Why did the RTS gerne die Yea Forums. The signle player campaigns were good...

Why did the RTS gerne die Yea Forums. The signle player campaigns were good. Multiplayer demands quick thinking and good mechanics. Fucking around with units and trying out new strategies is fun. Lots of maps that make you adapt the way you are playing. I just want them back Yea Forums.

Attached: 20190902_152548.jpg (2896x2896, 808K)

Because they couldn't make them sell on consoles

It died because it was less profitable than the rest.
RTS was always niche as it requires a high investment to master and is limited in entertainment at a casual level.

The playerbase of RTS is simply dwarfed by genres like FPS, which is why developers are chasing those avenues instead.

It died to make way for MOBAs since zoomers can't be arsed to learn both micro and macro in the same game. All video games are now made to appeal to the lowest common denominator of drooling retards and RTSs have a distinct disadvantage here, since they can not be dumbed down without compromising what makes them fun. 8-bit armies is a perfect example of this. It's the same style as C&C games, but simplified, so much so that you have 6-7 units in total. This means the game gets boring after a couple of games, since the moveset that you have at your disposal as a "commander" is very limited.

Starcraft 2
I'm not saying Starcraft 2 is bad, quite the opposite, it was too good and too popular. From that point on every RTS tried to imitate Starcraft and its success and the RTS scene spiraled more and more into being incredibly fast paced competitive games.

Those

>Why did the RTS gerne die Yea Forums.
no actual strategies involved

rts started to die off when Esports started to become a thing and MOBAs started to pop up left, right and center. The Final nail in the coffin was when AAA abandoned rts and the only ones left are the modders or smaller studios like the guys from westwood.

Attached: Devestator.jpg (620x465, 53K)

zoomers are retarded and have attention spans of a goldfish
its too hard for them
they are the ones flowing their parents money into games we see today

Rise of the Reds ought to be a good game
even the beta versions are solid
Hardest AI even keeps raping players in the ass and they keep coming for more every time a new patch is up

Mobas,esports ,they just weren't as profitable as other genre's ,it's a shame really cause my favourite games are rts games,I still play first Dawn of war ,red alert ,cnc generals ,total annihilation

Two things.

First, Starcraft. Starcraft got so popular, no other game could keep a playerbase long enough to be sustainable. Developers would have to try to copy Starcraft mechanics to get people to play, and then people would shit on it for being a knock off of Starcraft.

Second, the advancement of competitive play meant that virtually all high level FPS play is about memorizing build orders and clicking fast. There is very little strategy involved, and so if you couldn't keep up, you stopped playing.

A minor reason is DOTA, since DOTA and its clones ate a chunk of the RTS audience, but that's a very small reason.

Stop whining, it's much less dead than the FPS genre is right now.

>From that point on every RTS tried to imitate Starcraft and its success
Company of Heroes 2, the most popular RTS (by Steam numbers) that isn't Starcraft 2, plays nothing like Starcraft 2

The RTS genre didn't die at all - there's an RTS every year - but the "fans of the genre" don't play those games, they just play Footman Frenzy or the three hour "comfy" compstomp they have in AoE2 HD while muttering about "gookclick" having ruined everything

I know that this has been repeated in these threads again and again, but the biggest problem is the disconnect on how most people play RTS games and how they’re supposed to be played. I mean, people want to build bases and generally play it more slowly and relaxed, but actual multiplayer in RTS games is always intense as fuck, requiring fast macro/micro, and worst of all, it’s one of those genres where losing feels very absolute. If you play FPS games or something, you may be able to obtain smaller victories here and there despite losing the entire match, but RTS games generally end up with very brutal snowballs where there’s pleasure only in winning the entire round. Also, Starcraft ended up being practically too popular among the people who actually like that kind of gameplay, ending up in a situation where it basically ate off competitive RTS scene for itself.

There’s always singleplayer, but...
>most RTS SP campaigns were always pretty bad
>RTS is a genre where AI is just never quite as interesting to play against as humans, as it usually relies only on macro power with shit micro tacticking

okay, why is this game hated here?it's pretty comfy and enjoyable.

Attached: 444929-halo-wars-2-for-pc.jpg (810x456, 89K)

2 thing happens:
1st blizzard partner up with activision, that kill starcraft
2nd do you expect npc to make some complicate judgements? micromanagement? hell those.. them...? only care about "ma feel" or some depression game or cry on some mmo that x class is op

Retard Games Journalists and Streamer cunts can't play RTS, therefore normies don't get to know them

Mobas came well after RTS died. Sc2 was basically a last gasp as the last good rts titles were released in the early 2000s. While yes dota is old, it required wc3 to play so its not exactly picking up new fans like a new game would be. League didnt really pick up steam until 2011, 2010 earliest and by this time rts was dead as fuck.

Cant blame mobas for rts dying. It was just always a niche genre

That fuckin focus on esports, that's why.

A fun game? Fuck no, need to add all kinds of bells and whistles so we can see EPIC PLAYS by pros.

What I want to is a game that starts with a single character and plays like tactical game similar to Korea Forgotten Conflict and as you gain allies, influence and territory/infrastructure, the game turns into an RTS like Battle Realms, then even bigger, and eventually becomes a Grand Strategy game. Individual hero characters have their own abilities that you can use (even in Grand Strategy stage if you zoom in on them and select them) and each hero is a different type of fighter who can train regular folk into their respective type that also have abilities but only if they work in a squad. Campaign takes place on a single map the scale of which player initially has no idea of because they don't see it all from the beginning because of fog of war.

The genre forked into two different evolutions.
One being a more simplistic form which is MOBAs (which many RTS alredy where, since unit production was irrelevant because heroes could overwhelm anything and your units were just damage soaking minions).
The other one being x4 games which took the genre to a more complex level with resource management, economy and so on (which fans that just enjoyed the confy base building, a decent story and some RPG features didn't enjoy that much).

Honestly, the only thing that seems to imply gaming really went to the lowest common denominator is the fact that there are less extensive menus, but i just imagine that being because developers got better at making menus that are streamlined and easier to use.

And sure, there have always been strategy games, but it's not as if they were more than something really niche at any point.

I also doubt it's because of attention span when 4X, Simulation and Grand Strategy still sell pretty well.

Or, you know, the fact that survival games are really big and they consist on you starting as basically someone with nothing and really slowly getting equipment, crafting and making bases, it's almost as if slow gameplay has always been a thing and some people just want to criticize newer games and generations for daring to not like the same genres and games that retro gamers enjoy.

And yes, i know some developers like Paradox have made games more casual, and then their fans started complaining about it and games like Imperator:Rome end up being way less popular than most of their other games.

>While yes dota is old, it required wc3 to play so its not exactly picking up new fans like a new game would be.
Most of my friends who played DotA in W3 never even played W3 before. And they were not the only ones. You could spot the moba zoomers even then, since they did not know the names of the original W3 skins from which heroes were built.
>League didnt really pick up steam until 2011, 2010 earliest and by this time rts was dead as fuck.
It didn't pick up because it sucked compared to DotA. The mechanics were simpler and it did not have anything unique, yet.
>Cant blame mobas for rts dying. It was just always a niche genre
Unluckily for you zoomie, I like both RTS and MOBAs and I've seen them evolve since the 90s. W3 DotA in mid 2000s and the acquisition of Westwood by EA have almost single-handedly killed RTS as we know it. EA is retarded and ran Westwood into the grave and DotA gave birth to all the "battle royale" cancer that is plaguing the gaming industry to this day, since it was huge, accessible and couldn't be monetized. So companies tried to make money off its popularity, through isometric spin-offs like LoL, HoN and then 3rd person PoV like Paladins and some other forgettable titles from earlier times.