True, they’re a bit off the mark, but they were the ones off the top of my head. Also, in my defense, I don’t think Pottinger knows what he’s talking about either. The man glorifies Age3 like crazy, saying they had to scale back some features, fearing they’d prove too revolutionary. I love Age3, but the game was hardly world-shaking. Take its contemporary Rise of Legends, now that was a title that went balls out.
Still, I’m curious what they’re cooking up in that new studio.
There’s plenty of “evolved” RTSs in the indie scene:
The genre is far from dead, but the problem might be audience. When they demand “evolution” that means it should pander to recent trends like survival crafting and roguelikes and whatnot. Problem is some of these formulas don’t usually pan out well for RTS games. Then there’s multiplayer and, like other commenters mentioned, ranked multiplayer usually devolves into a bunch of strangers playing the same few maps over and over, but gamers still demand multiplayer.
Alas, I see the genre as not dead but in a “doomed if you do, doomed if you don’t” spot. Meanwhile I’m sitting here waiting for a regular old historic RTS like Empire Earth or Rise of Nations.
deleted by creator
The rest can burn, but man, Anno 1800 really is/was the best in its series, mandatory logins or not. It’s the only game I still hold on to my ubi account for, and I dread the day they’ll go under, because they’ll take the Mainz team and the Anno games down with them.