The RTS Genre and What Killed It

This is how it all began. What you see here is an oscilloscope hooked up to a homebrew computer system and two analog sticks. It was called Tennis for Two and used for developing and playing what is probably the first video game ever, also called Tennis for Two, in 1958.Because programming a complex and challenging AI was way ahead of then-current technology's capabilities, Tennis for Two was, as the name implies and much like many other early video games made up until the mid-seventies, a multiplayer only game. A simple tennis simulator, the goal, and rules were constructed after the popular sport.

Was it simple? Yes.

Was it repetitive? Yes.

Was it primitive? Oh yes.

But what it also did was spawn a whole new form of entertainment and, as some people would declare, especially nowadays, art. Fast forward to 1980 and we have a whole industry devoted to creating these games. That industry is also split in two: There's the PC gaming industry, relatively new and fresh, but filled with potential, and the console gaming industry, the tried-and-true supplier of home video games that players have been relying on ever since the first gaming console, the Magnavox Odyssey, came out in 1972.

What this split would create soon enough was a split in genres, too.PC games were typically members of either the Adventure, Strategy, or hardcore Simulation genres whilst the most popular console titles at the time were Shoot-em-ups, Platformers, and other fast-paced arcade-style games. This would, of course, change over time. For example, Role-playing Games (RPGs), though originally a "PC genre", would creep over to consoles soon enough, specifically after the 1983/84 video game crash.

However, there were a couple of genres that, even to this day, have largely stayed on one end of the split. One that would immediately come to mind are simulators, whose complex control schemes simply don't work on any handheld console controller.But another one is the Strategy genre. Think about it: How many strategy games have you played on a console so far?My guess is not more than three at best.

But yet, strategy games prove to be immensely popular to this day.Think of Civilization, the Total War series, and other great, multi-million-dollar franchises. On the other hand, it's not hard to see how one specific subset of the strategy genre is way past its prime. Real-Time strategy.

The RTS sub-genre began in 1989, and on a console, weirdly enough. Yes, the first RTS ever released was Herzog Zwei, a Japanese Sega Genesis game made by then-popular game studio Technosoft. The sequel to a prototype called Herzog released for the Japan-only MSX computer system, Herzog Zwei ("Zwei" being German for "Two") brought a great many new ideas to the home gaming table, most of which were unfortunately ignored, though, as the marketing for the game, especially in Europe and the Americas, was barely existent. Sales were lackluster and many people forgot about it entirely. That is not a reason at all, though, to ignore its merits. What was so special about Herzog Zwei, then?

Unlike almost all other strategy games of the period, which were turn-based, like board games, with each player taking consecutive turns in a certain order, Herzog Zwei was played in real time, meaning all your game decisions were not just made constantly, but also at the same time as your opponent. A genius and tricky to develop concept at the time, this laid the groundwork for all future RTS titles.

Of course, nowadays, RTS and turn-based strategy games are recognized as two separate sub-genres, but back then, a game like Herzog Zwei would have been called a "Strategy game with real-time control elements" or something along the lines of that, at least.

At this point, it might be necessary to introduce a glossary of important strategy game terms for those readers among you uninitiated into the genre. Most of these were coined by Herzog Zwei and games closely following its formula.

1. Unit

A unit is generally any form of a constructible or purchasable object that is mobile and can interact with other objects. Almost always, units have to be given orders to do anything specific. Units will have to be built or bought, often in a facility specialized for that action, before they can be used. The player often starts only with utility units that can not fight and are only useful for collecting resources.

2: Base

The base is the player's fortress, so to speak, harboring multiple elements necessary for playing the game, like the facilities for building/buying units, for example. If the base is destroyed, the player has pretty much lost already, even if he still possesses some remaining units. That's why many RTSs make it the object of the game to destroy the base.

How bases are treated varies from game to game.

Generally speaking, the earliest RTS titles forced the player to use a pre-built base whilst some later releases don't even have a clear definition of what constitutes a 'base' and let the player design his / her own.

3: Facility

Like a unit, but not mobile. Oftentimes, facilities do their jobs without needing any specific orders, as well. They may have weapons, but traditionally, facilities are part of the base and need to be defended rather than used for attacking the enemy. Of course, there are also exceptions to this, like artillery installations, for example, which count as facilities but possess considerable tactical power.

4: Resources

Largely self-explanatory, resources are fictional items or currencies with which the player's arsenal can be expanded. The maintenance of a good resource flow and the resulting economy is a big aspect in many RTSs.

In 1992, a release followed that would become the quintessential RTS game for the majority of the people who played it, a release that was so influential in the creation of the RTS sub-genre that many to this day refer to it as the first true real-time strategy title. Of course, I am talking about Dune II for MS-DOS home computers, later ported to many home consoles and other computer systems in the mid-nineties.

Dune II, based on the 1984 movie, became the archetype for almost all following RTS games, the grandfather of the genre, so to speak.

As such, it is important that we take a deep look into its game mechanics to understand how the genre worked in '92 and, consequently, today.

In Dune II, the player is cast against a strong AI-controlled military force, with some command over his / her own army, as well. The object of the game is to destroy the enemy player's forces completely. A first step necessary for achieving this goal is to collect a natural resource called the Spice. This can be done with harvesting vehicles, which are often provided to the player from the get-go. With these harvesters, the Spice can be collected, ferried to the player's home base, and then converted into money. The money, in turn, is used to purchase combat or utility units that can help the player destroy the enemy, collect more Spice or collect it at a faster rate. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds. The enemy player can ambush your harvester convoy and destroy them, ridding you of a portion of or even all your Spice income. You can do the same to them, of course.

Tactical elements like these are what made Dune II such a blast to play in the first place.

Dune II - Great Beginnings

As you can see, Dune II was played from a top-down view and featured 2D graphics only. The game's control scheme and interface would later become the foundation for many, if not all major RTSs from the late 90s onward. On the right-hand side, building, repairing, upgrading and deconstruction options are shown for various installations or units the player may have built or got access to. The available options depend on various factors, like what the player has currently selected or if he already has built a certain type of unit or structure, for example. At the top of the screen, the player's money (Credits), an options menu and a menu for game tips (Mentat) can be viewed or accessed. Below that, notices and warnings concerning the player's decisions are shown. And in between all of this is a large window showing a graphical representation of the ongoing game. Unlike many PC games of the era, but much like many future RTSs, Dune II was controlled using both the mouse and keyboard, with the cursor used to select various in-game items.

The game quickly became not just a best-seller, but was critically acclaimed and gained worldwide recognition for its then-unique gameplay and concept.

The next big release followed in 1995 with Command & Conquer, often shortened to CnC or C&C, developed by Westwood Studios, the creators of Dune II, for both DOS and the then-new Windows 95 OS. Unlike the previous Westwood game, CnC was a whole new IP. However, it built on many of the technical and gameplay aspects of its spiritual predecessor.

The game's production value skyrocketed compared to Dune II, as Command & Conquer ran on CDs, which meant full-motion video cutscenes, filmed using real-life actors, props et al, were used to convey the game's story. This storyline could branch into different missions and even multiple endings depending on the player's decisions. Also, the game featured a soundtrack composed by the now-legendary Frank Klepacki, which would become just as famous and loved as Command & Conquer itself.

Command & Conquer - The Next Generation

As you can see, CnC featured much higher-fidelity graphics compared to its predecessor, including a new isometric view instead of the top-down perspective known from Dune II. This would mean increased visibility, realism and playability and would also become the RTS genre's preferred camera perspective for quite a while. Still, the general layout remained:Although the object of the game was no longer always to destroy the enemy forces, the means of doing so were still the same:

Gathering a resource, called Tiberium in this case, with the help of specialized units, then shipping that resource to the player's home base, refining it and using it to buy other units to win the game.However, CnC is known for being a lot more in-depth in terms of gameplay compared to the few previous titles in the genre. This largely boils down to a much larger selection of units and structures, as well as increased amounts of freedom when it comes to building and expanding your base. The only change resulting in less fidelity really was the reduction of playable factions to just two, the GDI and Brotherhood of Nod.

In Dune II, there were three so-called 'Houses' to choose from, but Westwood justified the reduction by saying that they wanted to make each faction more unique in terms of how their tactics and playing style functioned, which meant reducing the number of playable ones in the end. It certainly worked, as only a few CnC players feel equally comfortable playing GDI or Nod, thanks to the many differences between the two. When you look at the right-hand side of a typical Command & Conquer game like above and compare it to Dune II, you'll notice there's a lot more going on. Not only is there a new tactical mini-map feature, but the unit construction screen is now filled to the brim, with icons alone in place to represent units instead of large images, buttons, and descriptions to save precious screen space at the low resolutions the game was played on.

Command & Conquer would later become one of the most popular real-time strategy games ever, thanks in large part to its many sequels, the first of which was released as an add-on to the original game in 1996, only a year after its predecessor. It was titled Command & Conquer: Red Alert and featured slightly changed graphics, a different storyline but identical gameplay. Later, this add-on would spawn its own line of sequels, each separate from the 'main' CnC games and following the story and lore established by the original Red Alert, often called 'CnC: RA' or just 'RA' by fans.

Just one year after that, in 1997, yet another phenomenal, genre-defining strategy game was released, Total Annihilation. Like Command & Conquer, it was a sci-fi themed RTS with a unique storyline and its own lore, as well as multiple interesting and never before seen game mechanics.

Total Annihilation - Changing the Paradigm

Advances in graphics allowed Total Annihilation to feature higher-resolution graphics, which is the main reason for the screen above looking less cluttered and for the control elements, on the left-hand side unlike in Westwood's games, appearing smaller. Speaking of controls, Total Annihilation allowed for new tactical opportunities by letting the player control his / her units in a much more intricate fashion. In previous RTS titles, control over mobile units was limited to two commands: Attack something or go somewhere. Total Annihilation expanded the selection of orders to a total of ten, ranging from reclaiming (that is, destroying a unit and harvesting the resources it's made of) to capturing other units, using the enemy's weapons against them, or patrolling, which is exactly what it sounds like: A certain schedule of movements or actions that is repeated endlessly until the order is changed.

But orders alone were only one element that Total Annihilation innovated upon. For example, this was one of the earliest RTSs to feature more than one resource. In Total Annihilation, there are two: Energy and Metal.Metal is similar to the Tiberium from CnC or the Spice in Dune II, as it is harvested from certain locations on the map using specialized units and used by the player for building further units. The major difference here is that Metal in Total Annihilation is not transported by mobile vehicles, but harvested from minerals below the ground by refineries and pumps. Therefore, Metal income is instantaneous as you don't have to wait for any transports to arrive at your base. This also counts for energy, the second resource, which is created using specific facilities called Generators. These facilities can be placed anywhere, but should your enemy learn of where you are keeping them, they can be easily destroyed.

Energy is used by all sorts of machinery to keep it running. Thus, you need a combination of Metal and Energy to survive any sort of engagement in Total Annihilation. Due to the game's more sophisticated nature, the top interface not only tells you how much of each resource you have but also at which rate you are gaining or losing these resources. The reason for this is that in Total Annihilation, units and structures alike are not bought, but built.

This means that, unlike in Command & Conquer, for example, you don't 'pay' with all the necessary resources for any given unit at once and simply wait for the unit to get 'delivered', but give construction units the order to build it, after which the necessary resources are deducted from your pool at a steady rate until the completion of the build process. For example, if a unit costs 600 Metal to produce and if the whole process takes one minute, you will loose some 10 Metal every second during construction. Therefore, it is not only important to keep an eye on how many resources you have, but also on how fast you are getting them.

And finally, Total Annihilation's probably greatest contribution to RTS game mechanics is its engine. While it is 2D and isometric, like Command & Conquer's, it features variable terrain height, a first for strategy games of this type. This means that, when firing artillery shells over a long distance, you have to keep an eye on tall mountains that might be in the way so that your shots don't collide with the terrain. Similarly, you can use the terrain to your advantage, by attacking the enemy from above where they might not be able to hit you, for example. All of this made Total Annihilation one of the most complex RTS games of its time, and certainly worthy of a spot in any strategy game-themed Hall of Fame.

Though the CnC series continued in 1999 with Tiberian Sun, which added many elements introduced in Total Annihilation, a far more groundbreaking title was released that very year. That game was called Homeworld, and it would father a whole new generation of RTSs.

At face value, and without looking at the game's visuals, Homeworld might seem a little too similar to previous RTS games. For example, it only features one universal resource, which is harvested by specialized mobile units and has to be brought back to a base and used for the construction—not purchase—of further units. Also, it features but two faction options, only one of which is even canonical within the game's story. But all that becomes meaningless when you get into Homeworld's big selling point.

Homeworld - Saga of a Star World

Yes, this is exactly what it looks like. Not only was Homeworld the first ever space-themed RTS, being originally conceived as a game based on Battlestar Galactica, it was also the first RTS featuring full 3D graphics.The visuals weren't just for show, either. The game allowed you to move your units in all 3 dimensions via a unique control scheme incorporating both the mouse and keyboard at all times. As you can probably imagine, this allowed for never before seen tactics. Upon its release, many players, even hardcore RTS fans, struggled with Homeworld due to the unique concept of a three-dimensional, tactics-focused game as well as its now-infamous difficulty level. They all came to the same conclusion, whether they liked the game or not: 3D RTSs play a whole lot differently from traditional, two-dimensional titles, so much so that they might as well be treated as separate sub-genres.

Let's look at Homeworld's mechanics in more detail. As you can see above, the game's HUD and user interface were hidden during normal gameplay to reduce clutter. The traditional construction menu was gone, replaced by a whole construction screen that was accessed via the taskbar, a small bar that could be revealed by moving the mouse cursor towards the lower end of the screen.

Let's look at the taskbar in more detail.

Taskbar

As you can see, the taskbar features both a couple of tick boxes, representing orders, health and resource information about the currently selected unit as well as an array of buttons. The leftmost button, Sensors, activated the Sensors screen, a sort of 3D map of the current level that not only gave you a tactical view of your surroundings, but also the opportunity to give orders to units whilst looking down on the action from afar. Like in the main game view, the camera in the Sensors screen could be rotated along all three axes to accommodate many different perspectives in the difficult 3D environment.

The next button, labeled Build, accessed the aforementioned build screen, which displayed the list of currently available constructible units, a 3D representation of each of them, the resources necessary to build them as well as the building queue. This queue was a fundamental part of Homeworld's gameplay as it meant that, unlike in Total Annihilation, you didn't need to keep too much attention to the rate of your resource income as you could only construct one unit at a time. Ordering multiple units to be built simply elongated the queue. Thus, the most important thing to stay aware of about resources in Homeworld during the game was whether you had enough of them.

The next button, Research, accessed the Research screen. This screen was visually similar to the Build screen but contained different kinds of information. Here, provided you have a so-called Research vessel available, you could research new technologies and units to build. Researching typically took quite a while and some resources, so it's important to choose wisely, as one piece of research missing at the wrong time could mean a big disadvantage in the game.

Finally, there's the launch button, used to control which units stay inside the mothership and which don't. Smaller units can dock at the mothership for refueling and repair, but larger units won't benefit from this bonus, often possess unlimited fuel and will have to be repaired using other means. Even larger ones cannot dock with the mothership at all.Adding to the unique gameplay opportunities provided by the taskbar, Homeworld featured a few other unique elements that shaped the genre for the years to come. One of these were formations. As controlling units in a 3D space proved to be quite difficult, multiple units could be grouped together in one of six formations. The selected units would then fly in a certain pattern and arrange their speed so that no single unit would lag behind. Custom formations could also be created.

Another unique feature was that of Tactics. There were three types of Tactics available, Neutral, Evasive and Aggressive. Each of these could be applied to any unit possessing weaponry. Evasive made a unit trade in firing power for added maneuverability, whilst Aggressive did the opposite, sacrificing speed for some added punch. The Neutral setting was a compromise between the two. Though this might sound like nothing more than a little gimmick, the Tactics feature proved to be one of the most enjoyable parts of playing the game, as finding out which enemy was most vulnerable to which Tactics when pitted against which unit or formation gave the player not only tons of options and freedom, but a lot of room for planning and strategic decision-making. Not to mention it favored re-playing the game in order to find out the best solution to any given engagement.

Add to all this a great story, professional voice acting, one of the best soundtracks in gaming at the time, top-notch graphics, an in-house physics engine incorporating ballistics and many familiar elements taken from CnC and Total Annihilation and it's not hard to see how Homeworld became a genre-defining masterpiece in the world of strategy gaming.

From the Turn of the Millennium till Today - Total Annihilation

Enter the 2000s, and the genre is slowly reaching stagnation.

It feels like everything that could possibly be innovative has been thought of already, and truly new releases are far and few between.

Instead, RTS developers are mostly focused on expanding their existent series and franchises. Don't get me wrong, there were some excellent games made during this period. For example, CnC flourished like never before, with both the spin-off Red Alert series and the main Tiberium War series gaining a lot of traction. A second spin-off, which unfortunately didn't get any sequels, called Command & Conquer: Generals, followed Homeworld's template and transported the franchise into 3D territory, albeit slightly differently thanks to the absence of outer space in CnC's gameplay. All of these were excellent entries in the franchise, in no way inferior to the older, pre-2000 games.

Similarly, Homeworld developed into its own, fleshed-out series as well, getting an add-on called Cataclysm in 2000 and a very successful sequel, Homeworld 2, in 2003. Again, both of these were great games, worthy of their name, but neither of them really re-invented the wheel as Homeworld did.

Furthermore, in 2007, Chris Taylor, the creator of Total Annihilation, returned with a new game called Supreme Commander, lovingly called SupCom by its fans, a 3D re-imagining of his original title. Featuring more up-to-date mechanics, some of the best graphics of the time and a few small features that could be considered innovations, like the ability to chain orders, for example, the game became a great hit among RTS fans and spawned a stand-alone add-on as well as a mediocre sequel titled Supreme Commander 2.

Probably the 'newest' release during this decade was Company of Heroes, an excellent small-scale RTS focusing on squad tactics and set in World War 2. Thanks to the semi-unique setting and resulting gameplay options, the game introduced quite a few new ideas, like destructible, deformable terrain and a fairly distinctive, CnC-inspired methodology for hiring units.

Now, I know the question lingering in your mind:

"Even if that's true, who says it has to be a bad thing?"

Unfortunately, there is no definite answer to this question.

However, we can look at the current state of the genre and make a conclusion based on that.

Ten years after Company of Heroes and Supreme Commander, the current lack of innovation is truly sickening. While the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' attitude that stuck with most developers during the 2000s already proved to be a nuisance for players looking to be wowed by new concepts as they were in the 90s, the 2010s are a black hole in terms of RTS development.

The Command & Conquer series is dead, probably forever, its last installment having been released in 2010 and Westwood Studios closed down by EA; Chris Taylor has moved on, probably taking the Supreme Commander / Total Annihilation series with him to its grave and Relic Entertainment, the developers of the Homeworld series, have been bought off by Gearbox. Although a semi-successful spin-off title called Deserts of Kharak was released last year, it's unlikely that Gearbox will want to return to the series' glory days anytime soon, fearing the negative backlash from fans who will, of course, expect a game as fresh and innovative as one made by the late Relic.

Small amounts of hope surfaced during the past few years, with Planetary Annihilation, for example, a Supreme Commander-style game that tried to innovate on the concept by adding multiple planets per level to fight on, or Ashes of the Singularity, also evoking memories of SupCom, that mainly tried to interest players with its top-notch graphics and physics.

Neither of these was anything that could even be remotely called successful, both of them were rehashes of older classics with but a few well-placed gimmicks and both of them were released in an unoptimized, barely playable state that disillusioned many hopeful buyers.

Similar attempts at reinvigorating the genre were made with Grey Goo, for example, a sci-fi RTS developed by former Westwood employees.

The game was well-made but didn't really bring anything new to the table, was too short, didn't have enough content or polish and is now largely forgotten.

Add to that the fact that no smaller, newer game studios currently have any interest in making RTSs, citing the genre's unprofitability, and you would be right in declaring the Real-time strategy game to be dead.

But why is that?

Well, you can answer that yourself, actually.

All the pieces have been laid out for you right here.

You now know the (abridged version of) RTS history so far, including the current state of the genre. It couldn't be too hard to add two and two together, now, could it?

Still having trouble?

Let me sum it up.

Basically, the current state real-time strategy games are in has a lot to do with its initial boom in the mid-to-late-nineties. The resulting stagnation was a result of that boom, much like the Great Depression serves only as a testament to how important and exciting the Roaring Twenties were.

That stagnation, though it did result in a lot of excellent releases, also meant that the RTS was continuously becoming a niche genre.

As games like Supreme Commander were best enjoyed if you already had a good idea about, or, even better, some experience with the genre, new players found it hard to join the 'RTS club'. Soon, developers would discover that this meant dwindling sales and there you go.

The total annihilation of an entire subset of gaming.

Pun intended.