I'd like to think that one of the most impressive tests of a game is the verdict rendered by a player who isn't necessarily an enthusiast of that particular genre. It's certainly not an opinion that you'd necessarily stack above and beyond that of the hardcore fan, but let me put it this way: if you can make a true believer out of a relative newbie, you've got to be doing something right, yeah?
I've spent a fair amount of time away from the RTS genre, propelled perhaps by the same fatigue kicked up through the glut of WWII first-person shooters -- barring some particularly unusual exceptions, I've had difficulty maintaining an interest in the post-Starcraft world of real-time strategy. My experiences have been largely uniform: counter one sort of unit with another, build build (build), maintain a steady flow of resources and flood the enemy's base until they're consumed in the fires of war.
I was surprised, then, to learn that my biggest objections to the RTS genre became the strongest foundations for Petroglyph's Universe at War; an original IP brought to you by the fine folks who kicked off the RTS genre way back with Dune II, UaW doesn't lie when it promises three truly unique and diverse factions to play. I had the opportunity to spend a couple of hours at Petroglyph's offices to formally introduce myself to the game, and while I still suck something mighty at RTS games (and, therefore, Universe at War), it's intriguing enough that I want to improve and refine my technique in an effort to not suck. This is a big step for yours truly, and a sure sign that Petroglyph's got something special on their hands.

While the genre has long since moved away from races and factions amounting to little more than art swaps, it can still be argued that true diversity is still shaky ground for RTS development teams -- after all, it's damn difficult to maintain an appropriate balance while really differentiating the available camps. While I could talk up and down about the ways in which the art style, combat strategies and other factors set the UaW factions apart from one another, I'd rather just quote one of the other players at the event: "It's like playing three different games." I'd tend to agree.
Those of you who have been following the game's development closely are likely already familiar with the factions -- the Masari, the Hierarchy, and the Novus -- but until you're behind the wheel of a Hierarchy Walker, it's difficult to get a sense of just how bloody different they feel. I'll kick things off with the most basic of the three, the Masari -- basic being a relative term, of course. The Masari are likely to be the most familiar "out of the box" to RTS players, offering structures like turrets, upgrade buildings that allow for more advanced units, and a series of ground and air support troops. For an added twist, the Masari can be swapped between "light" and "dark" modes, both of which offer their own advantages. In light mode, units receive fire-type damage, an expanded sight range and the ability for some units to go airborne. In dark mode, units are granted faster movement, a dark armor shield and additional effects on their dark matter attacks. The nature of combat can be switched up with a single click, making for an interesting dynamic when playing as or against the Masari.
In introducing the group to the Novus, the developers billed the faction as fast-paced and perfect for micro-managers, which is pretty accurate -- alas, this means I'm doomed to almost always suck with this particular faction, which is a real pity when you get a feel for just how badass they can be. Key to Novus play is the Flow, a series of conduits which not only power your structures but also provide a means of fast travel to anywhere you have Flow Towers positioned. These towers and the routes that connect them are under a permanent cloak, making it a breeze to build a wide-reaching and expansive network to dump your units upon unsuspecting enemies.
Novus troops are weak, but swift and absolutely devastating in large numbers, and the strategic advantage granted by the Flow Network will provide a steady base for almost every strategy you'll be hurling at your enemies. It's not without a catch, though -- if your generators are destroyed, the network will be shut down, and any units en route along its conduits lost to the aether. Success with the Novus, then, is likely to be found with hit-and-run techniques, dealing swift punishment to your foes while keeping a close eye on your front door, particularly when the Walkers come knockin'.

Which, of course, leads me to the Hierarchy. These brutes rely almost entirely upon one unit, the walker, which serves as both your mobile production base and your primary combat unit. The walkers are made up of a series of segments which are upgradeable and customizable, allowing you to create a walker that fits your needs and priorities. You can have up to three walkers active on the map at any time, and they're definitely one of the more intimidating forces in Universe at War -- should you play a skirmish against a Hierarchy opponent or AI, there's that thought lingering in the back of your head: in the very near future, one of these brutes are going to come knocking on my door, working in armor boosts, cannons and other assorted upgrades as it stomps across the battlefield towards my base.
While your walkers are doing the dirty work, you can set your reaper drones to collect resources, which is just about every piece of solid matter on the map. Towns, cars, piles of rubble, trucks, everything. Given that these reapers control 100% of the Hierarchy's income and are almost always found a fair distance from the walkers, they'll be your number one target in slowing the onslaught.
It's so damn cool to see 'em rampage through the countryside, the walkers -- they're massive, taking a good third of the field of view, and are brilliantly designed, looking neither Borg-ish nor overly sleek, a theme commonly employed in the "invading aliens" scheme in games as of late. Any comparisons you might hear to War of the Worlds comes from the Hierarchy -- crews of massive walkers stomping their way across the countryside, sucking up resources from farms and towns along the way. In motion it looks like hell unleashed upon SimCity 4.
The speed of the experience depends entirely upon the faction, as does your dependence upon micromanagement and individual task delegation. Universe at War, fortunately, includes a lot of features to expedite the more trifling details like research and building management, which can be controlled at any time via a series of buttons on the HUD. Very useful when you're in the thick of a battle you know you're about to lose and need to queue up a slew of units before the victors come marching on your turf without having to shift the field of view to your base.
The factions indeed play very differently, but they're balanced very well, each with significant advantages and disadvantages that are less rock-paper-scissors than most RTS games. The hero units further complicate the strategies possible with each race, and it's very likely that we'll see some new and innovative uses for the litany of abilities as more folks get their hands on the beta and final release. For those of us that can't stomach the idea of getting our face pulped in the furious beatdowns of online play, rest assured that the Universe at War campaign mode looks mighty promising -- my time with some of the early missions was stuffed with decent mission scripting and well-paced tutorials for stupid people like me.
You'll definitely want to take that route, too. While some other folks at the event were like fish in water, there's a bit of a learning curve, like with most RTS games. But the UI is so different, the research trees a bit overwhelming -- best to take it one step at a time. Dumped into skirmish mode, I felt like an infant trying to operate a forklift.
It's great to see one of my most respected teams kicking out the jams on an original IP, one that takes several risks and isn't afraid to go beyond the reaches of licensed properties and do something new. While there are certainly bound to be camps of fans springing up for both StarCraft II and Universe at War, it's nice to see some healthy competition that brings about the ambition to create something new and push the conventions of the genre aside in favor of some pretty wild ideas.
Back in my PC gaming days, RTS was my genre of choice. I gave it up for a while, until Company of Heroes brought me back in. Good to see that developers are doing their best to revitalize the genre.
Your to late, I already drank some bleach and slammed my head against my key board a few times today.
Besides, anyone who has seen some of todays blogs know why I did that and it was just a little joke.
A good game? PSHAW!
Check's in the mail!
Glad you enjoyed Universe at War, as developers, we feel all the pieces coming together, but it's great to hear validation from those that are able to see the game with fresh eyes.
And you're right, balance has been a hell of a task, and will be continuous. I can't wait until UAW is in the hands of players, I'm expecting to see surprising new combinations of units and abilities that hadn't even been previously considered.
Did you have an epiphany in the last two hours?
We're an independent site on a shoestring budget. If a developer wants to have me out to play a game, I'll take it, because we couldn't afford to check it out otherwise. We accept opportunities like these because it's part of our ongoing struggle to provide content despite the fact that we've got virtually no money backing us -- no AOL, no Gawker.
That being said, I've got no problem crapping down a game's throat if it deserves it. But I genuinely enjoyed Universe at War, and therefore wrote this impressions piece as such.
I know Destructoid is honest, I've seen you guys sling a ton of shit when a game deserves it, so please don't think I'm calling the site into question. But do you think it would be better for the readers if you said that sort of thing up front?
It's a sticky topic, and one that ought to be addressed, but honestly, man -- we've met a load of folks from a load of other Web sites, publications and so on that accepted fare and hotel rooms from companies for junkets. Nobody asks 'em about it, though -- usually because they work for sites and publications that have travel budgets, so it doesn't look altogether unusual for them to be flying somewhere to check out a game. Being that we're an independent operation and everybody knows it, we have to wear this kind of thing on our sleeve.
So why not just make a note saying, at the end of this kind of preview, that the airfare and hotel were provided? Do you think that sort of information is important to provide, or do you think it doesn't matter?
Do you feel like this is information people need to know upfront?
That's about as close to an official statement as I can offer, but if you've got your objections, take 'em up with Niero.
I'm sure the game is great, like I said, I think you guys call it like you see it, but since you don't disclose what coverage has been paid for in terms of plane tickets and hotel rooms, it's hard to know what kind of stance you have for what games you decide to cover.
If Sega offered you the same level of access to this game, but you had to pay for the plane tickets and hotels, would you have given them the writeup? You picked up the check for ArenaNet, is this game worth the same investment in terms of coverage?
To answer your other question, if Sega offered me access but didn't cover the fare, no, I wouldn't have, because there would be no way for me to get there. Destructoid can't afford to purchase plane tickets to send an editor to a studio to cover one game, and I certainly can't afford to go on my own like I did with ArenaNet -- footing the bill for gas to and from is within my budget, but only barely. The cost of airfare and a hotel would be about double what I've got in my bank account.
Destructoid is not up to its ass in cash; rest assured that no coverage is "paid for". We take every opportunity we can to check out games and write up comprehensive previews and reviews as we see fit, because we want to provide content as best we can, as often as we can. We take time away from our families, friends, and real jobs to cover these events, so believe me when I say that if a company flew me out to the middle of the friggin' desert to play a game that sucked balls, I'd be the first to tell you the size, taste, and texture of the balls that said game sucks.
If disclosure is what you're looking for, here's a hefty heap of it: I'm 23, freshly graduated from college, and Destructoid is what I do. I'm not working a 9-5 desk job, I'm not selling mattresses or cell phones. I'm spending the hell out of my savings so I can stick to doing what I love with the occasional freelance web design or writing gig on the side -- that's all. Every day that I spend flying to or from any place in the country is a day I'm not working on some project that might actually pay my rent or put gas in my car.
If a company wastes my time, they'll pay for it. That's why I'm not going to slap my write-ups with disclaimers.
We can't afford to fly ourselves around the country, so when a game company offers to put us up we're not going to reject it, and we're not going to give the game an epic review just because of the fact they've been so gracious as to pay for our travels.
Frankly, it's nobody's business how Linde was able to travel to play a game. It doesn't have any effect on his opinion, so why the hell should readers know about it? It would actually do nothing but have a negative effect on the opinions of the readers -- if you do glowing praise of something you like and then end with "oh by the way they gave me funding," does that not deliberately give the wrong impression? Why do you think we should distort the opinions of our readers?
You're the first person to ever care how we independent writers cover costs and it makes me wonder why you do. It's never been made secret that we accept what we're offered and would be dumb to turn it down. Our readers, and those who would sponsor us, are also aware that no amount of free gifts will stop us being honest and fair.
I must wonder why you care so much, because nobody else things something so unimportant needs bringing up.
I know other sites try to market themselves as real journalism types by not accepting press junkets, etc. If you really think that makes that much of a difference, you can go read those sites. I laugh when I read that, because to me it means that they don't trust their staff to make an honest decision when put in that position. Furthermore, it's rarely the actual money of the site editor that gets other sites there. Its either on the dollar of the megacorp that owns the site or the publisher. In other words, rarely do any editors use their lunch money to go to events. Its either paid for by AOL, Gawker, IGN, GameSpot, CVG, etc etc. Employees of those companies don't feel it in the pocket, so you can believe that bullshit spin on paying their own way if you want to.
I'll tell you what I think and I value here, and I know I speak on behalf of all our editors when I say this. Destructoid only gives a fuck about its community. Our readers matter. That's it. End of story.
We would rather shit on a game publisher's chest at an event than publish bullshit on our site. The only thing a publisher gets by inviting us to an event is guaranteed *exposure*. I've been invited to see stuff that we've shat on and you know what? We don't get angry letters from PR people. They don't care if hate their games as long as we justify why.
So you can go ahead and speculate all you want. However, if you take some time to look around you'll see that we're trying to be the least bullshit gaming site that people can trust on the internet -- and we wouldn't dare slip over something as trivial as saying nice things on a preview if we didn't mean them.
Luckily as the site admin I can see other things you've done in the past from your IP on Destructoid and have a pretty good idea of who you are. Care to volunteer your agenda or would you like me to take you out to the yard and spank you?
I'm certainly not trying to call anyone out, and I think I've asked some basic questions and had them answered well. I'm impressed you were honest about the fact the tickets and rooms were paid for and you didn't try to hide it. I don't have any issue with your answers, and I don't think your readers will.
I'm not even sure this is an "ethics" conversation. Ethics in this area are very arguable, and we all draw our own lines. I think you have yours, and your readers are happy with them. I was just wondering how much you'd be wiling to discuss in comments.
I'll open a window so we can let your credibility fly out of it.
I'll open a window so we can let your credibility fly out of it.
I agree, I should have just put the name as my own, but I was kind of curious about how you guys would deal with the questions. I apologize.To my credit, with RandomUser as a name, and knowing how the Internet works, I realize that it would take seconds for someone to figure out who I was.
Besides "AlsoCoxFan" was taken.
I've written about the issue of press trips before, and people are really divided about it. Some think you can't take them and be objective. Others thing you'd be an idiot to turn them down.
I like the fact that, when asked, Destructoid has a "yeah, we cover games, so the hell what?" attitude about it. Although I will say that I lean towards thinking this is something that should be disclosed. If you have a reputation for honesty and a good, dedicated reader base like Destructoid, it shouldn't matter if people know that someone else paid for the plane ticket. So why not just say "Sega flew us out..." at the beginning of it?
In the end, I guess Niero said it better than I could. If our readers can't trust us to deliver unfiltered content, it doesn't really matter whether or not we disclose. We're fortunate enough to have a community that has faith in us, and until the day comes where we can actually afford to haul our own asses around, I'd just sooner have our readers assume the following: given half a chance, we'll play whatever we can and report back with an honest opinion about what we've seen and experienced. How we get there doesn't matter.
As far as I see it, it's the same thing as publishers providing review copies of games or the parties thrown at e3... And it's not limited to the gaming industry. How many film critics actually pay to see the movies they review? There will always be people who get upset at these sorts of things of course, but to hell with them. It's simply unrealistic. Disclosure isn't necessary as far as I'm concerned.
Besides, it was a good write up and I enjoyed it. To me, as a reader, that's what matters most. Quality of the writing.
As for UaW, it looks awesome. I didn't like it at first but now that it's all starting to come together my opinion has really turned around. I reckon I'll end up playing either Hierarchy or Masari. I'm more of a turtler/tank rusher hybrid than a micromanager so either one will work for me.
so how exactly did petroglyph make dune 2?
I'd like to know if they're disgruntled ex westwooders who left when ea bought them... because they'd be my new favorite company.
I'd ask you this on gtalk, but alas it is an ungodly hour in the morning(8:20 am) and you were probably up all night wallowing in twinkles and self loathing... and aren't online.
Check out the Petroglyph forums, they are on almost everyday and answer a lot of questions.
new favorite company.
thanks cobra
I think it's great to see some good press hitting for UAW. This is going to be a fine game with really different strategy paths when the rubber hits the road. Thanks Aaron for the insights!