Disappointed in modern RTS games

[Elandyll]

Hi there.

This is more of a reflexion, perhaps a rant, on the state of modern RTS games (at least the few I have tried this past few years).

I am fairly old school in RTS games. I have played extensively the old Dune 2, Warcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, Command & Conquer, C&C 2, Homeworld, Homeworld 2.

As you can tell, I am more inclined toward Fantasy / scifi settings too.

Now these past few years I have tried a few new games, in particular Sins of a Solar Empire and Command and Conquer 4 very recently, and came out disappointed.
In one case (Sins), I found the game not only relatively poorly designed in its interface (it gets very -very- complicated very quickly) but also extremely lacking in tutorials.
Call me lazy, I like to only spend a minimum of time with the manual to start playing. Well, until now, I was used to games guiding you through simple scenarios to start with, and then letting go progressively and giving you more and more options.
Sins had a few "tutorial maps", explaining a few core concepts of the game, and that was about it. Of course, the lack of -any- campaign finished to disgust me (I knew it had no "official" campaign per say, but all the "raving" articles were basically saying that the game could be thoroughly enjoyed in a sandbox mode.
This is (at least to me) a lie.
Fast forward 2 -3 years, I decide to try C&C4 (in between I did good with a few other games and Civ5 -not RTS though-, but there too was somewhat disappointed, probably due to unrealistic expectations from the "Rolls" of turned based strat games), and yeesh, perhaps there too my expectations were too high?

The "tutorial" (which to their credit they fully integrate in the story) is a mere 3 missions which do not touch on several key concept (including the importance of the actual tiberium). The gameplay itself feels completely dumbed down to me. No more establishing bases and progressing, no more need of ressource harvesting, no more real strategy of research ...
Everything is about gaining xp, unlocking units, and rock- paper- scissors with the enemy units.
Small is owned by medium, medium is owned by big, big is owned by small (simplified, but barely).
Your base comes back within 2 minutes if destroyed, you can rebuild your entire force (limited in number by "command points" or whatever) from thin air within 2 minutes after that.
You have to chose either defense or offense (support seems only for coop), no more mixing of both or adapting on the fly to respond to unforeseen events.


It all looks terribly dumbed down to me, and all of this (both Sins and C&C4) seems to be done to cater to one thing: Multiplayer.
Well, I am tired of single player taking a back seat to MP frankly.

We are to the point where entire games are released as Sand Box without a true SP campaign simply because it's the easy thing to do and it will sell anyway.
To their credit, EA has done a good job of creating FMV sequences and a true story for a SP campaign, but it's like a very good paint job. It still cannot hide the structural problem that -everything- down to the core gameplay was thought out with Multiplayer in mind: make it quick, no development, base everything on xp, make no situation too complex and players do not need to think - they just want to "do".

I think back to times where the two types of play were either thought as separate experiences, or when SP had the primary role, and MP was a nice bonus.

I still hope to this day to see Homeworld 3 sometime in the future, but I now shiver at the thought of what it may become...

[BlackMamba]

answer to your problems: Shogun 2

[Elandyll]

Originally Posted by BlackMamba

answer to your problems: Shogun 2

Been thinking about this one. Might give it a try. Thanks.

[Maximus]

Yeah, Shogun 2 is the answer to all of your problems!

[Elandyll]

I had tried W40K Dawn Of War a few years back, and there too had been disappointed. Despite high praises, I am afraid that Dawn of War II went the same road (all about action, little development/ actual long term strategy).

Am I right in thinking so?

[madpeon]

Not sci-fi or fantasy, but check out Company of Heroes.

Best RTS of the past 5+ years, both single and multiplayer.

[Suntory_Times]

C&C4 sucked, no 3 was good though. Also check out Dawn of War 1 and 2 and of course starcraft 2.

[CdnBlu]

What about Starcraft II? I would also suggest Starcraft but that's old news now that the second one is here

[linkgx1]

Will there ever be an RTS with a 3rd person view? Like zooming in and commanding from the groud instead of the God-view. Seems like that would be more realistic.

[CdnBlu]

With Warcraft III and Starcraft II you can zoom in, but I wouldn't really consider it 3rd person. Just a closer perspective?

[Hayabusa85]

Originally Posted by linkgx1

Will there ever be an RTS with a 3rd person view? Like zooming in and commanding from the groud instead of the God-view. Seems like that would be more realistic.

There have been some games like Rise & Fall Civilizations at War that have the top down view but then you can also zoom in and take control of a leader in a Dynasty Warriors esque game. Stormrise used a third person view from the ground but was a mess of a game.

[bluearth]

To me the biggest modern RTS disappointment is the failure of the sequels to the great AGE OF EMPIRES 2

Age of Mythology and Age of Empires 3 failed so hard compared to Age of Empires 2.

Was it the transition to 3D that doomed the series? Did they put graphics ahead of gameplay? The mighty scenario editor, a single bright spot in Age of Mythology, was butchered in Age of Empires 3. Whatever the reason the franchise has taken step after step backwards