Ragdoll Metaphysics: Why Real Time Strategy Is The Genre Of The Year

Suddenly, almost out of nowhere, real-time strategy was the most important genre in the games store. Over there a Halo Wars placard, behind me the launch rack filled with the localised embossing of Empire: Total War (above), and on the shelf next to where a pretty girl has been looking bored: a copy of Pikmin Wii.
When I get back to the office I'll be interviewing the lead designer of World In Conflict - which is being relaunched for the Ubisoft ownership - and then I'll probably play some more of minor Russian epic, Men Of War. Or perhaps I'll get on with messing around in the Battleforge beta - EA's mix of card-gaming and real-time fantasy warfare.
Sure, there's PC bias to all this, but there are copies of Red Alert 3 and EndWar sat amid the stack of green plastic atop my busy little 360 too. The real-time strategy is reaching out into every platform, and into the collection of every gamer. The avalanche of RTS games that began before Christmas seems to be picking up momentum as we enter 2009: they're exploding out of every orifice in the games industry.

And you don't need to give a damn about base-building or resource management to be enticed, either: strategy is more action than ever, and the top slots of the charts are there to prove it. The last couple of weeks have been dominated by everyone I know playing Relic's maximalist squad combat offering, Dawn Of War II. Can a third person combat game really call itself real-time strategy? Yes, it really can. But it's also very close to being Diablo-with-squads. There's no denying it: strategy is now as much about the fluidity of moment-to-moment violence as a hack 'n' slash.
So what is going on? Since when did ordering tiny men to their deaths become the hottest thing in gaming? I suspect it's a McLuhanesque ratio of the senses thing. It's a ratio of the genres. Every so often the ratio shifts, and one of the genres becomes the focus of design evolution, and gets all the ideas in one place.
That means it also becomes the focus of gamer attention, and our collective consciousness becomes more geared towards a particular style of play. We're just in a real-time strategy place right now, and we will be until the ration shifts. This year has been the time for real-time strategies to mature, and present their new wave of ideas. They are in the ascendent, and they're pouring into our global gamer consciousness like hot-keyed ants.
Notice, though, that with the exception of Halo Wars - which hearkens from a franchise I suspect most gamers have heard of - most of these games are sequels of some form or another. This, I suspect, is the reason for their proliferation and their apparent success. The work of many companies, spanning many years, is all colliding with 2009. The sudden surge of real-time strategy games, and the apparent success of so many of them, is a concrete example of what Ed Stern was talking about in the last Ragdoll Metaphysics: the importance of eschewing originality, and building on familiar tropes. The real-time strategy storm of 2009 is a matter of evolution, rather than innovation.
The games I'm playing right now are all examples of building on previous successes. Men of War, the brilliant Russian World War II game, has iterated several times, via Faces Of War, and Heroes Of World War II, and brings us a game where direct control of units and destructible environments combine to create a brutal, enthralling battlefield experience. The latest tier of technology enables it to take a few more steps towards verisimilitude, and a few more steps into the simulation of a battlefield.
World In Conflict is another clear descendent of previous generations. Relaunching for 2009 and their new publisher, WiC represents a direct sequel to the first of the 3D base-free tactical games, Ground Control. Its parachuting reinforcements, free camera, and tactical teamplay, are all found in embryonic form in the Ground Control games - the previous work of Swedish studio Massive Entertainment.
Dawn Of War II treads a similar path: attempting to articulate its Warhammer 40K heritage, while at the same time recombining its genetics with those of World Of Warcraft: loot, experience, XP, inventories. The crucial thing to realise is that these games are great, without being particularly original. Nothing in Dawn Of War is entirely new or particularly original, and yet it is all brilliant. It is a matter of recombining what worked before, into something better.
Empire: Total War is probably the most acute example of this. Of course only one half of a Total War game is actually real-time (the other being a turn-based campaign map), but the lesson is no less true. Each iteration of the Total War series (perhaps with the exception of Medieval II) has been a sculpture into which more detail has been carved. The form, the subject, is always very similar, but proficiency of the rendering is vastly improved. Empire's sea and land battles reflect both the leap of technical proficiency made by the designers, and the tactical innovation of the era they are intending to portray - the 18th century. The model of combat demands more from the tactical brain of their players, while never deviating from the original blueprint.
(And perhaps gaming generally can be seen as a sculptural medium: each iteration in a series is chipping away at the same kind of block, with the same flaws and grains defining how the final piece will look. And yet as the years progress the hand of the sculptor becomes steadier, and his tools become more refined. Games are, each time they are unveiled, revealing more detail. My comrade in game criticism John Walker adds: "The adventure game would be the example that was carved to perfection in the 90s, but then people kept chipping away at it, trying to make it better, leaving something fragile and meaningless.")
I digress. My point is that 2009 might well benefit from a lack of originality. Empire could be Game Of The Year, and yet it is just a feature-creeped version of a previous masterpiece. If real-time strategy is going to dominate 2009 - as it looks set to - then it will do so not because of incredible inventiveness, but because of solid competence and an understand of what worked in the past.
Hell, the list of real-time proliferation hasn't even begun to run dry, either: Gas Powered's hero-RTS Demigod beta (left) is currently in progress - a game that is directly inspired by Warcraft 3 supermod Defense Of The Ancients. The Company Of Heroes expansion is about to arrive, much to the joy of chomping Relic fans, and later this year we'll be seeing the Sequel Daddy of strategy come home: Starcraft 2.
Blizzard's multi-chapter sci-fi monstrosity is going to land in a hurricane of hyperbole (I'd rumour the release date if I thought I could get away with it), but it's probably the safe to say that it's going to be fairly popular, and effortlessly playable. This will be nothing to do with innovation, and everything to do with lessons learned, and an original success evolved. Blizzard's big game for the year epitomises everything else that's going on in the most important genre of 2009.
Finally, well, this is probably going to be rubbish, but did anyone miss the video for Stalin Vs Martians? The only original RTS idea this year, and it looks terrible... We'll pick up this theme again in the next column, when I talk to Darwinia-creators, Introversion.
[Jim Rossignol is an editor at RockPaperShotgun.com and the author of This Gaming Life, an account of the life of modern videogames and some of the people who play them. Ragdoll Metaphysics is his Offworld column exploring and analyzing gaming's vast world of esoterica.]
Previously:
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Quake Wars designer Ed Stern on Blind Luck ...
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Good Grief, The Victory Of Eve's Space Goons ...
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Memories of 2003, or Why We Need Planetside ...
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Soap Opera & The Sims - Offworld
Ragdoll Metaphysics: 2008 And The Indie Renaissance - Offworld
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Ten Things That Made Me Glad To Be A Gamer In ...
Ragdoll Metaphysics: Left 4 Dead, The Thinking Man's Braindead Shooter - Offworld




Doctor Popular
#1 – 4:22 PM March 11, 2009
Great article, I'm really looking forward to trying some of these new RTSs out. But I gotta say, Stalin Vs Martians looks awesome... I can't even imagine where you are coming from in that paragraph. The game play may not be the most innovative (or maybe it will be, I haven't played it yet) but the concept of older war forces taking on alien invaders is so original!
grimc
#2 – 5:05 PM March 11, 2009
Empire is crack. I sit down just to play a few turns and eventually find myself promising to go to bed right after I take that region...okay, right after this battle...alright, I'll shut down as soon as I...
It's also in a genre in itself. Even though Dawn of War has an over arching campaign level like Empire, Empire's campaign map play is so detailed and integral it's as much TBS as RTS.
I wish they'd redo Shogun and Rome to take advantage of the lightyears of graphics and AI advancements they've made through Medieval and Empire. Fat chance though, huh?
Joel Johnson
#3 – 5:06 PM March 11, 2009
Don't forget the fun mini-expansion in Sins of a Solar Empire!
Ghede
#4 – 5:26 AM March 12, 2009
Empire may be addictive, but I'll never find out because the loading screens are miserable. I'm running an early model dual-core and I have to wait minutes to enter and exit battle, if it doesn't freeze first! I know it doesn't have dual core support, but 5 minutes to enter and exit a battle? Even at 50% capacity thats ridiculous.
benamation
#5 – 11:27 AM March 12, 2009
RTS is the hit genre of 2009? How was it that you went to that game store and noticed Halo Wars, Empire, and Pikmin but not 500,000 copies of movie tie-in games, mini-game packs, and rotting PlayStation 2 and Gamecube games. If that is any indication, then ICE AGE 2 is the best game of 2009. It's all over store shelves!
The graphical requirements of showcasing a large scale battle have caught up considerably to developer ideas. Not pushing innovation in the genre but simply trying it again with better graphics seems to be the trend. And if it works then it is coming from Gamers who sit down to play an RTS and suddenly see it coming to life in a way not possible with sprites and basic polygons.
I'm just not sure it is that big of a deal. Most of the gamers I'm friends with are still stuck on Street Fighter IV and Left4Dead. The casual crowd I know are waiting to try out World of Goo, even though it came out months ago. Stores and friends are bad indicators of gaming trends.
Even though it looks like a hot genre now, I'm not sure 2009 will go to the RTS. But certainly it will have some impact, just maybe not such a big splash.
grimc
#6 – 12:36 PM March 12, 2009
@ghede
Totally agree about the performance issues. My rig can run CoD 4 happily at full settings, but I have the same loading issues that you do (and what I've read from reviews, even the reviewers' machines bog down). On the bright side, I've started doing bits of chores around the house during loading scenes. It's not a bug, it's a feature!
the_boy
#7 – 1:42 PM March 12, 2009
Having played the Total War games since Medieval 1, I think this analysis is spot on. In some interview somewhere, the Total War team described that they are always working on two games at a time - one evolutionary, one revolutionary. A bit hyperbolic, but Medieval 1 was Shogun fine-tuned, Rome was the formula changed and Medieval 2 was that improved, and Empire now stands as another total upgrade of the form. It's really impressive, and I'd be fanboying over it more here if I wasn't about to leave to play the thing.
I think another real time strategy title (of sorts) worth mentioning is "Mount and Blade", which got a boost in visibility thanks to steam offering it at 1/4 it's original price. The game is the closest fusion of hack-n-slash and armies I've ever seen, and does the whole thing way better than Dynasty Warriors.