-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
It's 20 years old, but Age of Empires II is still the best RTS on the market today
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
It was probably a top 10 RTS of the 90's but it's aged like milk..Slow and tedious. Singleplayer is ok if you want to kill some time, but multiplayer is a god damn slug and multiplayer is always where the RTS genre has been at it's best.
Yup the multiplayer is the key in determining the best RTS game. Your micro + macro management gets put to the test. All the systems and mechanics are showcased to its maximum potential.
Indeed. I was a huge fan. I may have sunk more hours into Empire Earth. Probably due to the Nano Age. I fricken loved that shit.
Nothing like wiping out medieval castles with an army of mechs.
Nothing like wiping out medieval castles with an army of mechs.
I completely disagree, multiplayer makes RTS games entirely too much about dexterity where as that has only ever been a small part of the equation for the genre outside of MP. The strategy part of things gets trampled to the sidelines in favor of execution, so your statement is highly debatable.
Seriously, I want to know if OP is going to try and swallow AoE4.
Gotta ask which RTS games you played to come to this conclusion because sorry, this is not a very accurate assesment of multiplayer RTS at all. There's so much depth to it and you manage to dumb it down in 2 lines.
Yes execution is key, but it includes many factors to have great execution, it's not a singular thing and heck it even includes strategy. You need not one but all of these - Know your races and units upsides and downsides and it counters, build orders, map control, scouting, reading your opponent, micro management, macro management, resource management, timing and much more.
I disagree with the bolded. You could say this for the single player portion of an RTS as well and it's actually worse, but regardless... there are many ways where strategy is prevalent in multiplayer. One can plan tower rushes, fast expansions, and if your playing with allies, you donate most of your resources at the start in order to obtain a dominate early game advantage(popular in WC3) . This is all depending on matchups(races/mirror matches) and scouting of course which by the way is another integral part in RTS strategy . Strategy usually takes form in the early phases of the game. But you are also right, it's how you excute that will determine if your plan is successful or not. Just something to consider...
Yea I was thinking the same...
This, quake 3, action quake II, and UT99, were the 4 games we played constantly at my weekly lan parties. I have a ton of love for AoE II. Amazing game.
That said, yeah, Starcraft and especially brood war are the best IMO. And that's not nostalgia talking, I played both campaigns for the first time just a couple of years ago. Never played them BITD. They're just really, really good.
That said, yeah, Starcraft and especially brood war are the best IMO. And that's not nostalgia talking, I played both campaigns for the first time just a couple of years ago. Never played them BITD. They're just really, really good.
I used to play games against the AI from cavemen right up to spaceships for days, just to crush them in about 2 minutes at the end lol
Rise of Nations is the best rts game ever made imo. There's so much smart design decisions that were made in that game. It combines the best parts of civilization and age of empires. Also that Risk tabletop style of campaign with turn based decision but real time battles was amazing
Competitively all I ever played was Starcraft and Warcraft 3. Mostly Starcraft in the early aughts when I was still a young gal! You guys are misreading my point by assuming I meant that strategy is irrelevant in mp when that is not the case at all, it merely becomes hostage to one's dexterity, I literally couldn't physically keep up with the game to be able to perform adequately in multiplayer in any way and trying to improve in such a regard killed the fun of RTSs for me personally, a genre I love for it's strategic nature became something else entirely. For those who enjoy competitive RTS I assume that's precisely the point, you get to have the strategic gameplay you know and love as well as a dexterity challenge, thus making the gameplay loop that much more satisfying... but I think it's highly debatable to say mp is where RTS games truly shine since for me and I assume alot of others that difference in approach mp requires isn't as rewarding to playthrough for games of this ilk.
Not that I don't appreciate a good dexterity challenge, mind! Competitive fighting games and FPSs are 100% my jam and we all know just how essential execution is in those... I just don't appreciate such requirements when playing RTSs.
Quick disclaimer, I do love me some RTS multiplayer when played casually and leisurely with friends, I just dislike them when played to be seriously competitive.
I agree. It's one that aged so well and the Shelby Cobra army taking down castle will always be one of my favorite moments in that game
OP
OP
Red Alert 2 is better imo.
Rise of Nations is the most underrated RTS ever and more people should have played it.
But I agree Age 2 is really really good.
Rise of Nations is the most underrated RTS ever and more people should have played it.
But I agree Age 2 is really really good.
I played Age of Empires II so much back in the day. I never sold my copy, but I have no idea where it disappeared to.
Its mostly because the HD and Definitive Edition aren't just UI updates from the original release, there has been a lot of improvements, features and content.
A very good benchmark of how old games should be re-mastered and then released, not just slap on a compatible UI and making sure that the game just runs in full screen.
A very good benchmark of how old games should be re-mastered and then released, not just slap on a compatible UI and making sure that the game just runs in full screen.
If this is how you see it, then that's it. But I dont agree. To me what you are describing you enjoy I would compare to not being able to use all buttons in fighting games or all weapons i FPS to remove a huge part of the difficulty heh :P
This.
I do consider these to be the "Big Three" but Brood War takes the crown:
- Starcraft Brood War
- Command & Conquer Red Alert 2
- Age of Empires 2
As much as I love AoE 2 it's such a weird jack-of-all trades to me. It has the civilization developing thing and feels very much like a super light city builder at times, and then the combat on top of all that. Personally I prefer Rise of Nations for that kind of "mix". If I want pure tactical combat rts I tend to prefer the company of heroes games.
And if I want city building I prefer the Anno series.
Oh and for those who hate the hyper focus on apm there is Northgaard which is absolutely fantastic.
All that having been said AoE 2 DE is a great game that gives me a nice nostalgic feeling.
And if I want city building I prefer the Anno series.
Oh and for those who hate the hyper focus on apm there is Northgaard which is absolutely fantastic.
All that having been said AoE 2 DE is a great game that gives me a nice nostalgic feeling.
TBH I think most players take the the same position, and that's part of the reason multiplayer RTS has largely died off. The thing is though it's in the nature of the genre, the fact it's real time always means there is going to be a time pressure/execution level to playing it. Single player/bot matches just don't have that requirement because the AI is usually slow and made for you to beat, but online having to compete against real people makes it a completely different game.
It's sad to me because I loved that aspect of the games, but multiplayer gaming on a whole across all genres has trended towards player comfort and low skill floors to ease people into it with low pressure, and RTS multiplayer being real time with time pressures is basically the antithesis of that so it makes sense why it died off.
I always stuck with Blizzard RTS games - War3 and Starcraft especially. I admit that I didn't know what I was doing when I played AOE (not sure if it was 1 or 2), but the focus on things like harvesting whales and berries seemed to slow down the pace. I'd love to go back and give it a try sometime.
I'd love to hear more about what makes Pikmin 3 the best RTS. I tried the first two, but didn't end up finishing either in the end. Is 3 a big improvement on the first two? Is it worth tracking down?
I'd love to hear more about what makes Pikmin 3 the best RTS. I tried the first two, but didn't end up finishing either in the end. Is 3 a big improvement on the first two? Is it worth tracking down?
I'd say it's about on par with 2, myself... but that's because I absolutely love 2 as well! If the first two didn't do it for you I very much doubt the third one will change your mind, sadly.
I liked them, but I think the fact that you couldn't save mid-day or while you were down a cave hurt things for me. I don't usually have time for long gaming sessions.
Nothing's changed in that regard, unfortunately. Although I myself do enjoy it that way.
I'll have to wait until Pikmin 4 is on switch (and until I have a switch) so I can use sleep mode to take breaks.
Hmmmmm. This is absolutely debatable.
The custom map scenes in the Blizzard RTS games since the original StarCraft made me put thousands of hours into those games. Age of Empires, on the other hand... I never could get quite so much into that series. Something about the pacing and the constant juggling of four different resources makes it feel too macro heavy for me.
The simplicity of StarCraft's gas and mineral system just jives better with what I want from these games, I think. Resource management just isn't all that exciting to me. It's funny, too, thinking about the fact that each race is unique in SC yet I find it easier to grasp than AoE 2's crazy civilization palooza. Maybe I just need to give it more time, but...
The custom map scenes in the Blizzard RTS games since the original StarCraft made me put thousands of hours into those games. Age of Empires, on the other hand... I never could get quite so much into that series. Something about the pacing and the constant juggling of four different resources makes it feel too macro heavy for me.
The simplicity of StarCraft's gas and mineral system just jives better with what I want from these games, I think. Resource management just isn't all that exciting to me. It's funny, too, thinking about the fact that each race is unique in SC yet I find it easier to grasp than AoE 2's crazy civilization palooza. Maybe I just need to give it more time, but...
