I’ve seen a couple of articles that argue that real time strategy games (RTS’s) are “dying”. They’re not. They’re waiting. Waiting for the adoption of the hardware to implement the next generation RTS designs.
Hardware drives innovation
It is easy to forget how closely tied video game innovation is to the technology that it runs on top of. We didn’t even have “first person shooters” until Castle Wolfenstein 3D because the computing horsepower wasn’t there. The hardware drove the creation of an entire new genre of game.
Another hot market is “MOBA” (mobile online battle arena). This first got started as an RTS mod called Defense of the Ancients (DOTA). But this market only came into existence once low latency, high speed Internet became mainstream. It’s not as if the concept for MOBA had eluded game designers. Popular MOBAs like League of Legends, DOTA2 and of course the much anticipated Sins of a Dark Age are premised on players having high quality network connections.
We have done everything we can within 2 GB of memory and 2 cores
So what about real-time strategy games? Why has their design stagnated? The answer is that developers have pushed their designs about as far as they can go with the current hardware. We’ve been stuck with a 2GB memory limit for over a decade and limited to 2 or less processors (cores) for longer than that.
Strategy game designers regularly quip about first person shooters and MOBA game hardware requirements “Must be tough having to mange and render 4 units all at the same time…”
Demigod has amazing visuals because it can – as a MOBA, it doesn’t have to have as many units in the world
Gas Powered Games made one of the most ambitious RTSs of all time – Supreme Commander. They also made the first stand-alone MOBA – Demigod. The graphics of Demigod go far beyond what’s in Supreme Commander at a fraction of the budget. Why is that? Because Demigod didn’t have to deal with hundreds of independent units running around at once which reduces memory use.
The gorgeous visuals and detail in Ironclad’s Sins of a Dark Age also mean fewer units in the world in order to be compatible with most PCs
The bane of game developers: No matter how much memory you have installed on your computer, 32 bit games can only “see” 2GB. That’s a limitation put on 32-bit processes in Microsoft Windows.
Ironclad’s Sins of a Solar Empire series pushes RTS’s about as far as they can go on the current hardware
I think most gamers would be shocked at how quickly memory gets consumed today. The icon for your favorite game probably uses more visual memory than many DOS games did.
What would a next-generation RTS be like?
Are you an RTS fan? Imagine what a truly ground breaking RTS would be like. Huge scale? Lots and lots of units? Huge armies battling it out on screen with amazing graphical fidelity? Throw in some innovative features to make managing these units really intuitive and compelling? It’s technically possible to do it, you would just have a hard time making money because most of the market wouldn’t be able to play it yet.
As a publisher, I get to see a lot of really innovative game designs cross my desk. There’s no shortage of innovative RTS designs. They just can’t be made profitable yet – their design requirements revolve around a player with DirectX 11, a 64-bit Windows OS and 4 cores (minimum). They could do their innovative design with much lower visual fidelity and get most of what they want but then it becomes a “budget” title.
After all, can you imagine what would happen if you tried to make some sort of City simulation game today? People would expect to be able to zoom in on individual citizens and have breathtaking visuals but also expect it to take place on some giant map. The designers would have to either have to make the map you play on be really small or cut down the amount of detail or cut down the visual fidelity of the world/buildings (or a combination of all 3). It would be very difficult and expensive to pull off right…
Chris Taylor’s Total Annihilation, arguably still the best RTS ever made
Third Phase RTSs
We’ve been through two phases of RTS’s already. The first phase was the DOS and early Windows era games. Dune, Warcraft 1/2, Dark Reign, Starcraft. Sprite Based.
The first game of the second phase I’d argue was Total Annihilation. Even though it didn’t make use of 3D hardware, it was the first game to deliver real-time rendered units. Think of the second phase as the age of 32-bit, 3D RTSs. Supreme Commander, Warcraft 3, Sins of a Solar Empire, Starcraft 2.
In both phases, the hardware drove the design of the RTS. Nothing highlighted the difference between Phase 1 and Phase 2 more than real-time Strategic Zoom. Strategic Zoom gave players the ability to zoom out and control their armies in a truly strategic way or zoom in and take control of individual groups. If Ender’s Game was, ironically, an RTS. You can assume that players will expect these kinds of features at a minimum going forward.
The third phase games can be broadly described by the technology under them: 64-bit memory, massively multithreaded. And these 3rd phase RTSs will be breathtakingly beautiful to look at, have amazing scope and micro AI (sophisticated rules for units interacting with one another without human involvement) that is astounding.
Publishers aren’t approving these designs not because there isn’t demand. There is. The problem is you can’t make a game that only a fraction of the player base can currently play.
They’re coming…
According to the Steam Hardware Survey of January 2013 over 40% of users now have 4-core (or more) machines. DirectX10/11 is mainstream and almost 70% of users have 64-bit machines. Not good enough. Not yet. But almost.
Uber Entertainment is working on Planetary Annihilation which might be the start of 3rd phase of RTSs
Keep a close eye on the specs of games. Be looking for when games explicitly require a 64-bit PC and DirectX 10 or later as minimums. Once that has become mainstream, it’ll be a race by studios to position themselves.
The RTS game concept is compelling. It works as a single player experience and can be played as a multiplayer game. Gamers want these games. They’ll pay for these games. But they also have to be measurably superior than what’s already out on the market. To do that, the hardware has to catch up. The good news is that it’s almost ready.
DoW2:R offered hefty bonuses in single-player for the [too numerous!] preorder editions and/or day1 DLC[s] wargear; in case you have troubling remembering http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/forums/showthread.php?5641-Is-DoW-2-DLC-any-good&p=165278&viewfull=1#post165278 and http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?256316-Retribution-Pre-order-packs-and-special-editions should jog your memory. The nickel-and-dime DLCs for DoW2 are still sold as such today, costing combined more than the game: http://store.steampowered.com/sub/44369/. That marketing strategy has "pay2win" written all over it.
PA indeed seems to offer no gameplay advantage for any of the more expensive alpha/beta/kickstarter pay tires.
So precisely nothing at all like this
Do you want me to apologize or something like that? It's not like they make that terribly clear in their support/marketing materials http://support.uberent.com/kb/faq.php?id=60. Based on the changelogs posted, too much stuff changes in that game to able to predict what the final version is going to be like, including whether the differences between commander types are going to remain purely cosmetic. Insofar they are indeed purely cosmetic, but you have to dig up some forum post to figure that out: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/which-commanders-do-i-get-in-the-armory-sic-where-did-my-delta-go.57407/
Indeed PA seems to be very concerned with MP balance, to the point that there will only be one faction, albeit with lotsa units: https://forums.uberent.com/threads/factions-current-lack-of-character-in-units.61487/
And congrats on your cheaper-than-average purchase for the early access PA (although I see it went for $16.99 on Steam recently, eliciting another round of discontent from the early backers https://forums.uberent.com/threads/pa-66-off-during-steam-summer-sale.61124/), but the game is still in alpha until September and then it's going into be in beta until they decide it's done http://www.uberent.com/pa/faq/. If wanted to gift something en masse to my friends, a Supcom FA license at only 5 euros (on the same/ongoing sale, probably $6-7 US) looks a lot more useful in the immediate future. Time will tell if the extra/planned features of PA will add enough extra depth to the gameplay...
Edited out, nvm.
I've been thinking about it and I think there's something else worth mentioning regarding the future of RTS gaming... Take a look at Sins of a Solar Empire. With its high unit count numbers, it would be very cumbersome to try to manage them using only the map. Luckily you have fleets and the Empire Tree which is an amazing UI innovation for the RTS genre. As unit counts continue to increase (realistically, I don't think it'll ever go above 2-3x what Sins has simply because after that it won't be of any use to the player), I think Empire Trees will become staples in all large-scale RTS games. Of course, the one that Sins uses is primitive, but it does show where things could go.
Right now, it's just a listing of units at a planet or in a fleet, but imagine if pressing down Ctrl showed what I'll call "Formation View." In Sins for instance, you can press Alt for Tactical View which lets you see current orders and maximum ranges. That works for 2nd gen RTS games, but for the massive scale of 3rd gen games, it won't be enough. This is where Formation View comes in. Simply put, it would create a chain of command on the battlefield.
Similar units would automatically be grouped into clusters I'll call "Battle Groups." Each Battle Group would be outlined and highlighted with its unit symbol and would have a central "Leader" node. The Leader would have a line drawn between it and the next highest commanding unit, eventually going up to capital ships or whatever you have selected as the flagship of your fleet.
This would give an unprecedented level of control over your units. Ctrl+Left Click to select a Battle Group all child nodes of that Battle Group. Ctrl+Right Click to order that Battlegroup and all child nodes to move/attack. Ctrl+Left Drag to select swaths of units to create new battle groups which then can be hooked into your existing chain of command by Ctrl+Right Clicking on one of your own Leaders.
A similar nesting structure could be used to enhance the Empire Tree which in Sins is a mere listing of units with larger units prioritized towards the top. The Empire tree would always display in Formation View, using a nesting system where you can hide the children of any leader. Ctrl+Left Click would Expand/Contract any node in the tree while normal left click would select a node and all its children.
With such a system, managing far larger unit counts would be bearable and allow players to have a level of control that does not yet exist.
And for anyone thinking that paid early access is some kind of mana for the consumer (as opposed to being mana for the developer, which it is), please listen to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyGbbIB5eaM (you don't have to watch the video part because it is de minimis relative to the audio-conveyed info).
Who says there only needs to be one player per starting position in an RTS game? Imagine matchmaking where you have teams of players performing specialty roles micromanaging their own part of the fight, something like individual admirals to a fleet admiral's command. Lets make them battles bigger, better and more awesome.
Honestly, what's the difference between just having a bunch of people on the same team in the same fight and what you suggested? Would it just be the ability to give conflicting orders to units? I don't see that as being a good thing for anything except esports level, but esports have to complete in a reasonable chunk of time and games of the scale we're talking about would likely take longer than that.
EDIT: besides, RTS games ought to have the ability to gift temporary unit control anyways.
Can anyone help me remember a RTS my dad use to have. You could play as, i think, U.S., Germany, and either Russia or France. I remember Germany had airship bombers, France/Russia had mobile AA guns and could lay time bombs, and U.S. had the a-bomb and paratroopers. That's really all I can remember from it.
Myself not being a huge youtube fan, I've just discovered (5 months later or so) that TotalBiscuit did a piece on OpenRA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1-VwE1byrY). For those [like me] that didn't know about it, OpenRA is a Red Alert, Dune 2000 etc. re-engine effort that looks ok in that video. Video in which TotalBiscuit can't help but share his thoughts on the [d]evolution of genre in general, of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Front:_Turning_Point
Could it be one of the Red Alert games?
Comment
You sure about that? It pretty much fits the description in specifics and to my knowledge its the only game doing so. OFC i did not play all the RTS games there are. Anyway, did you watch any utube vids to be sure?
@StevenAus> there was no german faction in RedAlert. It was one of the base premises of the game.
Sorry to say, no clue what it could have been then. The only other WW2 RTS game i know are Axis&Allies and RUSE, but both of these stick mostly to the reality, so no zeppelins and timebombs. Maybe it was some mod for another game, CnC Generals for example?
Maybe if you could give more specifics about the game, saying that you gathered resources and constructed buildings applies to majority of RTS games there are. What is more important, when did your dad play this game, what year? Was it sprite or polygon based? Was it straight RTS game like CnC/StarCraft or did it have any turn-based or total war big strategy gameplay elements?
Rise of Nations Maybe?
Just because this type of game hasn't been made well (I remember beyond protocol allowing this) doesn't mean it isn't an exciting proposition.
I've been working on this as a core design mechanic for a while, it will hopefully be a great way to take the psychologically prepared "mmo" crowd into RTS mechanics without the loss of the good points of either style of game. Another way of doing precisely this(luring the MMO crowd) was the idea of the MOBA, just in a different way. I believe that this idea will beat out the MOBA in actual play, as it would allow for better player relationships over time because a controllable positive interaction between players could be designed by the game developers.
Well it looks like the future is coming sooner than expected.
Games requiring DX11 is on the rise. Though unfortunately, the amount of whining about this requirement is staggering.
64-bit uptake is a bit slower. Some have options for both. Even fewer are 64-bit only. Though given that 32-bit OS share on Steam's hardware survey, is close to dropping below 10% it could be time to switch.
Age of Empires.
Where have you seen that whining? On my local computerenthusiastforum, everybody got supercomputers and want Dx11 two years ago
It disturbs me that people are slower than expected to adapt 64-bit Windows. There's NO reason to choose 32-bit Windows several years ago!
The true fault though lies with Microsoft who offers 32-bit versions.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account