The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
RTS and all that fangled stuff
Sinister Cheshire
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So a few months ago I had finally picked up a copy of Command and Conquer 3. I've been a huge fan of the series since its first induction, but for some reason, after nae but a few missions I was puting C&C 3 aside with the thought.....meh....
after a little while I was just kind of disappointed. I was really psyched for it but it seems to have let me down. I think it just gets boring. I mean seriously, what is there in the game that is really all that new? besides the graphics? Sure the units were pretty cool, and I'll always be happy to see Leutenant Sexy Lady to give me my mission specs, but ever since Dawn of War (and its following expansions) blew me out of the water, (seriously, they are the best out there), I really haven't seen any innovation into the genre.
With that said, I found myself severely disappointed with the announcement of Star Craft 2. The movie was phenominal, as all Blizzard cut scenes are, but the following demo really didnt look all that inspired. Yeah...protoss go in...stab some stuff...charge....terrans fall back.....yawn...seige tanks fire....yawn some more....and the zerg .....well they zerg. Where is the new ground breaking gameplay/mechanics/something that should be forcing my wang into the all appointed rock hard state that all of Korea is feeling? My friends seem to feel the same way. Yeah it looks great, but its still just star craft from a decade ago. Whats new?
Now I am a little partial to Dawn of War, as I'm a huge warhammer fan. But the squad elements, the individual commander abilities, the ease of micro-management and the overall polish of the game right down to each unit having specific stances (ranged, melee, charge in at a certain time), and having their own specific (to opposing units) killing blow, just rocked my world. I know I'm missing a whole lot, but thats the basic level of stuff that need to be shown in new games. Lately I just feel like theres nothing more to really do with an RTS to make it feel reinvented. Though I am on the edge of my seat for the 3rd Dawn of War Expansion supposidly due out in 2007, or so says the ending movie to Dawn of War Dark Crusade.
I havent really checked out any of the other new RTS like Supreme Commander and such, but does any one recommened any relatively new ones that atleast in some way re-invent a major part of the genre?
( oh...and feel free to flame on about SC 2, I'm fullly expecting it )
after a little while I was just kind of disappointed. I was really psyched for it but it seems to have let me down. I think it just gets boring. I mean seriously, what is there in the game that is really all that new? besides the graphics? Sure the units were pretty cool, and I'll always be happy to see Leutenant Sexy Lady to give me my mission specs, but ever since Dawn of War (and its following expansions) blew me out of the water, (seriously, they are the best out there), I really haven't seen any innovation into the genre.
With that said, I found myself severely disappointed with the announcement of Star Craft 2. The movie was phenominal, as all Blizzard cut scenes are, but the following demo really didnt look all that inspired. Yeah...protoss go in...stab some stuff...charge....terrans fall back.....yawn...seige tanks fire....yawn some more....and the zerg .....well they zerg. Where is the new ground breaking gameplay/mechanics/something that should be forcing my wang into the all appointed rock hard state that all of Korea is feeling? My friends seem to feel the same way. Yeah it looks great, but its still just star craft from a decade ago. Whats new?
Now I am a little partial to Dawn of War, as I'm a huge warhammer fan. But the squad elements, the individual commander abilities, the ease of micro-management and the overall polish of the game right down to each unit having specific stances (ranged, melee, charge in at a certain time), and having their own specific (to opposing units) killing blow, just rocked my world. I know I'm missing a whole lot, but thats the basic level of stuff that need to be shown in new games. Lately I just feel like theres nothing more to really do with an RTS to make it feel reinvented. Though I am on the edge of my seat for the 3rd Dawn of War Expansion supposidly due out in 2007, or so says the ending movie to Dawn of War Dark Crusade.
I havent really checked out any of the other new RTS like Supreme Commander and such, but does any one recommened any relatively new ones that atleast in some way re-invent a major part of the genre?
( oh...and feel free to flame on about SC 2, I'm fullly expecting it )
Sinister Cheshire on
0
Posts
You need this 3 games:
1) SupCom adds to the genre a beatifull queue system. You can almost queue a FULL game from the start. Thats kind of interesting.
2) Act of War adds nothing else than a very good implementation of the genre, with everything nowdays you need, like enter buildings with infantry, etc, etc.. etc.. 3 sides, etc.. etc... etc.
3) Gate 88, is based on vectorial graphics, so is very 1974 leet
UPDATE: Oopss I forgot Company Of Heroes. COH is awesome.
UPDATE2: Ooops.. I forgot Defcon.
edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meo1Uuwd9-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HNDHbLGGdw&mode=related&search=
SupCom was all right but it just didn't really grab me balls and make me want to beat it hard.
Company of Hero's is something I keep meaning to try but always forget. It looks pretty good.
I have Dark Crusade sitting on my desk at home and for the same reason, I just can't bring myself to install it yet (SupCom is still on the shelf at Target, as I don't want to buy a game I'm not really going to play).
The fast and cheap side.
The inbetween side that usually specialises in brute force.
And of course the technological juggernaut that costs insane amount of of money.
I find it tired and boring, but anyway there are at least 4 RTS games that I really want (not counting expansions):
Rome Total War
Medieval 2: Total War
Dawn of War
Company of Heroes
Starcraft is a game released over nine years ago by Blizzard Entertainment for the PC. It's a real-time strategy game, or RTS, where players build bases, manage resources, and move various forces around the map in an attempt to defeat the other player through skillful use of tactics, strategy, resource management, maneuvering, and knowledge of unit strengths and weaknesses. While Starcraft was released over nine years ago, it continues to see heavy online play today because of its reputation of simple gameplay, complex strategies, and very tight (and many say perfect) balance. In many ways, it's an RTS version of chess; not in mechanics or gameplay, but in some of their defining virtues: it's a timeless classic, it's a brilliant strategy game whose mechanics are polished to a degree of near perfection, it can be played by anybody, and often the smartest and fastest thinkers win. However, nine years is a long time, and fans have been clamoring for a sequel since the day it came out.
Just last month, fans and gamers of all kinds got their wish: Starcraft II was announced, with a prospected release date of Fall 2008, more than a decade after the original. The reaction, at first, was universal jubilation, with gamers everywhere expressing their joy and rapture at the proposition of playing the proper sequel to one of the best games of all time. Speculation abounded about new units, new mechanics, and even new factions and races, but when a 21 minute gameplay movie was released, the reaction turned into fear, and worse, despair. Gamers cried that it was too “samey”, the gameplay not having changed one bit, calling it “Starcraft 1.5”, a cash-in to nostalgia, and other unsavory descriptions. These are all patently false. These people can not look past the basic gameplay, and they convince themselves that the game is really just more of the same. If Starcraft is the RTS genre's chess, then it's sequel deserves to be scrutinized as closely and carefully as if chess itself were getting a sequel, delving into the very structure of the game, looking at it from a grognard's perspective.
“Grognards” are most easily described as hardcore gamers. In the car industry, they are the race car drivers, who know that every minor adjustment to their engine, every change to the shape of their car, every nut, bolt, or screw can fundamentally change the way they drive. They know that even the pressure in the tires, the wind speed, the temperature of the track itself, and other more esoteric factors can radically alter their race, and turn a once mastered track into something unknown and alien. Though grognards in gaming are more closely associated to the fighting game genre (and rightly so), I propose that there are people with a grognard-level understanding of the genre in real-time strategy games.
Grognards of RTS games understand Starcraft. They understand it in the same way they understand how to move and manipulate their bodies. To them, knowing how to play Starcraft and its ilk are instinctual, genetic. As I said, to realize why the seemingly simple changes mentioned in Starcraft II can change gameplay dramatically, there is no other way but to phrase examples in a grognard fashion.
Example number one: Units that traverse terrain differences with relative ease. Revealed examples include the Protoss Colossus and the Terran Reaper (though they have a few differences in how they traverse said terrain). This change can immediately spell disaster for defensive players. Maps where bases sit by default on a high ridge with only one or two choke points are no longer as impregnable. In Starcraft, such fixed defenses required a goodly amount of effort and micromanagement to break, using tactics such as feints(1) , siege units(2) , knowledge of an opponent's line of sight(3), and coordinated drops(4). With units that can ignore terrain differences, they can establish beachheads on high-ground bases with little micromangement. This is especially apparent with the Protoss Colossus, whose high damage yield and armor can dislodge any fixed position, an important addition to the Protoss arsenal. The Terran Reaper, though weaker, is no less important, though it is used for more specific purposes. It is useful for fast raids against enemy bases, and I can see it being extremely useful in taking out harvesters, disrupting your opponent's economy. This is useful because the Terrans generally had a hard time with economy disruption in the early game(5), compared to the Protoss and Zerg.
Example number two: improvements in the interface. This one will be hard to describe without being complex, but I will endeavor to explain thoroughly. Basically, the interface is two things, one: it is the way the user controls the game, and two: it is the way the game feeds information back to the user. Because of this, improvements to the interface can only be welcome, regardless of the game. Whereas Starcraft only allowed you to control a maximum of 12 units (which was sometimes frustrating), Starcraft II allows you to control an unlimited number. This somewhat alleviates the problem of intensive micromanagement(6), because there is less need to go back and forth between your units to activate their abilities. One can assume that the interface improvements from Warcraft III (another previous Blizzard Entertainment title and sister franchise of Starcraft) will also carry over, such as being able to select two buildings at the same time. One can also see that the unit card, the section of the interface where possible actions of a unit are shown, has been expanded, possibly foretelling an increase in the number of abilities that a unit can conceivably make. Interface is the single most defining factor in closing the gap between the hardcore players and the casual ones, giving each a level playing field, and one can only expect improvements to it in Starcraft II.
I would cite more examples. but it is perhaps more fitting to include those in an article more dedicated to a detailed analysis of Starcraft II. I sought only to prove my point, and I think I have accomplished that goal. The bottom line in this is that small changes to the gameplay, rules, and restrictions of a game can have some very visible effects in the way the game is played. This even applies to graphics and sound. Even the removal of the iconic sound of a Dark Templar slash can change whether the opponent is aware if he is being attacked by an invisible assassin. Already in Starcraft II, with the few new units that have been announced, hundreds of old strategies have been completely and utterly rendered useless, while hundreds more new ones are already being formulated. So be careful what you really mean when you say that there is “absolutely no change in the formula”. Look at it first from a grognard's perspective.
It's important to remember that we've really seen very little of the game. To be fair, SCII does have the same general idea as SC, what with the racial asymmetry and focus on economical control. But even with the extremely limited coverage so far, I think we can see several new gameplay elements.
The game seems to have a much greater emphasis on mobility and quick deployment. Between the protoss warp gate and phase prism and zerg nydus worm, (and doubtless some type of new terran tech) players are able to get their forces almost anywhere, very quickly. This will reward the player's advance planning and secrecy even more than the first game.
Additionally, with the new ways to change elevation (colossus, stalker's blink, reapers), gaining the high ground and holding it will be given more emphasis. So there's a couple of new mechanics right off the bat. Blizzard doesn't half-ass stuff, I'm positive that this game won't be a rehash at all.
EDIT: Dammit, beaten on the elevation thing.
You see, atleast for the two examples you posted, these things have already been accomplished in other titles. Dawn of War for instance expressed a range of transportation abilities allowing players to move quietly across the field or leap frog how they liked. Meanwhile, every player was given the ability to overcome said transportation options given to thier enemy. This all comes back to the expansive world of diverse strategies you mentioned.
Collecting units under a single command, how ever many you like, has also been addressed in nearly every RTS produced in the last 5 years or so. So, unlike back in the days of starcraft and warcraft you can now select every unit you have should you choose to do so.
One of the biggest changes to interface came when games started putting building tabs on the interface so you would not need to find the specific building just to build your little infantry men. C&C 3 did this very well.
So as for strategy and interface, whatever starcraft 2 throws at us, it will still be more of the same.
Balance, as was said in another post, is a huge problem for RTS games. When I bought Dark Crusade (Dawn of War expansion), I immediately noticed the enormous balance issues between the necrons/tau and the original forces of the game. The Tau are able to put up a nearly irresistable wall of sheer fire power which is very hard to overcome. There are ways of course. The most significant blance issue I saw was with the Necrons however. The forces of these mechanical undead are nigh unstoppable if you can not find them in the first few minutes of a game.
Their strength is very high, their resiliance is incredible, and the powers of the Necron Lord (the commander unit), will turn the tide of a battle instantly, literally. I have to say they were an incredibly well designed army, but that their design gives them a sometimes overwhelming advantage in multiplayer games. This, to my knowledge is an issue that has never been addressed, or really acknowledged by the developers.
But I digress. As I was saying before, the true intent of my post was to say that the genre itself has gotten stale. There is little variance anymore to what you do in the game. Strategies may change, but StarCraft will still be starcraft, no matter how you cross the battlefield. Dark Crusade was excellent in its free form style where you simply have to conquer a planet, taking it away from the other 6 armies on the planet.
I really wish I had an answer to this problem, cause I could probably pitch it to someone and make a mint. And I dont want the genre to start to cross over into that gooey middle ground of half rts/half something else 1/3% random elements.
Company of Heroes looked really good, but I have not really played that deeply into it. Mark of Chaos looked like it might be good due to the epic size of your army, but it doesnt run well on my computer and I heard it was pretty piss poor anyhow.
/sigh now I'm really hoping the third DoW expansion is worth it. Maybe they will throw in the Tyranids and we can hear about how the 'nids were stolen from starcraft rofl
I can't even believe people would say they were the same.
I really doubt there will be a 3rd expansion. Relic have already said they would not do Tyranids in the current game, because the engine could not do them justice. A sequel is highly likely though.
As for the OP, I pretty much agree. Ever since DoW and CoH, every other company's offerings have been "meh". Supreme Commander was the only one with any innovation, but the style didn't appeal to me. Starcraft 2 disappointed me also, but I can't blame Blizzard for sticking with their formula considering the fanbase for that game.
Dawn of War is a pretty old game now, but is still ahead of the competition imo. Strategic points, morale, melee combat, infantry disruption, reinforcable squads and attachable heroes. Call me when another RTS has those features.
And seven distinct races? Hell yeah!
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree. Especially since Company of Heroes came out. If you haven't tried it, you really should, because it takes some principles from Dawn of War (so you can jump right in comfortably), but has a lot of new stuff up its sleeve that really changed the way I looked at RTS games, chief among these is the awesome destructible terrain and physics that actually have an effect on the battlefield (i.e. craters blown by tank shells become cover for infantry, etc.). I still think that it's the best RTS to date besides Supreme Commander, and that Starcraft II should damn well come up with some pretty novel shit to even contend with both of them. That said, I will still play Starcraft II, because whatever happens it will still be an extremely polished game that (going by Blizzard's reputation) will be tightly balanced. In essence, Chess 2!
Same idea, regardless. Shifting around the units capabilities doesn't mean they've shifted the focus. It still looks to be another micromanagement ogry, and they've appeared to do nothing to improve upon that.
Close combat doesn't get enough love in my opinion. Now that was a deep RTS series that included pretty much all of the "innovations" people attribute to dawn of war or CoH. The relic games simply merged a watered down and sped up version of the CC combat and a traditional Dune 2-esque rts.
Is frank millar the inspiration for your journalistic style?
Would you like to share with us your experience playing the game?
Dude, thanks for the link. I actually didn't know that a Batman comic could stink that much! It has provided me with much needed laughter. But anyway, thanks for pointing out the repetitiveness in that paragraph, which will be immediately rectified with a rewrite! I obviously have a ways to go. The last "nine years" thing was just to emphasize that it has been out for a long time (nine years...damn it). You'll notice it doesn't pop up after that, and it's not nearly as bad as "Dick Grayson, age twelve".
Starcraft is an extremely close second.
CnC3 is surprisingly good.
SupCom is not that good. Plus, and all jokes aside, you really DO need an insane PC to play it, let alone play it well.
Go for Company of Heroes. The expansion is out soon (also standalone) and features the British. So fuck yeah!
World in Conflict looks good, and it sheds the basebuilding and resource management of the other games. It looks epic, and 8v8 multiplayer sounds sick.
I have never read something like that about hardcores. I live withing the population of QuakeWorld, because I make quake engines, and is like that x100. Wheres your blog?
http://pc.ign.com/objects/771/771526.html
It's made and designed by Petroglyph, consisting mostly of former westwood employees (Frank Klepacki is working on the music for it).
Anyways, it's bedtime.
Jeff: I see
jsn: and I was like "I wonder how he goes to the washroom, does he just like...brush his loincloth to the side or what?"
jsn: friend was like "DUDE he's BEHIND YOU"
The cons: SOME of the AI is buggy. Sometimes units bump each other or refuse to respond to orders, or respond very slowly. It seems like this only happens with some units. There are also a lot of issues with the AI being too good or too bad in certain situations. And the worst by far is that the game sometimes crashes, although this is generally a system to system compatibility issue and has been improved by patches.
If you can overlook the sometimes really aggravating bugs in the game, SupCom is a fantastically real and in-depth RTS experience. It's DEFINITELY worth the $30 I paid for it. I mean, don't think cause it's cheap it won't be good. This game is _AWESOME_, and aside from the bugs, definitely a Westwood or Bliz quality RTS. (BTW C&C3's controls suck, this game's controls own)
Also, nobody seems to be talking much about Forged Alliance. Why is that?
Untill about a month ago.
Go play CoH right now, enjoy it. It is addicting, co-operative play is a deffinite plus there, especially if you are using a LAN. Out of all of the current RTS's out there, CoH is my favorite, hands down.
Nothing beats having your defensive line obliterated by an entire enemy squad with a tank, then having your enemy completely suprised when you airstrike the area/let them discover the mine trap hidden farther down the line/flank them with a bigger tank/many other fun things.
I played the Supp Comm demo but I hated the interface, it took up nearly half my screen.
It's a bit buggy and it feels laggy but it has a lot of promise -- especially if you enjoy more realistic/authentic style combat games. Also, it's real-time and not turn-based (though, you can still play it that way) but it works really well for this Combat Mission game.