Here is the RTS thread so we do not steal the Game Music one.
Here post your thoughts about RTSes.
I agree that C&C is fun, but I do not consider it very good.
I am personally a big fun of TBSes, they are much more "strategical" and need more thinking and strategy than RTSes. In RTSes, for me Homeworld series rules. Totally realtime, total must of thinking, not just buying the most expensive units and fighting (AOE), and truly 3D, which means another challenge - plus that fantastic side - space ships and stuff, their design, I love it. For me Homeworld series is the one (also for the soundtrack).
Umm, Startopia anyone? I'm not a big fan of strategies in overall, but this gime is an exception. It's just so... original.
I'm a bit of a fan of STDs such as HIV but I'm mostly into CJD... When I'm not BSEing it all night long then I like to relax with a bit of MRSA...
STFU...
i'm quite a fan of RTS but i tend to be absolute crap at them, my favourites back in the day were WarCraft 2, Dune 2 (and more recently Dune 2000), and i enjoyed what i played of Emperor - Battle for Dune.
I played a few missions of C&C3 but i found it got a bit difficult a few missions in, moreso than the previous C&C games (or perhaps that is because i really am crap).
I am no good at all at RTS, but my favorites are Red Alert and Warcraft II, the former for the music, specifically 'hell march and Tanya mistress of C4, the latter for exploding critters and seasick orcs and elves.
Never went for RTS games myself. Played Startopia, though, which was fun. And some Dawn of War.
Can't say I've ever seriously played a "hardcore" RTS. I just don't have the patience for micromanaging resources, and keeping track of so many in-game elements.
Still no love, not even a mention, for StarCraft?
It's my favorite and these are the reasons:
- absolutely different approaches (Protoss have fewer but more powerful and expensive units, Zerg have much more but, individually, less powerful and cheaper units, Terrans are in between - Protoss are more air-based, Terrans are more ground-based, Zerg are in between - Terrans need to build buildings and temporarily sacrifice SCVs, build-vehicles, for the time it takes them to build, Protoss can warp and don't need to sacrifice their drones because the warp is automated and Zerg can not recruit or warp their units in barracks, factories or starports, they have to wait for little larvae to appear and then mutate, in order to get better units, they can mutate existing ones even further - Terrans can repair their units and buildings with SCVs for small amounts of money, Zerg units and buildings will heal slowly, Protoss units have shields that will rebuild in time but also life-energy that can not be restored ever, shields can be zapped up to full force with a special building)
- all three races have been patched for ten years now up to perfect balancing despite their completely different designs (top e-sport matches really show that)
- there is at least one counter-unit or counter-strategy for every single unit in the game, even the top and most expensive ones (even a group of Terran Battlecruisers, extremely expensive, for example, can easily be defeated with units such as Goliaths, Dragoons or Hydralisks or strategies such as casting psi-storms or lock-downs)
- it is actually crucial to scout your enemy in a stealthy fashion in order to know what he's going to do and react accordingly, especially in matches between better players, this is absolutely important - this also means that it's possible to fake tactics - build four starports so the Protoss enemy thinks you're going for large groups of Battlecruisers and starts pumping Dragoons to conter and then actually build up a large army of Marines and Medics that will quickly eliminate the Dragoons which are not good at all against masses of small units
- there are two resources plus energy and the prices are not just "random": normal buildings only cost Minerals, the first resource, and the further advanced the unit or technology is that you want to build/develop, the more Vespene-Gas it'll cost, too - this effectively means that you don't need to harvest both resources right away, it'll depend on your tactic
- units can cloak and the enemy will need special detectors in order to un-cloak them (races are different with this aspect as well, cloaked units will not work against Zerg players as their Overlord unit, which is basically a depot for giving them the energy-resource and a dropship, if upgraded that way, as well, is also a detector, they'll have lots of these flying around at all times and they'll easily manage to send one over and un-cloak you, Protoss have observers, which are the only units which are cloaked themselves but are also detectors - they can't fight, obviously, and Terrans can build cheap anti-air-towers which work as detectors and they have a satellite-station which can uncloak a certain area with enough energy)
- there is a dedicated logic behind upgrades - there are three general vehicle-weapon, vehicle-armor, air-weapon, air-armor upgrades as well as range-upgrades, energy-upgrades, technologies that need to be developed first (siege mode for Terran tanks for example or StimPacks for Marines)
- there are three unit types (small, medium, large) and three damage types (normal, concussive, explosive) which means that for example the siege-tanks with its explosive damage does 100% damage to large units/buildings, 75% to medium units and only 50% to small units - so, defeat them with Marines, Zerglings or Berserks and you'll stand a chance
- there are no super-weapons - you can't just build a missile-silo and then launch a nuke somewhere just by clicking on a symbol and then pointing to where you want it - in fact, a nuclear missile does exist in-game, but it's balanced in a way that it's not a super-weapon at all and you'll have to manually aim it with a special unit, the ghost, which is vulnerable for 20 seconds as it aims and finding it (detecting it if it's cloaked) and eliminating it stops the nuke
- it has the biggest e-sport scene (mainly located in Korea) not only for any RTS-game but for any game ever, I believe, all races are successful, there's a ton of very complicated strategies around, there are tons of match-replays with audio-comments just like watching a match of football on TV, there are stars, there is big price-money involved; all that speaks for a very well balanced game
These are the first things coming to my mind at the moment, if anybody cares to discuss one of these points some more, I'll gladly elaborate/compare/explain and add new points.
You have enough love for all of us thank you. Your fanboy frothing has made that quite evident. I own Starcraft, and it is a great game, no doubt about that. It is practically the national sport of South Korea. But, I just can't really get into it. It just really isn't all that easy for me to jump into. I played and enjoyed Warcraft fro a while because I liked its learning curve and its not-taking-itself-seriously-nes (is there a word for that?). It was fun. Starcraft, a meticulous and overwhelmingly well crafted artifice, isn't fun for me. Sacrilege I know to the true believer.
I'm not a fan-boy, it's just my favorite RTS-game which is what the thread is about.
Quote
But, I just can't really get into it. It just really isn't all that easy for me to jump into.
That's a matter of taste then (or can you give more specific reasons as to why you can't get into it - gameplay-wise it plays pretty much as easy as it gets, the controls are standard and the first missions should be easy enough).
Maybe it is my sheer ineptitude, but I find it gives you a few easy missions, then BALM! your into the hot smelly stuff up to your rosy, rosy, cheeks, and its getting hotter. That's just my opinion. And sorry for calling you a fanboy, if you find that term derogatory.
Ah, I see. Well, that means you're not using the right strategy. It's not a simple game, you'll need to carefully research which units are doing good against what kind of enemy units and then try to use those strengths - or just google for strategy guides for the singleplayer-missions if you're lazy. :)
And no offense taken for being called a fan-boy - I don't dislike the word, I just didn't like being called one because I'm not one.
Ah, RTS. You know, I saw the rise of that genre. And at first I was smiling, as a father might smile on his little boy. Look at this new kind of game, I thought, trying to outwit such jewels as Panzer General, Jagged Alliance, UFO.
These days I still have fond memories of C&C, mostly of Red Alert, because it was one of the first games to introduce some whacky humour. But one game really taught me to love the genre: Battle Realms.
Yes, Battle Realms. A small tech tree that allowed you to create all your units by taking the lowest one, the farmer, and train him, and after training and turning him into a fighting unit, add to his training, creating a new one. Never since Battle Realms have I seen such a flexible system.
Warcraft 3 is nice too, but I'd actually rate StarCraft a good deal higher. The solo campaign is great, story-wise, and the balance really is perfect. The only thing I hate is the frikkin *hype* and elite attitude you get out of such games- dare to enter an online game these days and prepare to hae your face eaten for not knowing what teabagging is. It's not as if you could *do* that in StarCraft, but still.
Given the choice, I would, even today, prefer a nice game of JA2. But that's an old man's mumbling.
Playing C&C3: Kane's Wrath right now and loving it.
It's much better than Tiberium Wars was, emphasizing action and destruction instead of stupid FMVs, and that's a rare case for an expansion. Even though Westwood took over time away every single thing I loved about original Command & Conquer, replacing near-possible modern machinery and units with starcraft-ey space mumbo-jumbo, even if this game doesn't look realistic anymore, just another StarCraft clone, I like it alot. Too bad that there's NO "teach rebelling villagers a lesson with chemical infantry and mobile flamethrowers"-type of feeling and missions anymore.
But for this, I still have Act of War: High Treason installed. I simply don't understand why such a brilliant game got so underrated. It's like Call of Duty 4: The RTS.
Those two games are in my play-sometimes list right now.
For turn-based gaming, which I maybe like even more, I'm still waiting for worthy sequels (third parts) to UFO: Enemy unknown and Jagged Alliance to be made. They won't be, though, I'm afraid. JA2 was the last gem, being way too difficult to gain reputation from not-hardcore-TBS players and UFO sequels and clones are simply one bad try after another.
Also, there was this old ancient-3d game named Incubation. I would love to see a sequel for this too. Remembering those cool 4-player hotseat TBS matches... ahh.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 29/03/2008 23:13:09
[...] starcraft-ey space mumbo-jumbo [...]
That's called science-fiction.
Quote from: InCreator on Sat 29/03/2008 23:13:09
[...] even if this game doesn't look realistic anymore, just another StarCraft clone, I like it alot.
I would like to know on what points you base your assumption here that a C&C game would be "just another SC clone"? It seems that you build that opinion up purely based on the universe the game is set it, not the actual game mechanics? How the game works in any way? How well the story's written? How it's presented to the player?
Really, the C&C series and SC are pretty much the furthest away from each other they can get in the RTS-genre.
PLAY (http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/38) XCOM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM:_UFO_Defense)!
It's quite possibly the best game in the world. Especially if you like turn-based strategies.
There just aren't words to describe it...
It's like, AlienBusters & Conquer Tycoon. Only they call it XCOM. You are like, chairman of a private military company which is dedicated to fighting aliens. You can manage everything, from building a base anywhere on the face on the planet, to deciding how many grenades 'John McClane' will carry in his belt, and which badass weapon to give 'Noobcrusha'. You can buy equipment for your soldiers, or recover alien equipment from UFO crash sites (after you shoot em down with your special fighter jets, which you can also customise with weapons) and research it to be used by your men (and even manufactured by your engineers). You can even build your own alien spaceships to help shoot down other UFOs, and use the salvaged parts to build computer-guided nuke-tanks.
The detail is amazing. Every soldier has their own unique stats (such as 'bravery' and 'stamina', which improves as they fight). If a soldier is shot at a lot, or their friends die, they lose morale. Lose too much, and they'll throw down their weapons and cry in the corner (seriously). If they get hit, they'll start to bleed out, unless you can heal them with a medipack. If you throw a smoke grenade, and they inhale too much smoke, they'll pass out. It's so awesome. But don't worry - you've got a multi-million dollar budget... you can easily hire more fodder.
XCOM is proof that games were better in the '90s, before the great console-tardation...
Dude, hold your hornets, I have played Xcom and I found confusing, and nearly impossible to figure out what to do. And I have played turn based squad games before, thank you. While I didn't own CyberStorm, I found the demo on an old CD and I really enjoyed it. Idid not enjoy Xcom. So in my mind it isn't that fun of a game, and I really tried. So, yes, I know most of the world disagrees with me, but I never could get into this classic.
The original UFO was great indeed, although I haven't played the others (I have a UFO trilogy budget release sitting on my desk still shrinkwrapped). Complex and unforgiving, I didn't get far, mostly because I was young and didn't own my own copy. Will have to get back to that game.
My main staples were Dune 2, C&C and Red Alert, not a big fan of Generals or RA2. Total Annihilation was real cocaine and I had many nights stuck in deadlocked LAN games, at least when the stupidly long range cannons (and those that followed in CC) were rightfully disabled.
I've moved away from RTS's since because a large portion of the game seems to be remembering to catch up on old jobs that have finished, like building more units once resources come in or telling your harvester not to be a tard. I haven't played much of the genre but I'd like something more programmable, like the gambit system in FFXII - "while <resource> > 1000 build <unit>" or "build 20 <structure> around this area". If someone shows me a game focused more on strategy than micromanagement I'd be interested.
Hmmm i loved RTS when ii was younger, but these days, i cant find one i enjoy as much.
I think the first i played was Warcraft1, then Dune2, Warcraft2, CnC, Starcraft and so on.
Warcraft 2 is still my favorite, nothing has beaten it as far as im concerned.
I also liked a game called Myth The fallen lords. It was one of the first true 3d RTS.
Unfortunatly all RTS seemed to go down hill from there.
QuoteI would like to know on what points you base your assumption here that a C&C game would be "just another SC clone"? It seems that you build that opinion up purely based on the universe the game is set it, not the actual game mechanics?
You're a SC fanatic. Either this or RTS fanatic.
To me, it doesn't really matter if I can group infinite or twelve units, use peons to build a farm or have HQ put some crap into ground and let building pop up miles away, collect crystals or some gas too. The mechanics should enjoyable and make gaming comfortable, nothing else. To me, I mean. It's still all about destroying enemy, overpowering him with your wits and strategy.
By "clone" thing I meant laser beams and space junk. Yes, sci-fi. But sci-fi at "this" level. And that's actually a compliment to StarCraft, because turning semi-realistic world of C&C into space-thing kind of ruined it. It has been done, and done well - and I mean exactly Starcraft here. Your love is simply a proof. Original C&C was unique among its genre, tying
believable amount of sci-fi (Tiberium) into quite
realistic world. Walking robots with dual laser beams and crazy palettes are something else (C&C: Tiberian sun, C&C3) and a theme better left to Starcraft fans.
So yes, I meant the universe. Which, in Starcraft feels even more "in place" and proper.
Also, what bothers me, is that RTS games are losing violence alot nowadays. Remember Dungeon Keeper? Stronghold?
"I'm buring! aagh! aagh!" infantryman on flames running around and dying in Command & Conquer? Way how unit growled before dying in Warcraft?
All that power, gore and feeling is pretty much gone in games now. Buildings pop into bits like balloons when destroyed, everything's so sterile and fragile... huh.
Of course, those are "classic" RTSes we're talking about. Sometimes, when I'm in mood for something really unique, I'd play eiter Metal Fatigue or Total Annihilation. Both, again, underrated.
Emerald: By UFO or UFO: Enemy Unknown we
DID mean XCOM.
And that's (along with XCom: Terror from the Deep) the game I've been spent time on - in my life MOST. I really don't understand how could anyone not "get into" this game. Then again, XCOM: Apocalypse, which many people praised, didn't feel interesting to me at all.
As a kid, I used to love playing Command & Conquer and Red Alert, and when I got Red Alert 2 I fell in love with it (despite being a decidedly average RTS player), but lately it's been Starcraft.
At first I couldn't get into it, but at a friend's insistence (he IS a fanboy - to a ridiculous level, really) I kept playing LAN games, and with a bit of experience under my belt started to actually enjoy it. I'm a horrible player - if I haven't won the match in 10-20 minutes, I get so lost with what I'm supposed to do that I lose the match, meaning I focus on mostly aggressive strategy, and I'm hopeless when playing as zerg or terran, but if I get a good game in it really gets my heart pumping and gets me feeling competitive, which is what multiplayer (save for co-op) is really about.
I like the fact that all the races are so different on a fundamental level - something also present to a degree in Warcraft 3 - and I also really like the graphics. Especially when you shoot a probe carting a barrel of vespene gas and you get a delightful explosion that is half orange, half blue.
Yes, I focus on little things.
Command & Conquer was one of my favorite games, and I subsequently played the sequels, Red Alert + 2, Tiberian Sun, and C&C 3 (skipped Generals). I haven't played Starcraft (but only have heard good things about it) and I only played a little of warcraft.
And I don't know why, but I can't seem to get into 3D RTS's (C&C 3, Company of Heroes [demo]) as much as the old games like Dune 2, and Warcraft, etc.
And another thing I hate about the recent FPS's I've played is that it all seems to be about massing units. When I played C&C 1, and I saw an enemy obelisk, I would meticulously plan out strategies to knock out the power from the safe side of the mountain with artillery, or slowing kill the sam sites with my orcas, or use my commando and sneak in from behind. I actually had to use my head to work out a plan.
In the recent C&C games (because they are the only strategy games I play), all I do is build 50 tanks and mass rush the enemy base. I don't know if it's what I'm supposed to do, or if there's another way to play, but it works and I just do it.
I see that most of you that love C&C are into Red Alert. IMHO Red Alert 1 was the best C&C so far. Despite its simplicity it has had a great gameplay.
I also forgot to mention Stronghold Crusader - I spent a few hours of my life in this game, it is really fun. I dont know why, but it is.
JA2 is still the best of its genre I think. But with JA2 it is like with all hardcore games - only few of them - and no one except the hardore players (few people) buys them. This is a bit sad.
For everyone TBS-based, I would suggest playing Steel Panthers: World at War, which is free and hilariously perfect to say. Absolute WW2 strategy, I doubt there is a better one. Just try it, and after a while trying to understand the rules, you wont play any other WW2 TBS.
Civilization 4 is also a good piece in TBSes, with all that diplomacy and stuff, I like it a lot as well...
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 30/03/2008 03:18:48
QuoteI would like to know on what points you base your assumption here that a C&C game would be "just another SC clone"? It seems that you build that opinion up purely based on the universe the game is set it, not the actual game mechanics?
You're a SC fanatic. Either this or RTS fanatic.
Well, if in a strategy-game, caring about the actual game-mechanics makes me one, then I guess I am one. By my definition I sure ain't.
Quote from: InCreator on Sun 30/03/2008 03:18:48
To me, it doesn't really matter if I can group infinite or twelve units, use peons to build a farm or have HQ put some crap into ground and let building pop up miles away, collect crystals or some gas too. The mechanics should enjoyable and make gaming comfortable, nothing else. To me, I mean. It's still all about destroying enemy, overpowering him with your wits and strategy.
And that is exactly the difference between our opinions - you don't care much about game-mechanics, you prefer the feeling, the universe maybe, the ability to overpower. I prefer a well-told story with dynamic characters (just compare C&C stereotypes like Tania, the Russian special agent with huge tits, with the dominant female character in SC, Kerrigan, who actually shows feelings and opinions, who changes sides from Terran to Zerg in the course of the story, all embedded into your missions), I prefer a game in which you can't just mass über-tanks and run over the enemy no matter what he has build up (read above posts).
All that now sounds like I'm not respecting your opinion, perhaps, but that's not true, just wanted to make that clear - I respect your opinion there and I'm sure there are many more gamers out there thinking exactly like you - as there are many out there thinking like me. In fact, I used to love C&C and still like it for what it's worth: a trashy (in the good sense here) and humorous, but rather nonstrategic game.
Loved the Command and Conquer series. But, WarCraft and StarCraft were amazing to me.
Hopefully, StarCraft II will be even more awesome.
strange how the most liked ones seem to be from the 2D age :P
one thing i really love about the 2D RTS games (and 2D dimetric/isometric games in general) is zooming into screenshots to see the amount of detail on everything which disappeared with the early 3D attempts when instead we got blocky units and structures with lo-res textures.
I have never played an RTS whose story really grabbed me. It always felt like such a side issue. Sure, it helped give a REASON for my actions, but it never felt like it was all that important. I was a commander, my mission was my mission and that was it. The cut sceins whether Live Action/CGI Red Alert, or full CGI like Warcraft or Starcraft, were fun for setting the mood, but not important for driving me to play.
Quote from: lo_res_man on Sun 30/03/2008 23:16:52
I have never played an RTS whose story really grabbed me. It always felt like such a side issue. Sure, it helped give a REASON for my actions, but it never felt like it was all that important. I was a commander, my mission was my mission and that was it. The cut sceins whether Live Action/CGI Red Alert, or full CGI like Warcraft or Starcraft, were fun for setting the mood, but not important for driving me to play.
This takes me to one thing I forgot to mention - I usually play skirmishes and instant battles instead of campaigns in RTS games. I hate strategies which dont have skirmish!