Question Can real-time strategy come back from the brink of death?

[Dakkon]

Strategy games were always a niche genre since you had to be really really good in order to get most of the game.
I've played most of rts games but mostly for the story and I consider myself a mediocre player. After years and years of playing.
Doubt rts will ever get a revival, its time has passed but there's always gonna be an audience but just not in millions.
And we all know millions matter.

 

[ceaRshaf]

It needs to be reinvented. The old school way is not suitable for today's style of gaming and gamers. I was there Gandalf, when Starcraft II came out. I saw Esports grow, Twich being born. I saw everything.

 

[Zloth]

I saw Esports grow, Twich being born. I saw everything.

And yet you did nothing to stop it!!

 

[ceaRshaf]

Actually, when Starcraft II refused to go freemium I have foreseen the downfall. But foreseen and done nothing indeed.

 

[Jörmungandr]

The golden age of art's may have passed. because the ip holder's of our beloved games are held by companies that doesn't seem to have an interest in rts anymore. But the interest by fans in the remastered game's when they aren't completely rubbish shows that the hunger is still there. Right now as a Warcraft fan I'm eager to find out what Frost Giant will deliver.

 

[MrSeaHorse]

I'm in the camp that hates the APM micro shenanigans. I want real-time-strategy not real-time-finger-twitching. I'm glad those games exist for the folks who like them but I stay far away. I kind of got a fix with Stellaris but the more I play it the more I want it to be worked on.

Most of the games I've seen that don't do micro aren't games you play in 30 minutes to an hour, they're much more long form games.

 

[legolasyiu]

I think the real-time strategy game to break thru is to go back to the roots of RTS which is the strategy (like chess) but in real-time. Games like Total Annihilations and Starcraft and Dune are good example of root type of games.
If RTS should evolve, it must keep the roots. Maybe the building is an essential part, but maybe a game with a factory already built and so units are more important? Building an army must be more thoughtfully planned to counter the enemy's units. All units have a special function to play. Like a pawn in chess, it protects the front lines. Perhaps an alliance can be formed or broken in mid-game, 4v4 can be more complicated. players can trade for money, gold, etc, so nobody is dying. Strategies like flanking, surrounding, charging will decide the game.

 

[Brian Boru]

maybe a game with a factory already built

A good few of the C&C/RA missions were of the 'takeover and repair this old base' kind, which were fun, but of course funneled your strategy in a particular direction. I generally prefer more freedom re where to start the base—plonk it here and get going, or spend some time to get a better position. Interesting choices, that's what strategy is all about.

I'd like to see larger maps where you can found 2-3 main bases, with resources claimed linked to what the base can produce. So a metal mining base can produce vehicles, a food-rich base soldiers, a uranium deposit = navy, etc.

I want real-time-strategy not real-time-finger-twitching

I'm with that. That's why C&C/RA are my favs of the genre, there's time to think and deploy—at least in single player.

 

[Oooglibla]

I blame EA. The companies primary talent has veen on buying competition and shuttering them. RTS was never something EA was really interested in, and after the Westwood purchase and the final C&C game I felt their message was... gfyslf. Play something else.

Blizzard did better under Activision with SC2, and I'm satisfied with the end, but.... more?