I was merely being sarcastic and over exaggerating, but yes my point was exactly what you have said, that at say the 10 min mark, I've got an X army and they have a Y army, even if mine has counters or it's even then because Y is bigger it will win :P
no you misunderstand me a little matey, I'm not saying it's not about skill, i put skill in quotes as it's such a undefinable thing in essence. and what I meant about FPS is that you don't need the knowledge part. i can get into a map, know i've got 8 weapons, i learn the map a bit, and it's fun, i've still got a good chance to beat someone even if they have faster reactions. say for example clan arena in quake 3, great "fun" game.
also bare in mind i'm not always talking 1v1 here, i'm talking team games etc which makes your other point wrong, it is NOT impossible, i've been matched with master league players on a number of occasions, fact. and i have no chance of beating them. but I guess that's just a flaw of playing 2v2, 3v3 etc with people of various level. you gotta remember there are ladders for those as well dude :)
I think to play this game regardless of any argument, ladder games aren't for people who want to have a casual fun game, i suppose for us that find it boring or moan etc we simply shouldn't play =) so i can see your points as well!
(I would also throw quite a controversial point out there that Starcraft 2 is not really a game based on "skill", it's more Speed and Knowledge. There is ALWAYS a set path/route/counter/whatever for each different tactic, so if you know them all and can pull them off quickly, you will win. I'm talking casual ladder games here btw, watching pros duke it out I think is pretty entertaining and strategies tend to differ a lot.)
Quote:
That isn't at all true, though. There isn't "always a set path/counter" that players simply struggle to be fast enough to execute.
Out of interest, how do you define balance then? as to simplify this i would say that this is true, there is always a counter for the reason of balance??
alot mroe customizable then sc2 , and if you have a duel monitor the game suports it ( 1 screen for upgrades and untis ) other screan for game play) SICK game!! i have it on Xbox , but its MUCH better on PC!!
alot mroe customizable then sc2 , and if you have a duel monitor the game suports it ( 1 screen for upgrades and untis ) other screan for game play) SICK game!! i have it on Xbox , but its MUCH better on PC!!
In my opinion SC 1 is far superior to SC 2. SC 2 is much more generic, and doesn't have the scope or scale of its predecessor.
I liked Empire Earth. That was the first really big strategy game with large armies (for the computing power at the time). It also did not have an oversimplified economy like most modern games or one with tedious amounts of tiers like economy games. Still Heroes of Might and Magic 3 & 5 and the supreme commanders also are on the list of good Strat games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
I wrote this for another site a while back so it might not fit in exactly but it is along the same lines of thought:
Always been a big fan of RTS games. I have not played them all, I get too drawn in to one game for a long time and other titles pass by me without notice. However, I have played my fair share, In order:
Mech Commander
Mech Commander GOLD
Mech Commander 2
Age of Empires
Age of Empire II
Age of Mythology
Age of Empire III
Empire Earth
Rise of Nations
Command and Conquer Generals
Command and Conquer 3
Command and Conquer Kane's Wrath
Art of War
Supreme Commander
Forged Alliance
Supreme Commander 2
StarCraft 2
SOME OF MY EXPERIENCES...
MechCommander series:
Though I think this game can be categorized as a RTT it was my gateway drug to RTS games. I very much enjoyed the planning and plotting against the enemy in online play. For the 90s the graphics were unmatched. In this game you had to make good use of terrain, static defense to hold a superior force, trickery with powered down mechs and radar to avoid discovery, had to scout carefully toward high ground because of sight advantages, and splitting a force could gain a win through flanking even though it weakened your main force for a head on battle. The game felt very much like a real time chess match. I spent 3 years played this series and some time years later when I fount out it was still played heavily in Europe and had some more fun playing it until another game dragged me away.
PROs
Had a very good league for multiplayer when this game was at its height.
SP mission maps were actually HARD unlike some of the new games coming out today.
The terrain was important and could be altered in game, like burning trees to change impassable areas, shooting down walls, etc. This kept the maps alive much longer as players found new ways to approach each map.
CONs
One of my favorite units, the mine layer, because of how it slowed the game play by creating invisible mines, was considered "lame" so it often was ruled out for using in games(If you played MC you know what "STOCK NM NA" means, lol). I can remember an early Star League 3v3 game where my commander's strategy failed miserably and he and my other partner had all their mechs destroyed and therefore were only spectating me(who used 2 slots of 4 to take support vehicles instead of heavy hitting fire power) versus 3 players with near full mechs that out weighed mine 10 to 1. The other team members and my commander were asking me to give up just to speed things along so we could get to the next match but I mined the entire map and waited for their mechs to either run out of AMMO type weapons shooting the mines or begin to limp because their legs were destroyed by the mines. I then used my energy powered weapons and refit truck to systematically kill every single mech they had one at a time to win the game. For me these type of wins are the very best.
No FFA.
Biggest con for me is apparently I was so wrapped up in this series I never knew about Starcraft and have been told over and over again on the epicness that I missed out on.
Age of Empire Series:
This game also spoke to me. Personally I still feel it was one of the best RTS games created. It introduced things that even today's games still fail to try. Random maps were amazing! Yes they were not always fair, but such is life at war. I enjoyed having to alter my build based on what resources or map elements were near me or where on the map my opponent may spawn. I also enjoyed that scouting was far more important in this game than ever today's StarCraft 2. You never knew where the enemy was and not only had to find their base but map it out and find its weaknesses.
The resources were scattered all over the map so unlike many of today's games where they conveniently put them in your back yard you had to scour the map looking for them as much as scouting your enemy and trying to figure out what he was up to along with his unit composition. In today's RTS games you simply have to go straight for where you KNOW the resource piles are to find your opponent. AOE was the king of the come back game, which I also enjoyed. This made FFA games the best I have ever experienced in an RTS.
I will not say a whole lot about the diversity, but it was something i enjoyed in this game.
Lastly the scale. Since immersion is important to me when it comes to an RTS game I think the time period of AOE was perfect for the RTS genera. It is far more realistic of a scale to have archers, pikemen, swordsmen, and Trebuchets than the modern RTS games using missile, starships, vehicles, and such. However, I still enjoy the new games it just takes me some time to get past the ridiculous scale which ruins my immersion until i get into game-play.
PRO's
Epic long games, something the industry has purposely changed for the inpatient people who's attention span seems to be waning with the years.
The Online community was in the thousands for many years. There where no shortage of types of games or players to play.
The online game setup was brilliant and easy and you could chat with the entire community while you waited to gather players.
Far more customizable games than today's RTS. You could play GIANT map with 1v1 or play 3v3 and tiny map to mix it up. You could scale the resources to what ever you wanted since they were randomly generated. You could omit units, etc. The type of games, duration of games, objective of games, all could be configured which kept things interesting for years.
Amazing FFA games.
Could build walls.
CON's
In the 3rd and 4th installments the game designers purposely tried to shift the game duration from the 30 minute to 3 hour mark down to 15 minute to 30 minute time frame. I remember watching a video about this discussion and the trends of RTS games. When games are sped up to quick it is a much more difficult to balance the different tiers of units and often times many of the lower tier units start to not be used. I witnessed this is this series as well as in SupCom 1. There is much more I want to say about this but I will hold for it if the topic comes up.
C&C Series:
I would not be considered a true fan of this genera since I came into it with C&C Generals and missed all the predecessors. However, I experienced many years of entertainment with this series and often miss both the Generals and C&C 3 gameplay. It was rocky transition from AOE to C&C for me. But I found a way to enjoy the smaller maps, faster game play, rock paper scissors mechanics, and less formation importance. The game sped up and became more about micro, quick reaction, game mechanics, and tech path.
One of the things I do love about this series is the immersion it gives me. The environment is gritty and realistic and has a lot of detail. Smoke and dust from tanks, tread and tire marks in the ground, detail of the maps, sluggish moment of larger units, damaged unit animations, limping mechs when damaged, and their air units..... oh I loved their air units! This is the largest thing missed with my current RTS, Starcraft 2. The air units in generals and C&C 3 were far superior in feel to me. The way they circled in the air, rocketed into their bombing missions, had to land for rearming and fuel, mechanic of airports, their animation.. it was all very cool.
PRO's
The immersion of the games. As I was playing the game or watching a replay it felt more like a movie unfolding than a video game being played. The developers put a lot of time into the animations of the units. Here is an example this small video is from a SP mission map I made in C&C:
Air unit mechanics were much closer to how air units work in the real world than many other RTS games.
Generals Challenge approach was very fun and had HOURS and HOURS of game play and re-playability built in.
Fairly decent FFA games.
CON's
Multiplayer match up was very flawed.
The C&C game's shelf life is growing smaller and smaller.
The NEW C&C4 and the latest Red Alert 3 are the first RTS games I could not play. It is the first time I have ever purchased a game and literally not finished it. Whether the games were actually horrible or i just lost connection with the direction they took i do not know.
Supreme Commander Series:
This game was/is ahead of its time. Several of my friends and I all had the same thought about Supcom, "When the PC catches up to the processing demands of this type of game it will draw a very large global cult audience." The scale of the maps and armies is enormous. To have a map so large it takes an aircraft a full 5 minutes to simply fly to the other side is amazing! I have had tremendous fun with this game in 1v1-3v3, Comp stomps alone, and with friends. There is such a diversity of units, with true land air and sea... as well as under water. The game interface is hands down the best RTS interface ever made. When it comes to epic battles with scale, distance, formations, intel, stealth, MULTIPLE base building, defense, and on and on there currently is no match. It is hard to compare this to any other RTS game because it is simply in a category of its own not for better or worse but just different. I am afraid in today's world the need for quick gratification and this game's steep learning curve will never allow it to become very popular. One day perhaps another flavor of this will come out and it will be the mature man's RTS were superior planning and knowledge outweigh quickness of hand speed. I just hope I am alive when it happens, haha.
PROs
The games can last for days if your computer could handle it on the largest maps.
Long range unit and buildings are truly LONG RANGE.
Intel: Stealth units and buildings, radar and so on.
Interface and allowing such a deep and dynamic queue system for units transports, ferrying, template base setups, programmed sub commanders to assist, and much more.
Scale of units
Size of maps
Game where a NUKE is a NUKE.
No ceiling on zoomout with a very cool transition from 3d environment to top down icon view of the battle field. Very VERY COOL!
CONs
A game could last for days if your computer could handle it on the largest maps, LOL.
Resource system is far from perfect and complicated
Game requires far more processing power than today's PC can handle on largest maps.
Because of everything described above the population of players is small and therefore the longevity of the game was also.
Balance between tiers was horrible.
FFA games are horrible.
Latest addition to the series was developed with console in mind and hurt the gameplay. Might have ended the series all together.
Horrible SP missions.
StarCraft 2(I cant say series here since I have only played game 2)
It has been a long time since I have had a game that has captured me as much as StarCraft has. I can see myself being a fan of this game for many years to come. It is far from what most people claim to be the best RTS ever created but it is definitely one of the most popular and competitive ones. I do regret missing the first game of this series given how much history is there. I have enjoyed and conquered the single player with literally missing only 1 achievement to this day. I have marveled at the complexity of the multi player and how hard it is to master if it can be, and have been told that the first game was ever more so. I think it is great how diverse the play style is between the factions. And I am ecstatic to be into this game during its "Golden Era" with so much professional e-sports to watch surrounding it.
On the flip side I also experience far more stress with StarCraft than any other RTS game I have played. This game is difficult to say the least and there are a plethora of skilled players out there who know how to wield a keyboard! haha This game requires very quick decision making. A high level of difficulty, although very arbitrary, in mastering the physical mechanics (in other words the keyboard and mouse) to control the game. A delicate balance between race, map terrain, map size, tech tree, resource positions, and population. But all of this in carefully controlled by the game designers to produce a highly competitive RTS game that is very addictive. I am sure to be playing this game for some time and doubt i will ever master it. But it will be fun to try.
In an ever shrinking PC video game industry and even smaller RTS genera, it feels like StarCraft has conquered the RTS industry. Which also means they have destroyed part of it as well. As much as I love StarCraft I do miss many of the attributes of the previous games mentioned that StarCraft does not contain. I miss the random maps of AOE, StarCraft maps are very repetitive in nature in relation to starting base and resource gathering. However for a competitive game it must be so to help balance and practice. I miss the cinematic quality of the C&C games. StarCraft is no slouch at graphics but their style is more quick paced with less realistic explosions, unit interactions, army formations, air unit animations and so on. But they put more attention toward unit micro mechanics than smoothness of animations, size of units related to balance over aesthetics, map terrain toward race balance instead of realism and I am sure many more examples could come to mind. All of these things are probably also related to focus on competitiveness over story telling and cinematic quality of game play in a multiplayer game. Lastly I miss the scale of SupCom and am sad to see StarCraft's release eclipse such a great game, but such is the way of the world.
As Blizzard grows and prospers the other companies are dwindling away. FASA, Ensemble Studios, Westwood, and many more are getting sucked up by the giants and commercialized and diluted or forming their own nitch like Blizzard and therefore only offering their style of game. Not that it is a bad style by any means but I do like variety.
PROs
Awesome thought out SP game.
Community: Web sites like teamliquid. Pod casts like "One More game" and "State of the Game".
Challenging Multiplayer with no shortage of games being hosted.
Introduction of true video game pros to follow and watch.
3 very unique races to play. Most games have tried this and failed.
Unit love, you will know what I am talking about if you have experienced it.
Strong Support by the developer.
Constant updates and map additions.
Diversity of games that can develop on the same map. Some are short and sweet. Some are large an epic. Some use all the resources on the map and end of back in the stone age toward the end.
Ever popular ladder.
Replays.
Game stats .
E-sports.
E-Sports.
E-Sports.
CONs
With 3 unique races I do miss the occasional Tank warfare you could get in C&C USA versus China.
Aircraft mechanics. I never have been a big fan of an air unit that doesn't actually fly but just sits in the air like a ground unit. The air units in StarCraft have the same micro mechanics of ground units without terrain limitations. I would prefer if they acted more like C&C air units and therefore had their own mechanics and uses such as being called in for quick support via hot keys on primary targets instead of just doing the scoot and shoot like a ground marine or stalker.
Cartoony(I know this is a personal preference). I have come to appreciate the style blizzard uses with its games but I also enjoy a more realistic gritty hardened aesthetics than the bubbled buildings and cartoonish style units. At least it is not as bad as Red Alert 3. My favorite StarCraft unit aesthetic and animation is the Marine. My favorite C&C unit was the mammoth tank. My favorite AOE unit was the Trebuchet.
FFA games have horrible play. This is probably a by product of creating a truly competitive 1v1 game.
Last thoughts:
Empire earth, though a fun game, never caught on for me. I thought the age approach moved too fast for me.
The only thing I remember from Rise of Nations is I thought the attrition mechanic was pretty cool and loved the formations.
Art of War, I had a 3 month affair with this game and the multiplayer population never grew so it it the shelf very fast.
Well that is my wall of text. I doubt anyone will get this far but i just needed to mind dump some of this stuff out of my head in hopes that at least someone on this forum played one of the games above and might have some stories or nostalgia to share.
no you misunderstand me a little matey, I'm not saying it's not about skill, i put skill in quotes as it's such a undefinable thing in essence. and what I meant about FPS is that you don't need the knowledge part. i can get into a map, know i've got 8 weapons, i learn the map a bit, and it's fun, i've still got a good chance to beat someone even if they have faster reactions. say for example clan arena in quake 3, great "fun" game.
Well, that's true at low levels, but high level quake is insanely skill and knowledge intensive. If you've ever seen high level quake, they can basically do psychic shots, ie. you turn a corner and you walk into a rocket and you die, a rocket they fired before you even entered the room. It's because high level quake players memorize the layouts of every powerup and its respawn times, so they can actually know where you are from the sound of you picking up armor or whatever. They can also time getting a powerup or weapon so that they're in the right spot just as that item respawns.
Quote:
Out of interest, how do you define balance then? as to simplify this i would say that this is true, there is always a counter for the reason of balance??
I think the general definition of balance is that two equally skilled players have an equal chance of winning. Starcraft 2 isn't very counter-driven compared to games like Dawn of War 2. Most good strategies aren't designed to "counter" things per se, they're designed to be well rounded and strong. You can't design a strategy around countering your opponent because you have no way of knowing what they're going to do before they do it. If you watch high level gameplay, people usually don't win because they "countered" what their opponent was doing, they win because they played better.
i dislike most of blizz's melee games, with the exception of broodwar, although i never really played that on ladder, i had fun playing lan with it.
a few of the things that i like/dislike about sc2, and other blizz RTs''s
Sc2
dislike - spawnlarvae/mule/chrono; the whole system is designed, especially in larvaes case to waste your time, its just not fun.
like - movement system; i think its great that units can actually get to the front lines, thus giving a major advantage to close range units compared to other titles.
dislike - the terrain; aside from chokes, and highground there is hardly anything the terrain accounts for, and in high grounds case its either to much of an advantage or none (once you can see up there)
like - selection; 255 units makes me happy, although execution could have been just a little bit better, like all the units of a type stacking under a single units icon, until its clicked (which selects the first one in that group, and expands the rest to be shown below.
Wc3
Dislike - heros; oh god where do i begin?, a unit that can take on 10x its price in units after its recieved a few levels. there is not 1 medium or long term strategy that doesnt involve them. might be better if exp could be substituted for gold if theres no hero present to collect, and items auto-sold when you killed without a hero
likes - creeps; creeps in general are interesting, especially the bounty aspect, although in its current state its almost always a good idea to creep, without heros, the only incentive would be the income, and maybe whatever resource there protecting
likes - nodes/mercenarys; expanding on the idea of terrain advantage.. whoever held precious nodes gained bonuses, sometimes life regen, sometimes mana, sometimes the ability to hire help. the xel naga tower needs some company!
wc2
Likes - naval units; they were only good on certain maps however, with there limited reach; although in sc2 it might be cool to have them, especially if they can travel on land and sea. (differing from air because they dont go over cliffs.) although they would have to be a mercenary type unit, since they would be usless in many/most maps
Wc3 Dislike - heros; oh god where do i begin?, a unit that can take on 10x its price in units after its recieved a few levels. there is not 1 medium or long term strategy that doesnt involve them. might be better if exp could be substituted for gold if theres no hero present to collect, and items auto-sold when you killed without a hero likes - creeps; creeps in general are interesting, especially the bounty aspect, although in its current state its almost always a good idea to creep, without heros, the only incentive would be the income, and maybe whatever resource there protecting likes - nodes/mercenarys; expanding on the idea of terrain advantage.. whoever held precious nodes gained bonuses, sometimes life regen, sometimes mana, sometimes the ability to hire help. the xel naga tower needs some company!
You should really think before you post. This is like being surprised that Call of Duty involves soldiers. WC3 was a hero based RTS, and you are complaining at the lack of non-hero strategies?
As for naval units in SC2, I don't see what gameplay niche they would fill. Most maps lack water, the ones with water have very little. It'd require a map redesign which in itself would diminish the worth of ground units simply due to reduced pathability. Furthermore what purpose would naval units fill that the current air units do not?
Note that not every faction has to have everything. A long range capital ship for Terran would interfere with the BC and Siege Tank's role as well as infringing on the Broodlord.
The best rts game for me is Rise of Legends. It was released at 2006 and it's still better then sc2. Because it has deeper strategy and tactics. It's sad that nobody plays it online since 2009. Because microsoft failed promotion part.
I have all of these games installed on my computer and play them as time permits:
Age of Empires 2 & Age of Mythology (3 was enjoyable but dumb town mechanic) Age of Wonders 1 & 2 (1st is better) Civilization 1-4 (5 is EZmode atm) Colonization(Original) Master of Orion 1 & 2 (3 isn't as good) Red Alert 1 & 2 (3+ got silly) Settlers 1-3 (4+ went 3D. . . bad move) StarCraft (2 isn't fun atm) Supreme Commander 1 & 2 Total War (Most; some have weird board mechanics) WarCraft 1-2 (I never really got into 3) Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War (2 ruined the RTS feel)
@Mozared: Go
I was merely being sarcastic and over exaggerating, but yes my point was exactly what you have said, that at say the 10 min mark, I've got an X army and they have a Y army, even if mine has counters or it's even then because Y is bigger it will win :P
@Myrkridian: Go
no you misunderstand me a little matey, I'm not saying it's not about skill, i put skill in quotes as it's such a undefinable thing in essence. and what I meant about FPS is that you don't need the knowledge part. i can get into a map, know i've got 8 weapons, i learn the map a bit, and it's fun, i've still got a good chance to beat someone even if they have faster reactions. say for example clan arena in quake 3, great "fun" game.
also bare in mind i'm not always talking 1v1 here, i'm talking team games etc which makes your other point wrong, it is NOT impossible, i've been matched with master league players on a number of occasions, fact. and i have no chance of beating them. but I guess that's just a flaw of playing 2v2, 3v3 etc with people of various level. you gotta remember there are ladders for those as well dude :)
I think to play this game regardless of any argument, ladder games aren't for people who want to have a casual fun game, i suppose for us that find it boring or moan etc we simply shouldn't play =) so i can see your points as well!
Out of interest, how do you define balance then? as to simplify this i would say that this is true, there is always a counter for the reason of balance??
the ladder system kinda sucks, but Company of Heroes always has been one of my favorites when it comes to variety of tactics.
SUPPREM COMANDER 2 FTW!! best RTS game!!!!!
alot mroe customizable then sc2 , and if you have a duel monitor the game suports it ( 1 screen for upgrades and untis ) other screan for game play) SICK game!! i have it on Xbox , but its MUCH better on PC!!
Go
okokokokokok... it's not typically a video game :)
Still, it's the best 1v1 strategy game...
In my opinion SC 1 is far superior to SC 2. SC 2 is much more generic, and doesn't have the scope or scale of its predecessor.
I liked Empire Earth. That was the first really big strategy game with large armies (for the computing power at the time). It also did not have an oversimplified economy like most modern games or one with tedious amounts of tiers like economy games. Still Heroes of Might and Magic 3 & 5 and the supreme commanders also are on the list of good Strat games.
Contribute to the wiki (Wiki button at top of page) Considered easy altering of the unit textures?
https://www.sc2mapster.com/forums/resources/tutorials/179654-data-actor-events-message-texture-select-by-id
https://media.forgecdn.net/attachments/187/40/Screenshot2011-04-17_09_16_21.jpg
I wrote this for another site a while back so it might not fit in exactly but it is along the same lines of thought:
Always been a big fan of RTS games. I have not played them all, I get too drawn in to one game for a long time and other titles pass by me without notice. However, I have played my fair share, In order:
Mech Commander Mech Commander GOLD Mech Commander 2 Age of Empires Age of Empire II Age of Mythology Age of Empire III Empire Earth Rise of Nations Command and Conquer Generals Command and Conquer 3 Command and Conquer Kane's Wrath Art of War Supreme Commander Forged Alliance Supreme Commander 2 StarCraft 2
SOME OF MY EXPERIENCES...
MechCommander series: Though I think this game can be categorized as a RTT it was my gateway drug to RTS games. I very much enjoyed the planning and plotting against the enemy in online play. For the 90s the graphics were unmatched. In this game you had to make good use of terrain, static defense to hold a superior force, trickery with powered down mechs and radar to avoid discovery, had to scout carefully toward high ground because of sight advantages, and splitting a force could gain a win through flanking even though it weakened your main force for a head on battle. The game felt very much like a real time chess match. I spent 3 years played this series and some time years later when I fount out it was still played heavily in Europe and had some more fun playing it until another game dragged me away.
PROs
CONs
Age of Empire Series: This game also spoke to me. Personally I still feel it was one of the best RTS games created. It introduced things that even today's games still fail to try. Random maps were amazing! Yes they were not always fair, but such is life at war. I enjoyed having to alter my build based on what resources or map elements were near me or where on the map my opponent may spawn. I also enjoyed that scouting was far more important in this game than ever today's StarCraft 2. You never knew where the enemy was and not only had to find their base but map it out and find its weaknesses.
The resources were scattered all over the map so unlike many of today's games where they conveniently put them in your back yard you had to scour the map looking for them as much as scouting your enemy and trying to figure out what he was up to along with his unit composition. In today's RTS games you simply have to go straight for where you KNOW the resource piles are to find your opponent. AOE was the king of the come back game, which I also enjoyed. This made FFA games the best I have ever experienced in an RTS.
I will not say a whole lot about the diversity, but it was something i enjoyed in this game.
Lastly the scale. Since immersion is important to me when it comes to an RTS game I think the time period of AOE was perfect for the RTS genera. It is far more realistic of a scale to have archers, pikemen, swordsmen, and Trebuchets than the modern RTS games using missile, starships, vehicles, and such. However, I still enjoy the new games it just takes me some time to get past the ridiculous scale which ruins my immersion until i get into game-play.
PRO's
CON's
C&C Series: I would not be considered a true fan of this genera since I came into it with C&C Generals and missed all the predecessors. However, I experienced many years of entertainment with this series and often miss both the Generals and C&C 3 gameplay. It was rocky transition from AOE to C&C for me. But I found a way to enjoy the smaller maps, faster game play, rock paper scissors mechanics, and less formation importance. The game sped up and became more about micro, quick reaction, game mechanics, and tech path.
One of the things I do love about this series is the immersion it gives me. The environment is gritty and realistic and has a lot of detail. Smoke and dust from tanks, tread and tire marks in the ground, detail of the maps, sluggish moment of larger units, damaged unit animations, limping mechs when damaged, and their air units..... oh I loved their air units! This is the largest thing missed with my current RTS, Starcraft 2. The air units in generals and C&C 3 were far superior in feel to me. The way they circled in the air, rocketed into their bombing missions, had to land for rearming and fuel, mechanic of airports, their animation.. it was all very cool.
PRO's
CON's
Supreme Commander Series: This game was/is ahead of its time. Several of my friends and I all had the same thought about Supcom, "When the PC catches up to the processing demands of this type of game it will draw a very large global cult audience." The scale of the maps and armies is enormous. To have a map so large it takes an aircraft a full 5 minutes to simply fly to the other side is amazing! I have had tremendous fun with this game in 1v1-3v3, Comp stomps alone, and with friends. There is such a diversity of units, with true land air and sea... as well as under water. The game interface is hands down the best RTS interface ever made. When it comes to epic battles with scale, distance, formations, intel, stealth, MULTIPLE base building, defense, and on and on there currently is no match. It is hard to compare this to any other RTS game because it is simply in a category of its own not for better or worse but just different. I am afraid in today's world the need for quick gratification and this game's steep learning curve will never allow it to become very popular. One day perhaps another flavor of this will come out and it will be the mature man's RTS were superior planning and knowledge outweigh quickness of hand speed. I just hope I am alive when it happens, haha.
PROs
CONs
StarCraft 2(I cant say series here since I have only played game 2) It has been a long time since I have had a game that has captured me as much as StarCraft has. I can see myself being a fan of this game for many years to come. It is far from what most people claim to be the best RTS ever created but it is definitely one of the most popular and competitive ones. I do regret missing the first game of this series given how much history is there. I have enjoyed and conquered the single player with literally missing only 1 achievement to this day. I have marveled at the complexity of the multi player and how hard it is to master if it can be, and have been told that the first game was ever more so. I think it is great how diverse the play style is between the factions. And I am ecstatic to be into this game during its "Golden Era" with so much professional e-sports to watch surrounding it.
On the flip side I also experience far more stress with StarCraft than any other RTS game I have played. This game is difficult to say the least and there are a plethora of skilled players out there who know how to wield a keyboard! haha This game requires very quick decision making. A high level of difficulty, although very arbitrary, in mastering the physical mechanics (in other words the keyboard and mouse) to control the game. A delicate balance between race, map terrain, map size, tech tree, resource positions, and population. But all of this in carefully controlled by the game designers to produce a highly competitive RTS game that is very addictive. I am sure to be playing this game for some time and doubt i will ever master it. But it will be fun to try.
In an ever shrinking PC video game industry and even smaller RTS genera, it feels like StarCraft has conquered the RTS industry. Which also means they have destroyed part of it as well. As much as I love StarCraft I do miss many of the attributes of the previous games mentioned that StarCraft does not contain. I miss the random maps of AOE, StarCraft maps are very repetitive in nature in relation to starting base and resource gathering. However for a competitive game it must be so to help balance and practice. I miss the cinematic quality of the C&C games. StarCraft is no slouch at graphics but their style is more quick paced with less realistic explosions, unit interactions, army formations, air unit animations and so on. But they put more attention toward unit micro mechanics than smoothness of animations, size of units related to balance over aesthetics, map terrain toward race balance instead of realism and I am sure many more examples could come to mind. All of these things are probably also related to focus on competitiveness over story telling and cinematic quality of game play in a multiplayer game. Lastly I miss the scale of SupCom and am sad to see StarCraft's release eclipse such a great game, but such is the way of the world.
As Blizzard grows and prospers the other companies are dwindling away. FASA, Ensemble Studios, Westwood, and many more are getting sucked up by the giants and commercialized and diluted or forming their own nitch like Blizzard and therefore only offering their style of game. Not that it is a bad style by any means but I do like variety.
PROs
CONs
Last thoughts:
Well that is my wall of text. I doubt anyone will get this far but i just needed to mind dump some of this stuff out of my head in hopes that at least someone on this forum played one of the games above and might have some stories or nostalgia to share.
Billy
Well, that's true at low levels, but high level quake is insanely skill and knowledge intensive. If you've ever seen high level quake, they can basically do psychic shots, ie. you turn a corner and you walk into a rocket and you die, a rocket they fired before you even entered the room. It's because high level quake players memorize the layouts of every powerup and its respawn times, so they can actually know where you are from the sound of you picking up armor or whatever. They can also time getting a powerup or weapon so that they're in the right spot just as that item respawns.
I think the general definition of balance is that two equally skilled players have an equal chance of winning. Starcraft 2 isn't very counter-driven compared to games like Dawn of War 2. Most good strategies aren't designed to "counter" things per se, they're designed to be well rounded and strong. You can't design a strategy around countering your opponent because you have no way of knowing what they're going to do before they do it. If you watch high level gameplay, people usually don't win because they "countered" what their opponent was doing, they win because they played better.
i dislike most of blizz's melee games, with the exception of broodwar, although i never really played that on ladder, i had fun playing lan with it. a few of the things that i like/dislike about sc2, and other blizz RTs''s
Sc2 dislike - spawnlarvae/mule/chrono; the whole system is designed, especially in larvaes case to waste your time, its just not fun. like - movement system; i think its great that units can actually get to the front lines, thus giving a major advantage to close range units compared to other titles. dislike - the terrain; aside from chokes, and highground there is hardly anything the terrain accounts for, and in high grounds case its either to much of an advantage or none (once you can see up there) like - selection; 255 units makes me happy, although execution could have been just a little bit better, like all the units of a type stacking under a single units icon, until its clicked (which selects the first one in that group, and expands the rest to be shown below. Wc3 Dislike - heros; oh god where do i begin?, a unit that can take on 10x its price in units after its recieved a few levels. there is not 1 medium or long term strategy that doesnt involve them. might be better if exp could be substituted for gold if theres no hero present to collect, and items auto-sold when you killed without a hero likes - creeps; creeps in general are interesting, especially the bounty aspect, although in its current state its almost always a good idea to creep, without heros, the only incentive would be the income, and maybe whatever resource there protecting likes - nodes/mercenarys; expanding on the idea of terrain advantage.. whoever held precious nodes gained bonuses, sometimes life regen, sometimes mana, sometimes the ability to hire help. the xel naga tower needs some company!
wc2 Likes - naval units; they were only good on certain maps however, with there limited reach; although in sc2 it might be cool to have them, especially if they can travel on land and sea. (differing from air because they dont go over cliffs.) although they would have to be a mercenary type unit, since they would be usless in many/most maps
You should really think before you post. This is like being surprised that Call of Duty involves soldiers. WC3 was a hero based RTS, and you are complaining at the lack of non-hero strategies?
As for naval units in SC2, I don't see what gameplay niche they would fill. Most maps lack water, the ones with water have very little. It'd require a map redesign which in itself would diminish the worth of ground units simply due to reduced pathability. Furthermore what purpose would naval units fill that the current air units do not?
Note that not every faction has to have everything. A long range capital ship for Terran would interfere with the BC and Siege Tank's role as well as infringing on the Broodlord.
The best rts game for me is Rise of Legends. It was released at 2006 and it's still better then sc2. Because it has deeper strategy and tactics. It's sad that nobody plays it online since 2009. Because microsoft failed promotion part.
Dwarf Fortress
Best strategy game would be getting laid in real life really.
It more seems like a first person quest.
I have all of these games installed on my computer and play them as time permits:
Age of Empires 2 & Age of Mythology (3 was enjoyable but dumb town mechanic)
Age of Wonders 1 & 2 (1st is better)
Civilization 1-4 (5 is EZmode atm)
Colonization(Original)
Master of Orion 1 & 2 (3 isn't as good)
Red Alert 1 & 2 (3+ got silly)
Settlers 1-3 (4+ went 3D. . . bad move)
StarCraft (2 isn't fun atm)
Supreme Commander 1 & 2
Total War (Most; some have weird board mechanics)
WarCraft 1-2 (I never really got into 3)
Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War (2 ruined the RTS feel)
i'd agree, but i'm married :)
get out in the sun, trust me, that's were they are ..just scout, try out build orders and then "win" yourself a partner..
that is indeed a strategy game (and a quest if you insist on it too)
let me take a stab at this.
Company of Heroes
Age of Empires series
Command and Conquer series
Total war series
Probably Sins of a Solar Empire
World in Conflict
Civilization 5
Supreme Commander