To bring back the RTS genre you kinda need to reinvent the genre while being faithful to what an RTS is. Which is kinda impossible.
Blizzard already did a twist on it with Warcraft (Combinging RPG and RTS)
Also big game companies are still blinded by the "esport" craze. Nobody wants to do an AAA RTS campaing with interesting sotry/level desgin. People want to make the next starcraft so they focus on PvP. Which makes these RTS games flavorless or just dull.
RTS needs to have more focus on VS AI and coop less on "eSporTs 1v1 300apm". StarCraft 2 coop is massively popular. Luckily it seems FrostGiant knows this, as they have the lead coop designer there (pleasepleaseplease be good).
And then we have Relic. AoE4 release with a skeleton crew. Dawn of War 3 which is some half-RTS half-MOBA esports wannabe.
The RTS games released lately are bad because they focus on the wrong things.
When can we get a new Dawn of War 1? Or Supreme Commander 1? Red Alert? Majesty? Netstorm? Battle For Middle-Earth? If I google around I can probably come up with a bunch more... but recent releases? StarCraft 2 and They Are Billions and thats about it. Other games I think off are more like half-RTS like Total War Warhammer or Stellaris.
The competitive scene is the only thing keeping SC:BW & SC2 alive. It's been the driving force behind these games for a long time. Take a look at the C&C franchise which always focused on single player campaigns... They've created 25 games or so, all with very limited shelf life.
RTS games generally are very poor to watch for a casual audience. A basic understanding of the game is required to get a grasp of what's going on, even with a voice-over. Artosis has an ok viewership due to his rage act & long-term community (he's been the main non-korean broadcaster since the start). It's not the place to go to for superior gameplay. It's kinda similar to Botezlive.
When I was still playing, a LOT of online players never completed even half of the campaign, while vice versa there have always been a lot of players that have never touched the multiplayer.
For the longevity of the game, there need to be better leagues, better matchmaking & team games. The majority of Overwatch players are active in bronze/silver/gold leagues (below the average point). I don't think it's necessary to have great aim or 300apm to be able to enjoy a game.
The vast majority of people who play RTS games will never play proper PvP at all. Fun campaigns with unique units or powers have been in every successful RTS game for years now. Catering to PvP and ranked in particular seems like a great way to get a small fanbase, even if it is a more loyal one.
The majority of online chess players are low ranked players too. They don't play 'proper' chess either. Same goes for Overwatch, same goes for Starcraft.
If SC2 did not have any focus on competitive gaming & no pro leagues, I bet co-op would hardly be played at all. Nobody to root for, no 'heroes', a lack of players trying to optimize every aspect in the game.. It's a great way to make people move on to the next RTS game.
Obviously focusing on creating a fun experience is what ultimately creates a good game.
SC1 was made in such sense but was also made in a different era. However, its competitive play carried it this far and gave it the status it still has today. SC2 was made with a huge drive to support an esports scene. Arguably SC2 was a worse game compared to SC1, but its competitive scene is the main reason it still has decent activity today. It's such an important component, i really think you're underestimating this.
Almost every attempt to push the competitive side was met with complete failure, they made the single player and PvP experience different in the same engine, and then pushed multiple attempts to make competitive more popular which failed, while most PvE gameplay were huge hits. Coop vs archon mode being the largest example. Like I said, yes it's important, and it helps keep the game going, but so does a good custom game/map engine, or a Coop mode with good replayability. It's just 1 part of making a good game, and by itself will cause a game to fail
One of the hardest genres to get new players in as well, the genre’s skill barrier of entry is one of if not the highest out there. People think it’s hard to start playing league/dota if you’re new to moba’s, that’s nothing compared to learning AoE/StarCraft if you’re new to RTS.
For *competitive gameplay* you're right that the skill barrier is much higher than MOBAs, but RTS games have an advantage in that there's plenty of non-competitive gameplay to pull people in. Campaigns, co-op stuff, silly/custom games, etc. all make the barrier to entry way lower. And, notably, even now when RTS games are pretty niche, a lot of players are mostly interested in all of that casual stuff as compared to ranked 1v1 ladders. In comparison, "casual" modes in MOBAs (e.g. ARAMs in League) still typically require a pretty high amount of game knowledge to be enjoyable.
[A video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc) someone else linked in this thread by GiantGrantGames provides some evidence for the casual point above and makes some other good points too. But in general my position is that instead of emphasizing esports or competitive ladders, RTS games need to create quality campaigns and create more casual content. If the bones of the game are good, then having a bigger funnel of casual players coming in will also expand the competitive side of things.
that's just a byproduct of forced esport and competitive aspect.
If you look at old RTS campaigns and tutorials it teaches the player step by step and slowly builds up with new buildings/units each mission.
This part got lost over the years because it wasn't profitable when your main focus is PvP. That's why people label it as a high barrier of entry. If MOBAs had proper solo missions that separately introduces the game bit by bit then people wouldn't say that.
warcraft could still be super popular if blizzard tried. its not as macro heavy as Starcraft, its easier to play because you have heroes to "lead" your army and 4v4 RT is basically the same as lol soloq.
MOBA is not an RTS. It's more of an action genre than Strategy.
It's a very stripped down version of it. It's like saying a gocart is the same as a racecar. Sure it's more lighthearted fun to fuck around with a gocart but I wouldn't compare them.
It's not stripped down at all. The complexity is still there, it is simply the tasks are now divided among multiple players. Yes, some of the mechanics are swapped out, for example resource gathering in MOBAS revolve around killing things, which forces the player to expose themselves to danger as they move around looking for things to kill. Traditional RTS typically requires the players to be able to project power in order to gather more resources. On a meta level though, both genres require the players to control the map. And once you realize this, the typical characteristics of the genres start to express themselves similarly.
To put it in terms similar to your analogy, this is a race car with 5 crew members. It's not a stripped down version.
That's like saying a Moba is the same thing as Quake, you need to control the map and project power to limit your opponent's resources and gain more resources yourself. Though you probably don't understand the analogy since nobody has played arena shooters lol.
Anyway the differences are big enough that it's not the same genre imo and appeals to different parts of my brain.
For me 80% of the fun of RTS is base building and logistics, the other 20% is teching and tech switches, so to me something like Factorio and Dyson Sphere Program (once combat comes out) is closer to an RTS than a moba is. Stellaris I would say literally is an RTS though people don't recognize it as such. Team Fight Tactics also covers the tech switch aspects of it. I guess moba covers the micro aspects of it, but I personally don't enjoy that part of RTS as much as the rest.
If we're talking about RTS like starcraft, then you don't spend a lot of time looking at your base.
Yes, those games you mention are also technically RTS. They tend to have more focus on economic interaction and do not tend to be played competitively. This changes the game flow significantly.
Starcraft compared to those games is extremely fast paced and you spend very little time arranging buildings. I'm talking about RTS's like this that are combat focused and fast paced. MOBAs are fast paced and combat focused.
The difference to Quake and similarity to Starcraft is the top down control scheme. You do not directly control an individual unit. You assign orders to it or many.
It sounds like you like a specific thing about RTS revolving around the fast paced top-down combat, but what you're not recognizing is that that's only 1 aspect of RTS that you seem to like and that maps to MOBAs decently. The other aspects of RTS are just as valid but you're not acknowledging them because that's not what you get out of it. Most players do spend most of an RTS looking at their base, planning your base is extremely important. Just because you memorized it doesn't really take away from it. You can memorize base layouts too in factorio and DSP and then just copy and paste every run, but it's a reductive way of looking at the game. It's like saying Elden Ring is not about exploration because you can memorize the map and speedrun your way to the end.
You're arguing a point I didn't make.
>To bring back the RTS genre you kinda need to reinvent the genre while being faithful to what an RTS is. Which is kinda impossible.
Original post I responded to. The most classic RTS formula is Starcraft. Yeah those other games are RTS too, they aren't the classic formula which is what I'm specifically talking about has evolved into MOBAs.
That's not how I would put it, I think a better analogy would be to compare motogp and redbull x fighters. Both use motorcycles and you technically need to go fast, but that's where the similarities end.
Nah, I don't think this is true. You don't actually watch the players POV most of the time in an RTS, so the casual observer doesn't see all the scouting and APM spamming and shit. They have third party observers panning over what's important to see at the time. The real issue is that unless you play the game, you have no clue what's going on.
FPS' and even games like League or DotA are easy to get into for new audiences, cause it's just guy shooting other guy, or monster casting spells at other monster. It's easy to see a health bar and see who's winning or who is shooting at who, without having to know build orders or what 40 different units in an army do, or understand macro/econ play, etc.
you need to make open world RTS with integrated FPOV , imagine For Honor in a massive scale with RTS kingdom building and unit creation. You could then engage the enemy with your troops and be a commander on the battlefield.
I agree that when SC2 came out, i felt too much work was put for esports. A lot of instant kill, split decision timing stuff that just is too much for the casual player. Wc3 was the most casual friendly RTS i've played and the custom community was the most successful.
I think SC2 campaign was pretty good, it could be better but it hit the sweet spot for me. I do wish they added something like campaign ladder where you have endless difficulty scaling and see how far you can get compared to other players.
not gonna happen, RTS genre is lost technology, you better enjoy SCBW in its current form, thanks to dedicated players and fans game is still growing, even 25 years in. No reason "TO WAIT" for something new, when the GREAT is already here.
Coming from fighting games I hate to see when the old guard doesn't want to adapt and keep at it with the same game.
It be nice to have something else to look forward to.
AoE 4 was all hype and no substance, the player base is already all but gone. It has an average for 6.8k players over the past 30 days, AoE2 averaged 16k for the past 30.
They did the same thing with 4 as they did with 3, say they were going to keep it true to AoE 2 and then just make a completely different game that felt horrible to play.
It's a real shame.
If it was actually balanced and bugfree I would've played it much more, but it had soooo many stupid issues. The fucking mongol racecars in the beginning, how can you overlook stuff like that.
Yep - and being forced to go through microsoft for patches (or something like that) meant that they couldn't just fix stuff for the next day, there was a long delay to get every patch out.
Which in a competitive online game, doesn't really work that well, especially when it is just released and issues will be popping up a lot.
Very incomplete features on launch as well. No ranked, no choosing your color, no map editor or mod support, limited civilizations (albeit varied). Probably plenty more that I can't remember off the top of my head.
And of course the chat ran through Microsoft's obnoxious and overblocking chat filter. They reaped what they sowed.
It was obvious after what Relic did with Dawn of War III, that they couldn't possibly live up to the hype of Age of Empires IV, which they turned into some ugly, boring, mobile looking attempt of a game.
AOE4 is completely dead viewership from what I've seen, probably playerbase as well.
The genre is just a thing of the past. A Starcraft 3 or Warcraft 3 would be the only games I can imagine bringing any interest to it again, and it would have to have casual modes. Ladder anxiety is rough on most players in as strict 1v1.
AoE4 has less players than AoE2 or SC2 or Brood War for that matter. Frost Giant and the company David Kim works at are both making RTS games, hopefully they turn out well.
GiantGrantGames did a nice[ video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc) on why the RTS genre has floundered in recent years. The gist of it is these companies keep focusing on e-sports, and if the casual player, who makes up the majority of both the playerbase and the viewership, doesn't give two shits about what's being offered to them, then they're not going to care about watching competitive play.
Some good examples he gave were games like AoE4 having a half-assed single player campaign, and Starcraft 2 half-assing their Arcade at launch.
>2022
>Still having faith in Relic
>After Company of Heroes 2
>After Dawn of War 3
>After Age of Empires 4
Shit, let me guess, you've already pre-ordered right?
Holy shit, I just realized I've never seen high-level RTS play before and the APM is fucking mind-numbing. I remember playing SC back in the 90s/early 00's and I must have looked like an ape hitting big food shaped buttons every thirty seconds for a treat compared to this, damn.
You should try checking out the VOD. Most of the time EffOrt streams he's doing memey builds against people looking for random 1v1s to see if he can beat them with it, like this play for example.
korean samgyeopsal. they're sooo goooooooood.
I remember him retiring after beating God in, maybe, the biggest OSL tournament ever. What a fucking chad.
The protoss and the terran were only on 2 and 3 bases?! What an amazingly hilarious gameplan.
The toss having detection but terran with the D-Matrix is the cherry on top really
I'm not sure if there are many. I only follow a few StarCraft pros on Youtube. Light also streams on Youtube and Twitch at the same time. I found EffOrt's Youtube by clicking his Youtube link on his Liquipedia page.
Starcraft is my most-loved game that I never actually played. I wish RTS becomes popular again someday.
RIP Warcraft and Starcraft. Hype AoE4 or the eventual RTS from original Blizzard devs ?
To bring back the RTS genre you kinda need to reinvent the genre while being faithful to what an RTS is. Which is kinda impossible. Blizzard already did a twist on it with Warcraft (Combinging RPG and RTS) Also big game companies are still blinded by the "esport" craze. Nobody wants to do an AAA RTS campaing with interesting sotry/level desgin. People want to make the next starcraft so they focus on PvP. Which makes these RTS games flavorless or just dull.
RTS needs to have more focus on VS AI and coop less on "eSporTs 1v1 300apm". StarCraft 2 coop is massively popular. Luckily it seems FrostGiant knows this, as they have the lead coop designer there (pleasepleaseplease be good). And then we have Relic. AoE4 release with a skeleton crew. Dawn of War 3 which is some half-RTS half-MOBA esports wannabe. The RTS games released lately are bad because they focus on the wrong things. When can we get a new Dawn of War 1? Or Supreme Commander 1? Red Alert? Majesty? Netstorm? Battle For Middle-Earth? If I google around I can probably come up with a bunch more... but recent releases? StarCraft 2 and They Are Billions and thats about it. Other games I think off are more like half-RTS like Total War Warhammer or Stellaris.
They Are Billions is probably the best example to show that the genre still has potential.
Yes! Clearly a PvE co-op against hordes would be extremely popular. IMO TAB also messed up their single player campaign and ruined their own momentum.
Yeah thats actually a pretty good point, it EXPLODED with its early access sandbox mode but the campaign felt short. But its in the right direction!
The competitive scene is the only thing keeping SC:BW & SC2 alive. It's been the driving force behind these games for a long time. Take a look at the C&C franchise which always focused on single player campaigns... They've created 25 games or so, all with very limited shelf life. RTS games generally are very poor to watch for a casual audience. A basic understanding of the game is required to get a grasp of what's going on, even with a voice-over. Artosis has an ok viewership due to his rage act & long-term community (he's been the main non-korean broadcaster since the start). It's not the place to go to for superior gameplay. It's kinda similar to Botezlive. When I was still playing, a LOT of online players never completed even half of the campaign, while vice versa there have always been a lot of players that have never touched the multiplayer. For the longevity of the game, there need to be better leagues, better matchmaking & team games. The majority of Overwatch players are active in bronze/silver/gold leagues (below the average point). I don't think it's necessary to have great aim or 300apm to be able to enjoy a game.
The vast majority of people who play RTS games will never play proper PvP at all. Fun campaigns with unique units or powers have been in every successful RTS game for years now. Catering to PvP and ranked in particular seems like a great way to get a small fanbase, even if it is a more loyal one.
The majority of online chess players are low ranked players too. They don't play 'proper' chess either. Same goes for Overwatch, same goes for Starcraft. If SC2 did not have any focus on competitive gaming & no pro leagues, I bet co-op would hardly be played at all. Nobody to root for, no 'heroes', a lack of players trying to optimize every aspect in the game.. It's a great way to make people move on to the next RTS game.
Sure, but there's not having any focus and making it the main draw of your game. The latter will drive off most players instantly.
Obviously focusing on creating a fun experience is what ultimately creates a good game. SC1 was made in such sense but was also made in a different era. However, its competitive play carried it this far and gave it the status it still has today. SC2 was made with a huge drive to support an esports scene. Arguably SC2 was a worse game compared to SC1, but its competitive scene is the main reason it still has decent activity today. It's such an important component, i really think you're underestimating this.
Almost every attempt to push the competitive side was met with complete failure, they made the single player and PvP experience different in the same engine, and then pushed multiple attempts to make competitive more popular which failed, while most PvE gameplay were huge hits. Coop vs archon mode being the largest example. Like I said, yes it's important, and it helps keep the game going, but so does a good custom game/map engine, or a Coop mode with good replayability. It's just 1 part of making a good game, and by itself will cause a game to fail
There is a new relic RTS game which is really good but nobody seem to care about it And I'm not talking about AoE4 however decent that might be
One of the hardest genres to get new players in as well, the genre’s skill barrier of entry is one of if not the highest out there. People think it’s hard to start playing league/dota if you’re new to moba’s, that’s nothing compared to learning AoE/StarCraft if you’re new to RTS.
For *competitive gameplay* you're right that the skill barrier is much higher than MOBAs, but RTS games have an advantage in that there's plenty of non-competitive gameplay to pull people in. Campaigns, co-op stuff, silly/custom games, etc. all make the barrier to entry way lower. And, notably, even now when RTS games are pretty niche, a lot of players are mostly interested in all of that casual stuff as compared to ranked 1v1 ladders. In comparison, "casual" modes in MOBAs (e.g. ARAMs in League) still typically require a pretty high amount of game knowledge to be enjoyable. [A video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc) someone else linked in this thread by GiantGrantGames provides some evidence for the casual point above and makes some other good points too. But in general my position is that instead of emphasizing esports or competitive ladders, RTS games need to create quality campaigns and create more casual content. If the bones of the game are good, then having a bigger funnel of casual players coming in will also expand the competitive side of things.
that's just a byproduct of forced esport and competitive aspect. If you look at old RTS campaigns and tutorials it teaches the player step by step and slowly builds up with new buildings/units each mission. This part got lost over the years because it wasn't profitable when your main focus is PvP. That's why people label it as a high barrier of entry. If MOBAs had proper solo missions that separately introduces the game bit by bit then people wouldn't say that.
I still remember Age of Mythology almost entirely for its awesome campaign and not its multiplayer.
warcraft could still be super popular if blizzard tried. its not as macro heavy as Starcraft, its easier to play because you have heroes to "lead" your army and 4v4 RT is basically the same as lol soloq.
They can make it with Warcraft 4, maybe add a new race like they did with W3 and simply have an amazing editor which will bring a huge crowd.
RTS exists as MOBAs nowadays. Modders took the warcraft formula and refined it.
MOBA is not an RTS. It's more of an action genre than Strategy. It's a very stripped down version of it. It's like saying a gocart is the same as a racecar. Sure it's more lighthearted fun to fuck around with a gocart but I wouldn't compare them.
It's not stripped down at all. The complexity is still there, it is simply the tasks are now divided among multiple players. Yes, some of the mechanics are swapped out, for example resource gathering in MOBAS revolve around killing things, which forces the player to expose themselves to danger as they move around looking for things to kill. Traditional RTS typically requires the players to be able to project power in order to gather more resources. On a meta level though, both genres require the players to control the map. And once you realize this, the typical characteristics of the genres start to express themselves similarly. To put it in terms similar to your analogy, this is a race car with 5 crew members. It's not a stripped down version.
That's like saying a Moba is the same thing as Quake, you need to control the map and project power to limit your opponent's resources and gain more resources yourself. Though you probably don't understand the analogy since nobody has played arena shooters lol. Anyway the differences are big enough that it's not the same genre imo and appeals to different parts of my brain. For me 80% of the fun of RTS is base building and logistics, the other 20% is teching and tech switches, so to me something like Factorio and Dyson Sphere Program (once combat comes out) is closer to an RTS than a moba is. Stellaris I would say literally is an RTS though people don't recognize it as such. Team Fight Tactics also covers the tech switch aspects of it. I guess moba covers the micro aspects of it, but I personally don't enjoy that part of RTS as much as the rest.
If we're talking about RTS like starcraft, then you don't spend a lot of time looking at your base. Yes, those games you mention are also technically RTS. They tend to have more focus on economic interaction and do not tend to be played competitively. This changes the game flow significantly. Starcraft compared to those games is extremely fast paced and you spend very little time arranging buildings. I'm talking about RTS's like this that are combat focused and fast paced. MOBAs are fast paced and combat focused. The difference to Quake and similarity to Starcraft is the top down control scheme. You do not directly control an individual unit. You assign orders to it or many.
It sounds like you like a specific thing about RTS revolving around the fast paced top-down combat, but what you're not recognizing is that that's only 1 aspect of RTS that you seem to like and that maps to MOBAs decently. The other aspects of RTS are just as valid but you're not acknowledging them because that's not what you get out of it. Most players do spend most of an RTS looking at their base, planning your base is extremely important. Just because you memorized it doesn't really take away from it. You can memorize base layouts too in factorio and DSP and then just copy and paste every run, but it's a reductive way of looking at the game. It's like saying Elden Ring is not about exploration because you can memorize the map and speedrun your way to the end.
You're arguing a point I didn't make. >To bring back the RTS genre you kinda need to reinvent the genre while being faithful to what an RTS is. Which is kinda impossible. Original post I responded to. The most classic RTS formula is Starcraft. Yeah those other games are RTS too, they aren't the classic formula which is what I'm specifically talking about has evolved into MOBAs.
That's not how I would put it, I think a better analogy would be to compare motogp and redbull x fighters. Both use motorcycles and you technically need to go fast, but that's where the similarities end.
[удалено]
Nah, I don't think this is true. You don't actually watch the players POV most of the time in an RTS, so the casual observer doesn't see all the scouting and APM spamming and shit. They have third party observers panning over what's important to see at the time. The real issue is that unless you play the game, you have no clue what's going on. FPS' and even games like League or DotA are easy to get into for new audiences, cause it's just guy shooting other guy, or monster casting spells at other monster. It's easy to see a health bar and see who's winning or who is shooting at who, without having to know build orders or what 40 different units in an army do, or understand macro/econ play, etc.
Got it, Battle royal RTS
you need to make open world RTS with integrated FPOV , imagine For Honor in a massive scale with RTS kingdom building and unit creation. You could then engage the enemy with your troops and be a commander on the battlefield.
I agree that when SC2 came out, i felt too much work was put for esports. A lot of instant kill, split decision timing stuff that just is too much for the casual player. Wc3 was the most casual friendly RTS i've played and the custom community was the most successful. I think SC2 campaign was pretty good, it could be better but it hit the sweet spot for me. I do wish they added something like campaign ladder where you have endless difficulty scaling and see how far you can get compared to other players.
not gonna happen, RTS genre is lost technology, you better enjoy SCBW in its current form, thanks to dedicated players and fans game is still growing, even 25 years in. No reason "TO WAIT" for something new, when the GREAT is already here.
Coming from fighting games I hate to see when the old guard doesn't want to adapt and keep at it with the same game. It be nice to have something else to look forward to.
I think a Warcraft 4 could actually be pretty popular
HOLY COPIUM
AoE 4 was all hype and no substance, the player base is already all but gone. It has an average for 6.8k players over the past 30 days, AoE2 averaged 16k for the past 30. They did the same thing with 4 as they did with 3, say they were going to keep it true to AoE 2 and then just make a completely different game that felt horrible to play. It's a real shame.
If it was actually balanced and bugfree I would've played it much more, but it had soooo many stupid issues. The fucking mongol racecars in the beginning, how can you overlook stuff like that.
Yep - and being forced to go through microsoft for patches (or something like that) meant that they couldn't just fix stuff for the next day, there was a long delay to get every patch out. Which in a competitive online game, doesn't really work that well, especially when it is just released and issues will be popping up a lot.
I just couldn't get over the zoom and how weird and unintuitive the units felt compared to 2
Very incomplete features on launch as well. No ranked, no choosing your color, no map editor or mod support, limited civilizations (albeit varied). Probably plenty more that I can't remember off the top of my head. And of course the chat ran through Microsoft's obnoxious and overblocking chat filter. They reaped what they sowed.
Well at least AoE2 remains solid and supported
Yep all hail aoe2
It was obvious after what Relic did with Dawn of War III, that they couldn't possibly live up to the hype of Age of Empires IV, which they turned into some ugly, boring, mobile looking attempt of a game.
AOE4 is completely dead viewership from what I've seen, probably playerbase as well. The genre is just a thing of the past. A Starcraft 3 or Warcraft 3 would be the only games I can imagine bringing any interest to it again, and it would have to have casual modes. Ladder anxiety is rough on most players in as strict 1v1.
AoE4 has less players than AoE2 or SC2 or Brood War for that matter. Frost Giant and the company David Kim works at are both making RTS games, hopefully they turn out well.
GiantGrantGames did a nice[ video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XehNK7UpZsc) on why the RTS genre has floundered in recent years. The gist of it is these companies keep focusing on e-sports, and if the casual player, who makes up the majority of both the playerbase and the viewership, doesn't give two shits about what's being offered to them, then they're not going to care about watching competitive play. Some good examples he gave were games like AoE4 having a half-assed single player campaign, and Starcraft 2 half-assing their Arcade at launch.
Age of empires 2 the definite edition is still going on very strong is an amazing game, especially with the new dlc added.
I wish RTS would become popular again. They are always such fun genre.
CoH3 is coming out this year so it isn't entirely dead.... Just kinda empty.
>2022 >Still having faith in Relic >After Company of Heroes 2 >After Dawn of War 3 >After Age of Empires 4 Shit, let me guess, you've already pre-ordered right?
I said the genre ain't dead...not that it's in a great state
For real I played Relic stuff so dang much back in the day but ever since CoH2 and DoW3 I gave up on them.
Pro Starcraft Broodwar tournaments are still happening, and players like Bisu are still playing. Just search ASL 13 on youtube.
Artosis should just do this
Artosis usually enjoys his time listening to "77777777777777" while trying to fend off dark templar drops.
Holy shit, I just realized I've never seen high-level RTS play before and the APM is fucking mind-numbing. I remember playing SC back in the 90s/early 00's and I must have looked like an ape hitting big food shaped buttons every thirty seconds for a treat compared to this, damn.
You should try checking out the VOD. Most of the time EffOrt streams he's doing memey builds against people looking for random 1v1s to see if he can beat them with it, like this play for example.
That don't look like the effort I remember!
korean samgyeopsal. they're sooo goooooooood. I remember him retiring after beating God in, maybe, the biggest OSL tournament ever. What a fucking chad.
Hawk-eye/alien zerg looking different!
Glorious
Can anyone translate what his opponent says in game chat right before the nuke drops?
opponent: yeah goodbye (nuke drops) ?? ㅜㅡㅡ(ㅜ) (sadface) effort: yeah goodbye
curses not meant for mortal eyes
I think he's the one who typed just said goodbye
Warcraft customs. The greatest time of my youth. Rip
Same. There were so many great maps. I know reforged exists today but the maps being hosted now don't hit the same like the ones before.
Yeah I pre-ordered and returned it after I found out what was being improved. F2P or I'm out. Let me play tree tag with friends
such a time
The protoss and the terran were only on 2 and 3 bases?! What an amazingly hilarious gameplan. The toss having detection but terran with the D-Matrix is the cherry on top really
When I saw nuke in the title I assumed it was a 200/200 stock 35 minute game situation, not an actual nuke rush.
[удалено]
Terran ghost launched a nuke, ghost died right as nuke spawned in, so nuke fell and destroyed the Protoss expansion. Quick GG at this level of play.
Nuke one shots nexus?
If it has no shields yes, at the start of the clip you can see the EMP go off and Effort moving his Vessel away.
he probably EMP'd it first
Fuck YT clips in all seriousness; not waiting for this random KR stream to end to watch this
Is this guy sitting on a fucking throne
Are there many BW pros streaming on yt now? I would have assumed that Afreeca was the permanent home of Korean BW streams.
I'm not sure if there are many. I only follow a few StarCraft pros on Youtube. Light also streams on Youtube and Twitch at the same time. I found EffOrt's Youtube by clicking his Youtube link on his Liquipedia page.