4 hours ago, h8CplusplusGuru said:

If you think actionrpgs/ diablo is dead- look up path of exile, it's as about cutting edge as it gets and is what I play.

If you read "dearth" as "death," I apologize for the miscommunication.  I just really like that word.

I've played several dozen hours of PoE.  I also bought Wolcen on early access (it has an overhaul due this month), so I would also disagree with the idea that the genre is dead.  It certainly is lacking for options, though.

8 hours ago, Rutin said:

My point was that when you merge anything else and create a hybrid it's no longer what I call a pure RTS due to the element changes.

This line of thinking is the very reason RTS is considered "a dead genre". Seems like most RTS fans consider "RTS" to basically mean "it's like Starcraft" * . It's ironic, really. They complain that there are no new RTS games, but make sure to ostracize any game that tries something new.

Real time tactics? Not an RTS.
Meta-maps (such as Total War)? Not an RTS.
Hero units? Nope.
Tower defense elements? lolno.
City builders? Of course not.
Anything without base building? Even worse.

So the only thing that "RTS" got left is "build order - scouting - expansion - micro". In a word - Starcraft. But God forbid someone tries to make another Starcraft, that will just not work. And then people wonder why there is no innovation in RTS  

* not literally only Startcraft, there's some AOE in there too  

Anyway, now that the minirant is over, this is a design topic. So, on that note: If you want to do something innovative in an RTS, make sure to not call it "RTS" to not anger the purists. Instead, call it something "...with strategy elements". That way you got more room for different mechanics. And you will need those, since remaking games from the '90s just doesn't cut it.

2 hours ago, 1024 said:

13 hours ago, Rutin said:

My point was that when you merge anything else and create a hybrid it's no longer what I call a pure RTS due to the element changes.

This line of thinking is the very reason RTS is considered "a dead genre". Seems like most RTS fans consider "RTS" to basically mean "it's like Starcraft" * . It's ironic, really. They complain that there are no new RTS games, but make sure to ostracize any game that tries something new.

Very interesting reply... Just because I don't call something a pure RTS doesn't instantly write the game off as "trash" in my eyes and is the resulting factor that is "killing" RTS games. You have to take the context of my statements into consideration. I played RTS games during the golden age of that genre so that's why I recognize games like Starcraft, Command and Conquer, and Age of Empires 2 as pure in the RTS genre. This opinion isn't just my own, there are still thousands of people playing Age of Empires 2 to this day. Why is Relic having their development team play Age of Empires 2 during the development of Age of Empires 4? The fact is that a high number of people used to the Dawn of War RTS did not like Dawn of War 3 due to implementing a RTS / MOBA hybrid. They were trying to cash in on the MOBA player base while maintaining their current, which ended up costing them in the end as the project was a failure. 

3 hours ago, 1024 said:

Anyway, now that the minirant is over, this is a design topic. So, on that note: If you want to do something innovative in an RTS, make sure to not call it "RTS" to not anger the purists. Instead, call it something "...with strategy elements". That way you got more room for different mechanics. And you will need those, since remaking games from the '90s just doesn't cut it.

You're not angering anyone here, but you're making the claim that people who think like myself are "killing" the RTS genre because we expect game designs to be more true the original titles we grew up loving. As a "purist" it must be strange that I loved playing Warcraft 3, and still play the Total War series to this very day. I also love playing Battle for Middle Earth 1 and 2, oh and let us not forget Tower Defence games! Heck I was playing Tower Defence games back in the late 90's. Oh, I should add that I even programmed Tower Defence games, and Left vs Right style strategy games.

The RTS genre has evolved and as newer generations of gamers emerge what is considered popular will shift with the times. The same can be said about how classic shooters have adapted new elements to what we have today. Some people don't like it (people who grew up playing those games), and others do. There is a reason you can find gaming communities devoted to retro games.

The OP can include the RTS title in whatever he decides to make, it doesn't bother me one bit. I still will never purchase an RTS / MOBA hybrid game as I was stating my dislike for the genre, nothing more.

@Rutin Oh, that post wasn't pointed towards you specifically. Although it does seem that way on second look

I've seen it brought up over and over again from other people, comments that sound like "that game is not a real RTS", with a "how dare you" tone to it. It's very discouraging in the context of game design. "Starcraft or bust" is not healthy for an entire genre.

I think my point still stands: RTS is considered a dead genre because modern games are not allowed the RTS genre name, because they don't play exactly like "golden age" games, and games that do play exactly like them aren't good enough.

18 hours ago, Lendrigan Games said:

If you read "dearth" as "death," I apologize for the miscommunication.  I just really like that word.

I've played several dozen hours of PoE.  I also bought Wolcen on early access (it has an overhaul due this month), so I would also disagree with the idea that the genre is dead.  It certainly is lacking for options, though.

I'm not sure if I follow how options are lacking, how many do you think there should be? Games are hard to make and expensive, and players can only commit to few at a time. 

On an rts note, anyone remember sim ant?

13 hours ago, h8CplusplusGuru said:

I'm not sure if I follow how options are lacking, how many do you think there should be? Games are hard to make and expensive, and players can only commit to few at a time. 

 

On an rts note, anyone remember sim ant?

So you mean that ant simulator game? 

I think the genre could use more Starcraft clones. First person shooters are currently very similar to eachother... as are mobas. Just make another Starcraft with maybe something a little bit surprising.  

Did anyone mention Command & Conquer yet? There's a franchise that's dead as fish. Grey Goo didn't seem to go anywhere. Ashes of the singularity escalation was kinda putting me to sleep. There was this one C&C type game coming out a few years back... but what was it called. I think it was a sequel to some other game. Anyway!

The problem I see as I browse the RTS on Steam... they're lacking a strong theme. Starcraft has a super strong theme. C&C had a strong theme. Other than that, I'm mainly just seeing generic, faceless units in generic environments doing nothing particularly interesting. When you think about Starcraft, you think about Jim Raynor, Kerrigan... Red Alert had Kane. Those games got players invested in them on a deeper level than just remodeled chess pieces or army men. I respect that.

2 hours ago, Ianuarius said:

First person shooters are currently very similar to eachother.

They are? 

For reference, here's a random sample of FPS games from the last 3-4 years: Call of Duty, Overwatch, DOOM, Quake Champions, Destiny, Verdun, Superhot... They all seem quite different to me. Maybe you were only playing first person shooters that are very similar to eachother

2 hours ago, Ianuarius said:

as are mobas.

That one is simple to explain: there is no such thing as a "moba genre". There is only Dota, League of Legends (which itself started as a dota clone) and a bunch of League of Legends clones. As a genre, it is still in the "doom clone" phase (and it's not going past that any time soon), makes sense why they are all similar.

4 minutes ago, 1024 said:

For reference, here's a random sample of FPS games from the last 3-4 years: Call of Duty, Overwatch, DOOM, Quake Champions, Destiny, Verdun, Superhot... They all seem quite different to me.

Ok, I see your point, but all of those games do feel very similar to me with the exception of Superhot, which honestly feels more like a puzzle game. They have different themes, and they have strong themes. Something that (like I mentioned) I feel RTS games really are missing.

5 minutes ago, 1024 said:

That one is simple to explain: there is no such thing as a "moba genre". There is only Dota, League of Legends (which itself started as a dota clone) and a bunch of League of Legends clones. As a genre, it is still in the "doom clone" phase (and it's not going past that any time soon), makes sense why they are all similar.

I... don't really know what to say about that. I'm calling it a moba genre. Works for me.

For design, you should play a few hundred games of forged alliance forever (a mod for supreme commander: forged alliance). At any point in the midgame there's hundreds of viable strategies, and based on conditions you try to wittle down your enemies options until you can land a killing blow. I've played just about every rts released and many prototypes, and haven't found anything similar in depth of strategy.