Reason for so many sci-fi strategy games, do people really like it?

I was just thinking lately how many decent or good strategy games we got over the years and noticed that most of them are either really sci-fi or just plain childish and unrealistic, so I was wondering what do you people think about it? Do you like such games? Why do the developers keep making such games in high numbers?

For me, I like historical games aswell as modern games, I don't even have much against a bit futuristic ones (Take C&C Generals, few decades in the future, nothing crazy unrealistic or sci-fi, just a bit more modern army), but I just can't bring miself to play those really crazy sci-fi futuristic ones, for example dawn of war is hailed as one of the best strategy games yet I just don't particularly enjoy it at all, since its too sci-fi. Then we have another example which is Red Alert 3, which has some elements of some absolutely ridicilous and unrealistic and plain childish things, things like freaking destroyers going on land with tank tracks and stuff like that.. and of course japan is also crazy sci-fi like the thing mentioned before.

So hence I have a hard time since most of the games are too sci-fi for me, so why do you think developers keep making most games like that? Why don't we have many modern history games, or cold war games, or even more historical games like dawn of war for example, apart from company of heroes.

Overall why do you think developers make most game sci-fi and futuristic, do most of the people playing games really prefer that?

Really? Nobody?

yea, sci-fi strategy games are in the low - most are historical or fantasy strategy games - we do have warhammer 40k  and homeworld - and a bunch of sh1tty strategy games - no1 likes sh1tty games -PC gamers especially - but good sci fi like warhammer 40k and homeworld are imo awesome. 

My favourite of all strategy games, are the ones from the Total War series - splendid games in every way imaginable - good strategy part, good tactical part, mod support - which often results in decent AI and somewhat historical accuracy (depends how much of a geek you are, imo the historical accuracy is a bit off the side - but it's still 100x better than any other games to compare it with, except maybe some of the heavy strategy games from Paradox). 

In short: If sci-fi strategy games are made the right way (homeworld), I think they are awesome - but if they are half arsed, I don't like them, just like I don't like half arsed games in general. 

Yea but what you mentioned was old games, ive been noticing the trend that seems to be increasing as of late, which is that they keep making alot of sci fi RTS games and less and less other games. Dawn of war 1, 2, Supreme Commander 1,2 , C&C 3, Starcraft 2, red alert 3.. And what notable rts do I remember in the past few years that isnt sci fi, probably company of heroes and thats it.

Yea but what you mentioned was old games, ive been noticing the trend that seems to be increasing as of late, which is that they keep making alot of sci fi RTS games and less and less other games. Dawn of war 1, 2, Supreme Commander 1,2 , C&C 3, Starcraft 2, red alert 3.. And what notable rts do I remember in the past few years that isnt sci fi, probably company of heroes and thats it.

FiRe1987

Shogun 2 is pretty far from Sci-fi, and it's not only decent, but extremely awesome imo :)

Also check out Crusader king's 2, another more text based RTS games - that's also pretty farking far from Sci-fi (medieval) ;) 

o yea, SupCom 1 is also very very very good imo :) Supcom II - not so much :/

Shogun 2 is good yea, alltho its not really an rts but it combines some elements of that aswell.

Crusader King? Thats not even an rts as far as I know, theres no battles ur fighting its more of a managment map based game.

SupCom is sci fi, robots, lazers ..

Shogun 2 is good yea, alltho its not really an rts but it combines some elements of that aswell.

Crusader King? Thats not even an rts as far as I know, theres no battles ur fighting its more of a managment map based game.

SupCom is sci fi, robots, lazers ..

FiRe1987

I know what you mean, CK is actually categorised as a strategy game, but there are no "tactical" battles per say. 

If that's more your thing, i've linked a pretty decent game that combines strategy and tactical gameplay, in real time and within one map - in your other thread :)

World in Conflict (get the soviet assault package) 

Wargame European Escalation.  These 2 games are both RTTs  (real time tactical, more so than RTS)

Company of Heroes (has tons of expansions) and a sequel coming out in a couple of months.

JTF (Joint Task Force) on Steam, was actually a fun RTS to play. (modern setting, not sci-fi)

There are plenty of historical ones.

Hope this helps you out.

Also I like Sci-fi strategy games. Just as the ones I mentioned above.

I love Command and Conquer, but that went downhill after the last good one (C&C3, and Kane's Wrath) however I am still interested in C&C '13. 

And Planetary Annihilation. 

That being said there are some Sci-fi rts series that I have no affinity towards like War Hammer (even the fantasy ones) 

Star Craft 2 is ok, but I think its pretty over-rated. I doubt I will be getting Hots until it is super cheap.

Shogun 2 is good yea, alltho its not really an rts but it combines some elements of that aswell.

Crusader King? Thats not even an rts as far as I know, theres no battles ur fighting its more of a managment map based game.

SupCom is sci fi, robots, lazers ..

FiRe1987

[QUOTE="FiRe1987"]

Shogun 2 is good yea, alltho its not really an rts but it combines some elements of that aswell.

Crusader King? Thats not even an rts as far as I know, theres no battles ur fighting its more of a managment map based game.

SupCom is sci fi, robots, lazers ..

Ragingbear505

where would 4X strategy fall in?

I always thought that the 4X was kind of unnecessary; despite it's huge size, Sins of a Solar Empire is essentially an RTS.

Sci-fi settings allow developers more flexibility in creating game systems and elements that wouldn't make sense in the confines of history. I am the opposite. I don't see the appeal of historical games. If you have to stay faithful to source material, you lose out on creativity.