Devolution: Real-time strategy

In his ongoing series looking at the evolution/devolution of classic gaming genres, Nathan Lawrence turns his gimlet gaze to the RTS.

As I'm sure many of you are well aware, the long-awaited and highly anticipated real-time strategy extravaganza, StarCraft II, was released last year to glowing critical and consumer reception. It wasn't long before it became the fastest selling strategy title of all time and earned the mantra of the best-selling PC title of 2010. And why not; StarCraft II is a great example of a highly polished title that was, in many ways and for many people, well worth the wait.

But while StarCraft II stands as a shining example of how well a traditional formula real-time strategy title can still be near-unanimously well received by the gaming populace, I don't see it as a step in the right direction for the RTS genre. Certain reviewers have called the game StarCraft 2.0 - a statement simultaneously used as an accurate depiction of the game's evolution (or lack thereof) from the original formula and praise of StarCraft II's honouring of its roots. But a game honouring its roots or paying homage to what has gone before is one thing, while more or less cloning preceding titles is a problem I have across genres.

If you look at Relic Entertainment's gaming history, they seem to be comfortable with mixing things up. The two Homeworld games boasted a simple yet compelling storyline, persistent units across the campaign as well as three-dimensional movements and combat. Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War forged the engine and paved the way for Company of Heroes, which was, for me, an RTS game changer.

Y'see, I've always loved the real-time strategy genre, but as soon as I encountered Company of Heroes, I realised how antiquated and just how over the tank/6-pool/insert-generic-unit-here rush mentality I really was. What used to be a race to get as many of the same units out on the digital battlefield had evolved to something that was more akin to real-time chess. In Company of Heroes, a squad of infantry or a solitary vehicle could turn the tide of battle; holding a critical section of the map or repelling/deterring an enemy attack. So instead of relying on building 100 bishops, I was able to hold my own with a single rook.

So when StarCraft II eventually rolled around, I felt seriously underwhelmed by the whole experience, yearning for an RTS experience that was more... progressive. That's not to say I didn't enjoy StarCraft II. But just as playing through a generic first-person shooter is not without its own mindless rewards, so too was the experience of returning to a formula I'd moved past. It was enjoyable but it didn't wow me.

On the flip side, though, too much of an attempt at evolution in the RTS genre is not always a positive thing. Dawn of War II essentially flat-out ditched the RTS element of its campaign in favour of an RPG experience, while R.U.S.E. had the 'strategy' component of RTS well and truly covered, but at the expense of the a well-flowing battle experience.

While I understand that there's a certain appeal in particular genre traits and conventions being upheld in any real-time strategy title, it's still disappointing to see when more game developers aren't actively seeking to push the RTS genre forwards. There's no need to reinvent the wheel when it comes to any genre, but a polished stone wheel is still a stone wheel.

Aliens: Colonial Marines in depth; Z-77 Motherboard round-up; strategy gaming special; Home Server tutorial. PLUS MUCH MORE - ON SALE NOW!

Ads by Google

14 Comments

hectorbustnuts Jan 31, 2011 11:43 AM	How can an editorial on the evolution of RTS games completely ignore the Total War games, possibly THE leader in RTS evolution this last decade for my money?
thesorehead Jan 31, 2011 12:01 PM	And what about the Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander games? SupCom2 was a definite step backwards (or so I hear), but TA introduced the element of simulation and Total War/SupCom are actual strategy games. C&C, Starcraft, Dark Reign - these are games of real-time tactics. IMHO
Hawkeye Jan 31, 2011 12:03 PM	Interestingly, I don't quite thing Total War counts under RTS. You know, the classic mine-build-rush kind of RTS. As an historical strategy game I'd suggest it stands in a slightly different genre.
tunksy Jan 31, 2011 12:09 PM	@Hawkeye I tend to agree, while the battles may very well be pure RTS (with out all the mining) the campaign map side of the game isnt so strategy dependant. to me its very civ v but with more battle depth, less city building depth and a much narrower passage of time. AOE II is still fun :P
hectorbustnuts Jan 31, 2011 12:14 PM	But isn't that the point? That the Total War franchise has pushed the RTS genre into something so much greater than its "Dune II" origins? In fact, I'd almost say the RTS aspects of the TW games are a far purer Real-time Strategy experience than pretty much any other game franchise out there.
Hawkeye Jan 31, 2011 12:26 PM	It's kind of a toss-up, actually Hector. You see, to me, Total War borrows far more from traditional hex-strategy games, rather than more traditional (read: Starcraft) RTS games. To me, RTS has always been about twitch speed, actions per second, and all that stuff. You don't need any of that for Total War.
hectorbustnuts Jan 31, 2011 12:39 PM	I was actually going to say that the TW games could be used as an example of the evolution of either or both turn-based (world-map) and RTS (battle map) games...but I only thought of it after I'd hit [SUBMIT]. Oops. I get what you're saying, though. Being a blend of the two genres kind of sets TW games apart from EITHER genre, but I think if you look at both parts separately, they each stand head and shoulders above games devoted to either genre. (It makes sense in my head. I blame it being a Monday).
NachosJustice Jan 31, 2011 12:40 PM	@ hector - Total War is hard to include because of the split between turn-based and real-time strategy. @ thesorehead - Good call on the Supreme Commander front. I used StarCraft II to highlight my argument as it's a recent RTS that most people would have played/seen... Supreme Commander 2, well, you summed it up when you said "or so I hear" ;). A friend of mine was recently debating the differences in what he called real-time strategy versus real-time tactical games. He said that StarCraft II was an RTS while the Total War (and even Company of Heroes) games were RTT. Arbitrary distinction? Perhaps. But it did allow him to defend the hell out of SCII!
wraith676 Jan 31, 2011 12:45 PM	Hector, the things that are said about starcraft 2 and its predecessor can be said about the total war series. Its the same except for changes in what the units are. Sure its on a massive scale and there are so many ways to thrash your opponent however the core game mechanic and design are the same. You can say the same for TA and SUP-COM although SUP-COM 2 was pushed out as a partnership between gas powered games and Square Enix. i believe Square had the deciding say over the changes in core game mechanics for the sequel, as Chris Tailor was interviewed about SUP-COM 2 and suggested that his engineers would not be able to add another faction to the game without more then 4gb of ram in the machine.(http://www.computerandvideogames.com/185765/news/taylor-hardware-stalling-supreme-commander-2/) In saying that i agree completely with the comments about COH being genre redefining, it was a truly new take on RTS and is still a pleasure to play now.
Genisis X Jan 31, 2011 1:48 PM	@ hawkeye If we are debating the lack of evolution of the RTS genre yet classifying games which are strategy games played in real time, but don't follow the same twitch twitch spam spam gameplay mechanics as 'traditional' rts games as something other than an rts does that not leave no room for any improvement to the rts genre? And, of course, SupCom was an awesome stand out RTS and the sequel was worse than that lobster man from mars movie. When I played it I got one of those "now show me on the bear where the bad games developers touched you" moments. -X
Acintai Jan 31, 2011 3:06 PM	These devolution articles definately prove one thing, no matter how crap the game is, aslong as enough stupid people say its good everyone else will buy it. Ah well, if there werent crap titles there wouldnt be any good titles to compare them too.
NachosJustice Jan 31, 2011 4:14 PM	You have a point, Acintai. I compare the samey big-budget FPS/RTS titles to Michael Bay blockbuster films: sure, they're not going to change your life, but they're going to be a helluva lot of fun. Every now and then, though, you get a release that is The Dark Knight of the gaming world. One that offers a lot of bang for your buck, but also advances the genre and challenges other devs to follow suit because everyone knows that the game has changed.
avjattard Feb 2, 2011 7:01 PM	I have to say i loved all command and conquer games, until EA F**KED with the core game and made Red Alert 3 (epic fail) then C&C 4 (just as epic of a fail) Both these games do not tell a good story as the past ones have, they also screw with the core game play we have come to know and love so much. I really want Red Alert 2 in a revamped HD edition for modern PC's. When you have something good, dont ruin it by trying something new. Capcom street fighter is a perfect example, same formula essentially but with added bits, spicy graphics and take this out put this in attitude that found a perfect balance between old stuff and new. I hope the new mortal kombat does the same.
W3r3Wu1F Apr 15, 2011 3:52 PM	Firstly, SC2, Like what Nathan Lawrence has said,"So when StarCraft II eventually rolled around, I felt seriously underwhelmed by the whole experience, yearning for an RTS experience that was more... progressive. That's not to say I didn't enjoy StarCraft II." It wasn't the game i expected, i appreciated them trying something new, just not in the new core game, i would have payed for a new engine, graphics and maps based on the old game, and/or a new core RTS game(based on SC1)where you could "plugin" new component like FPS/RPG modules (maybe something like mod packs?), if you only wanted to play the RTS, then you don't buy the FPS/RPG... Anyway, SC2, wasn't the game i wanted/expected, it wasn't worth the wait(i got SC1 in 1999), so after 12 years,SC2 is what we got in-return for waiting 12 frigging years, epic fail! As a sub-genre(RTS/RPG blend) it was not too bad, if the price was around $49.95, not the $99.95 that i payed for it. DoW (i have a strange, deep love for this Universe),DoW1 gameply verses DoW2, DoW1 wins, DoW is still good, just not as good as DoW1. The same happend in SupCom1 and SupCom2, i find it very hard to live without "strategic view" now, Chris seems to have mostly added new units, it reminds me of an expansion, SupCom1 FA2...I have TA and the expansions CC/BT's i love the universe, alittle un-happy about some of the "features" in SupCom2.

Comments have been disabled on this article.

Atomic Magazine

Issue: 137 | June, 2012

Atomic is a magazine aimed squarely at computer enthusiasts, gamers, and serious PC upgraders.

Every month we bring you the latest reviews of new technology and PC components, in depth features on everything from overclocking to console hacking, and gaming previews and interviews.

What's in this issue?