How to fix the RTS genre 

The majority plays skirmish/single player RTS anyways.... and the most popular/played mode in multiplayer Starcraft 2 is the co-op commanders... so we just need a better A.I in RTS games , very few people play multiplayer in RTS games... They need to focus on making a perfect single player RTS game first and then we can talk about multiplayer... Good A.I / Skirmish / Campaign should be their #1 priority in RTS games.

What you said about single player RTS completely applies to me. To me, once you get to a build order and a template of playstyle, every game starts to mix in together and its a grind to win with anxiety only. But when there is a story, a variety of environment, different stakes or any thing resembling a campaign or stakes, it becomes a whole new beast. I regularly visit aoe2 heavengames to download custom maps and campaigns and same for warcraft 3. Thats where the meat is for me

I often cackle like a madman when I play alien-like characters, making stereotypical badguy speeches. I like getting into the role too.

This video should definitely get more views, a very good summary. Once someone told me, that they have put down a certain competitive RTS after one day, because a friend tried to teach them, and instead of talking about the interesting units, buildings and upgrades, the fantastic graphics, the beautiful music or the intriguing story, they went straight into the "you have to build this and this many workers, and after that you MUST build this building, because that's the only way to win online" territory, and it just didn't feel fun. It really depends on a person, there is nothing wrong with being competitive, but some players really just want to, well, play.

Pretty much nailed it. Loved so many RTS games but what really got me hooked was being able to take my time and go trough each single player mission at my own pace experimenting and adding a bit of roleplay to it as well. Not just spamming one unit. And enjoying the story of the game while playing. That is what made it fun. :(

I was always more of a fan of co op rts, sort of pve. Some of my best rts memories are me and my friends defending our massive base against hordes of enemies until we get bored and send everything we have at them.

I really don't get the whole need to be a competitive online game. I feel like most people who got into the genre when we were kids played 95% of our games offline or against friends. And I dont think any of those people today really give a shit about competitive multi-player. My dream as a kid was that one day games like red alert or age of empires would get more expansive as technology improved. Allowing for more complex tech trees, more unit variety, bigger armies, more factions, etc. Instead I'm finding most games to be extremely dumbed down. If you would have told me 15 years ago I could have the highest end pc and could play the best, most advanced rts game after 15 years of advancement I couldn't have even dreamed of the amazing things that would be in rts games. And now I'm there and there is nothing there. It's really depressing.

I love rts, its probably the most diverse genre we have. C&C style, starcraft/warcraft, Age of Empire style, Company of Heroes, the Wargame series... Thats the problem, its diverse, you cant milk the genre like the COD´s or Battlefields. The AOE crowd wants a different expirience than the starcraft crowd or the Wargame one. I believe the overall term rts is the actual problem, its to vague. People dont find the subgenre of rts they search. An AOE fan will be quite disappointed when he plays Grey Goo. Personally I believe once the current Hype and the fincancial bubble surrounding the AAA industry bursts, we cant expect more love from publishers, when they are forced to produce quality stuff and have to focus to a certain audience and not to the dreaded everyone...

I completely identify with the way you explain playing RTS games in singleplayer and multiplayer. I hope we'll see an RTS with a great singleplayer focus again! If anyone has any recommendations for an RTS with a great story, please let me know. :D

RTS needs more co-op

the main issue is that everyone in competitive mode focuses on minmaxing while most people that play RTS games are in it for the experience. this sometimes pours over into coop RTS experiences and you feel like it's taking the fun out of the gameplay experience. once you go the minmaxing way, it all becomes numbers balancing, which is not atmospheric at all.

This is so true. Because of how famous Sc2 is for its competitive scene, when I look back at my own experience playing RTS games it was always the single player experience I played through first, the competitive multiplayer aspect was only what kept me playing once I had beaten the campaign. It was the command and conquer games with their intentionally cheesy cut-scenes or the story-line in Warcraft 3 that I was most excited about. And my guess is that most of the players playing any game, are the casual players who may or may not continue playing the same game after they've finished the campaign, so why put most of the effort on multiplayer if what most people will experience is only the campaign.

If your rts is too fast paced and ends faster than 30 min, if your rts has metas that you must adhere to tk win, then your rts isnt very creative or fun. The entire point is to simulate a steuggle and to have that process be słów and steady and rewarding. Metas are as if ww 2 ended in a month instead of the 6 years it took.

I don't like playing multiplayer in RTS games. I like being able to just build bases and slowly take over the map which is almost impossible in multiplayer. Tower defence based games can be a lot of fun, and a way forward for single player RTS.

I always find myself tinkering with systems. Like checking what every unit in an IFV does in RA2. Ramping up a nuclear bomber's parameters in one of the Empire Earth map editors. Even when I decide I'm going to destroy the AI I find myself holding back just to try something

Can't please everyone indeed. Good breakdown between "silent majority" armchair commander RTS and multiplayer types

Finally found an analysis in the same way I think. I do believe the average player wants a time off from his work and not only play a strategy game, but also wants freedom for testing different types of strategy using different combination of units. The casual player are a large audience and player base. Still PRO players are great for balance development and as early adopters (or as I prefer to say early post-developers), but when they set off to the elite level that's where the developers lose sight. A RTS game developer should take care of the basics of the game and the expansion of the franchise/IP. Leave MP for the community and for later development. Just guessing here, ok, but after a point it seems that the interests are conflicting and the MP community always get the privileges.

As an RTS fan, I always played a game for the skirmish; a good and reliable skrimish mode with lots of maps and options will be a priority for me while choosing a game. Campaign, multiplayer and ranking/competitive scene are optionals for me.

EA is thankfully remastering Command & Conquer series with the help of petroglyph studio ( Petroglyph studio was founded by members of westwood studios who worked on the C&C series, they also made grey goo ).

Don't you worry my friend. If I get to study good enough and get the skills needed to start my projects, I will personally build the game we all have been waiting for. RTS fan here, and I feel you

Some players like to sim base build. Which is not really possible with certain modern RTS games. Recuirements: walls, cramped spaces and key positions for certain structures.

I adore RTS, I’m trying to create an RTS game on my own, hopefully I can craft something decent

Supreme commander is my favourite rts, I’m glad you showed it at the start. Thank you

As long as the game is in a 2D style (like AOE2, Stronghold or C&C) I'm good. The only 3D rts games I ever liked were RA3, AOM and Halo Wars (1&2)

As a C&C fan, I'll happily play any game in campaign or bot skirmish, but almost never in multiplayer for a simple reason. No one wants to be beaten by a typical Bike Rush who is head and shoulders above you and flicks commands faster than you. If a game claims to be a strategy, then it should be played as a way to implement strategies and not a high speed of implementation of strategies. If the future RTS manages to solve this problem and transfer, if not completely, but the same feeling of a single-player into a multi-player, then we can talk about a new breath of the RTS.

RTS is chessboxing. It takes competency in two diametdically opposed skillsets. Therefore the possible.audence is limited. You either need to scale back the chess aspect, and get a MOBA, or scale back the boxing aspect, and you get a TA clone, or another installment of Wargame, or maybe total war. And you are also correct in that singleppayer needs to be focused more, especially skirmiah AI needs to be made better.

Yeah I can totally relate. I always suck in online RTS (except in Wargame Red Dragon) because I roleplay it wayyy too hard and spend way too much making my base look pretty lol

i just hate multiplayer games on rts because to many people just min max and use build orders i just want big battles and elaborate battles not just build a blob or rush/min max.

You won a subscriber when you said you love role playing the the armchair commander!!!! That's exactly what I love! Well said. RTS always needs to have that element to it 🤙🏼

I'm one of the campaign bois. A recent one that had this issue was Northgard, I bought it on EA and they said it was going to have campaign in the game, but they started focusing more on the multiplayer stuff before the single player story. Heck, even the music, there was only one track, although good, you could tell it needed more. They have launched the game, but I kinda lost interest after waiting for the single player and don't know how's everything now. Only one way to find out, but maybe later...

Instead of focusing on competitive, you just make the best game you can, give it a balanced multiplayer. if the game lends itself well to multiplayer, it will develop a competitive community. Nobody built starcraft 1 with e-sports in mind. Same with original DOTA.

Im actually trying to singlehandly build a co-op supream commander zombie experience, it might end up pretty cool but i agree we need more rts like they are billions, amazing art and the campaign (from what ive seen) is amazing. But honestly i have no qualms with the rts genre, its pretty open but there are a bit too many trying to make one "stand out" when all we really need is just a good old fashion age of empires for every platform lol

For a long time I've been thinking the future of rts is in well made co op vs ai, im glad you feel the same!

I am one of those silent solo player (well, not so much anymore) and I always liked to play the games. But I have a hard time playing some of them with their old hotkeys. I don't know who thought to do it, but it annoys me how spread out everything is on the keyboard. Wish more the games thought about grid controls sooner.

I'd say the RTS genre is ready to go a step forward. What about making your own army/faction? Almost nobody talks about it, but I personally think that might be the right direction to go for. That's the one thing game developers are so scared of, because of balance. I loved CnC Yuri's Revenge very much, and it's balancing sucked hard but it is still super awesome and fun to play and it didn't feature customization like in Warzone 2100 (Playstation 1). I'd LOVE such a type of RTS. I'm not even asking to have 100% custom stuff, but a broad selection of presets with their own stats and your choosing what to combine with one another. Nobody can tell me this concept wouldn't be fun... I can tell you, you will certainly approve if you give it a try. It adds so much to the strategy aspect but it is so overlooked, still to this day. It's like they are all scared to even touch this aspect. Some people don't really get it... what strategy actually means and what is part of it and what is not. Most RTS only focus on tactics and nothing more. And I would also love to see more modern style (or low scifi) warfare RTS with world domination skirmish modes like in CnC 3 Kane's Revenge.

I think the StarCraft 2 Custom Campaign community is being largely overlooked here. XD There's some really awesome singleplayer campaigns made by that community. I've played a bunch of RTSs, but only Northgard and StarCraft 2 really capture me. Northgard's skirmish and co-op. StarCraft 2's competetive and singleplayer (and community-made singleplayer), transversely. But I think you nailed it. Because RTSs can be almost like a new genre in terms of variety from one another it's kind of splitting itself into fragments that get lost

I hate it when a cool RTS is announced and it turns out it will be online-only :/ Loving the C&C games for their campaigns, It was really disappointing when EA announced Generals 2 (later just "Command & Conquer") to be an online-only platform, and then Petroglyph (ex-Westwood, original creators of C&C) announced End Of Nations, also online only... And AFAIK, End Of Nations tanked, and "Generals 2" never even released. Indeed, I'm partially into RTS games for the "commander roleplay". I think campaign missions also give a lot more variety in situations (e.g. opponent already has a full base, or you only get a few units) and required tactics, rather than resulting to the cheapest, quickest tactic to outpace and outsmart another human of often unknown skill level. That last bit is where skirmish comes in: if you feel you're not ready yet for hard opponents, then you simply don't put them in your skirmish! This allows you to gradually try out different strategies, instead of being thrust from one random game into another. And yeah, maybe, eventually, I end up playing online, but even then more often than not prefer to only play with my friends.

You, Sir speaks my mind, 100% of it! I feel like games nowaday feels like a chore rather than an entertainment. But I'm not alone I guess. Take Red Alert series for example: RA1-2 feels like the A.I. in skirmish lets you build an army, build your base, and fight, even on hard difficulty. It's between you can beat them, or they can beat you, and it's as balance as it can get. Even on medium difficulty can be challenging if you're not prepared. Now take Red Alert 3... The easy difficulty treat player like a kindergartener, and the medium difficulty feels like fighting an early pro player. I tried to learn the A.I. strategy through "hosts camera, but they dumb it down, and the Allied will always come up to the top, while the Soviet at the bottom. This applied to Age of Empires series too. The newer A.I. feels like it's degrading you. Standard = baby step, medium = LoL, you can't win. So, I would love another RTS where you can actually be calm and refreshing, but also able to engage in the conflict of the game. Cheers. 🙌

i feel you, thats why i am developing my own new RTS :) DeadSeas

Pathfinding and target prioritization have gotten so good that often you just need to build a diversified army and attack move it at the enemy. I think games like Starship Troopers Terran Command where they don't all fire through each other and you have to carefully place them and manage their abilities is the way forward.

C&C Generals is pretty old but it is a classic that we always come back to. So we are doing a stand alone mod with realistic graphics and proportions with Unreal Engine

This aged like a fine wine!! Signal boost comment for people who are coming from the "Why the next RTS will fail" videos

i personally play RTS games for the competitive strategy aspect i often dont even play campaigns unless i have to to unlock PVP content. i could not care less about playing vs AI however vs a horde AI sounds more fun. im recently getting into game design specifically learning to make real time strategy games and turn based strategy games for my own amusment and my little brother's. its a hobby. i think the joy of the genre lies in the multiplayer interaction of 1v1 and 2v2 modes, the developing meta and counter meta strategies, plus having a large variety of varying yet viable factions that all play the game in their own unique way.

Something I think military rts games could do is start offering objectives other than just "eliminate the other player". Example Defend a town from the enemy who are also being tasked with destroying said town. There would obviously be more objectives than that. Completing objectives would reward the player. Another example. The loss of life and resources is felt throughout your session. So you cant just spam certain units, you would have to manage a few units at a time in a strategic way, instead of just rushing the enemy with a thousand of your strongest tanks, or planes. Maybe some kind of war support system so that the less casualties you have as well as the less amount of money you spend early on, you'll get rewarded with bigger support from your government. If you have no war support you lose. What do you think?

Hmmm. I would really like a new good, competitive multiplayer RTS Game. My favorite game ever was probably Generals: Zero Hour. This was diverse and tactical and each game played out differently. Lot's of factions, strategies and counters. I like dungeon keeper 2, but the multiplayer was a bit too much "spam and forget" "Machines" was also really good multiplayer. Currently all we have left is Starcraft 2 and Supreme Commander FaF. I have trouble describing what I dislike about Starcraft 2. SupCom2 is awesome but sometimes you want that tactical paper-stones-scissors with units special abilities. Starcraft 2 does't have enough paper-stone-scissors for me either. Basically most units work against each other and it's all about micro. Generals Zero hour had this extreme "MG solider > rocket soldier > tank > buggy/flamethrowertank > MG soldier", paper-stone scissors to the max. Spamming a single unit didn't work and lost you every game. In Starcraft1 hydralisk-spam, dragoon-spam or carrier-spam were too much valid tactics for my taste. Zero hours unit' strengths and weaknesses were intuitive, balanced and created awesome tactical skirmishes. I'm waiting for annother competitive multiplayer-game that captures that spirit like zero hour did for more than 10 years now. I hope it will be made in my remaining lifetime.... Scouting, countering the opponents compositions and trying to catch him off-guard from an angle with something he isnt prepared to handle. Map control (oil manufactures), teching (overlord-tanks over normal tanks). it had everything

I love competitive modes in RTS, but the single-player stuff is just unparalleled. Big reason I didn't end up liking AoE4 was because the campaigns are utter doodoo. Great vid! Happy I stumbled across your content.

Ive been trying to play AOE2-DE multiplayer but it's too intense for me: just non-stop 30 mins of pressing buttons I get tired so much.

I always liked this role-playing RTS experience. I had lots of fun playing Age of Empires 2 in the Regicide mode, on LAN with my friends. We used to have long up to 4h sessions, just dominating each of the AI enemies, one by one.

This is what killed Warcraft (main games, not WoW). Warcraft III was a great success, everyone agrees it was very strong in this "roleplaying feeling of RTS games" with memorable characters, a great story and catchy gameplay... but Blizzard figured out it didn't make ALL the money, and the big bucks were in competitive events with their communities and sponsors and MMO and RPGs with tons of microtransactions. They don't want to create a single one-purchase gameplay and story experience you move out from, thet want to make "lifestyle games" that you long into every days for years on end. And all the lesser studios mindlessly imitate the leader trying to do the same thing, even if it doesn't play to their strenght.

I really like slower paced RTS games that allow you to take time and allow you to build up and create an army and then fight the enemy.

I hate the heavy emphasis on base building in these games. I would rather worry about flanking and direct and indirect fire, and using the terrain to my advantage. I think it would actually be called real time tactics.

I agree 100% that RTS should always have a single player / local group of friends multiplayer scene. The competitive part should be optional. Even Starcraft 2 has a very good campaign, and even the coop missions for someone like me. Which means I can play the game even though I wouldn't enjoy its main focus (competitive multiplayer). The problems with competitive multiplayer are: - there's specific ways to play the game otherwise you will quickly lose. - your reaction time needs to be much higher than for any other type of game. - if you don't like to lose, you will hate to play, or develop PTSD symptoms, where you are afraid of breaking your rankings by playing another match and losing. If competitive could be without ranking lists or ladder features, then it wouldn't matter much if you lose. Like Age of empire 4. Me and my friends play it and lose some, win some, and its all good, because at the end of the day, there is no ladder or rankings, telling us how much we suck. In Starcraft, you get 5 placement matches, if you fuck up, you are thrown to the bottom of what seems to be the loser bracket, and then you play other losers. Which is good, and it should match you with the other losers, because you can defeat some of those. But it feels like already having lost the game. So then you win some matches and you rise slowly on the ladder, but then lose 1 match and you are back to the bottom. Again, feels like losing the entire game. Supreme commander 2, was awesome for me, I would build up, turtle all the way, until the AI is next to impossible to defeat, and then slowly break down his awesome defenses. Then you go and play against other players, and they rush you with a handful of air units and win the game within 1-2 minutes. The low amount of players playing it, means you waited for 20+ minutes to play a 1-2 minute match, and then back to waiting, and maybe repeating the process.. So supreme Commander isn't better on the multiplayer scene. The one RTS currently on the market to be proud of on it's multiplayer front is Age of empires 4. Lots of players to play with, big variety of factions yet simple build queues and easy to get into. Competitive, but not tooo fast paste. No penalty for losing, but also no reward for winning. But I miss RTS like Warlords Battlecry 1-3. Those were fun games. The hero buildup that gets carried over to next map, where you start as a weak unit that you barely use, and later you barely need to build units because you slaughter entire AI Nightmare level difficulty enemies with just the hero. That is truly fun to play. (get it on GOG.com, I recommend). Warcraft 2 and 3 were the most fun RTS of my young years also. Build and defeat your enemy. But there's also map making and infinite gameplay possibilities due to people's imaginations. Was good times.

StarCraft is a good game, but it sucks as RTS, in my opinion. As you correctly noted, main role in it plays the micro. Of course many people likes those fast fancy "slice-n-dice" battles, but is that a strategy? More like an action or some sort of clicker for me. Don't get me wrong, this is not about to turn strategy games into slow motion titanic mind games for an old farts I'm talking, I'd just want to see more balance between those "micro" and "macro" things, and further, more complexity. If I may be quite frank, SC is a definitely solid game, but it pays for that solidness with complexity. I mean it's primitive. SC has strategy game features indeed, but for some reason I believe we should refer this to a separate unique genre. Like it's happened with DotA, if you wish. We have a great story, sometimes interesting and even innovate campaign levels, but with a lack, in fact, of a strategy. Please don't get this as an offence. Yes, it appeared at the dawn of the genre, but time have shown that it's just a different game. But if you want to be offended, I believe it's so popular just because of its popularity either, seriously. And I don't like it. Shame on me. Don't know about you, but I prefer Company of Heroes series. This is exactly what I'm talking about, when it comes to spectacular strategy-like games. You have some tactical experience with all these regions and objects on the map, it's all about to control and expand your game space and manage resources. You have to manage your simple base and position dots. And in other hand you have neat physics and cool abilities, which can be used in real time on the fly. It's not that primitive and it's fun. Not that it has anything to do with SC, it's just an example of a good and not-so-dull game with RTS features. Supreme Commander awesome, by the way, and this is a true representation of real time strategy concept for me. Yeah, it's some kind of "classy" and special, not anyone can like it, and of course it has some issues, but this is a good RTS game. Glad you mentioned it. P.S.: Sure, I'm not a specialist, but just a player. Some things may be not as much correct, because strategy genre unique with its diversity. But so it goes.

People need to face facts and be honest with themselves.GAMERS as a whole DO NOT LIKE Online Multi-player games!! A gamer around age 10-20 will enjoy it because it's a fresh idea that sounds nice,but as you age you start to realize that it simply sucks balls,especially when you become a working adult with kids! you no longer have time to practice, so of course when you attempt to play online and get matched up with someone that has sunk 100s of hours into that game this week alone,you will get smoked. I gave up cod back at MW2 because of this.the game simply became nothing but spawn,die,respawn over and over ..

If you recently passed by this video, i recommend taking a look on Falling Frontier a Single Player only, Realistic, Space Genre, RTS Game coming in next year.

Starcraft is a skill and strategy masterpiece.

Populous the beginning campaign, it's not spoken about nearly Enough.. Not to mention the fish eye perspective and verticality which made the high ground an advantage.. No one seems to care to replicate it.

Needs both. I'm all about the competitive aspect of rts though

I used to play RTS alot but then I got total war, I never look back to traditional RTS again. And then I got more picky and get into other types of wargames that has great single campaign. I also played city building game and then I could never stand with building economy in RTS games again. I think the problem of RTS is, it simply lack the single player contents to attract normal players. like you said. Not only RTS is guarded by competitive elistist, it's format also lack the deep of other single player game. How can age of empire beat total war in terms of battle? it just can't. So people who is going to remain and keep playing RTS is going to be those competitive players who don't care about singleplayer or immersion. And the "RTS is for E-sport and rank match" "git gud at game" elitst is going to scare most people away. When I am interested in a new RTS, I always check their style, if they market as "balance, great competitive match, exciting" I will just look away.

I definitely feel what you're saying about competitive RTS. I do enjoy PVP, but if I'm going to play multiplayer in an RTS, I'd rather play with friends than with random people online, as my friends are more likely to play casually than get ridiculously serious about it. Similar reasons to you, the style of play that's needed to be really good at RTS games online is not really all that fun to me, so I don't feel incentivized to learn it. I'm not one of those people that likes finding the absolute optimal strategy, I prefer that stage of playing a multiplayer game with your friends, where you're both just exploring the game organically. Like when I'd play Street Fighter 2 in the arcades as a kid. No one was trying to min max, or learn all the most optimal strategies, it was more like one day you'd figure out a new strategy and you'd beat your friend, until maybe next week your friend has figured out a counter to that and it goes back and forth. That is a lot more fun to me than trying to find the most optimal strategy and then just executing it.

there was survey some time ago, dunno how many ppl were in on it but over 85% were not interested in MP. Take that in, almost 9/10 ppl dont want to play with people solution to this? imma quote a great man with aa great plan: "Fine, ill do it myself"

Original War with its unique mechanics could be the missing link in chain of saving RTS genre.

I love RTS but always played since i am a kid in local mode because I love to play at my own pace. One thing that I don't like about RTS is this multitasking feeling that stress me and I cant enjoy tha gameplay. So if I want to compete I have to play like that and I don't enjoy the genre then. Aah yes and playing creatively in different ways using different units or strategies is what i really enjoy. I dont like meta game. Feels boring for me to play always the same way.

Can you review Five Nations?

They Are Billions is the only game I've ever skipped sleeping because I didn't want to stop playing

You should mention BFME2 too, but yes people play skirmish or something like war or ring in BFME series which for me is best RTS ever

More companies need to see this video. Most of RTS fans I know including myself never enjoyed the Online matches of rushing attacks.

Im one of those people that like skirmish mode and never play online except with 1 of my friends

The great thing about game genres is that they're a lot like houseplants - they may look brown and dead, but they usually perk back up with just a little care.

Just coming across this video whilst bored in lockdown. I want multiplayer RTS but to work WITH my friends. I love that there is a small attempt at co-op RTS. Red alert 2 did it I think? And I think there’s another one where you take a role: fighters, resource gathering etc. Also, like your Armchair commander and Slower comment. I Love long drawn out games in a fun way. The turtling, the war of attrition. Why I loved supreme commander and enjoy they are billions. It’s the fight for resources and space, and the need for thoughtful defence

I spent hundreds of hours on Age of Mythology, Warcraft III, Starcraft 2 and Dawn of War I, and it was all on campaign, or playing with friends in coop modes or against the A.I.. I want new RTS games focused on PvE instead of PvP. I think that Starcraft 2 is currently the best, because it has 3 excellent solo campaigns and an excellent coop mode with missions that are never repetitive.

I just wait Age Of Empires IV doesen't suck

I spend ages trying to keep troops alive and have a really hard time just throwing troops away. I need to believe the troops on the ground are worth something. I grew up playing cannon fodder and are haunted by the graves.

I'm just now trying to become an indie game dev and one of the things I want to do is going to be a space 4x RTS that might be like what you are describing. Let's hope it works out.

4:20 I hated multiplayer AoE2 for a long time, it felt like everyone was knight rushing which I hated

AGE OF EMPIRES

Personally for me, I always hated the combat. I loved building the individual units, amassing an army but the actual fighting was so... confusing. Then my opponent would rush me & I'm like "I just started building!??" I think it's the absurd rate of inputs that put me off.

You make some good points here👍 Same here on my end… I hate Multiplayer RTS

Yep. Playing any rts for me feels like trying to play a tuba with handcuffs on. The controls are never really that comfortable and story mode is pretty much what I do.

The fact is rts people are willing to play rpg over rts now a days ...rpg can save your progress of everyday game time and add up to your stacks...which we call grinding...but apart from rts and rpg fans rest all want a quick play games ...unlike rts which takes 2 to 3 hrs ...this time factor can also be related to the death of MOBA

For me the problem is that PvP online RTS don't fulfill the fantasy of what an RTS is supposed to be; people (at least me xd) usually play RTS to build and manage units/city/whatever until is strong enough to win, and also use the cool units and shit like that, but each time I play rts pvp it's like playing dota or league, and if I wanna play dota or league I play dota or league. I don't get into an RTS to sweat using micromanagement of units to an absurd degree while having 500apm and pixel perfect managing units and economy with 0 downtime and only using the strong technologies or whatever etc.

I love rts games, ever since I got Age of Empires 2 and StarCraft when I was young. I think a troubling part of your video is that you say rts games aren't just in a slump, but that the genre is "on its last legs." This is an unhelpful way to put it as it implies that the entire genre could disappear and never come back. This seems quite unlikely to me due to the vast breadth of different games in the genre, and so I ask; what is your definition of the genre? One I think works well is that rts games are continuously updated games where players compete to gather resources and build independent units/ structures to win the game. By independent I mean the units/ structures can exist perpetually barring enemy action and are not destroyed from their usage, like a mine. This would include such games as Supreme Commander or Dawn of War, but also Factorio and Offworld Trading Company. By this definition there is a vast swath of games in the genre and I'd argue its "death" would be nigh on impossible, barring some major collapse of the video game industry. Even if we add on that the economy must be primarily to make a military force that still leaves a massive amount of games that could be called rts. Circle Empires, Ashes of the Singularity, Age of Empires 4, and those are just off the top of my head. Old games can become popular again; the genre is far from dying. I feel that saying the genre is dying could turn into a self fulfilling prophecy, as people repeat this idea and so give up on promising games because, in their minds, the genre is doomed. Death is final; once something dies it cannot be brought back, but that doesn't seem to be how video game genre's work. People talked of the "death" of adventure games, but then Telltale repopularised them. They didn't need an unbroken string of adventure game releases, they could look online for information on how to create them. I think the same can be said of rts games; the genre may be less popular than others, but it could easily come back, as we have plenty of knowledge of them stored up. Unless the internet collapses, we will probably have all the wiki pages and dev interviews and so be able ot study the games that came before and hopefully make new ones that improve upon them. I think you have a point about the outdue influence of StarCraft 2; it feels like a sizeable proportion of commenters either see it as the epitome of rts design or the worst thing ever. You have such things as an article on Rock Paper Shotgun saying Grey Goo is a StarCraft 2 clone because it has three asymmetrical factions with incredibly broad aesthetic similarities; the Goo being a rip off of the Zerg because they have an insectoid look. Problem is this ignores the vast gameplay differences, for one, it is incredibly obvious where the Zerg are as they spread their creep everywhere, as opposed to the stealthy goo. The StarCraft 2 factions are put into incredibly broad categories, such as the Terrans being industrial, and therefore the beta are a ripoff of them, ignoring any gameplay changes. Speaking of grey goo, it didn't seem to be that focused on e sports. Sure they had a few tournaments, but a lot of the dev interviews mention it being a "beer and pretzels" game, designed around single player and casual multiplayer, with e sports being an after thought. That and I've seen competitive players heavily criticize the lack of depth of the game.. With relatively slow units, a lack of abilities and a one resource economy, I'd say Grey Goo wasn't intended for high level play. I think you touch on an important topic for the future of the genre; the difference between casual and competitive players' expectations. Have you heard of the RU-vidr Callum McCole or Brownbear? They are commentators who are very into competitive rts games. The former made a review of Grey Goo in which he said "there is nothing good except the music." Now I think Grey Goo had some flaws, but there is a vast gulf between something being flawed and it doing nothing good in game design. Just off the top of my head, the tech attachment system was a great way to give the player several clear choices; they had to choose which attachment they got, and where to place it. Contrast that to many of StarCraft 2's tech buildings, where placement is one dimensional; put it in the most defensible area, as the effect is global. As for brownbear, he wrote an article stating that pro players are the only ones who understand balance at all. Again I think this is too absolutist; pro players probably have a better understanding of their game's balance, but he argues moderate and unskilled players understand nothing of game balance. Essentially the game would have to be entirely balanced around the top tier players, while the rest of the community is along for the ride. No amount of unskilled or even moderately skilled players' leaving over balance would ever count against even one pro player's word that the game is balanced. As one Reddit post put it, it seems as if the genre needs to split between casual and competitive styles, and I can't say that's a necessarily bad idea. It feels like many of the competitive players have little to no tolerance for anybody else influencing the game, while the casual players don't want to practice their worker juking every week. Have you heard similarly?

what on earth is microsoft doing, no updates on AOE IV.....not even from their shill websites

I tried the SC2 multiplayer mode...it sucks. There is no strategy, no base building...just build a mass of the cheapest troop you have and regardless if you are zerg or human or protos, you just zerg rush the enemy base. Every game I played, I lost because I actually gave a damn about how I play.

a roguelite mode like galactic war in planetary annihilation is a good idea for other rts too

The main reason that none today like to do epic singleplayer, the levels and scenario arent written with a heart, but instead of using less money and gain more profit. same with multiplayer. I dont consider that zombie rts as even close as we need. td? really? i think that not the case at all and ofc has nothing to do with chellenging sc2. sc2 has a great campaign and fine mutiplayer leveling. the game it self is fun. heroes are fun. thats why its good.

Niche RTS should be a thing. Honestly I'd play an RTS with Gatcha and waifu commanders ngl

Leave No One Behind: la Drang had alot of potential

I used to love the fast pased modern rts multi-player, but man is it old. I made diamond on SC2 every year but its just the same gameplay. 3 gate rush, 4 gate rush. Zealot spam, stalker spam, cannon rush. Sure the unit your rushing changes but its still a rush. Games are decided in 5 minutes as the first few moves dictate the progression of a match...and it just isn't fun. I never had fun playing games. I just liked being ranked. Switch to Total War and never looked back.

Competitive rts games can be really exhausting its less forgiving particualy if you get cheesed and harassed everywhere and its less rewarding if you dont grind enough hopefully rts will take the apm down or simplifide things that dosnt require much apm and yes rts should focus more on the single Player campaign

The worst thing about multiplayer is toxic competetive. That's why i will always refuse to create any competetive games, even if it will push me out of industry to beeing a full indie. What i dream of is game industry stop use internet to make competetive games and focus more on co-op.

Why not Starcraft?

i don't play online RTS because i LOVE to turtle and attack whit an unbeatable army ...

People have short attention span, especially millennial with Social media. RTS games you need patience and practice.

I could not agree more with that video. I play for the fantasy and the first RTS I ever played through was Supreme Commander, because it had a really interesting campaign and made me actually think. Everyone's saying that SC is not for beginners, but in my case it seems to be the best one to start with.

Age of empire... sighs if only there was a good rts for mobile..been hella of a long time

Really good point. Exactly 💯.

a little bit of RP.... EXACTLY!

i love rts campaigns but i dont play multiplayer. i simply dont have the time ( or the innate skill level) to compete with most other people in a player base. i much prefer the story and gradually increasing challenge of campaigns.

I feel a far bigger problem with this genre than just the perceived need to be a an E-sport, is the proliferation of pay-to-win microtransactions. These have been a curse on gaming all over, but the key reason they all-but killed RTS is that they all-but killed Command & Conquer. EA fisted Generals, fisted Red Alert, and fisted Tiberium twice, with its insistence that their new entries be free-to-play garbage that favored wealthier players and were full of arbitrary annoyances to shake money out of players, so a lot of the people who loved Command & Conquer now hate it. So what to do? Ideally I'd like to see pay-to-win mechanics banned, but barring that, someone should make new CnC-styled RTS games that not only don't have any pay-to-win features, but also lean into this lack hard in their marketing and flip EA the bird for what it did. You're correct that there's probably no beating Starcraft II, but it's much easier to beat the new CnC games because they stink. Harness the rage old fans have at them to turn them onto something better. As to campaign vs multiplayer stuff, I admit I fall more on the campaign side for many of the reasons you stated. But maybe someone could also attract some competitive gamers to a new game if that new game implemented mechanics that give it more nuance than just tank spam. But even before it infested the series with pay-to-win, I think EA kind of dropped the ball with Red Alert 3's campaigns. Not that the levels weren't fun, but there isn't a whole lot of narrative weight; just being silly for the sake of being silly. People who gravitate towards RTS games for campaigns likely want better plot.