The title is a red herring. Some interesting data on why multi-player is not the focus of RTS games. What do you think?
The Next Major RTS Will Fail. This Is Why.
- Thread starter Al
- Start date
RTS was my favorite genre after shooters for most of my life (last few years its shooters and rts dropped off the radar). But I think time period/genre in the literary sense is also important, most of RTSs I love are scifi, absolute favorites are Blizzards SC and WC, after that Warhammer 40k Dawn of War and Supreme Commander. But there are so much incredible strategy games out there: Endless Space, Sins of a Solar Empire, CnC games, Empire Earth, Stronghold series...
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 312
- Points
- 0
big problem is since AAA shooter, fps and rpg are taking the big screen with their pubs and marketing it is hard for AA or A rts game or small AAA rts to lay a mark
Brodes
Operator
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2023
- Messages
- 83
- Points
- 7
Nah. It's different. That's like saying a science fiction movie won't fare well if a ROMCOM is released at the same time. Different strokes for different folks.
Cobalt
Scout
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Points
- 8
I think I agree with most statements from the video. I'm just not sure about the conclusions though.
In the end, the games need to draw enough attention, and they need to be fun to play. I think most games fail for one of the two reasons. And looking back at RTS games, I think they all failed or succeeded for very different reasons.
What confuses me the most is, many good RTS games had abysmal - or at least inferior - successors. Like Empire Earth, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander.
I think there are a lot of people out there that would love to play a great new RTS. But I also think they are a bit hesitant, because of all the bad RTS game releases. At least that's how I feel myself.
Still, I was very excited when I saw Sanctuary: Shattered Sun. It looks too good to be true. And other Supreme Commander "successors" have been disappointing. But this one is looking very promising so far.
In the end, the games need to draw enough attention, and they need to be fun to play. I think most games fail for one of the two reasons. And looking back at RTS games, I think they all failed or succeeded for very different reasons.
What confuses me the most is, many good RTS games had abysmal - or at least inferior - successors. Like Empire Earth, Dawn of War, Supreme Commander.
I think there are a lot of people out there that would love to play a great new RTS. But I also think they are a bit hesitant, because of all the bad RTS game releases. At least that's how I feel myself.
Still, I was very excited when I saw Sanctuary: Shattered Sun. It looks too good to be true. And other Supreme Commander "successors" have been disappointing. But this one is looking very promising so far.
It’s an interesting quandary for developers. Everything points to a single player experience being the driving force behind (initial) commercial success yet multiplayer is the key driver for longevity. I’m sure people probably still buy SCFA today because of the persisting multiplayer experience from teams like FAF and LOUD. What to focus on? It’s a commercial enterprise first and foremost so I’d suggest single player should be the focus, but if you want a lasting legacy you need to consider multiplayer aspects too.
Cobalt
Scout
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2023
- Messages
- 17
- Points
- 8
I think, single player first has one major problem: It's easy to get away with a weak game architecture. Iron Harvest is probably the a good recent example.
It's also much harder to add multiplayer at a later stage. Multiplayer first forces you to get some fundamentals right, as issues there get apparent quickly. And I believe it makes playtesting easier.
Good fundamentals should help creating good tooling. Adding a campaign is much easier with good tooling. Of course, this will delay integrating the story part. At least you CAN add the story part later with relative ease. And at the same time it may help emphasize on an other important aspect of single player games: The AI.
I'm probably biased. I don't know many single-player-only RTS games, and I'm not a huge fan of real time tactic games like Company of Heroes (yes, it's considered an RTS, but the strategy part is very shallow in my opinion). I think that even games like Homeworld, with their phenomenal single player campaign, must have had a high focus on multiplayer early on.
I think single player only does not work too well with traditional strategy games. You would need to focus on other aspects, like tactics or management (e.g. Dungeon Keeper).
Consider Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War as example. The first one (with its many addons) had the main focus on multiplayer, with a decent AI that allowed for a lot of fun in single player. I think the game was quite successful.
With Dawn of War II, focus shifted towards single player campaign, and while still a good game, people lost interest quickly.
But maybe you mean that a solid single player experience is more important than tournaments and ladder games? I would totally agree in that case.
It's also much harder to add multiplayer at a later stage. Multiplayer first forces you to get some fundamentals right, as issues there get apparent quickly. And I believe it makes playtesting easier.
Good fundamentals should help creating good tooling. Adding a campaign is much easier with good tooling. Of course, this will delay integrating the story part. At least you CAN add the story part later with relative ease. And at the same time it may help emphasize on an other important aspect of single player games: The AI.
I'm probably biased. I don't know many single-player-only RTS games, and I'm not a huge fan of real time tactic games like Company of Heroes (yes, it's considered an RTS, but the strategy part is very shallow in my opinion). I think that even games like Homeworld, with their phenomenal single player campaign, must have had a high focus on multiplayer early on.
I think single player only does not work too well with traditional strategy games. You would need to focus on other aspects, like tactics or management (e.g. Dungeon Keeper).
Consider Warhammer 40.000: Dawn of War as example. The first one (with its many addons) had the main focus on multiplayer, with a decent AI that allowed for a lot of fun in single player. I think the game was quite successful.
With Dawn of War II, focus shifted towards single player campaign, and while still a good game, people lost interest quickly.
But maybe you mean that a solid single player experience is more important than tournaments and ladder games? I would totally agree in that case.
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2023
- Messages
- 312
- Points
- 0
what i m saying is taste changed and since more peoples like other gendre they will jump on theses than other ones (there s a lot of rpg, fps and mmo fan and i don t know why but rts pleased only a small fraction of the gaming community.)