What would you call the TA-SC-PA subgenre?

Total Annihilation - A devastating war that's been going on forever and which has consumed the resources of an entire galaxy. An art style that seems to echo post-nuclear war. Bulky metal architecture and UI. We are inside a war machine. What would we call this? Industrial? Brutalist?



Supreme Commander - An eternal war that's driven all sides to tech-up in an experimental arms-race. Much more computer-focused; less rawly physical than Total Annihilation's style. A focus on strategic scale. We are in some sort of ready-room/hanger area, waiting to organize our armies remotely. Modernist and Post-Modern UI and architecture? Some Robotic/Steam-Punk influence going on with the Cybrans.



Planetary Annihilation - Space! A fairly minimalist UI in contrast to the physical TA and techy SupCom. Clear social elements (Twitch/Friends bar). Visually many buildings and units echo its namesake, right down to the green nano-lathes which spew our war machines into existence. However PA undeniably has its own 'blocky' art style (which I for one love).

Visually, three very different art styles reflecting three different visions.
Despite this, all three are in the same genre: Robot Real-Time Strategy Game.

Can you think of a name for the overarching style and purpose in this genre?
'Robotic'?
'Nano-Lathic'?!
What would you say the core of the genre is?

E.g. Something like "Steam-Punk"/"Minimalist"/"Brutalist" which captures and conveys a set of connotations.

To have some good fun?

Yeah but... I mean... I can do that with a burrito.

You can't launch asteroids at planets filled with robots with a burrito.

In all seriousness though, the style could be called "Uber"

In terms of the aesthetic it is quite different for all 3 games, it's not really fair to try and label them all the same either.

In terms of similarity TA and PA are the most similar, but given the huuuuuuge difference in technology between the two I wouldn't be comfortable treating them as the same thing.

Mike

I agree they have notable differences. - that's why I tried to draw that out in my OP.
Yet they're all still in the same genre, and are related to each other, even in their attempts to not be like one another (PA Vs. SupCom over TA's Spirit for instance). They are defined by their difference to one another yet exist in the same niche.

I was wondering if we could think of a term which captures the self-perpetuating robotic-war strategy which is at the core of the genre, as the genre itself has no proper name - we just call it RTS, but that encapsulates everything from Total War to Starcraft.

What does that have to do with the Art-style? I mean, you can tell any story with any art style, it's only a matter of some combinations won't be as effective as others in most cases. If anything the Fact that all 3 games have similar lore themes yet very different Aesthetics backs this up.

You can't say they're all different and then turn around and try to come up with an all encompassing label.

Mike

These three are all radically different. Yet they are all frogs.

Despite the various distinctions, they're all still robot strategy games. But how do we tell the frog from the toad, and can we think up a better name than 'Robot Real Time Strategy Game', and which captures some of the things which run throughout the genre, or to its foundation (like nano-lathes, for instance)?

Perhaps 'Art-Style' is what is throwing this off track, though it is a part of what defines the genre.

Sharing similarities does not make things the same. Just because TA, SupCom and PA all share the same vague thematic element(Robots) does not mean they are all the same game.

And heck, why focus on the fact that they all have "robots" when it really matters the LEAST in regards to gameplay?

But I think we're getting lost here, your title talks about ART style, you've been talking about UIs and themtaic elements and end off by trying to coin a Genre? Can you clarify specifically what your intent is here?

Mike

As you say, to coin a genre.
I used art styles as a way in to this to present the breadth of the genre, as the games are primarily visual.

I am not saying they are identical, I am saying they have clear similarities. They are of the same genus.

Except Aesthetics have very little to do with a game's genre. In fact, if you really put your mind to it you can combine ANY Genre and Aesthetic and get a functional game out of it, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Genre is mostly an evaluation of a game's Gameplay. It's not about individual elements or mechanics but the overall result of how all the elements/mechanics work together.

To that end TA, SupCom and PA are generally considered to (exclusively) fill the "Large Scale" niche within the RTS Genre.

Mike

Aesthetics inform gameplay. If my Orcish berserker whips out a laser-cannon and starts laying into the enemy phalanx, I'd be (pleasantly) surprised.
Moreover in games like the Total War series you can have battles with thousands of units, so mere scale and gameplay cannot be the only factors in guiding the progression of games.

I was just using aesthetics to point to the differences within the genre in order to allow a wider net to be drawn...

Of course gameplay/lore/scale are all factors. I've revised my OP to remove 'Art Style'.

Am I getting confused with terminology? The genre is RTS. To be more specific, they're streaming economy RTS (possibly with the exception of SupCom 2, I'm not familiar with it but someone said somewhere it's economy is different). If you have to label the setting; 'post-human', 'grind', 'dystopia'.

Some cool terms. Why 'Grind'?

No, Aesthetics don't inform Gameplay, like I said you can match any genre with any aesthetic and get a perfectly functional game out of it. Maybe what you mean to say is that the Visuals of particular things inform gameplay? It's a separate thing from Aesthetics.

As I said in my prior post, "TA, SupCom and PA are generally considered to (exclusively) fill the "Large Scale" niche within the RTS Genre." because it is one of the more unique features of the games compared to other RTS games. One could try to argue that rate Based Economy could be used as "branding" for the genre but the thing is that Rate based Eco isn't nearly as "exclusive" to these games compared to RTSes as a whole, CnC and Sins of a Solar Empire have some Rate Based Eco mechanics as well for example.

A better second option instead of scale would be the simulated nature of the game engines used for these games but even then I don't think it's as exclusive as the Scale. Scale works because in most games anytime scale comes or goes it's a matter of sacrifice usually. Games like Sins you could argue to also be large scale, but when you break it down I don't feel that's true, or rather, they have to make sacrifices to the game to accommodate the scale. For me Sins is big, but mostly boring in my experience, yeah the maps could be big, but 90% of the map is just "transit space" where you can't do anything. On the Other hand TA, SupCom and PA embrace scale and fully incorporate it into the gameplay and mechanics.

Mike

It's meant to refer the the endless fighting, but I couldn't think of a more appropriate phrase off-hand. 'Endless churn' or 'endless grind'. Grind seemed more appropriate referring to metal robots, and the meaning of the word in video games. 'Groundhog day but with robots' doesn't have the same ring to it.

So first you establish that all three games have their own unique art style. Then you attempt to establish that all three unique art styles can be described under one roof.

This thread's premise is laughable.

Speaking of laughable genres, someone explain to me why music genres with names like "rock", "metal", "heavy metal", "house" and "techno" make any sense at all.

The roof isn't made soley of art styles, fortunately.
I didn't say any genre-term this thread coins has to make sense. It simply has to 'fit'.

I would call it RTS cause that's what it is.

I think we might have a winner!