• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Historical RTSs - Dead?

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
Empire Earth 1 and Age of Empires 1/2 were fantastic games. Empire Earth 2 was too bad, though I never really got into it.

When Age of Empires 3 was released, I was excited about it, but the poor quality demo that wouldn't actually run on many machines put me off on the game and I forgot about it.

With the dismal launch of the craptactular Empire Earth 3, and Mad Doc's subsequent removal of all references to it on their site, and then their buyout by Rockstar, does it seem like Historical RTSs are dying?

Empire Total War does not count. While it will likely be a blast to play, the TW games share more in common with the turn based Civilization games than EE/AoE.

With Age 3 now having two expansions, Warchiefs and Asian Dynasties, is it worth playing? If I enjoyed EE1, will I enjoy AoE3? I hear the multiplayer in Age 3 was excellent, and I like playing RTSs, especially EE1, with my brothers when I get the opportunity to visit family once a year.

Edit - With Ensemble Studios now developing Halo Wars: The Quest for More Money, the likelihood of a Age of Empires 4 seems dim.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
Originally posted by: Bateluer

Empire Total War does not count. While it will likely be a blast to play, the TW games share more in common with the turn based Civilization games than EE/AoE.
That's how I prefer historical strategy games. For RTS games, I prefer them to be more tactical like Company of Hereos, or World in Conflict.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,082
104
106
You make a good point indeed. My problem with such games is that they tend to always depict events from World War II, since it's a very good selling element. The periods covered by games like Age of Empires and Total War (with Total War I'm just referring to the period in time covered and not the actual way it plays with it) are often seen in those exact same games, meaning indeed that there are almost no other franchises around that did what those two did in their own rights.

There are tons and tons of historical events to cover when it comes to military conflicts, dating hundreds of years ago and even beyond the thousand years. There's plenty of room to make "historical" RTS'es, and to be honest now that you bring this point I really can't understand why developers don't "risk it" and create a new franchise which over the years through sequels/expansions would cover one or more periods more efficiently than the Total War series has ever been able to do for example.

Although I'm not sure if I would actually be interested in such a franchise, I would certainly consider it as a welcome addition to add some fresh air within the very used one concerning WWII-related games, which in my opinion has been covered certainly too often. It's perhaps the darkest moment in the entire humanity's history, and it's the best selling one... so a little change wouldn't be too much, it'd be welcome. The Age of Empires series still has potential though, AoE IV could be something spectacular.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
79,616
12,402
126
Not dead, just overused and on a vacation, much like the WW2 stuff.
I'd like to see more Civil War and maybe WW1 games. Also, some semi-modern stuff would be nice. World in Conflict is pretty good, set in 1986 with the Russians attacking. We need a good tactical shooter and RTS from the Vietnam or post Vietnam era.

Would also like to see some space games that arent cheesy or just plain lacking in entertainment. Earth 2160 was supposed to make me happy but it wasnt all that great.
 

potato28

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
8,964
0
0
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Not dead, just overused and on a vacation, much like the WW2 stuff.
I'd like to see more Civil War and maybe WW1 games. Also, some semi-modern stuff would be nice. World in Conflict is pretty good, set in 1986 with the Russians attacking. We need a good tactical shooter and RTS from the Vietnam or post Vietnam era.

Would also like to see some space games that arent cheesy or just plain lacking in entertainment. Earth 2160 was supposed to make me happy but it wasnt all that great.
I'm actually glad they decided to give WW2 a break, CoH must have given a lot of developers a good benchmark of what a good RTS/ WW2 game should be. And I want more Start Wars RTS's, always love something in the way of Star Wars.
 

Maximilian

Lifer
Feb 8, 2004
12,601
5
76
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Not dead, just overused and on a vacation, much like the WW2 stuff.
I'd like to see more Civil War and maybe WW1 games. Also, some semi-modern stuff would be nice. World in Conflict is pretty good, set in 1986 with the Russians attacking. We need a good tactical shooter and RTS from the Vietnam or post Vietnam era.

Would also like to see some space games that arent cheesy or just plain lacking in entertainment. Earth 2160 was supposed to make me happy but it wasnt all that great.
Yah it seemed like a dumbed down earth 2150 with rock paper scissors gameplay, shame because earth 2150 was a great game, the campaign wasent very good imo but the engine and the capabilities you had in it for customization of tanks were very impressive and underground tunnels were so cool!

I dont think any RTS will beat company of heros in the near future, its replaced starcraft as my regular game which is am anazing feat for a game that has no custom scenarios (nothing like whats in starcraft anyways), every game played happens differently and its fun because of that.
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
6
76
i think the crytek engine would make a great vietnam game.
Its perfect to handle the jungle and crawling through underground bunkers that the genre would take.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
I'm not much for the modern era personally. After the invention and refinement of gun powder, meh.

I would love to see some historical RTS games set in the far east, or ancient Egypt, or middle east. There's nothing stopping them from incorporating all the settings into the same game either, its merely a matter of tilesets, skins, and the rest is research/writing into the era/setting.

Has anyone played AoE3 extensively. I checked out the trial version, which now seems to work, though it still messes up when AA is enabled. Its hard to get a feel for the game from two tutorial missions and a few skirmishes though.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
I have AoE 3 and I was addicted to it immensely the first few months I was playing it. Then other games like BF2 and Oblivion were made runnable on my system, so I didn't think it was worth the time. Also, the clan I was in kinda dissolved, so I was left at the pier so to speak.

I do agree about Ensemble Studios sucking because of Halo Wars. That thing pisses me off. :|
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,082
104
106
I got AoE3 + The War Chiefs expansion, I don't have Asian Dynasties though.

It's a good game with some modified A.I, the skirmishes can be intense in terms of units on-screen, but the actual fights are rather dull compared to the voracity of the infantry in Warhammer 40,000 for example. The battles could use some more "punch", although the artillery/cannon sounds echoing all across the map is quite something on a good surround sound system. The graphics are alright, they were awesome for their time though, I remember the first reaction I had when I saw the first screen-shots, I was very impressed, but today Company of Heroes in highest settings even just DX9 goes beyond those graphics and not to mention physics.

I still play it from time to time though, as I said the skirmishes can be fun, I always play under the "Unknown" map type, so that the environment is always different to some extent, the treasures are scattered randomly in the map, the trade routes always have some variation to them, and natives villages aren't placed at the same spot, making early units exploration worthwhile. It's far from being bad, it's actually fun, but overall the fights don't give the same satisfaction than in CoH or WH40K. It's the reason why I never bought the Asian Dynasties expansion because other than bringing new units and skins to the table they haven't changed the pace of game-play nor the "feeling" during the battles, it's more of the same really. But still... it could be worth it. I myself bought it second hand so, not much to worry about.

Overall I guess I'd like to give... say... a score of 6.5/10.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
To go straight to your question, OP, I don't think historical RTSs are dying, at worst, they're hibernating, or appearing in smaller quantities and with less grandeur. I sent you a PM earlier detailing all the neat Strategy games pending announcement that are rumored anyway.

In all frankness, I think history RTS games need to become much bigger for players to truly play them. Something like Total War, but real time would be preferable. Creative Assembly is at least entertaining the notion, because they have a poll on their M2TW launch thing that says "Do you think a pausable RTS Total War would be fun?"

And I, of course, said yes, and voted voted voted for it. :D

Originally posted by: potato28
I'm actually glad they decided to give WW2 a break, CoH must have given a lot of developers a good benchmark of what a good RTS/ WW2 game should be. And I want more Start Wars RTS's, always love something in the way of Star Wars.
A girl that actually plays RTS games...the next question is r u hawt???/?/?/1!1!

....I think you're a grrl. :confused:
 

Cutthroat

Golden Member
Apr 13, 2002
1,104
0
0
I miss historical RTS games, my favorite was Rise of Nations. I actually have the disk at hand because I've been thinking of installing it again lately, there's been nothing else good to play lately. They are supposed to be making RON2 at some point, but I don't think this year. There hasn't been a good simple RTS in a long time, I like them simple, I like the resources to be wood, gold & food. I really don't like futuristic RTS at all. I picked up Sins of a Solar Empire after hearing good things about it, I couldn't play it more than the tutorial.

Originally posted by: Modelworks
i think the crytek engine would make a great vietnam game.
Its perfect to handle the jungle and crawling through underground bunkers that the genre would take.
That would be cool, I think you should start making the models...;)
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
AoE3 was a really good game. It's unfortunate that the demo sucked ass. I can't blame you for not buying it.

I hated all of the Empire Earth games, so I suggest that they shouldn't count. They all sucked

The C&C3 expansion dropped not long ago, and it has been selling well. That indicates to me that RTS is not dead. That's not historical though...

Starcraft 2 is coming out this year (hopefully)

Empire Total War is close enough to RTS in my opinion. The world may be Civlike, but the combat is RTS. That's what matters.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,923
0
0
Originally posted by: Zenoth
You make a good point indeed. My problem with such games is that they tend to always depict events from World War II, since it's a very good selling element. The periods covered by games like Age of Empires and Total War (with Total War I'm just referring to the period in time covered and not the actual way it plays with it) are often seen in those exact same games, meaning indeed that there are almost no other franchises around that did what those two did in their own rights.

There are tons and tons of historical events to cover when it comes to military conflicts, dating hundreds of years ago and even beyond the thousand years. There's plenty of room to make "historical" RTS'es, and to be honest now that you bring this point I really can't understand why developers don't "risk it" and create a new franchise which over the years through sequels/expansions would cover one or more periods more efficiently than the Total War series has ever been able to do for example.

Although I'm not sure if I would actually be interested in such a franchise, I would certainly consider it as a welcome addition to add some fresh air within the very used one concerning WWII-related games, which in my opinion has been covered certainly too often. It's perhaps the darkest moment in the entire humanity's history, and it's the best selling one... so a little change wouldn't be too much, it'd be welcome. The Age of Empires series still has potential though, AoE IV could be something spectacular.
I actually don't know of a good World War II RTS. Axis and Allies was horrible. Red Alert was great, but I don't consider it a World War II RTS because it takes place in a different universe (different history). World in Conflict is more like World War III...

I think Rise of Nations: Thrones and Patriots had a WWII mode, but I enjoyed its Napoleon and Cold War modes too much to bother trying the WWII mode. Since Rise of Nations can take place at any point in time, it doesn't count as a WWII RTS.

WWII seems to be dominated by FPS games, but not RTS games.
 

fuzzybabybunny

Moderator<br>Digital & Video Cameras
Moderator
Jan 2, 2006
10,455
33
91
As for AOE3, I've got both the Warchiefs and Asian Dynasties expansions. I like the Asian Dynasties one by far. Warchiefs is extremely lukewarm. AD is like an 8/10 for me. Although I do really like the tribal dance circle thing from Warchiefs.
 

antyler

Golden Member
Aug 7, 2005
1,745
0
0
I just passed Age of Empires II, and now im on the conquerers expansion. I love that game. It is highly addicting.
 

AllGamer

Senior member
Apr 26, 2006
504
0
76
all those Microsoft Tittles never caught my attention.

it was like a Play & Forget thing.

Only Blizzard games and C&C, keeps you coming back for more.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
I actually wish Microsoft would buy the rights to Empire Earth and make a decent fourth installment. Typically, when MS publishes a game, its usually of a fairly decent quality. It may have other flaws, such as console-itus or being exclusive to a single OS, but they typically aren't of Alpha/Beta quality like make of EA's titles.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,540
16
0
The Persian Empire with the conquest of Cyrus the Great would be an area not covered much in gaming.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
7
0
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
The Persian Empire with the conquest of Cyrus the Great would be an area not covered much in gaming.
Most anything outside of Europe and North Africa is barely touched in historical RTSs.
 

TehMac

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2006
9,979
3
71
Originally posted by: Bateluer
I actually wish Microsoft would buy the rights to Empire Earth and make a decent fourth installment. Typically, when MS publishes a game, its usually of a fairly decent quality. It may have other flaws, such as console-itus or being exclusive to a single OS, but they typically aren't of Alpha/Beta quality like make of EA's titles.
Yeah I agree with you. I had noticed the same trend as well.


Originally posted by: Bateluer
I never got into Rise of Nations myself. Just seemed a little meh.
I'd agree with you, but looking at it now, it's utterly brilliant. It may have attempted a little much, but it's an utter classic.
 

evident

Lifer
Apr 5, 2005
11,625
182
106
aoe3 is the biggest piece of garbage, mainly because the players online dont want to play anything other than " NO RUSH 1 HOUR" and it takes FOREVER to find a game. It was one of the most disappointing games i've ever played. ( i was a huge aoe1/ror fan)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY