RTS thread

Yes. 1 is from the Allies disc, 2 is from the Soviet disc, and md is from the YR disc.

Thanks man!

I liked that tank DOTA map it had, but then everyone metad it up with allied tank destroyers and it was no fun again.

Strange nobody made a similar game.

Ashes is at a new low of $20. Worth it? How's the campaign?

Come on, lads.

I've heard the game needs an expansion to reach its potential, otherwise its mediocre with some ideas.

Is it even possible for good RTS games to be made anymore?

Most of the people who enjoy RTS games are already playing them. Any game devs that want to make a new RTS and want to target these people are going to be competing against every one of those older, great RTSes. If it's not 'better' than all or most of them, it will not draw enough players away from the older RTSes and won't have much appeal for people not interested in RTSes.

Given the difficulty of accomplishing that goal, how could any studio hope to compete? Failure means millions of dollars down the drain. Has the RTS painted itself into a corner that is impossible to escape from?

This is a difficult, multifaceted question. The short answer is 'If you make a decent game, you will reach an audience'.

The long answer has to be tackled from many points. For a start, let's look at the latest biggest RTS success (financially), SC2. SC2 made money. Whether it was a good game is entirely a different argument. It drew in a crowd large enough to turn a profit. This provides us with the information that an audience exists for RTS. Similarly, niche genre games, like Crusader Kings and Path of Exile, also turn a profit.

Next we need to understand why the most recent games have failed in the face of some degree of interest; Grey Goo etc. I didn't actually play it personally, and that's because my mind switched off the moment they started talking about competitive balance and esports. It also looked very bland for an RTS, with little uniqueness in unit design. Others probably have their own stories. There has also been a lot of criticism leveled towards the very recent 8-bit armies, over it being bland, simple etc, which drove me away from looking deeper into the game. I did watch their video and look at their screenshots, but it didn't tell me enough about the game experience to convince me to play. The point ultimately ends up being; neither game was initially appealing and neither game had strong word of mouth.

The next part is about understanding the fundamental reasons people play RTS, which isn't easy and requires a lot of analyzing and breaking down I don't really care to go into. Here's my general advice. Look at a successful RTS. Why did it succeed where others failed? What did it do differently? What did people like? What was fun about it? What was bad about it that could be improved?

Pick up the Shockwave mod. It's a what-if mod for if EA didn't fuck Westwood during its development and actually implemented the cut content. There may be more units in the mod than in the base game.

I'm not joking.

It's possible to make good RTS at least on the level of C&C, the devs are just lazy and/or incompetent to make something really good. Look at Grey Goo and 8-bit Armies, these two were made by some ex-Westwood devs and you know what Westwood did in the past.

If I were you, I'd rather ask if there is someone who's capable enough to make good RTS. And to answer this question, no. Perhaps only modders can make good RTS.