Who killed all the story-telling RTSs? Evil publishers? The Internet? Us?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13524
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 13524

Guest
PROLOGUE (mini-rant, not necessary to read as the actual discussion starts afterwards):
_________________________
During the last Steam Summer Sales I decided to do something I rarely do: bought a game for more than 5€ without knowing exactly what it was all about.

The thing is, I've been suffering from something of a (single player, story-telling) RTS drought for quite a few years now, and a single starcraft "episode" every 2 years just doesn't cut it anymore..
That said, I saw Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion with a 66% discount for a price of a little over 12€, went for a very quick metascore lookup (80 something, good enough) and proceeded for the impulse purchase.
Steam told me the the game had a single player mode, so it looked like a solid purchase at the time.

After finishing the new Devil May Cry (which btw is really fun), during the weekend I decided to put that RTS drought to rest and installed the Sins of a Solar Empire game.
By running the game for the first time I was greeted with a quick (and low-resolution..?) intro movie telling that typical "Humans explore galaxy. Humans find hostile aliens. Aliens kick human ass. Humans come back to kick alien ass." overused setting.
"It's okay", I thought. "As long as the gameplay is good and the story-telling is solid, I'll enjoy it just as much".

First, I went through the game settings to max out everything, then proceeded to the "new game" menu and was instantly pushed into the tutorial sub-menu. Since it was the very first time I was going to play a RTS in space, I decided to go with the tutorial.

The tutorial was boring, dense and felt meaningless. Most (good) games tend to embed the tutorial into the storyline somehow, yet this tutorial consisted of no more than a succession of subtitles saying "press X to make this happen".
"It's okay", I thought for the second time. "It's an 80-plus game on metacritic, it should compensate on all the rest".

With the costly tutorial finished, I was eager for that space opera to commence. I started wondering what plot twists could happen, what alien ships I'd have to capture to assimilate their technology and increase my tech tree, what space-stations I'd have to protect to make sure that main character could survive (or not (plot twist)).
Don't get me wrong, I love playing RTSs. But playing the game for the sake of just whining a battle, with no story progress to look up to, just isn't enough to keep me interested.


So I finally press that large "New Game" button and... a screen with a "Choose your map" selection appears.
"Wait.. WHAT?!" I desperately go back and forth through all the menus and sub-menus, looking for that story mode button... and couldn't find any. "What the FUUUUUU...????"

I then went to the internets to see what was going on. I could just be loading a MP-only executable, for example.
But no. It's an exclusively PvP game. All it offers for single player is a skirmish mode with an AI.
A RTS game with a 82 score on metacritic and a 37€ base price on Steam is nothing more than a skirmish game.

I went back to the game's Steam page to see if I had been really stupid or cleverly tricked into buying it, and here's the description:
While many were hopeful that diplomacy would finally end the war, differing opinions on what should be done, along with the depleted power of the controlling factions, has led to a splintering of the groups involved.
(it then continues talking about the setting of the game as if it was a story-driven experience)

The description consists solely of talking about the story of the game... that doesn't exist in the game itself.
I was tricked into buying the game. And I feel stupid nonetheless.
____________________
END OF PROLOGUE




But here's the scoop: this RTS game does have a metascore of 82%, and a user score of 76%. This means that the game itself has no story, no "campaign" and yet both reviewers and gamers alike seem to be perfectly fine with that.

Going to the internets to find story-driven, single player RTSs and apart for StarCraft II and Dawn of War (which isn't really my type for the lack of base-building and limited unit count), I couldn't find a single game released in the last 2 years!

So what happened? From the 90s to ~2009 we've had story-driven, base-building franchises like Warcraft, Starcraft, C&C, C&C: Red Alert, The Settlers, Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Supreme Commander, Earth 21xx, Rise of Nations and dozen of others.

Right now?
- WoW's success terminated all RTS warcraft development.
- Starcraft is now episodic and they release a game every million years.
- EA raped the C&C franchise with the always-online and consolitis-infested C&C4, and the much anticipated Generals 2 has been announced as a free2play online game. No word on the Red Alert franchise either. Well fuck you too, EA.
- Ensemble Studios, responsible for the Age of Empires and Age of Mythology, was bought by Microsoft and then terminated by their new bosses. The former studio's employees now work on minor iOS games.
- The guys who did supreme commander are now doing age of empires online.. Pfft..
- The guys who did Rise of Nations were bought by Epic and then terminated.
- Looking at the list of RTSes launched in 2011 and 2012 paints a downright depressing scenario.
- and so on



Every franchise seems to be either dead/dying or moving to strictly PvP/Skirmish gameplay. Why?
Were the gamers simply not buying Supreme Commander 2, Red Alert 2 and Age of Empires III in the late 2000s?
Have those greedy, evil publishers just arrived to the conclusion that a RTS won't ever get the same profits as a call of duty so they killed the genre?
Has the story-telling in RTSes become such a burden to developers and ignored by gamers that they eventually ripped off the story from the games altogether? Am I a dying breed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it doesn't really sell, especially compared to MOBA/MMO/PvP addictions. I don't even know anyone anymore who plays RTS games single player. If they do it's skirmish mode.

I tend to play the games single player occasionally but mostly for me it is about coop vs. the AI. The most recent modern single player RTS games I've pushed through are C&C3, World in Conflict, SupCom, SupCom FA (nice hardcore scenarios) and SupCom2 (what a disappointment). I've also dug up Homeworld, Dark Reign 1/2, Earth 2150 and Conquest Frontier Wars but I can't get into these oldies much anymore.

SoaSE is an ok game. It's essentially Conquest Frontier Wars with Master of Orion jacked in. It hasn't developed into a big favorite though because of the time involved in playing it multiplayer. The engine has some problems too that cause slowdown later on in a game even on a 4.3 GHz 2500k. It's single threaded and this could be part of the issue. Apparently an overhaul is out of the question since all they did with Rebellion was add some new visual effects. At least it's currently stable.
 
I don't understand why they ever did sell. Actually that's not quite fair - I can see why some folks like them, but they're never have been my cup of tea. I don't like scripted games, they've always seemed finite to me because by their very nature they have to be mapped out in full by their developers. I'd rather have a game with emergent behaviour, however that is achieved.

As to why they're dying, well I think RTSs are dying across the board - we live in the age of the TL;DR generation.
 
I myself only really play RTS for the single player. It's still one of the genre's where I buy every single good single player RTS and sometimes dabble in indie RTS (although I can't think of the last one).

To Tott.

Give Age of Empires: Online a shot. It's sort of like an open world RTS with a story. It has as much or more of a storyline for each of the civilizations than AOE I and II did. It's also has significantly more content for free than any of the AOE's did. If you do end up buying content. It doesn't cost much to buy a new civilization which opens up a whole new campaign with more SP content than AOE I or II, but maybe not as much as AoE III with all expansions (2 expansions). Then again AoE III + all expansions if you bought them new like I did, cost over 100 USD. It's free so there's no drawback if it ends up being something you hate. I enjoy it immensely though.

There's still Company of Heroes which just had a new release (COH 2). I haven't gotten it yet, but I'm assuming it has at least as much storyline as the previous COH.

BTW - Age of Empires: Online is developed by some of the people from the former Ensemble Studios. The rest of the people from Ensemble Studios went on to form another company and started making another RTS, but I can't remember the name of it.

I hoping that SEGA allows Relic to make another Dawn of War game. But yes there are so many good RTS games that have gone by the wayside that it makes me sad.

And many of the recent RTS games with a storyline have been rather dreadful IMO. Like Men of War (not terribly new, but the only one I could think of off the top of my head).

Regards,
SB
 
I'm likely going to pick up Divinity Dragon Commander, but not so much for the RTS aspects as everything I've seen has the RTS part of it as relatively simplistic.

It does appear to potentially have if not an interesting storyline as least interesting NPC interactions. The strategic turn based aspect of it is something I like as well. But the main draw will be flying a dragon around that has jetpacks. :p

Regards,
SB
 
Thanks, Silent_Buddha. I really thought that AoE: Online was nothing more than a MOBA with very expensive upgrades.
I'll give the game a shot, then.

I'm also waiting for Dragon Commander to come out. It's right there in my wishlist.
Another game I'm looking forward to is Planetary Annihilation, but I haven't figured out if there'll be a single player campaign.
 
Thanks, Silent_Buddha. I really thought that AoE: Online was nothing more than a MOBA with very expensive upgrades.
I'll give the game a shot, then.

I'm also waiting for Dragon Commander to come out. It's right there in my wishlist.
Another game I'm looking forward to is Planetary Annihilation, but I haven't figured out if there'll be a single player campaign.

Nope, AOE: Online is a proper RTS with some minor RPG (equipable items for units and buildings and some light crafting) and some light open world elements. There's your main storyline missions as well as optional side missions. You also have a home city that you can customize and build up.

The biggest change is that it has a bit of a cartoony presentation. But the graphics are adequate. The gameplay is relatively solid. Earlier missions are quite easy, but as you get higher level, they start to get more difficult.

Regards,
SB
 
You forgot Company of Heroes 2, which was released not so long ago (as Silent_Buddha already mentioned).

I would have bought CoH 2 if I knew that my puny ATI Radeon 4600 can run it ok-ish.
 
CoH lacks base building and resource management. It's not what I'm actually looking for..
 
CoH lacks base building and resource management. It's not what I'm actually looking for..

There's a ressource management, but yes, it is really simplified, its based on the zone you have take, instead of just send collector or peoples go search the ressource and send them to your base...

Anyway COH series are more centred around " action" and micro management of the troop, instead of a global management and strategy ...



I have see a studio is doing an Homeworld remake .. ( i just hope they will not just put some higher textures and light effect in it and really redesign it ).

http://www.polygon.com/2013/7/20/45...s-of-homeworld-and-homeworld-2-for-windows-pc

Gearbox will release high-definition remakes of Relic Entertainment's real-time strategy series for Windows PC, the original Homeworld and Homeworld 2, the company announced at its PAX Australia panel today. The company will also release the original two titles to digital distribution platforms for Windows PC.


Gearbox bought the Homeworld IP for $1.35 million in April, following the approved sale of publisher THQ's games and studios for $72 million in January. At the time, Gearbox issued a statement saying that Brian Martel, Gearbox Software's chief creative officer, only had great love and respect for the Homeworld franchise and "personally spearheaded the acquisition." The company said that preserving the Homeworld games is Martel's highest priority and intends on making "them accessible on today's leading digital platforms."


Developer Paul Zakrzewski launched a Kickstarter campaign to develop a real-time strategy/space combat simulator inspired by the Homeworld series called Void Destroyer. The campaign was successfully funded in June and is currently on Steam Greenlight.


The Relic Entertainment-developed Homeworld was initially released for Windows PC in 1999. The sequel, Homeworld 2, launched for Windows PC in 2003.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So this is being made by just one guy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5N-RsKu63Y

Exactly what I'm looking for!
He also hints at some story RPG elements, like having the story unfold in different ways depending on how many soldiers are sacrificed, or how big are the base's resources by the end of the battle.

Now I'm just waiting for him to open the pre-orders so I can throw my money at him while yelling:
"Yeah code it, baby!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sins is not an RTS, it really shouldn't be called that. It's better described as an RT4X(look it up) having more in common with Master of Orion than Warcraft/Starcraft. You had enough sense in googling a metascore yet neglected to read the wikipedia entry for it. The very first paragraph of their gameplay description tells you everything you needed to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_of_a_Solar_Empire

Sins of a Solar Empire is a space-bound game. The playing field is a 3D web of planets and other celestial objects in the orbital plane of one or more stars. It features a sandbox mode, allowing the player to choose different types of solar systems to unlock achievements. Players can conquer neighboring planets and explore distant star systems in a "massively scaled, fully 3D environment featuring entire galaxies, orbiting planets, clusters of asteroids, space dust and radiant stars." Notably, there is no single-player campaign mode, but games can be played against opponents offline and other players online. Ironclad Director Blair Fraser asserted that the game's "Iron engine" is specially designed with new technologies that allow it to handle very large differences in size, scale, and distance.
 
Sins is an overrated Conquest: Frontier Wars evolution. ;)

Or you could look at it as a 4X that doesn't take an absolutely ridiculous amount of time to play multiplayer.... :D Maybe.
 
I decided to give AoE:Online a shot.

Installed the game through Steam. Launched it and was greeted with a very nice Games For Windows Live dashboard. On top of Steam's Dashboard, which is on top of the game (or maybe the other way around? dunno..).

Whatever, clicking that big "Play" button opens up a dialogue saying I must enter the CD-Key.
It's a friggin' free-to-play game. I have no CD-key.

Went to the internets to figure out what's going on and apparently, sometimes, somewhere, to some people the free-to-play game asks for a CD-key.
Some tech support in forums says I have to install something called "Games For Windows Marketplace" to get the supposed CD-Key somehow and then run the game that runs on top of steam on top of GFWL and write the key in GFWL so thatI can have the extraordinary fortune of playing the game.

So I installed and ran this GFW Marketplace, had to change passwords twice before finding out that this GFWM wasn't accepting any correct login. The embedded help in GFWM would take me to a page that no longer exists.
Therefore, I had to go to the internet to find out how to solve the error 8xxxxx of "Games for Windows Marketplace", and found out I had to login into xbox.com and accept some terms in a page.

I went to xbox.com to accept the terms, launched this GFW Marketplace again to login successfuly (yay, I'm so lucky), followed the instructions in a forum how to go to xbox marketplace and buy a free-to-play game so that I could retrieve a CD-Key from GFWM and then launch the game and then put the CD-Key in the GFWL dashboard that sits on top of Steam that sits on top of the game so I could run the game for the first time.


The Universe clearly doesn't want me to play this game.
I must be really desperate for a proper RTS.


You had enough sense in googling a metascore yet neglected to read the wikipedia entry for it. The very first paragraph of their gameplay description tells you everything you needed to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sins_of_a_Solar_Empire

Yes, it was an impulse purchase of 12€ I shouldn't have made and as I wrote above, I felt stupid about it.
Unless you think I should commit Seppuku because of this, I'd like to get on with my life.
 
Ouch, sorry to hear you had so many problems with that Tott. I didn't experience any of that myself. But then I already had GFWL on my machine due to owning both Gears of War and DoW 2 (2nd expansion moved to Steam hosting instead of GFWL, but also has much worse netcode for multiplayer than GFWL, IMO).

So, maybe that's why I didn't run into all the problems you ran into. Anyway, if you can manage to get past all of that and actually play the game, it really is a very solid RTS (assuming you like the AoE style of RTS).

Regards,
SB
 
Tott? ;) I prefer to think of him/it/her as Quad-T.

GFW is annoying. One way to avoid problems with it is to always download it from MS so that you don't get some in-the-box old version that doesn't work right anymore.
 
Back
Top