surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I would agree I've tried some of the newer RTS's but I can't get into them like I was with StarCraft.
There needs to be a new series in the vein of the first two Age of Empire games. Good ones, so the Empire Earth series doesn't count.
I can't believe there's no shout-out to Relic.
Their work on Company of Heroes blew everything out of the water. That mind, friends, is innovation.
Their work on Company of Heroes blew everything out of the water. That mind, friends, is innovation.
Well DOTA has quite the fanbase and competitive side and it is a side-genre of RTS. So in a way that is progression.
Gas Powered? I've never really played many of their games, but what's so special about them?
And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become.
That said, RTS is a genre based on complexity, so it will always need that complex side to it. Making it too complex... Well... Maybe not. Recently read about an old RTS that did some interesting things. Dark Reign, you could do stuff like set units to come back to base at certain health percentages or give them kamikaze aspects.
So I think there is a whole lot of room to grow, but like much of the gaming industry developers JUST aren't interested in new ideas or experiments like when the genre first came about.
I mean, look at Starcraft 2, do you honestly expect Blizzard to try new ideas here? No of course not. They are far to scared of losing money from Koreans, instead they will make a standard upgrade in which they can move all current players to it. Hence make a new platform that ALL players need to join, control it (no LAN guys, GRATZ) completely and then milk it for all its worth.
Of course I have my doubts that their plan will work. I feel (and again, hope) that Korean players will not accept and just go back to the game that they trust and won't hurt them.
Gas Powered? I've never really played many of their games, but what's so special about them?
And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become.
That said, RTS is a genre based on complexity, so it will always need that complex side to it. Making it too complex... Well... Maybe not. Recently read about an old RTS that did some interesting things. Dark Reign, you could do stuff like set units to come back to base at certain health percentages or give them kamikaze aspects.
So I think there is a whole lot of room to grow, but like much of the gaming industry developers JUST aren't interested in new ideas or experiments like when the genre first came about.
I mean, look at Starcraft 2, do you honestly expect Blizzard to try new ideas here? No of course not. They are far to scared of losing money from Koreans, instead they will make a standard upgrade in which they can move all current players to it. Hence make a new platform that ALL players need to join, control it (no LAN guys, GRATZ) completely and then milk it for all its worth.
Of course I have my doubts that their plan will work. I feel (and again, hope) that Korean players will not accept and just go back to the game that they trust and won't hurt them.
i stoped with the strategy games after they went 3d. They looked like crap and they STILL look like crap!
I stopped playing RTS after Rise of Nations, and after AOE II before that. I think RTS gaming has been lacking something to pull me back into it..
I do agree that many of the recent RTS games that have tried innovating just because of innovation have failed enormously - take Dawn of War 2 as an example.
It's battles are slower paced than most traditional RTS games, it utilizes a cover mechanic that encourages the player not to move his units because of the defensive bonuses they get from standing near cover, and it doesn't even let me make interesting technology choices, expand my economy, or do other side-stuff in the base to keep me occupied. In the end, the player is left waiting for stuff to happen for most of a match.
Although I must say some other of the innovative RTS games these latest years have been successful in moving the genre forward - take games like World In Conflict whose gameplay abandons base building for tactical micromanagement of your units - it all works because of the nice interface, somewhat quick pacing, and unit differences. Not to mention the multiplayer which is an absolute BLAST if you get enough players together - at least three versus three players recommended.
Or why not Sins of a Solar Empire, the RTS that took civilizations-style 4x gameplay and managed to put it into an RTS format without breaking it completely. Sure, it's kinda dumbed-down in complexity compared to Civ, especially in the diplomacy department, but they are adding in more stuff in the next expansion (out soon!)
It's battles are slower paced than most traditional RTS games, it utilizes a cover mechanic that encourages the player not to move his units because of the defensive bonuses they get from standing near cover, and it doesn't even let me make interesting technology choices, expand my economy, or do other side-stuff in the base to keep me occupied. In the end, the player is left waiting for stuff to happen for most of a match.
Although I must say some other of the innovative RTS games these latest years have been successful in moving the genre forward - take games like World In Conflict whose gameplay abandons base building for tactical micromanagement of your units - it all works because of the nice interface, somewhat quick pacing, and unit differences. Not to mention the multiplayer which is an absolute BLAST if you get enough players together - at least three versus three players recommended.
Or why not Sins of a Solar Empire, the RTS that took civilizations-style 4x gameplay and managed to put it into an RTS format without breaking it completely. Sure, it's kinda dumbed-down in complexity compared to Civ, especially in the diplomacy department, but they are adding in more stuff in the next expansion (out soon!)
Gamers weaned on Halo and Call of Duty don't have the patience to play RTS games. Those gave them instant gratification that they can't find in RTS games and traditional JRPGs. I think focusing on the core gameplay and doing away with the more tedious aspects of RTS games can help give a boost to RTS games.
So what, we just re-release Warcraft ad infinitum? This is why the RTS genre is (and was, until relic released DoW) becoming stagnant - because the RTS fans are diametrically opposed to any innovation or good developments due to a fixation on E-Sports - If any RTS develops beyond the utterly simple style of Starcraft, then it becomes unsuitable for E-sports, the the RTS community at large will hate it.
Company of Heroes frankly makes every other RTS seem quaint (with the exception of some RTT games like Theatre of War and the Total War series) I can't express the irony in the same guy who made SupCom - a game marketed on its one stupid gimmick (ITS REALLY BIG LAWL!) saying stuff like this. Every other genre is moving forward in complexity and innovation except RTS games - which amazingly seem to be going backward!
"updating outdated ideas without going overboard" - Huh? Starcraft 2 has been explicitly marketed as 'starcraft in 3D' and SupCom was an a clone of TotalA will none of the soul and character. SupCom stunk, I find it offensive that Taylor tries to portray himself as saving the genre, when that honor belongs squarely with Relic.
Company of Heroes frankly makes every other RTS seem quaint (with the exception of some RTT games like Theatre of War and the Total War series) I can't express the irony in the same guy who made SupCom - a game marketed on its one stupid gimmick (ITS REALLY BIG LAWL!) saying stuff like this. Every other genre is moving forward in complexity and innovation except RTS games - which amazingly seem to be going backward!
"updating outdated ideas without going overboard" - Huh? Starcraft 2 has been explicitly marketed as 'starcraft in 3D' and SupCom was an a clone of TotalA will none of the soul and character. SupCom stunk, I find it offensive that Taylor tries to portray himself as saving the genre, when that honor belongs squarely with Relic.
Yes I agree that Company of heroes is an awesome game. The only thing i would like to see is more factions and balance. and the game still looks great.
I like less is more personally. Starcraft is/was a fun game but I've always felt that there's so much going on that the strategy gets taken away in favour of who can click quicker and memorize build orders better. I know that is not always the case with all players but I really like the way a game like Dawn of War 2 does things. By taking away the bases, making squads over individual units and getting resources from points you capture it brings strategy more to the fore front.
It's not perfect I know and this is only my opinion, but I've found the player with the best strategy usually wins in games like this and isn't that what RTS is meant to be about?
It's not perfect I know and this is only my opinion, but I've found the player with the best strategy usually wins in games like this and isn't that what RTS is meant to be about?
The following rant is directed at "Letters numbers and spaces are ok".
You are out of your goddamned mind for the following reasons:
"And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become."
The special thing about Blizzard is that they've managed to innovate with their games while keeping them as polished as fucking possible.
An example of innovations Blizzard has brought to gaming:
Warcraft:
First RTS with multiplayer LAN play.
Warcraft 2:
First RTS to utilize the right mouse button for the deafult move/attack command.
First RTS with online play. (Battle.NET edititon)
Diablo:
Basically created it's own breed of hack and slash rpg with roguelike elements.
StarCraft:
First RTS to have more than one faction with completely different unit composition.
StarEdit was a very powerful editor that laid the groundworks for Warcraft 3s World Edit.
Diablo 2:
Multiple minor innovations improving upon the previous iteration.
Warcraft 3:
Invented the "Hero" mechanics that is today used in almost every RTS game that isn't called Command & Conquer: Something or Another.
Further developed the powerful WorldEdit, laying the grounds for such maps as Defense of the Ancients, which would later go on to create a whole sub-genre of team-based competitive multiplayer action-RPGs
World of Warcraft: Instant cast spells, global cooldown, cross-realm battlegrounds, cross-realm dungeons.
Not to mention what we already know about StarCraft 2 and what it's doing with multi-building and multi-unit selections, and how profoundly powerful it's map editor seems to be.
StarCraft 2 may not be filled to the brink with innovation, but it's certainly not shying away from doing it's own thing. It's demanding, it's fast, it requires you to constantly DO MORE, AND FASTER, and it's unapologetic about it.
Your hate seems to me completely unjustified. Why would you want the game to fail? What has it done to you?
You are out of your goddamned mind for the following reasons:
"And what's so special about Blizzard? I really do think, and hope that Starcraft 2 fails. I don't like what Blizzard has become."
The special thing about Blizzard is that they've managed to innovate with their games while keeping them as polished as fucking possible.
An example of innovations Blizzard has brought to gaming:
Warcraft:
First RTS with multiplayer LAN play.
Warcraft 2:
First RTS to utilize the right mouse button for the deafult move/attack command.
First RTS with online play. (Battle.NET edititon)
Diablo:
Basically created it's own breed of hack and slash rpg with roguelike elements.
StarCraft:
First RTS to have more than one faction with completely different unit composition.
StarEdit was a very powerful editor that laid the groundworks for Warcraft 3s World Edit.
Diablo 2:
Multiple minor innovations improving upon the previous iteration.
Warcraft 3:
Invented the "Hero" mechanics that is today used in almost every RTS game that isn't called Command & Conquer: Something or Another.
Further developed the powerful WorldEdit, laying the grounds for such maps as Defense of the Ancients, which would later go on to create a whole sub-genre of team-based competitive multiplayer action-RPGs
World of Warcraft: Instant cast spells, global cooldown, cross-realm battlegrounds, cross-realm dungeons.
Not to mention what we already know about StarCraft 2 and what it's doing with multi-building and multi-unit selections, and how profoundly powerful it's map editor seems to be.
StarCraft 2 may not be filled to the brink with innovation, but it's certainly not shying away from doing it's own thing. It's demanding, it's fast, it requires you to constantly DO MORE, AND FASTER, and it's unapologetic about it.
Your hate seems to me completely unjustified. Why would you want the game to fail? What has it done to you?
@ Janxer, you also forgot the way Starcraft 2 is going to be played in between missions, that is a bit of a damn mix up.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who'd be happy with Starcraft 2 just being Starcraft with better graphics and more story.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only person who'd be happy with Starcraft 2 just being Starcraft with better graphics and more story.
i think because of the complexity of the newer rts's balance becomes an issue. as a developer of a complex rts you dont have the time to cover everything a gamer thinks of and balance it. so a less complex rts becomes popular with all gamers due to the fact that they are easy to pick up and learn but really hard to master and that the hardcore gamers get a really balanced game that they can play endlessly.
key to success is to make a game with almost the same ui as the biggest game of that genre so that joe schmoe that picks up a game a year can feel at home.
thats why complex games often fail and why new means of controls like wiimotion and natal will fail in the long run, becase we are creatures of habit and the joypad will be the way to control a game until you actually can control it with your thoughts.
key to success is to make a game with almost the same ui as the biggest game of that genre so that joe schmoe that picks up a game a year can feel at home.
thats why complex games often fail and why new means of controls like wiimotion and natal will fail in the long run, becase we are creatures of habit and the joypad will be the way to control a game until you actually can control it with your thoughts.
The rts genre overall has been getting a bit stale in recent years yes so I am glad that some devs like Relic have been trying to change things up but I still think their is a place for the traditional formula. SupComm2 and Starcraft 2 look really awesome and fun but I'm also really excited to play the DoW2 expansion and whatever other new takes on the genre some studios come up with.
I cant recommend Dawn of War2 enough to anyone who's looking to get in or back in to the genre, that game did some amazing things with its single player (the co-op is wicked fun). The multiplayer, not so much, but they did add a great free 'horde mode' recently. My steam name is the same as my des name if anyone's interested.
I cant recommend Dawn of War2 enough to anyone who's looking to get in or back in to the genre, that game did some amazing things with its single player (the co-op is wicked fun). The multiplayer, not so much, but they did add a great free 'horde mode' recently. My steam name is the same as my des name if anyone's interested.
Lemme contrast those amazing 'innovations' with what relic did with DoW and its successor, CoH;
two titles popularised; moral, deep cover mechanics, tank facing and armour values, sophisticated armor combat (such as disabled guns, immobilization, deflection and armor sloping, engine damage) Suppression and flanking, the best Sniper system yet made, a completley new resource system and retreating mechanics. Combined with this was the fact that coh expanded on new innovations, such as tactical call in aid, instantly arriving off map units, destructible environments, and true ballistics that were affected by terrain.
People hate Starcraft 2 because they recognise it is the representation of the worst regressive elements of the RTS genre - it is a step backwards from existing standards and its innovations will likely be minor and trivial to not upset the korean fans. - Just as it was a good thing that the FPS community rejected endlessly re-realisng doom (and pushed for stuff like free roam, rpg elements and massively improved AI and storytelling) so do does the RTS community need to break out of the stupor that it being content with the same old thing with a 100 AUD price tag.
two titles popularised; moral, deep cover mechanics, tank facing and armour values, sophisticated armor combat (such as disabled guns, immobilization, deflection and armor sloping, engine damage) Suppression and flanking, the best Sniper system yet made, a completley new resource system and retreating mechanics. Combined with this was the fact that coh expanded on new innovations, such as tactical call in aid, instantly arriving off map units, destructible environments, and true ballistics that were affected by terrain.
People hate Starcraft 2 because they recognise it is the representation of the worst regressive elements of the RTS genre - it is a step backwards from existing standards and its innovations will likely be minor and trivial to not upset the korean fans. - Just as it was a good thing that the FPS community rejected endlessly re-realisng doom (and pushed for stuff like free roam, rpg elements and massively improved AI and storytelling) so do does the RTS community need to break out of the stupor that it being content with the same old thing with a 100 AUD price tag.
Oh gee, just thought of some more innovations that relic thought up and added to the genre - individually customizable units that can be specialized in many different roles (such as 2 grenadier squads being anti tank and suppression independently)
It's no coincidence that coh is the highest rated RTS of all time, because it was so differnt yet so brillaint, it fundamentally shook the RTS genre. Yet blizzard is going to totally ignore all these wonderful new standard for absolutely no reason except the unique brand of elitism that starcraft has created.
It's no coincidence that coh is the highest rated RTS of all time, because it was so differnt yet so brillaint, it fundamentally shook the RTS genre. Yet blizzard is going to totally ignore all these wonderful new standard for absolutely no reason except the unique brand of elitism that starcraft has created.
what the heck? Of course innovation is the answer. Do you want to play the same game every time with just a different paint job? I don't think nobody here has a positive thing to say to rehashed games that doesn't add anything new.
Chris Taylor: "Okay... ima level with you right now. Aside from building a bigger, better, and more badass Total Annihilation.... I have no fucking clue what to add to the RTS genre, so I'm going to shit on my competitors for a while a thank you kindly not to notice my inadequacies."
I very much agree with Chris Taylor's comments. The proliferation of command-point capture objectives in RTS has killed one of my favourite genres for me. We need more studios working on classic base building RTS', if they disappear entirely it will be a sad day indeed.
Though I've recently started playing Company of Heroes and feel the command point mechanic really sets the WWII feel, the constant struggle for territory; mostly these games are rubbish, poorly executed and badly balanced.
Though I've recently started playing Company of Heroes and feel the command point mechanic really sets the WWII feel, the constant struggle for territory; mostly these games are rubbish, poorly executed and badly balanced.
I don't get the hate of SupCom and StarCraft here. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely friggin' love Company of Heroes and Dawn of War. But why trash the company that made it all goddamn possible?
Yeah, Blizzard doesn't introduce blinding new innovations that Company of Heroes introduced; but why should it? The two games shouldn't be alike, because they don't even stand in the same genre of RTS. Making it more like another RTS would take away from the distinct StarCraft flavour and you'd lose far more people than you'd ever gain going in this direction.
I'm goddamn excited for SC2 anyways, I'm not expecting entirely new ways to play RTS games, but what I do expect is a brand of Blizzard polish of a game that's been six or so years in the making.
Yeah, Blizzard doesn't introduce blinding new innovations that Company of Heroes introduced; but why should it? The two games shouldn't be alike, because they don't even stand in the same genre of RTS. Making it more like another RTS would take away from the distinct StarCraft flavour and you'd lose far more people than you'd ever gain going in this direction.
I'm goddamn excited for SC2 anyways, I'm not expecting entirely new ways to play RTS games, but what I do expect is a brand of Blizzard polish of a game that's been six or so years in the making.
Okay, my last comment was catty so let's put it this way.
We need both. The entire genre would NOT exist if it wasn't for Herzog Zwei which was very shallow, refined upon with Dune 2000, and ultimately refined further with RTS after RTS. But fact of the matter is some of us are tired of spending five minutes turtling and learning the main difference between Game X and Game Y isn't it's long term strategy, conflict style, or even options within that combat style, but the goddam tech tree. When RTS's hit it big, that was the key differences. Setting and Tech Tree. In fact, the size and complexity of your tech tree started becoming a selling point put on the back of your box. For many people, that was just fine.
But not for me. It turned me off the genre in a major way. A way which only recently, with Demigod and Relic's takes, I started getting back into. Now the old guard is talking about how they're making the old formula more complex yet again (see: Blizzard's comments about how resource management will constantly have to be checked up on) and fine, there is a place for that. But doing what Chris Taylor said, shunning innovation when all you really have to do is make a planetary sized Total Annihilation, is the reason why I got out of the genre.
Lots of us are coming back in... don't push us out again with elitist Roberta Williams style douchebaggery...
We need both. The entire genre would NOT exist if it wasn't for Herzog Zwei which was very shallow, refined upon with Dune 2000, and ultimately refined further with RTS after RTS. But fact of the matter is some of us are tired of spending five minutes turtling and learning the main difference between Game X and Game Y isn't it's long term strategy, conflict style, or even options within that combat style, but the goddam tech tree. When RTS's hit it big, that was the key differences. Setting and Tech Tree. In fact, the size and complexity of your tech tree started becoming a selling point put on the back of your box. For many people, that was just fine.
But not for me. It turned me off the genre in a major way. A way which only recently, with Demigod and Relic's takes, I started getting back into. Now the old guard is talking about how they're making the old formula more complex yet again (see: Blizzard's comments about how resource management will constantly have to be checked up on) and fine, there is a place for that. But doing what Chris Taylor said, shunning innovation when all you really have to do is make a planetary sized Total Annihilation, is the reason why I got out of the genre.
Lots of us are coming back in... don't push us out again with elitist Roberta Williams style douchebaggery...
@ Janxer
Firstly, Blizzard never truly innovated. They polished. WC2 online was originally setup as Kali, which was not at all because of Blizzard, even though Blizzard used it and even started shipping WC2 with Kali CDs. Battlenet only came with Diablo in 1997, this was a year after Red Alert was already using MPlayer.com online. Claiming randomly that Blizzard started internet gaming just shows your complete ignorance. Most of original ideas from the first WC came from Dune II, Dune II was the revolution in RTS gaming, even though it wasn't as polished as WC was (WC being released years later).
Blizzard invented Hero mechanics in RTS games? Really? I was leveling up my units in RA2 years before. And even the expansion pact to RA2 had more obvious hero units and that came out six months before WC3 (not counting other games)... Seriously where are you getting this rubbish from?
Starcraft multiple factions. Debatable. I haven't really looked into that. No doubt fanboys like you will give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt like you do with online play (LOL) and hero units (MORE LOL).
Blizzard never invented game editors (such as map editors) but no doubt Blizzard did a great service in creating them, I am highly doubtful that they will continue such a service in the future.
BLIZZARD INVENTED ATTACKS THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON (see instant cast spells) WOW!!!!!1111
Global Cooldowns: proof or you have nothing.
Cross realm ANYTHING only ruins MMORPGs, so I'll give that one to Blizzard.
Blizzard and innovation don't mix buddy, Blizzard has only ever been about polish.
That said, my aim at Blizzard is at the current Blizzard. Not the former Blizzard that did make good games. WoW was a polished version of many MMORPGs in one big pool, and made easier. Of course now it is just a shell of its former self and is now solely a cash cow.
No Starcraft LAN, three sets of games, subscription for tournament play. It is pretty obvious that Blizzard is now fully Activision Blizzard.
Firstly, Blizzard never truly innovated. They polished. WC2 online was originally setup as Kali, which was not at all because of Blizzard, even though Blizzard used it and even started shipping WC2 with Kali CDs. Battlenet only came with Diablo in 1997, this was a year after Red Alert was already using MPlayer.com online. Claiming randomly that Blizzard started internet gaming just shows your complete ignorance. Most of original ideas from the first WC came from Dune II, Dune II was the revolution in RTS gaming, even though it wasn't as polished as WC was (WC being released years later).
Blizzard invented Hero mechanics in RTS games? Really? I was leveling up my units in RA2 years before. And even the expansion pact to RA2 had more obvious hero units and that came out six months before WC3 (not counting other games)... Seriously where are you getting this rubbish from?
Starcraft multiple factions. Debatable. I haven't really looked into that. No doubt fanboys like you will give Blizzard the benefit of the doubt like you do with online play (LOL) and hero units (MORE LOL).
Blizzard never invented game editors (such as map editors) but no doubt Blizzard did a great service in creating them, I am highly doubtful that they will continue such a service in the future.
BLIZZARD INVENTED ATTACKS THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU PRESS THE BUTTON (see instant cast spells) WOW!!!!!1111
Global Cooldowns: proof or you have nothing.
Cross realm ANYTHING only ruins MMORPGs, so I'll give that one to Blizzard.
Blizzard and innovation don't mix buddy, Blizzard has only ever been about polish.
That said, my aim at Blizzard is at the current Blizzard. Not the former Blizzard that did make good games. WoW was a polished version of many MMORPGs in one big pool, and made easier. Of course now it is just a shell of its former self and is now solely a cash cow.
No Starcraft LAN, three sets of games, subscription for tournament play. It is pretty obvious that Blizzard is now fully Activision Blizzard.
@ Mr Pibb
He might mean 'they' as in those who made GrimGrim.
Otherwise, I agree. Simple yet entertaining game. Even though it should have been harder, most of the time I just built up the different ultimates (part from the death guy) and just stormed. The ending was meh to me, and really did feel it needed a sequal... for the most part it just felt incomplete the way they handled it, no real conclusion to any of the characters AT ALL.
He might mean 'they' as in those who made GrimGrim.
Otherwise, I agree. Simple yet entertaining game. Even though it should have been harder, most of the time I just built up the different ultimates (part from the death guy) and just stormed. The ending was meh to me, and really did feel it needed a sequal... for the most part it just felt incomplete the way they handled it, no real conclusion to any of the characters AT ALL.
I think games such a Company of Heroes and Sins of a Solar Empire are great games and proof the innovation is an important driving force in the RTS industry. At the same time though, the tried and true RTS formula carries its own appeal. So whats wrong with having both?
What I don't understand is how this guy can be saying that innovation is bad when he is copying Total Annihilation. Wasn't that game pretty innovative for its time?
What I don't understand is how this guy can be saying that innovation is bad when he is copying Total Annihilation. Wasn't that game pretty innovative for its time?
The problem is that the wallets of the RTS fanbase continually favour old school rehashes - I guarantee SC2 will sell like hotcakes, that kind of economic favouritism of outdated titles is going to lead to the stagnation of the genre. These old school games have the very real capability to kill promising new innovations by simply starving promising, creative developers to death through competition, video games are already extremely high risk, if we do not reward creativity and innovation it WILL disappear.
By supporting 'AAA' title rehashes like MW2 and SC2 in the quantity we do over games like STALKER, we are presenting a clear message to developers 'We dont want change, keep remaking old stuff forever' (see; mario)
By supporting 'AAA' title rehashes like MW2 and SC2 in the quantity we do over games like STALKER, we are presenting a clear message to developers 'We dont want change, keep remaking old stuff forever' (see; mario)
I seriously cannot seriously understand how In the 7 seas the game R.U.S.E. has been failed to be mentioned in this discussion yet!!!
From playing the beta I must say it reinvents rts in a way you could call it modern digital chess with just far more depth then any rts yet, yes it beats starcraft and supreme commander.
R.U.S.E. removes most of the boring children parts like ridiculous and stupid unneeded micro management (like press button the make squad throw nade when the buggers should do it automatically) and instead focuses on intelligent gameplay.
I do not expect idiots and starcraft\coh kiddos to like R.U.S.E. but for those born with a brain it’s just as a big leap as dune 2 and the next step in rts development.
From playing the beta I must say it reinvents rts in a way you could call it modern digital chess with just far more depth then any rts yet, yes it beats starcraft and supreme commander.
R.U.S.E. removes most of the boring children parts like ridiculous and stupid unneeded micro management (like press button the make squad throw nade when the buggers should do it automatically) and instead focuses on intelligent gameplay.
I do not expect idiots and starcraft\coh kiddos to like R.U.S.E. but for those born with a brain it’s just as a big leap as dune 2 and the next step in rts development.
StarCraft and Comapny of Heroe kiddos?
What the fuck are you smoking? Is that a fucking troll post? Isn't instead of having YOU decide when and where and at what time said grenade is thrown, it's thrown automatically and that's considered 'intelligent' and 'unneeded'.
And lol @ micro-management being 'boring children'. What in god's name is that supposed to mean?
What the fuck are you smoking? Is that a fucking troll post? Isn't instead of having YOU decide when and where and at what time said grenade is thrown, it's thrown automatically and that's considered 'intelligent' and 'unneeded'.
And lol @ micro-management being 'boring children'. What in god's name is that supposed to mean?
@ RIMoonlight
Hmmm didn’t mean to write a troll post, sorry if you thought it was that, I just got a deep irritation for the fact that strategy games is either to clicking\micromanagement focused or they are to time taking, and it also makes me angry when people want no more progress in rts so I raged a lot… because I want rts that has little micromanagement a lot of depth and needs little time to be devoted to it.
So when idiots like Chris Taylor says no progress in rts needed he attacks the game I am a rather humongous fan boy of: R.U.S.E. and I as a fanboy must rage back. (or else the universe collapses due to paradox) :p
Hmmm didn’t mean to write a troll post, sorry if you thought it was that, I just got a deep irritation for the fact that strategy games is either to clicking\micromanagement focused or they are to time taking, and it also makes me angry when people want no more progress in rts so I raged a lot… because I want rts that has little micromanagement a lot of depth and needs little time to be devoted to it.
So when idiots like Chris Taylor says no progress in rts needed he attacks the game I am a rather humongous fan boy of: R.U.S.E. and I as a fanboy must rage back. (or else the universe collapses due to paradox) :p
Base building was traditional my favorite part of RTS games. I always liked building a huge base with strong defenses before creating an army to go beat on the AI. That's just me though. World in Conflict showed me that you don't always have to have base building to have fun, but I still really enjoy base building as part of the RTS experience.
I really enjoyed DoW2 and prefer that sort of system to base-building. Then again, I'm not a hardcore RTS fan...
I'm of personal opinion that each 'type' of RTS has a valid part in RTS games; whether it be 'traditional' games like StarCraft, more tactically oriented games such as Company of Heroes or games that involve entirely different approaches like RUSE. I don't get why some people are whining about StarCraft not being like CoH and vice versa. Just because StarCraft 2, SupCom or CoH exists it isn't hindering your enjoyment of any of the games, so why bother with the haterade?
Chris Taylor doesn't know what he's talking about. 5-wheeled cars are the future. :)
I completely agree with him but innovation is still nice, just shouldn't be demanded of the genre. I still want try Achron.
I completely agree with him but innovation is still nice, just shouldn't be demanded of the genre. I still want try Achron.
@RIMoonlight
Well we're sorry for not being as cool as you for getting into the R.U.S.E Beta. I'll take your cocky word for it though. If R.U.S.E does NOT blow Starcraft / COH out of the water, I will have my dog rape your mother.
Well we're sorry for not being as cool as you for getting into the R.U.S.E Beta. I'll take your cocky word for it though. If R.U.S.E does NOT blow Starcraft / COH out of the water, I will have my dog rape your mother.
I miss complex RTS games like Age of Empires. Games with lots of techs to research and precise base building. While I thought Dawn of War 2 was a fun game, the removal of base building really didn't fly with me. Though I will admit it made sense in the Dawn of War games (the first one base building felt, to me, tacked on).
I think with RTS games now also being ported to consoles, we are seeing a lot of the depth stripped away for ease of the controller, which may or may not be a good thing. Halo Wars was fun but dumbed down, and I honestly got that same impression from Red Alert 3. Civ Revolution was also a great game (not an RTS, I know) but also dumbed down considerably from the original.
I really am looking forward to Starcraft 2, even if Blizzard is kinda becoming a bunch of dicks. Here's hoping it is a return to form for RTS games.
I think with RTS games now also being ported to consoles, we are seeing a lot of the depth stripped away for ease of the controller, which may or may not be a good thing. Halo Wars was fun but dumbed down, and I honestly got that same impression from Red Alert 3. Civ Revolution was also a great game (not an RTS, I know) but also dumbed down considerably from the original.
I really am looking forward to Starcraft 2, even if Blizzard is kinda becoming a bunch of dicks. Here's hoping it is a return to form for RTS games.
A real AAA great RTS game is = Base building, defence management, resource management, army construction, attacking/raiding/defending.
C&C4, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wants that? NOBODY asks for that.
DoW2, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wanted that? NOBODY asked for that.
Frankly, Starcraft 2 is the only hope the RTS genre has right now, because its actually an RTS game, not a "Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal" piece of shit.
Nobody, nobody who loved RTS games from the start since Dune or C&C, ever asked for base building, resources or any of those other things to be removed. We dont fucking want it removed.
We loved RTS games because they were great the way they were, just like FPS games are great the way they are/were.
Its fucking pissing me off. And if Starcraft 2 (and possibly SC2, though the trailers and screenshots ive seen ALL depict tiny arena-style maps) messes this up, the genre is as good as dead.
C&C4, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wants that? NOBODY asks for that.
DoW2, ruined all that. Squad based top-down combat with no resources or bases? Who the fuck wanted that? NOBODY asked for that.
Frankly, Starcraft 2 is the only hope the RTS genre has right now, because its actually an RTS game, not a "Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal" piece of shit.
Nobody, nobody who loved RTS games from the start since Dune or C&C, ever asked for base building, resources or any of those other things to be removed. We dont fucking want it removed.
We loved RTS games because they were great the way they were, just like FPS games are great the way they are/were.
Its fucking pissing me off. And if Starcraft 2 (and possibly SC2, though the trailers and screenshots ive seen ALL depict tiny arena-style maps) messes this up, the genre is as good as dead.
See I love the Total War series, but I would not want SC2 to be that kind of game. Yeh, as I have looked at SC2 I was expecting a little more than what they seem to be presenting, an upgrade on the old mechanics and a continuation of the storyline, but hey, it still looks good.
@ Letters Numbers . .
I know where you are coming from, but polishing is what Blizz does. It has never been a real innovator in the sense of creating groundbreaking mechanics, or anything that was particularly new.
But they are probably the best polishers out there. Eg. WoW was good when it released not because of new stuff but that it, arguably, took old stuff, combined it, mixed it up, and did it better than its progenitors.
Which leads us back to the topic. No innovation is not necessary in any game genre, a fun, well crafted game is (see Jim's review of Darksiders). I think the guy's point was that innovation can't be tacked on or done just for its own sake because it has to fit smoothly into the crafting of the game and make the game playable and fun for players. BTW Blizzard excels at the crafting part IMHO.
@ Letters Numbers . .
I know where you are coming from, but polishing is what Blizz does. It has never been a real innovator in the sense of creating groundbreaking mechanics, or anything that was particularly new.
But they are probably the best polishers out there. Eg. WoW was good when it released not because of new stuff but that it, arguably, took old stuff, combined it, mixed it up, and did it better than its progenitors.
Which leads us back to the topic. No innovation is not necessary in any game genre, a fun, well crafted game is (see Jim's review of Darksiders). I think the guy's point was that innovation can't be tacked on or done just for its own sake because it has to fit smoothly into the crafting of the game and make the game playable and fun for players. BTW Blizzard excels at the crafting part IMHO.
@Baleur
I actually asked for that Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal piece of shit, and I liked it.
Ironically, it resembles more of the tabletop strategy version.
Seriously get a fucking grip on yourself.
I actually asked for that Real-Time Tactical Third-person-zoomed-out-top-down-perspective Squad Management Resource-Domination-Point Capture-The-Crystal piece of shit, and I liked it.
Ironically, it resembles more of the tabletop strategy version.
Seriously get a fucking grip on yourself.
Everyone needs to go read the Genre Lifecycle papers on lost garden.
http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/05/game-genre-lifecycle-part-i.html
This applies to the RTS genre in spades. GrimGrimoire was the only RTS I've really enjoyed since Dune 2.
http://www.lostgarden.com/2005/05/game-genre-lifecycle-part-i.html
This applies to the RTS genre in spades. GrimGrimoire was the only RTS I've really enjoyed since Dune 2.
@Baleur
I prefer DoW with out bases and old style resource gathering. Like Chronic Logic said it's more like the table top game that way and as a WH40K game that's what I want.
I'm sorry but I don't want to be thinking about the optimal amount of workers gathering resources, weather my scout is sent out quick enough, weather my macro and micro are up to scratch etc. I just want strategy on the most basic level, army vs army and may the best man win.
Don't get me wrong I like Starcraft and had many years of enjoying it. What it does it does well with it's near perfect balance and it actually being quite an exciting game to watch. But just because of its e-sports success doesn't mean that it has to be used as the rosetta stone for all other RTS games to copy. I'm glad Blizzard are keeping to the same formula for SC2 because if it ain't broke don't fix it. But amazingly some people do want other things from the genre and these newer "less is more" RTS games offer that.
I prefer DoW with out bases and old style resource gathering. Like Chronic Logic said it's more like the table top game that way and as a WH40K game that's what I want.
I'm sorry but I don't want to be thinking about the optimal amount of workers gathering resources, weather my scout is sent out quick enough, weather my macro and micro are up to scratch etc. I just want strategy on the most basic level, army vs army and may the best man win.
Don't get me wrong I like Starcraft and had many years of enjoying it. What it does it does well with it's near perfect balance and it actually being quite an exciting game to watch. But just because of its e-sports success doesn't mean that it has to be used as the rosetta stone for all other RTS games to copy. I'm glad Blizzard are keeping to the same formula for SC2 because if it ain't broke don't fix it. But amazingly some people do want other things from the genre and these newer "less is more" RTS games offer that.
follow
