«

[Eagle of Fire]

The only game I played in those 7 listed here is Warcraft III, which is one of the most boring Warcraft game I ever played. Frankly, did you ever play Warcraft? If so, you'll realise that Warcraft III is a clone of the first one... Only difference is that they "improved" graphics, the story, and introduced a crappy RPG link.

And frankly, I didn't even liked the story. You begin a kind of paladin, get corrupted then become an undead knight? Give me a break...

[Blood-Pigggy]

Um, I'm still playing it today.
In fact, I don't think I'm going to stop.
Yes, you just stay there and bash it, and I'll enjoy playing custom games and playing with other people online.

And to your clone of Warcraft (original) comment, that doesn't make any more sense than what you said in the Total Annihilation topic, because, once again, they aren't anything like eachother.

That RPG element is the best thing ever! Numbers don't mean squat in Warcraft III, as long as you have a hero or a good group of units with buffs you can beat a massive squad of footmen. The units are so balanced, and all the races actually differ from eachother.
Quite frankly, it's awesome.

For the story, it explains the twist, and corrupt paladins were already mentioned in the older Warcraft mythos, you just didn't pay attention :P.

[efthimios]

Eh, Galactic Civilizations II is NOT an RTS game.

[Rogue]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Mar 28 2006, 05:27 PM
The only game I played in those 7 listed here is Warcraft III, which is one of the most boring Warcraft game I ever played. Frankly, did you ever play Warcraft? If so, you'll realise that Warcraft III is a clone of the first one... Only difference is that they "improved" graphics, the story, and introduced a crappy RPG link.

And frankly, I didn't even liked the story. You begin a kind of paladin, get corrupted then become an undead knight? Give me a break...

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Of course Warcraft III is similar to original Warcraft as it is its sequel!

At least you’ve noticed some differences such as ‘improved’ graphics, the story and RPG element. I would not use word improved graphics in this case, as 3D modeling of character and environment is not an improvement, but completely different and new thing. The improved story linked all races into one story line. Introduction of 2 more races into Warcraft universe was fault-less. Unique units, different abilities and great animations made this game one of my favorites in RTS and similar to Blood-Pigggy I’m still enjoying playing it from time to time. I believe that authors should be given more credits for this masterpiece.

What’s the link for Total Annihilation discussion? (Another of my favorite RTS – recently I replayed both campaigns )

[Eagle of Fire]

Those two games are really boring. Warcraft III, which I have no doubt about that, may sport incredible graphics for when it came out... But that's about it. Every old school gamers I talked to agreed with me that the RPG elements in Warcraft III was destroying the fun. Blood Piggy said it himself:

That RPG element is the best thing ever! Numbers don't mean squat in Warcraft III, as long as you have a hero or a good group of units with buffs you can beat a massive squad of footmen.

Now that's one of the stupidiest thing I ever hard about a RTS. What you do now is concentrate on levelling your heroes instead of relying on strategy and tactics to actually win the game. The heroes take so much of a place here that you said it yourself: a well levelled hero can basically win the game for you all by himself. That's really not my idea of fun for a RTS. You know, the S at the end of RTS mean Strategy. If you can bash your way around with a single unit, you don't have much of a strategy anymore. All you have left is Real Time destruction.

The whole concept is sound in itself and been used in many games up to now. But those kind of games didn't made this crucial mistake, and the units who levelled up were never strong enough to actually make a real difference alone.

For the story, it explains the twist, and corrupt paladins were already mentioned in the older Warcraft mythos, you just didn't pay attention

No, I think you didn't pay attention to what I was saying because this is exactly my point as well: it been done in the past. This story line is a true clone of the Warcraft universe when it got out, it just been slightly improved to meet our now advanced taste and standards. But it's still cheesy, way too much in fact. I could see the story evolving from 5 kilometers away. Not original, not interesting either.

As for Total Anihiliation... I'm not going to argue with you if you like that game so much. But it's another of the most boring games I ever played. I beleives the only reason this game got popular when it got out was because of the incredible graphical effects (especially when you blow things up and you see the pieces fly everywhere, which I would compare with the "incredible" advancement in graphics in Mortal Kombat when you seen blood from the first time. Wow!). Other than that, it's an under average RTS clone. And this fit very well in what I been saying all this time.

A game which make the enphasis on a incredibly powerfull Commander, only to allow the game engine to make it be stolen by an ennemy aircraft carrier only to die when the aircraft is self destruct is really a stupid game. Don't come to me saying that this game is balanced after that, or after you use your Commander to cloak and destroy half the ennemy base before cloaking again and waiting for repairs... as long as there is no aircraft carriers around.

[Rogue]

So in your opinion original Warcraft was better game then Warcraft III???

Because you did not like RPG elements that made this game not completely RTS, you did not like the game at all?

Special characters is what in my opinion was missing in Warcraft and Warcraft 2. Weren’t there some special characters in Warcraft 2, where your mission fails if you loose them? (Can’t remember for sure, I need to replay that game too ) Was that better option, where special character just has some more HPs?

At the time when Total Annihilation came out, there was NO game that was comparable to it. No other game provided that many different units with individual characteristics, units for land, sea and air, and unique unit (commander) that leads all of them. The biggest improvement the game had over its rivals of the time (Dune 2 clones – C&C, KKND, Z, AOE …) was 3D modeling of the units, and 3D modeling of the ground, and yes, it had better visual effects then any other RTS game of its time. Small details like burning forest, completely different worlds made this game unique.

In your opinion Commander should survive if he is being captured and ship self destruct? Again, it is clear that you don’t like that some units have better characteristics then others. But don’t forget that both sides have this unique unit, and that both sides can use this tactics you mentioned before.

Now that you moderate ‘Favorite Oldies and Newbie’, I like to hear what newbie games do you like.

[efthimios]

Eagle, please please try Blitzkrieg 2. There is a demo for it.
If you have a fast pc try Empire Earth 2, Homeworld 2.
There are also less demanding good new (ish) RTSes like Conquest Frontier Wars, Desert Rats vs Afrika Corps , trully good games.

Also, for new games try Full Spectrum Warrior.

[Rogue]

Why do you want him to try them? Just so he can compare them to some old game and tell that there is no enough improvements and inovations in those titles.

Now I wonder what would he say for Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. This game is based on AOE engine.

[Blood-Pigggy]

I own Battlegrounds.
It's blah, but I do like the setting better.

[Eagle of Fire]

I bought Conquest: Frontier War and Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds. They are good games, not good enough to actually go much above 70% rating tough. Just like AOE (another game I disliked. Basically, any game which need a patch to make it good is a bad game IMHO) and Total Anihilation.

Homeworld is a very good game, but then again you can't say it's new. I own the second game and I liked it a lot, tough it's not a top game either. More around 80%, which is pretty good already.

What is Blitzkrieg 2 about? It's a wargame?

Anyways, the point is: demos suck. They always did. Shareware and demos back in my days sucked too. You will get about 1 demo for 10 which will really give you the true feeling of a complete game. I'd rather not try them just for "fun". The second point is, I don't want to waste money on new games right now. I don't have the money to waste and most of all I don't want to be disapointed. That's what happened with all the new games I bought so far. I'm pretty sure this trend will continue for a while...

Since about 5 years, all my good games were bought from bargain bins... From those games, there is Original War, Freedom Force, Fallout Tactics (), etc. Those new games I purchased recently which disapointed me the most was MOO3 (a little while back), CIV III, Locomotion, Lords of the Realm 3... Etc.