Is RTS a Dead Genre?

We've living in the post-golden age of RTS games, Command & Conquer, Age of Empires, StarCraft, and many more haven't seen their successors or even superiors yet and likely might never do.

Even StarCraft II is slowly losing it's Esports status as more and more players leave for Brood War's Esport scene, which somehow is still thriving.

I haven't played a "new" RTS game and can't remember one that i'd want to go back to in ages, heck i'm playing Age of Empires II HD on steam, with patches and even new expansions, i wonder why not more companies try to revive old iconic games like that, there's very much a market for it.

The last candidate for any sort of awe for me was Planetary Annihilation, but it lacks of personality, half its techtree was useless, and it's overall scale made it a very uninteresting, clunky, and personality-less experience.

Is it because 3D just doesn't work for RTS games? Warcraft III, Battle for Middle-earth II, prove otherwise. Why are players leaving Starcraft 2 for the first game? Why didn't Age of Empires 3 advance the series and captivate its player base?

A great example might be Red Alert 3, it took the series to places people didn't like, the cartoony artstyle wasn't well received but overall it failed to innovate and move the series forward. It was in a broad sense a 3D Red Alert 2, alot of the designs were the same from the previous game but its lack to pinpoint why the other games worked so well made it lack any sort of longevity.

I wouldn't give any credit to nostalgia, as i think most people -like myself- have played these games for years without any long breaks.

The things we usually associate with RTS games, like a setup period have spread to other games, MOBAs have a setup period now, Battle Royal games like Playerunknown's Battlegrounds do also have a setup period. When rounds are over, everything is reset and you have to setup again, just like RTS games.

I honestly don't mind that much not getting any new RTS games that i need to play. If only my old games aren't dying, Age of Empires 2 HD on Steam with new updates and high resolution support makes it easier to play that game on newer machines.

What about my Red Alert 2, that game hasn't had any support since its release, fan made patches and tools will only last so long.

One day, a new Windows update will come out and i won't be able to play my old games anymore, i'd have to emulate old software and at that point the hassle isn't worth it.

Will the RTS genre ever innovate again or is it all over and gone?

MOBAs are definitely eating the RTS piece of the gaming pie it seems. There are also a fair number of StarCraft II pros who moved over to competitive Overwatch, iirc.

I think it's going to take someone doing something unique and different with the RTS formula to bring that back in vogue. And with the diminished interest in RTS games as an esports, I think it may be harder for companies to place that bet.

Odd to consider RTS games dying in a year that a fourth Age of Empireswas announced and the original is getting the remaster treatment, and Halo Wars 2 and Total Warhammer II came out.

I don't think any genre is ever dead, it's just gone for a time. CRPGs used to be damn near ubiquitous in the 80's and the early to mid 90's, but began to fade in the late 90's and were practically absent during the entirety of the 00's. Several years ago they came back in force, and that subgenre is stronger than it's ever been. Some of the titles out of that resurgence are hands-down the best in the whole subgenre.

RTS's will come back, but it won't be until devs figure out exactly what people loved about those games. There will probably be some missteps along the way as various studios try and figure it out. Look at Playtonic and Yooka Laylee. People were convinced that 3D platformers were going to have their own revival, but all that game really did was remind everyone that Rare 3D platformers weren't particularly good. Extremely charming, but they just don't feel well designed. Massive, sprawling levels, where every platform, enemy and obstacle feels placed at random. Like someone had a box full of things and just emptied it onto the level. Now look at Grow Home. There isn't much going on in that game, but the basic actions that allow the player to traverse a 3D environment were so enjoyable that it didn't matter if you were just doing the same thing over and over again. These games are good examples of developers figuring out what does and doesn't work.

As far was RTSs go, I think we're still a ways off from them coming back. Look at things like Planetary Annihilation, or Grey Goo. PA is micromanagement to an extreme, and shuts out too much of an audience to be successful enough for regular releases. Grey Goo was a very good C&C like, but I don't think it really did much to push forward. There is still a ton to figure out. What's the right balance between commanding your troops and managing your base? Does the "core" RTS audience even want base management? Should we even be catering to that audience anymore, with games like DotA or LoL eating into that demographic?

RTS will make a comeback, but they may be dramatically different than what they were.

Nothing should ever be called a dead genre. And there are still many RTS games out there just maybe not in the "AAA" headspace.

It may be on a slight hiatus if you want specific mechanics but it'll be back. Just look at what happened with XCOM. Look at Stellaris. Hell look at all the Tell Tale games. "Dead" genres all.

edit: I should mention that Age of Mythology just put out a friggin DLC pack, Grey Goo was a decent game and I think Halo Wars still does well. Oh and Age of Empires 4 is on the way.

They are in a bad way right now, not sure what the missing spark is. Maybe the are just dormant, maybe today's gamers aren't as versed in mouse and keyboard controls so the incredibly complex controls seem intimidating, maybe the multiplayer is what made them work financially and now that MOBA seem to do that in a way gamers prefer RTS games are being left behind, maybe a good enough game in that genre just hasn't shipped.

Whatever the reason/s is/are It's obvious the big AAA guys don't want to invest them like they used to.

RTS has sorta been relegated to the indie scene for now, but there are definitely games out there innovating in the genre. The one that comes to mind right away for me is Offworld Trading Company, but there are plenty of new RTSs around.

Yea it sucks. We'll climb back out of this hole at some point. My guess would be some indie dev makes a real classic style RTS that people flock too and then all the big names take notice and dust off the IPs they've got buried in a filing cabinet in the basement.

I can point to Rise of Nations being the last sprite based RTS I really liked. I much prefer sprite artwork over the chunky looking 3D Warcraft 3 era of RTS. I'm also in the corner that the "hero" based gameplay of that, the direction RTS style games started taking, is not what I want. I want base building and bunches of units. So yea, Warcraft 3 probably marks the end of RTS for me.

Maybe the only 3D based RTS I like is Command & Conquer: Generals. After that one, I lost interest in the series, and I can't think of any other 3D RTS I liked.

But.. I guess Company of Heroes might be the closest thing to a modern visual art style I'd want for an RTS game. Those games just focus on a smaller scale. It sounds like there are other less-known WW2 RTS games out there but I've never looked into it. Edit: I did play some of that Wargame: Red Dragon, which is the sort of scale and visuals I like. It's certainly based more in reality, I don't believe it had any base building elements. Was more about careful unit micro-management which is meh.

Someone pointed out a new Age of Empires is coming though. Who knows if that'll actually be like the classic games or just some weird new dumb thing.

How cool would a new KKND be?

Short answer: yes.

There is still a Starcraft 2 scene but the MOBAs that spawned from DOTA which descended from Warcraft 3 wildly overtook its parents and now rule over the genre. Maybe it will cycle back around once someone finds a way to match it with whatever the new hot trend is a few years from now, but who knows.

I'll quote what I mentioned to Vinny in the beastcast comments a coupe of weeks ago:

So no it's nowhere near dead, it's just a niche market now. The games are there if you look for them.

I'll agree what's being said that its a niche genre right now, though I miss the "Golden Age" of the early to mid 2000s where you would go to a Target and the computer game aisle would just be full of RTSs, now granted most were meh, but there was still some excitement in trying them out. I was always bummed out I could never run Paraworld for any of my computers.

In the last few years we've gotten a number of indie RTS games, only a few of them go for the kind of RTS I prefer (Tooth and Tail for example isn't at all capitalizing on what I enjoy in the genre), but they're out there, but generally don't get any coverage at all by the press for some reason (I mean, I could accept it if most journalists aren't into the genre, but most of them seem to say they loved those games and wish there were more of them or lament the death of the genre, but then go on ignoring the ones that get made).

I really enjoyed my time with SunAge (2014), Nightside (2015), last year's 8-Bit Armies (not the other games in the series as much though) and this year's Rusted Warfare. I also liked most aspects of Wyrmsun (a WarCraft 2 inspired weird grand strategy RTS thing), the Meridian (New World and Squad 22) series and Etherium (though it got broken with some patch a few months after launch and never fixed).

Aren't they all just f2p mobile games now?

No, genres don't die. They change and there popularity ebbs and flows but they don't die. RTS goes through the same cycle every other "dead" genre has. It's the biggest thing in the world and then it's not. Some indie developers make some good ones and maybe it comes back in a big way for a period of time then it goes away again. No genre of video games has truly ever died, therefore, it's kind of silly to say any genre is "dying" just because it's been a while since they lit the world on fire.

@fisk0: Thanks for that list of games. Kinda proves your point because I've never heard of or seen most of the stuff you mentioned. SunAge definitely has the visual style I like. Amazing artwork. Maybe the world or theme isn't particularly grabbing me though.

I did forget to mention RTS in VR. I would absolutely love a cool looking table-top type thing. Like a MechCommander. I wanna get down in there and watch a tiny Mad Cat stomp through some trees and launch some missiles over my head.

I just want to clear a quick misconception: MOBA is NOT an RTS. I mean, it may look like one, and they may play similarly, but they're not the same thing. It's like calling Gears of War a first person shooter, or Dark Souls a beat-em-up.

Not at all. There are still a fair number of high profile RTS games that come out every year and there are new takes on the genre. Clash Royal is maybe the most popular mobile RTS game, and despite it's shitty chest system, is a pretty good game.

@random45: People are not saying that moba's are RTSes. They are saying that it spawned from RTSes and took a lot of people with them that otherwise would've played RTS. I'm one of those people that went from Starcraft to Warcraft to Starcraft 2 to Dota. I would still be open to playing a good singleplayer focused RTS, but i'm not going to play RTS multiplayer anymore.

@tennmuerti: I'd say most of those games are bad, that said, i feel like if it doesn't do something for me that my older games still do, then why bother with these new games? In a sense; it's like Call of Duty, we are getting a new FPS every year, but at somepoint, one came that you'll stick by and then not bother with the rest.

@ares42: Does that game have combat?

@wandrecanada: AAA? You mean like that new Warhammer game? that new Age of Empires game? Planetary Annihilation? I don't think there's a lack of them but rather that none of them are that interesting or good. When was the last time you got excited for a new RTS game?

@relkin: Yooka Laylee was made to be what it ended up being though, people that liked those sort of bad platformers enjoyed it still, i've been replaying the Crash series with a friend recently, those games are bad and unforgiving, atleast from a modern perspective. I don't think it's experimentation that's missing but rather innovation and a being bold enough to make something different. I think Grey Goo failed because it lacked personality and simplicity, the resource system is bad and the building system is clunky. Planetary Annihilation is bad because it fails to do anything interesting with it's scale. I think the RTS genre has been perfected ages ago, really what most of all these old games need, is better performance on new systems and better AI. If you think of Team Fortress 2, a game that has survived for over a decade now, solely because of developer support, that makes me think if other games had that support still, would any of them have died? Age of Empires 2 is getting that support now, again. It's been resurrected. Like TF2 i think most of these older RTSs really just need some updates and fixes.

@drdarkstryfe: Age of Empires 3 failed, why would 4 be any different? Halo Wars 2 is bad, 1 is on PC -finally- though. I'm use Warhammer fans like that game but all i'm hearing from the Total War fans is that the series went downhill several games ago. It's also interesting to point out that all these are sequels and not original IPs. I think the Warhammer game will do fine with people that like Warhammer but for all the other games, i think the core audience are going to stick with their old games.

@ssully: It's not really a classic RTS though, it's more Tower Defence or rather Tower Offence then RTS but i do get your point.

@seikenfreak: There was this tech demo someone made of RA2 in VR, however, is that a good way to play those games? I feel like it's a nice little thing but i don't think i'll ever want to sit down for hours upon hours playing a RTS like that, i do prefer a more Top-down view that a regular screen gives and then not needing the headset on is pretty big too.

@oursin_360: I've seen EA re-release some of its 3D rts on IOS and such, don't think it was f2p though, alot of newer ones are.

@fisk0:Video game journalism seems overrated these days and if not, the need for them completely irrelevant, thanks to Youtube and the Steam reviews section. I'm actually still shocked, when people bring up journalists as high standing authorities on video games instead of just making the argument for the game yourself. Dunno if you understand what i'm trying to say. I have been wanting to play Tooth and Tail but i'm not sure how my i desire to, i do have a big backlog afterall.

@vampire_chibi: No, that's sorta the revolutionary thing about it. It captures the same kinda frantic RTS multiplayer gameplay you find in something like Starcraft, but instead of focusing the main game system on combat it's focused on resource management and stock manipulation. It's sorta hard to explain how it all works, but playing the game multiplayer I had a bunch of the same kinda "aha" moments I had back when I first started playing Starcraft online.

@vampire_chibi@fisk0 Even in the 'heyday' of games coverage and real time strategy, RTS tended to take a backseat to FPS or console games if the outlet wasn't PC focused - even then I think Quake took a front page to Command and Conquer. When it comes to I think you have to find your group of streamers/youtubers/press that you tend to share gaming tastes with and use that as a guide, but these days I find I go off of word of mouth through social media far more than published reviews. I find myself here on GB more for the personality of the staff than because I want to make a buying decision.

Yep, was killed by the WC3 Custom Map DOTA, which also killed the mapmaking scene; mapmaking would have eventually died to Indie games since there's no reason to develop a fully fleshed out game (of which there were around 10,000 unique ones in Starcraft: Brood War UMS) and not make money off it anymore. MOBA sounds like DOTA so that's what they call it now; but its really just a bastardization of RTS.

@vampire_chibi: I mean.. I know I'm not looking to play old RTS games in VR like that lol I meant more along the lines of taking the C&C, Warcraft, or Age of Empires IPs and making cool new experimental VR ones. Purpose built for it.

I should also specify that I don't play RTS multiplayer stuff. I don't know or care about actions per minute or whatever. I want to go slow, turtle, build a pretty base and look at cool units blowing stuff up. I really liked Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun lol And I guess something like MechCommander is a turn-based thing, so that is technically not an RTS.

There have been some games with this VR perspective like AirMech, but they're all big, chunky, and simple. I want realistic looking terrain, effects, detailed units and such. Granted, VR has trouble doing details, but if it looks decent from afar and you can still stick your head way in there and see all the cool details, that might be good enough for me for now.

What I want? Give me this as Age of Empires VR..

To all the people pointing out Warhammer Total War - is that really an RTS? None of the strategy is real time. It has none of the genre stables. The battles are in real time, but even then, those battles don't really resemble the gameplay of RTS-games. At best that would be real time tactics. I love Warhammer Total War, and apparently it's been a huge success, but Total War always seemed like a seperate thing from RTSs.

I mean, that's basically the Total War franchise that you described. The campaign map has turn based gameplay but the battles are where the real time strategy components come from. It has RTS elements but its not entirely an RTS.

It definitely seems like the RTS genre as a whole has hit an all time low when it comes to notable releases. However, I wouldn't call it dead since we're still getting RTS game releases. Halo Wars 2 came out this year and we're not only getting digital expansions to Age of Empires II and Mythology, but AOE 4 is in development. Not to mention Dawn of War 3 and Starcraft Remastered came out this year. We have a few little known RTS games coming out like Tooth and Tail and Steel Division: Normandy 44.

Ive got my eye on Sudden Strike 4 on Steam. $50 though.. Little steep for something I'm not sure I want to play. There's also Blitzkrieg 3 which apparently came out of early access this year? Reviews make me unsure, and I've downloaded the demo but haven't tried it.

Steel Division: Normandy 44 I guess is the WW2 version of Wargame? Again, curious about this. Wargame stuff seems really cool but also very complicated. So many units with tiny variations.

Seems like there is plenty of WW2 strategy type stuff available this year lol

I did pick up the original Total War: Warhammer at release, but only played it a little. I think I laid siege to some Dwarf fortress, took that over, and that was enough for me. 3 hours according to Steam.

Yea, I do wish this whole genre got more attention on GB.

The Total War games are a mix of turn based and real time strategy. While the strategy part of the game is turn based I think the tactical/battle parts of the game are definitely RTS. It`s different from a lot of other RTs games (which is why I really like the series), but I think those parts are still RTS the same way ARMA is still an FPS even though it`s really different from COD.

The thing about RTS games is that they can be really fun for someone with a casual interest in a single player setting.

But the skill ceiling in multiplayer is so damn high that it may keep people from even bothering to try it. Hearing about Korean Starcraft players putting in 10 hours of practice a day could keep you from even trying the game and seeing how fun beating up a computer can be.

League of Legends and Dota 2 are absolutely real-time strategy games.

"Massive/Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" isn't a genre, it's a marketing buzzword coined by Riot games. The games existed before the buzzword. Suppose for a moment that this term was never coined. What genre would League and Dota belong to?

They're not RPGs, because you're not improving a persistent character. They're not action games, because you don't have direct control over your character. They're certainly not adventure games, because there's no narrative and no puzzles to solve.

It's a real-time game. You're strategizing with your teammates to defeat the opposing team. Real-time strategy is the only genre that makes sense.

Just because it doesn't have the trappings of real-time strategy games from the 90s doesn't mean it's a different thing.

@bonesyndicate: MOBAs sorta fall between two major traditional genres the way I see it. On one hand it's basically "What if Diablo had Team Deathmatch?", but on the other it has its roots from WC3 (which admittedly already was dabbling with blending RPG mechanics). I'm pretty comfortable with calling it a seperate genre at this point, as it has a fair amount of very insular features, but if anytning I'd rather call it an ARPG than an RTS. It just has so many of the core features, like killing enemies for loot, buying items to upgrade your character, XP gain leading to character advancement and a wide variety of character defining abilities as the core gameplay system. Sure, it's not persitent from game to game, but each game replicates the same exact gameplay curve you have in an ARPG, just extremely truncated down.

As for the strategizing part, it mostly stems from the fact that it's a team-based game. There's nothing astoundingly different there from what you see in other team-based games like CS or WoW Arena. While you see teams do general strategies like pushing towers or farming a late-game carry you don't see the kinda expertly tuned and extremely specific build orders and executions you see in Starcraft. MOBAs are just so much more about adaption, action and reaction than putting together intricate strategies.

ares42: "As for the strategizing part, it mostly stems from the fact that it's a team-based game. There's nothing astoundingly different there from what you see in other team-based games like CS or WoW Arena."

Yes, but counterstrike is a first-person shooter and world of warcraft is a roleplaying game. They both have clearly defined genres independent of the online multiplayer strategic element. League and dota don't have that.

I'm fine with saying it's a new genre, but it's definitely a sub-genre of the RTS. I think calling it an "action RTS" the same way we call Diablo an "action RPG" makes the most sense.

But because Diablo is an "action RPG", that doesn't mean it's "not an RPG". Likewise, an action RTS is still an RTS, the same way a bass guitar is still a guitar.

Maybe with the proliferation of ARTSs, we need a new term to refer specifically to games like Starcraft and Warcraft. I think "classic RTS" or "base-building RTS" would work.

I don't think it is. There haven't been a lot of great ones recently.
Almost all of the recent ones have had some issues.

None of the RTS games that are coming out interest me much aside from Total War: Warhammer 2. My go-to RTS is still Sins of a Solar Empire which came out in 2012.

Maybe Blizzard needs to make Warcraft 4 to revitalize the genre seeing as whenever they make a new game everyone else jumps on the wagon train.

It's not that complicated. Look at how video games in general have evolved over the years. The single player campagins for most games are 8-10 hours. Noone is going to spend time learning an rts just to play a 6 hour campaign. And they arent multiplayer viable anymore because of the way the esports community looks. Dota and LoL get the most proffesionalism / big money while streamers flock to games that require as little attention as possible (so a 1v1 rts game is out of the question). Also MOBAs aren't sub-genres of strategy game. Look at the way they play / their audience. Dota2 has more in commin with CS than SC2.

All I want is Generals 2/Zero Hour 2. Then I don't need another RTS game again ever.

I'm definitely one that has completely lost interest in the RTS genre. I have no intentions of ever going online with an RTS ever again. The ceiling for improvement in skill in RTS games was always massive, but it seems that once South Korea became visible to your average gamer, strategies and methods of playing changed so quickly as Western players adapted that I felt like the entire genre just left me behind in the dust. I was never going to attempt to play like them, so I just threw in the towel. It's intensive enough to learn RTS games because of the sheer amount of knowledge you need that is NOT directly related to inputs and reactions. Even more so than a fighting will ever be, watching other players to learn new strategies is absolutely required. You simply won't stumble upon every new strategy, tactic or trick on your own no matter how much you focus on one faction. But the straw that broke the camel's back was again, the method of playing that spread so quickly via South Korean RTS pro's.

Actually, I did try out Dawn of War 3 during its free weekend on Steam and for the first RTS game I've tried seriously playing in over a decade, I could barely keep up with even the simple fundamentals. So now there's the fact that I've lost much of my skill as the decades keep going by. Do I want to start from scratch again? I'm also older now. I could barely keep up with my many, many different units at different locations while managing a base and DoW3 is a game that has intentionally simplified that logistical and tactical load on players. I just can't go back anymore. That's why I loved Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. They were RTS games I could still play.

Of course, one controversial opinion I have is that I feel the controls of RTS games are still a hassle. Maybe that's due to my reasons stated above, but it is a nightmare maneuvering your armies who are holding multiple locations, more than one of which may be in combat while juggling between your units, using and targeting abilities from many different units all the while holding up your logistical backbone with resource gathering, exploring, scouting, expanding, upgrading and while simultaneously executing on an overall economic and army strategy that will have to change on the fly as you try to remember the counters, tactics and strategies that you read up on or watched from replays. This didn't seem to be as big of an issue when I was a kid playing Starcraft and C&C, so maybe it is my age plus the decade+ spent not touching RTS games. Either way, it's just too god damn much for my brain and fingers to handle now.

Also, I hate MOBA's. I think it's a bit too much of a stretch to say that MOBA's are the reason the RTS genre has faded. I think there are obviously ex-RTS players who've shifted to MOBA's, but to say that all RTS players jumped ship is too much of a stretch to cover the "death" of an ENTIRE genre. I think my post would probably sum up why a lot of people left and not all of them went to MOBA's, I'd imagine. They just went anywhere but back to RTS games. Likewise, the hurdles for new players is self explanatory. I don't think MOBA's are the only reason RTS games don't get new blood. The fact that they're a massive hill to climb is enough of a deterrent on its own.

Last big RTS i played was Dawn of War 3 big disappointment they went to much in the MOBA genre making something weird that didn't fit there playerbase. Definitely one of my most disappointing games of the year. And yeah as someone who despises MOBA's and everything they stand for. They sure took the lunch of all the RTS funding with just one big RTS coming to the horizon that new Age of Empires made by relic. It seems dire for one off my favorite genres. Also i wanna point out that Total War Games arn't RTS's there there own thing and i am ok with that.

@riotcontrol:I'm similar. I've had my fill of RTS. One thing I've come to realize with RTS games is that there are just way too many elements for the player to optimally control, even a superhuman Korean player with 300+ actions per minute. That's still not even remotely fast enough to micro-manage hundreds of units with individual skills and dozens of buildings spread across the entire map effectively. Yet I didn't mind when I was younger playing at my own snail pace, awkwardly controlling the game extremely sub-optimally and thinking I was fast just because I had all the keyboard shortcuts down and could scroll across the entire map really fast, until those superhuman players who were still playing the game very sub-optimally (but not nearly as sub-optimally as me) stepped into the scene.

At that point it really hit me hard that the game is ultimately a click-fest requiring superhuman mouse, keyboard, and multi-tasking skills while still controlling the game in an inferior way compared to someone who can do, say, 1,000,000 actions per minute, and at that point I realized that playing these games optimally requires you to be able to pull as many actions per minute as possible. The fantasy that you could kind of take it slow and easy and become an amazing player solely by rich, carefully-crafted strategy and tactics alone even if you could only do 60 APM, immediately died upon that realization.

It was always obvious that RTS games reward a speedy player, but I used to think all you needed was "sufficient" speed and the strategy and tactics would take on from there... until I played against an elite player doing hundreds of actions per minute. At that point I realized there's no such thing as "sufficient speed" within human reach. A player able to do 1,000 actions per minute would still tend to beat a player who can only do 200 actions per minute even if the latter has superior strategy and tactics and takes a little more time (even a fraction of a sec) to consciously think through his actions.

I'm back to loving turn-based strategy games more than ever now since they allow me to do what I wished I could do in RTS games and become an elite player while moving at my own pace and being able to take some time to think (even seconds) without being able to click and hit keys faster than I can even maximally blink in a minute. I'm no longer interested in making a Herculean attempt at individually controlling 200 different units in a game in a fraction of a second. I had my romantic fling with RTS games and played the hell out of them during the old C&C, Starcraft, and Warcraft days, and that fling ultimately made me love turn-based games more than ever before after I had my fill of RTS.

One game genre that I'd like to see resurrected though are FMV adventure games with naked ladies. That genre wasn't explored enough IMO.

Total War is still outputting new games a ton! This, and StarCraft 2 and Warcraft 3 still have pretty active and healthy communities!

Total War is coasting on the Warhammer license. They haven't improved the core mechanics or updated the graphics for a long time. What happens when the novelty of Warhammer wears off?

I'd say, yes, RTS is dead for now.

I've been having a great time playing They Are Billions. I certainly hope that RTS games make a comeback, it's one of my favourite genres.

It's only sleeping.

They may not look terribly familiar when it wakes up. Adventure games sure didn't.

Answer: No

Just because people like the duders on the Giant Bombcast aren't talking about RTS doesn't mean RTS are dead. There are tons of great RTS released every year but generally most people don't talk about them because they are not sexy and streamers don't fawn over them, generally (and let's be honest, for better or worse that is dictating what the general public talks about in gaming now it feels like). Classic western RPGs just like Baldur's Gate have a healthy number of releases on PC as do RTS...neither are dead.

Now a better argument to have is to ask if PC gaming is dead because clearly it is. /s

This is the problem with RTS. People that are hardcore about RTS want some crazy deep game that is endlessly repayable and challenging needing to know micros, maximize APM, etc. General gamer interest in RTS wants unique gameplay, cool abilities and "just enough" challenge. The fighting genre has done a better job in recent memory of bridging this similar gap, but RTS makers have not does as much. It's harder to get new players if the perception is that your game is impenetrable. The genre just needs to innovate it's thinking. With that said, I would totally be in for a Fallout RTS. Ghoul faction, Brotherhood Faction, Super Mutant Faction, Enclave, or a combination of those. Total War: Warhammer and Warhammer II have done a great job with keeping RTS alive though, they tell fairly compelling stories, introduce cool new characters, and the over world management makes the game interesting enough to keep me coming back.

after starcraft 2 went free to play i tried getting back into it. I just cant. Too much APM and micros and I just dont feel like doing that anymore. I would love love love for an RTS to come out with the strategy and gameplay done perfect without needing the insane APM and whatnot to be decent. Until then, Im out.

@tunaburn: So I'm like 3 missions in but am so far digging Homeworld: Desserts of Kharak. It's not just an apm/micro feast, but a bit slower paced. It appears to have a genuinely well told story with super cool rotoscope looking cutscenes.
Also they patched the game a couple of days ago and added a pause button (just like the old ones), so you can hit P and issue commands. I also picked up Men of War: Assault Squad 2 on the Steam sale after reading about just how committed that game is to simulating all kinds of physics stuff. Seams neat, will dig into come December.

Just as casual games are taking an increasing market share away from hardcore gaming, so too do MOBAs take away from RTS.

I remember thinking Company of Heroes was doing a lot of innovative things and streamlining the resource gathering, but nobody seemed to play it online.