Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
do you even know the difference between opinions and lies?
" try your luck on a game thats not old and dying :)"
LMAO u cant be for real.
You either made a typo in one of your latter replies, you might still not realize that I am not talking about your original post, or you are just playing dumb.
I would argue, that if you've no fun in getting castle dropped by AoE2-players, then you most likely not gonna like to get Zerg rushed by SC2-players or fighting stronger or more enemy heroes in WC3.
These kind of strategies aren't specific to AoE, but rushing is part of the genre in general (because unsurprisingly people play to win and not to play sim city for an hour) and if you fail to be good in multitasking in one game, then you'll have that problem in every one.
The most important thing to have fun is not, how the HUD looks or which buildings the game offers, but about how valuable an experience is to you and what it makes with you. Like if you see a castle drop after 15 minutes, when you reached feudal like a minute ago, then it definitely can make fun to think about how to prevent it the next game or how you might do it yourself one day. Or you just throw yourself into furstration, but i guarantee, that this can easily happen with every RTS, if not even every competitive game in general.
you are right rts didnt do that well in terms of sales, but I am thinking more about Esport to begin with. I guess I shouldnt say they were popular. Regardless they lost their place in Esports which still means ppl lost interest.
Wouldn't even say that. The interest in total numbers most likely didn't decline that much, probably even raised, but the other genres, RTS and MOBA in particular, simply exploded in particular and makes it look like RTS is dead, even when the total current player numbers aren't that bad compared to 90s standards.
The amount of gamers have gone up significantly since the 1990s. The new generation aren't playing RTS. Its not proportional to what we have in the 1990s. RTS sold pretty well when it came to the PC market. It doesnt sell at all anymore. When was the last time a good RTS came out? Heck, Blizzard stopped making RTS altogether. I dont blame them considering how a mount in WoW made more than the entirety of Starcraft II.
Also lets not forget DOTA which gave rise to MOBA was a mod of warcraft III. Its not crazy to think that DOTA and MOBA in general took away RTS players from the RTS genre.
Another example is baldur gate 2 and age of empire 2. Both originals have about the same amount of sales. Then compare the launch of aoe4 to baldur gate 3.
That's pretty much what i was saying, just from the perspective of the AAA-dev's view, while i was refering to the total numbers of players. Like sure, today we've more games than ever and most people play something else in relative numbers, but the raise in player numbers kept the genre alive to this day. The first AoE sold around 3 million copies and so die the AoE2:DE on Steam alone (not to mention the other platforms).
The biggest problem for RTS isn't, that players loose interest, but rather, that the amount of interested players only grows very slowly compared to the rest of the gaming market and the stagnant nature of this genre is mostly what keeps AAA-studios away from it, but indie devs could definitely still flourish under the given player numbers with a good product.
If you want your instant gratification.... If you want the game to make you feel good about yourself because your ego needs to be constantly satisfied, then go play Call of Duty or Battlefield. You'll get that thrill every time you get a kill. If you die, you will instantly respawn and have the opportunity to try again.
RTS doesn't work that way dude. A players skill in this game, comes from their ability to analyze themselves objectively to become better. If you can't do this, if you can't adapt, then you won't make it in multiplayer.
I recommend this video to watch if newcomers want to understand the general trend of RTS nowadays: https://youtu.be/XehNK7UpZsc?si=i0_mu0f6kr3ewruX
"I didn't have time to say it in the video, but competition isn't bad. But it is something that will naturally and organically arise through people engaging with, and enjoying, the game. Supporting it is good, forcing it is bad." - GiantGrantGame.
So let see OP's opinion on why SP but not MP, and RTS genre is dying:
+ You have to spend time learning skills to win.
+ Losing in RTS is not fun compared to other games.
+ It's not player friendly in AOE but player friendly in COH.
+ Outdated HUD.
First, every RTS demands you to learn a general basis of its nature which I agree. It does not explain why SP but not MP, and you can still be lost to an AI in a campaign map. In other genres, you are still required to spend time to learn and adapt, and unless it's an idle ducky observing game or similar-like gameplay, you still invest your time into getting good.
About losing, I disagree. That's likely OP's problem to cope with the fact that skill issue exists. He still not elaborated why losing other games is fun or even which games they are. I can still get mad at losing my progress in a farming game. Player can still lose by doing strange gameplay but yet they can still enjoy the game. To back up what I said, consider this LowEloLegend video. https://youtu.be/WNoiJqvbyuU?si=bdUL_zoVbaTTqKQk
Next, player friendly. It's unclear, and not much elaboration either. Please provide more insights given Coh only peaked in a specific moments then came into 2000 or less player? AOE2DE on the other hand its population has stayed consistent around 30k? Not that numbers would mean an absolute correct answer, but this point of OP will never make sense in the future.
Final, OP also not provide clear explanation on HUD. What's outdated? Is it the lack of information, map too small? It have to be filled with 25 UIs about how faster and which units to counter?
In AAA term, RTS game is still a minefield because the results are not what AAA really want to see. They want to see official exposure but also there's a clear disinterest of the player base in competitive scenes. Not that competitive is bad, but most people are casual players and prefer single player. Telling people to not choose MP because you are bad at it is a very flawed opinion. There's a reason why when talking about RTS, likely you will see modding support at some points.
Tldr: RTS is dying is not because the nature of its genre, but probably devs are unable to relate themselves to the demographic of RTS genre. I recommend the "Why" video. Will not take OP's advice due to reasons stated above.
the other big thing that is causing problems for RTS games is that you either compete directly with Age of Empires 2, Starcraft 1 & 2, and Warcraft 3, which is often a doomed effort because these games have been continually polished longer than much of their playerbase has been alive (ex. Empire Earth series or Gray Goo, both of which kinda got relegated to the dustbin of gaming history because, while good, they weren't AS good as games with which they directly competed), or you have to find a way not to directly compete with them which often means treading unfamiliar ground and being relegated to a niche in what is already a genre that requires a fair amount of investment to get into.
You can try again , or play against AI