer 3.

Map size, this is an issue from C&C 3, and from what I played in the Beta of RA3 (wasn't as bad).  I am not a fan of all arena sized maps where you are literally on top of your opponent.  Granted you could play larger player maps, but it never felt right.

I haven't played End War, so I don't know if I like voice commands, but I am thinking I won't.  I think simple RTS games are great for getting new players in the RTS genre.  I welcome them.  I don't plan on playing them, but I think they are for the best.

I am looking forward to DOW2.  I hope it will incorporate some of the items listed above. If it carries on what the first game did and add items from CoH.  I realize they plan on focusing on smaller gameplay (as in the number of units), but I have no problem with that. I want to be emotionally attached to my units.  I am hoping StarCraft II will also be good.  I am just fearing it will be fairly simple, so that appeals to the masses.

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

I would assume by licence he was referring to Halo Wars - that is the only one I can think of. I don't know if they are becoming dumbed down. Company of Heroes in particular has really taken this genre by the horns and evolved it without being dumbed down.

Baranga

You do know that the next CoH expansion is incredibly dumbed down, right? There's no micromanagement, no economy, no big armies...

"There is definitely a drive to make a more casual, friendly experience and it's something we take very seriously here," confirms designer Chris Degnan.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=310363

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

I would assume by licence he was referring to Halo Wars - that is the only one I can think of. I don't know if they are becoming dumbed down. Company of Heroes in particular has really taken this genre by the horns and evolved it without being dumbed down. 

 

Baranga

You do know that the next CoH expansion is incredibly dumbed down, right? There's no micromanagement, no economy, no big armies...

"There is definitely a drive to make a more casual, friendly experience and it's something we take very seriously here," confirms designer Chris Degnan.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=310363

 You do know that is only for the single player campaign right? Which I'm fine with personally, because I want to the experience variety and story rather than just repeat building the same units and structures for everygame. The multiplayer is still the same.

Every game should follow one simple rule that Blizzard allways use :

SIMPLE TO PLAY that even your mum who never touched games in her life could play it - but complex and customizable!

Just look @their games

Gameplay is perfect when you click on something you know that you clicked unlike some games when you must triple click while holding ctrl + f1 + K just to select unit than while rotating camera press "restart" key on your pc to attack unit :lol:

_rpg_FAN

[QUOTE="Baranga"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"]

I would assume by licence he was referring to Halo Wars - that is the only one I can think of. I don't know if they are becoming dumbed down. Company of Heroes in particular has really taken this genre by the horns and evolved it without being dumbed down. 

 

Drizzt13

You do know that the next CoH expansion is incredibly dumbed down, right? There's no micromanagement, no economy, no big armies...

"There is definitely a drive to make a more casual, friendly experience and it's something we take very seriously here," confirms designer Chris Degnan.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=310363

 You do know that is only for the single player campaign right? Which I'm fine with personally, because I want to the experience variety and story rather than just repeat building the same units and structures for everygame. The multiplayer is still the same.

So it's fine to turn the singleplayer into an Alien Shooter clone, then? It's still dumbing down. And only a (very vocal) minority plays multiplayer, there was that study a few months ago that said less than 50% of the gamers use multiplayer.

In my opinion, future of the RTS genre=FPS+RPG+RTS+TBS

As a commander, you can manage all units, but you can't see the combat directly (FPS+RPG+TBS+RTS). All information won't come to you immediately and come to you indirectly, it takes time (TBS).

As a squad leader, you can manage your team directly, follow the commander's order, but you can't see the whole battle (FPS+RPG+RTS).

As a squad member, you must fight the enemy directly (FPS+RPG).

If you died, you could choose between those characters to play in single player mode. In multiplayer mode, you could choose between characters who weren't chosen to play. 

Thousands of soldier, hundreds of officer play at the same time. They can not be re-spawn. Before you choose a character, you must look at his status if you don't want to play the injured. You can see the list of your soldiers and officers; you know who died, you know where the characters' unit is, that's all. You won't know where the character is, how is his status if you couldn't communicate with him.  

I always try to bring reality to game.   

[QUOTE="Skie7"]I'd like to see the more traditional, user-unfriendly RTS games be phased out. 1. Squads are much easier to manage than individual units and other than for nostalgia I see no reason any developer should be having individual units at this point. 2. The traditional way of gathering resources is cludgy. There's nothing more frustrating than when your harvester units get obliterated. I'd much rather be battling over control points because it moves the combat focus away from the bases and allows for victory without having to totally annihilate your opponent. Even games that have no resources are more enjoyable, because the focus on combat (rather than out resourcing) is funner. 3. I think the scope of the genre is splitting. On one side you have games like Total War that allow larger and larger battles with each new iteration. On the other side you have low unit count games like Dawn of War. I'm happy with both directions. I find them much more enjoyable than the odd middle ground of 200 units that you select all and throw in the opponents general direction. 4. I'd like to see base building take a backseat. I like how resources in Total War are handled in the turn-based game. And, while I realize this system can't be used for every game; I'd love for there to be a starting points where you buy the units you start with (like Myth multiplayer). And, through control points you get a small amount of resources allowing you to call in reinforcements sooner. The tech tree could be entirely based on time. This would put gamers on a much more equal footing and again push away from the strategy of out resourcing your opponent. I'm tired of games of attrition where it is simply whoever can run their opponent out of resources first. 5. Why aren't more games copying the cover system in Company of Heroes? This system is brilliant and favors the player who uses better tactics. 6. I wouldn't mind a system that reduces the effectiveness of dancing units. It could be as simple as a fatigue system. It's boring to play against someone who micromanages the fastest units in the game to slowly pick apart your units. I'm fine with it being a valid tactic, but there should be a downside to this (e.g. in Total War I can use cavalry archers to wear down my opponent and run them away as the opponents cavalry draw near, but as the battle goes my units will become fatigued allowing my opponents cavalry to overtake them).Ninja_Dog

i cannot, i will always want a game like red alert or starcraft 2 to play that doesnt take super thought to play and beat...

but then again, i want the super strategic games that he is talking bout.

the only thing i disagree on really is phazing out the other games, dont do that, just make both styles of RTS... it would be like FPS is today you have 2 main fps gameplays                   arcade/ tactical

hi all, i read the article too but im quite optimistic about the hole thing. it does not matter much what some old game designers say or think, most years we see a few very decent games being released in all genres, also so in the strategy genre. and that i think will be the case in the years to come as well, there are allwas some good games in development somewere. I been in the game collecting busyness a good while, and the games wasnt any better in the "old" days. good games and bad games and all in between will continue to be released :).knut-am

this is a very laid back and logical post.

and i agree, there were some crappy games then, just as there are now, there were good ones then, just as there are now.

i am excited about alot of things coming, like (the old  republic) and diablo3, (nothing new there though i dont think with D3) 

and the new hardware and such.

but i think that if you have ever been a gamer, then there will always be a game out there for you. maybe not as many as you would like, but we cant always get what we want all the time.

also im looking forward to anykind of gaming, i wont dismiss it, or take hold of it, until i look more into it.

most of new RTS games are going smaller, u command a small squad. i think soon it will be like u command 1-3 squads and u can play with them in first persion view if u want. classic games like red alert 3 and starcraft 2 will stay like classic rts games should behenrynarits