The RTS genre will never be mainstream unless you change it until it's 'no longer the kind of RTS that I want to play,' says Crate Entertainment CEO
The RTS genre will never be mainstream unless you change it until it's 'no longer the kind of RTS that I want to play,' says Crate Entertainment CEO
Real-time strategy is a "nerd genre," says the developer, and he's happy to make one on those terms.
You're viewing a single thread.
I disagree with this premise. I think games like age of empires and StarCraft had mass appeal and success. They brought in audiences who don't normally like games, and broadly were well received by young, old, and different genders. Especially age of empires 2.
Modern RTS games are just (mostly) sloppy, unfinished, cashgrabs with no vision. They suffer the most from the transition to 3d as well. If a major studio actually put work and time into a polished, 2d, isometric, RTS that wasn't solely focused on being an esport, I think there is a major vacuum for them to fill.
Hell, starcraft created the concept of a professional gamer being a thing. To say that RTS games dont have popular appeal is just outright wrong.
3D isnt a bad thing though, C&C Generals did it fantastically.
Generals was really fun. The C&C series really started to decline once EA went balls deep on what was left of Westwood studios for the games after that.
3D is great. I just don't trust most AAA companies to make a decent RTS these days.Definitely! Just to clarify, I think that good RTS games make good esports, but fundamentally on the basis is being carefully made, captivating, and nuanced. I think an overt focus on developing an RTS as a esport tends to lead to low risk, streamlined designs which while fun, lack some of the staying power that older, more established titles have. Perhaps, I'm disillusioned about the genre in general, and that's not the case!
Also, yeah 3d can be good, but I do think that Sprite based graphics are easy to parse and very pleasing to look at. I wish we had a healthy balance of the 2. 2d also tends to look more, evergreen, with 3d RTS looking dated on release due to the quantity of animated units. Though, strong art design would help offset this.
That doesn't really contradict their premise about making modern RTS. StarCraft and Age of Empires 2 are ancient at this point. An entire generation of kids has grown up since they came out.
I don't think the fact that you could make a successful mainstream RTS way back then really says much about whether you could make one in 2024.
Starcraft 2, at this point, is 2 years Older than Starcraft 1 was when it was released.
Shit that actually hurt.
Or Command & Conquer, which didn't had as strong of a competitive community comparatively, but were very successful through their fun story campaigns. Also, there's some pretty successful real time 4X titles too that very much hit mainstream audiences, despite being even more of a niche due to their scale. I think a lot of RTS games often tried too much to compete with the esport niche too, trying to replace the established titles, which is kind of an impossible task. Doing an RTS that doesn't aim for this goal can still be successful however, if one puts the focus on that instead of targeting unreachable heights.
A lot of the competitive RTS crowd transitioned to MOBAs and it's hard to scratch that itch with an old-school RTS now. Having the full offline and online package was key of the time when those games were popular and you don't get that when the competitive space has moved on.
But you have a point. RTSs at their peak were super triple-A stuff, with mind blowing execution and production value for the time. Point and click adventures have a bit of the same problem, they used to be these massive technical showpieces and as a mid-size or indie thing they are a tougher sell when the modern equivalent of investment is going to absolutely insanely huge games in other genres. Even when a triple-A studio does one of those you tend to not get as much of a massive investment, and when you do (say, Total War: Warhammer, or even Manor Lords) they do see success. It's just never going to be the same because you're never going to call your friends over to show them Warcraft 2 running on your PC.
I mean, StarCraft was mentioned in the article. He just doesn't think RTS is big enough for AAA dev companies when they're all trying to sell tens of millions of games
That's not to say RTSes can never be any kind of hit: StarCraft 2 sold many millions of copies, Bruno noted, and Crate Entertainment only needs to sell a million to make "an OK return," he said. The series has also been an esports phenomenon. But for a company like Blizzard, he doesn't think that's enough anymore, which is why the developer stopped making new RTSes, or at least seems to have for now.
fact is nothing ever seems to be enough for these companies now.
they will sometimes make a smash hit and proceed to pump it full of microtransactions, then lay off half the staff.
also selling tens of millions of games is unrealistic when the hardware people run them on went through years of terrible availability, and they keep pushing the requirements.
im honestly stumped on what the fuck they are expecting at this point.
To Tiberian Sun and StarCraft were my obsession for years. SC2 was pretty awesome, but I would not trust Blizzard to make another good RTS at this point.
How about ex-Blzzard people? Stormgate is coming.
Are we going to pretend Age of Empires 4 doesn't exist? The last expansion outsold every single one from AoE2.
According to steamDB AoE IV has between 1.27 and 2.5 million owners. That is a good number, but not mainstream. At the very least not mainstream in the definition used in the article.
I mean, RTS is never going to be that kind of mainstream again, it's too complicated and can't be monetized in the way that something like a shooter can.
My apologies. You weren't arguing against the articles premise, but against the premise that there are no good current RTS games. Ignore my blabering.
I didn't realize that it sold so well! That's good to hear it is successful. I'm not over the moon with the game, but I did get 30 hours or so out of it, and don't think it's bad at all. My biggest annoyance was that it felt too similar to AOE 2, which I saw as the superior game at launch. Still, that's a bit of bias from an old gamer, lol. I think it's fun!
The game had a really rough launch, I'm not surprised you got that impression if you played it back then.
I'd give it another shot, everything from gameplay to graphics has been overhauled since.
Modern RTS games are just (mostly) sloppy, unfinished, cashgrabs with no vision.
As were many classic RTS games. I fondly remember Machines, a fully 3D example from the late 90s. I recently noticed the CD case describes it as "3D Real-Time Startegy."
I mean, StarCraft was mentioned in the article. He just doesn't think RTS is big enough for AAA dev companies when they're all trying to sell tens of millions of games
That's not to say RTSes can never be any kind of hit: StarCraft 2 sold many millions of copies, Bruno noted, and Crate Entertainment only needs to sell a million to make "an OK return," he said. The series has also been an esports phenomenon. But for a company like Blizzard, he doesn't think that's enough anymore, which is why the developer stopped making new RTSes, or at least seems to have for now.
Okay so the lesson to learn from the mainstream success of StarCraft is to put sexy submissive and breedable murderous bugs in your game