Sad state of the RTS

I just took a look at the War of the Ring (I think it was that one) demo. I'm pretty sad to see that every new RTS seems to think it has to follow the WCIII example and present big, ugly, blocky, cartoonish characters that run like Oompa-Loompas. I know it got good reviews, but I was really turned off by WCIII. It just didn't have that grand feel of a game like Age of Kings, where you have these masses of units falling over themselves to pour through a gate or a breach in the wall.

Just venting...

I think every genre of game has the same problems. If it''s popular or successful, it will be emulated. At least franchise games that are trying to just turn a buck on a big movie are learning to make games that don''t BITE ASS ... as much.

I think every genre of game has the same problems.

I agree. Just look at the wave of WWII-themed FPS, not to mention the oncoming titles focussed on the Vietnam scenario. And I''m pretty sure the success of titles such as MoH and CoD will result in more FPS trying to deliver a ''cinematic'' experience. The sales performanc of Tony Hawk''s PST spawned a number of other extreme sports titles. GTA obviously inpired other games such as Jak II.

There''s a number of interesting RTS titles in the development . I''d like to point at Perimeter, ParaWorld or Wartime Command (aka Battlefield Command). All of which I''d love to offer you some more information on, but can''t since the corresponding PR departments apparently don''t care enough to handle the communication better and make sure it doesn''t take 2+ months for the answers to my questions to get back.

I wasn''t sure what you were referring to, but I just tried the demo, and I''m impressed with how cookie-cutter the game is. It''s like there''s absolutely no inspiration to innovate. Boring, boring boring. Even for me, a semi-fan of the franchise, it''s just not good enough.

I only did the Legolas level and I was done, laaaaaaame...

It''s all just different flavors of WC3 today... not a bad thing I guess but dull allready.

I have yet to like an RTS better than Starcraft. Hopefully that''s not a reflection on me...

No, I think it''s been downhill since Starcraft too. It was just too damn good. I guess I have a preference for 2d RTSes too, so...

I worry that if there is a Starcraft 2 it will use the WC3 engine. I''d research that assertion first, but at work I am under the cruel thumb of Websense. Still seems like a pretty safe assumption.

There is no doubt in my mind, albiet sans proof, that even Diablo 3 will use a variant of the WC3 engine.

LOL, but you know that might not be so bad. It''s micro managing the hero''s in a pack of troops that object to... if it''s just the hero wc3 pretty much is Diablo. I liked the one of the mission in wc3 where your main guy gets the uber sword and is all souped up, I ran him around single hnadedly killed the other army :). Proof of concept?

Proof of concept?

The Orc bonus campaign in the expansion is the proof of concept for something thats a Hero party based Diablo.

Blizzard makes us wait way too long between games...

then again..perhaps why they are so good?

They havent even announced Diablo 3.

Its at least 2 years away from the announcement.

I''m one of the few that didn''t really warm up to Starcraft -(though I did enjoy the story!) about the only RTS games I liked were Dune II and, my all-time favorite, Total Annihilation.
I tend to have weird ""pet peeves"" that will irrevocably turn me off of games that I might otherwise enjoy - for example, in Starcraft, I couldn''t find a way to disable the huge, brightly colored status bars that floated overhead when you selected a unit - whereas, in TA, these could be disabled by hitting ~ . Minor, but something I never could bring myself to overlook.

Just out of curiosity Seadragon, you arent named after a classic apple 2 game are you? It had a digitized sample for the title saying ""Seadragon"" 3 garbled times.

I''m beginning to think I never was a RTS fan. I loved Dune II, the first C&C, Total Annihilation, and Starcraft. Warcraft 1 and 2 were solid games, but I didn''t like the story as well as Starcraft. Homeworld was fun but didn''t really play like a RTS. I saw a friend play WC3, but it didn''t do anything for me. I probably won''t play another RTS until someone makes one with the unit variety, the resource flexability, and the massive artillery of TA.

Anybody heard of any possibility of TA2?

Yes, there will be a TA2. However, it''s being made by a different company.

Never had I been so gutted with an RTS release as when TA Kingdoms came out. I LOVED Total Annihilation it''s still my fave RTS of all time but boy did they let me down with kingdoms what a stinker! I just hope (but honestly don''t think) that TA 2 will live up to it''s forebears reputation. SO many units lots of flexibilty and Krogoths!

I love T&A too!!@!

wait...what are we talking about again?

Yeah, RTS games these days are in a pretty sad state of affairs. WC3 was a solid game, but it took some getting used to and was nothing special, just polished. Everything else that''s come out in the last 2 years has pretty much been complete garbage or a rehash of something that''s been done before. I''d really like to see an RTS that either:

1) Breaks the mold without breaking the game. Being innovative is good. Being innovative with crappy buggy gameplay is not so good.

2) Rehashes an old favorite (such as C&C) with features and gameplay that ADD to the original''s features, rather than replace them, with an engaging storyline, some cool twists, and something that just makes you sit back and go ""wow, this game is cool."" Companies keep trying this, obviously, but they keep screwing it up too. They either do a sequel that''s just like the original (no new gameplay here!) or drastically different from the original and break the gameplay they had.

Homeworld 2 looks like its probably a decent game . . . but it also looks exactly like homeworld with some spruced up effects.
C&C Generals just doesn''t interest me, if I want C&C I want C&C, not something that has nothing to do with their existing storylines. Lords of Everquest, War of the Ring, and all these other WC3 clones that are coming out . . . well, they look like ass and are about as tasty. Stupid games. Lords of EQ might sell ok though, since people who buy the game will get into the EQ2 beta :b

It makes me sad that I have no RTS games to look forward to in the forseeable future. Starcraft 2, should they make it, is several years away at least.

~~~puts fanboi hat on~~~
I say give Generals a second chance. It''s an entirely different game from the old C&C''s, especially with the addition of the Zero Hour expansion. It takes the three sides and essentially turns it into 12, as the special abilities gained/lost with each general make their respective team totally different. Yes, it still boils down to resource control; but if you''re crafty enough you can take down turtles and resource hoarders easily.

~~~goes to take fanboi hat off, then realizes it''s always on~~~

I think Generals is excellent but most veteran RTS players are afraid to play it for some reason. Oh well, their loss. I mean, how can you not long modern weapons and vehicles?

My whole problem with C&C, and Age of Yet Another Sequal, is that essentially you''re just the blue guys or the red guys. Even in WC3 to a lesser extent (except *maybe* the undead) I feel like I''m playing different flavors of the same exact troops.

While you can argue that troops have many parallels in starcraft across races, for me they have a completely different feel and strategy. Could be that I''m terrible at offense with humans but great on defense. Exact opposite with Zerg. I think protoss takes conservative ubermicromanage style unless you win in first 4 minutes...so I don''t play them much. But my friends who play protoss well...I very much feel like I''m fighting the protoss, and not a green or purple version of the humans or zerg. Know what I mean?

"Roo" wrote:

While you can argue that troops have many parallels in starcraft across races, for me they have a completely different feel and strategy. Could be that I''m terrible at offense with humans but great on defense. Exact opposite with Zerg. I think protoss takes conservative ubermicromanage style unless you win in first 4 minutes...so I don''t play them much. But my friends who play protoss well...I very much feel like I''m fighting the protoss, and not a green or purple version of the humans or zerg. Know what I mean?

Yeah I know exactly what you mean. That''s what made Starcraft so great. Just seeing swarms of Zerglings bearing down on your guys was terrifying.

However, in defense of Age of Whatever, there were some of the same qualitites, they were just more subtle. A good player could really exploit the qualities of his Civ and if you knew what you were doing your unique unit could just kick ass. Unfortunately, it often just became a trebuchet war -- but even that forced you to play good defense to win...[/i]

Age of Kings was awesome. The races werent totally distinct but the play style was very different. I never got the hang of playing the nations with cavalry bonuses. I always favored range, range, range and that meant the Bretons and their fire arrows.

I loved TA just due to the huge variation and amount and variety of untis plus I could tell those bots weren''t mine just by looking at then and not having to worry wether they were different colours. Also loves Starcraft becaise it was my chance to be in charge of hicks and all my marines slaughtering alien ass! RTS has just not been the same for me for a long time (excepting C&C generals and Ground Control) now which is ashame.

Love to see a return of the Battle Isle series with a good turn based future war Starategy game.

I miss Mission Force Cyberstorm