7 ms·

I love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, move

I love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with, and it's hard to justify risking putting a lot of money behind them. It's a shame, because I love all of these genres, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them. There's always a chance and I hold onto hope. Baldur's Gate 3 is a CRPG with a budget way beyond what I would ever be comfortable risking on a genre that has been fairly niche in the overall video game landscape for 15+ years, and it paid off massively. However, being realistic, BG3 is a game that is strong regardless of your skill level and the other genres I've mentioned struggle with that.

endorphine 3y ago
> love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with Interesting take. Why do you think that is? They just fallen out of fashion or something else?
- chongli 3y ago
  Not the GP but I’ll give my take: The long term value for an RTS is with the multiplayer. The problem is that the games are incredibly demanding to play. It takes a lot of practice and experience to get good enough to get off the “bottom rung” of the online ladder, just to be able to reach close to a 50% win rate. Many gamers find this too stressful to deal with. They end up quitting the game and moving on to something else. This causes the “bottom rung” to move up in skill, as the weakest players leave. Since winning in these games is zero-sum it gets harder and harder to win the more weak players leave. Eventually only the most dedicated players remain, making it extremely difficult for new players to break onto the scene. The other aspect to RTS games, the single player campaign, takes a lot of effort for the developers and designers to build. Unfortunately it has very little staying power. People play through the story maybe once with each faction and then either try out multiplayer or move on to a different game.
  - endorphine 3y ago
    I think that's fairly accurate, thanks for putting it into words!
  - seabird 3y ago
    Hit the nail on the head. The execution requirements for RTS games are steep and the competition is fierce. You have to completely re-arrange your priorities from "win games" to "be better than I was last match, and I'll get there eventually", and it's something that modern audiences don't see often and struggle to engage with.
  - Macha 3y ago
    I think the other thing that is that the RTS community has de-emphasized modes other than 1v1 to the extent that it's basically a 1v1 game like fighting games. At least with MOBAs there's a destressing factor of losing with a team that stops the feeling of sole total responsibility that makes so much ladder anxiety. Similarly, arena shooters also have team deathmatch modes.
  - kungito 3y ago
    I'd say it's like this for any older game which still has a multiplayer community regardless of genre. There just isn't a big influx of new players and the bad ones give up.
    - chongli 3y ago
      That may be the case but other genres, such as shooters (first and third person), have found ways to get around it. Fortnite, for example, has nowhere near this issue whereas Quake 3 is plagued by it. The 100-player battle royale structure of Fortnite is one mechanism I think helps to mitigate the problem of overwhelming skill gap. This kind of thing hasn't really been tested in RTS games, which usually focus on 1v1s.
      - ThatPlayer 3y ago
        Fortnite's solution has been bots, which is not very popular because plenty of people think they're above bots. Or think that bots cheat (which is true in Starcraft). Or in fighting games, they don't play like humans so you end up learning bad habits.
- ThatPlayer 3y ago
  RTS games are just too stressful. They require 10+ minutes of full concentration. Whether you've just won or lost an engagement, you better keep up with scouting, building your army, gathering resources, expanding your base, preparing for the next engagement, etc. You get absolutely no downtime. Every other game gives you downtime. Shorter round based games like fighting games give you time to catch your breath. Respawn time is a reprieve for both sides. Even just being on the queue screen for Starcraft II was enough to get my heartrate up in anticipation for the stressful games.
Klonoar 3y ago
Fighters are arguably bigger than they’ve ever been. SF6 alone has made massive inroads in terms of level of entry to the field. Hell one need only look at the size of this years EVO.
- seabird 3y ago
  Fighting games can simultaneously be bigger than they've ever been but nowhere near the level of success that other genres reach. You either have to be cool with losing 9/10 matches you play or have a large amount of knowledge and/or mechanical execution. Simplifying mechanical execution only goes so far because mechanical execution is just a foregone conclusion at a certain level of play, and most of the game becomes a mental exercise. Many people struggle to accept that they are the problem and the reason they're performing poorly, and this is something that's massively exacerbated by the prevalence of team-based multiplayer games. Prize pools at flagship events are always ridiculously low. One-on-one mentoring is by and away the easiest way to get into the genre, and it is also probably the most "expensive" way to introduce people bar none. I love the genre; it's in a great place, and it doesn't need to change. I'm glad the playerbase is very cautious about losing some of the magic chasing after mass market appeal. The downside is just that it's hard to justify throwing a lot of money at these games.
btown 3y ago
Giant Grant Games makes a compelling case for why single-player campaign and mod-development experiences are often overlooked but are key for RTS crossover success. And this came out long before the success of BG3. I hold out hope that someone will crack the formula! https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc

endorphine 3y ago

> love RTS games, but they're probably never going to achieve the level of success they have in the past. You can still make them, but like arena shooters, movement shooters, and fighting games, they really are from a different era that modern players struggle to come to terms with Interesting take. Why do you think that is? They just fallen out of fashion or something else?

chongli 3y ago
Not the GP but I’ll give my take: The long term value for an RTS is with the multiplayer. The problem is that the games are incredibly demanding to play. It takes a lot of practice and experience to get good enough to get off the “bottom rung” of the online ladder, just to be able to reach close to a 50% win rate. Many gamers find this too stressful to deal with. They end up quitting the game and moving on to something else. This causes the “bottom rung” to move up in skill, as the weakest players leave. Since winning in these games is zero-sum it gets harder and harder to win the more weak players leave. Eventually only the most dedicated players remain, making it extremely difficult for new players to break onto the scene. The other aspect to RTS games, the single player campaign, takes a lot of effort for the developers and designers to build. Unfortunately it has very little staying power. People play through the story maybe once with each faction and then either try out multiplayer or move on to a different game.
- endorphine 3y ago
  I think that's fairly accurate, thanks for putting it into words!
- seabird 3y ago
  Hit the nail on the head. The execution requirements for RTS games are steep and the competition is fierce. You have to completely re-arrange your priorities from "win games" to "be better than I was last match, and I'll get there eventually", and it's something that modern audiences don't see often and struggle to engage with.
- Macha 3y ago
  I think the other thing that is that the RTS community has de-emphasized modes other than 1v1 to the extent that it's basically a 1v1 game like fighting games. At least with MOBAs there's a destressing factor of losing with a team that stops the feeling of sole total responsibility that makes so much ladder anxiety. Similarly, arena shooters also have team deathmatch modes.
- kungito 3y ago
  I'd say it's like this for any older game which still has a multiplayer community regardless of genre. There just isn't a big influx of new players and the bad ones give up.
  - chongli 3y ago
    That may be the case but other genres, such as shooters (first and third person), have found ways to get around it. Fortnite, for example, has nowhere near this issue whereas Quake 3 is plagued by it. The 100-player battle royale structure of Fortnite is one mechanism I think helps to mitigate the problem of overwhelming skill gap. This kind of thing hasn't really been tested in RTS games, which usually focus on 1v1s.
    - ThatPlayer 3y ago
      Fortnite's solution has been bots, which is not very popular because plenty of people think they're above bots. Or think that bots cheat (which is true in Starcraft). Or in fighting games, they don't play like humans so you end up learning bad habits.
ThatPlayer 3y ago
RTS games are just too stressful. They require 10+ minutes of full concentration. Whether you've just won or lost an engagement, you better keep up with scouting, building your army, gathering resources, expanding your base, preparing for the next engagement, etc. You get absolutely no downtime. Every other game gives you downtime. Shorter round based games like fighting games give you time to catch your breath. Respawn time is a reprieve for both sides. Even just being on the queue screen for Starcraft II was enough to get my heartrate up in anticipation for the stressful games.

Klonoar 3y ago

Fighters are arguably bigger than they’ve ever been. SF6 alone has made massive inroads in terms of level of entry to the field. Hell one need only look at the size of this years EVO.

seabird 3y ago
Fighting games can simultaneously be bigger than they've ever been but nowhere near the level of success that other genres reach. You either have to be cool with losing 9/10 matches you play or have a large amount of knowledge and/or mechanical execution. Simplifying mechanical execution only goes so far because mechanical execution is just a foregone conclusion at a certain level of play, and most of the game becomes a mental exercise. Many people struggle to accept that they are the problem and the reason they're performing poorly, and this is something that's massively exacerbated by the prevalence of team-based multiplayer games. Prize pools at flagship events are always ridiculously low. One-on-one mentoring is by and away the easiest way to get into the genre, and it is also probably the most "expensive" way to introduce people bar none. I love the genre; it's in a great place, and it doesn't need to change. I'm glad the playerbase is very cautious about losing some of the magic chasing after mass market appeal. The downside is just that it's hard to justify throwing a lot of money at these games.

btown 3y ago

Giant Grant Games makes a compelling case for why single-player campaign and mod-development experiences are often overlooked but are key for RTS crossover success. And this came out long before the success of BG3. I hold out hope that someone will crack the formula! https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc