Great time for RTS fans

[stevensonmat2]

We have so many great RTS titles coming out this year, it's all I can do to contain myself. StarCraft II, Dawn of War II (my second most anticipated), Empire: Total War (my most anticipated), and Company of Heroes: Tales of Valor to name the only one's I know about.

Here's some links to info about the games. If you are a fan of the genre you really have your pick of the litter.

http://www.dawnofwar2.com/us/home

http://pc.ign.com/objects/958/958390.html (total war)

http://pc.ign.com/objects/142/14274745.html (CoH Tales of Valor)

http://www.starcraft2.com/

Any other RTS games you guys are looking forward to?

[Mister_Che]

I never got into StarCraft, so I've pretty much ignored anything related to StarCraft II. Tales of Valor doesn't seem to add much of value (I know I'm not the only one who wanted Russians).

That leaves Empire and Dawn of War. I may end up just sticking with Empire since Dawn of War trimmed down the number of armies for now. I think I'll pick up Dawn of War once either Tau or Guard are put back in.

[HighandDriving]

SC is the most anticapated RTS of the year so I'm really looking forward to it.

[GreyHam]

im really looking forward to DoWII - my favourite missions on RTS' are usually the non base building levels

SCII should be great as well

never played a total war game so not really interested

[stevensonmat2]

SC2 just looks like more of the same, and I personally prefer relic's tactical style of gameplay to blizzard's resource-gathering, base-building race.

ToV really doesn't seem to bring much new to the table, but I'm sure I'll pick it up at some point simply because I love CoH's gameplay.

DoW II looks like a move in the right direction as far as progressing the RTS genre. It seems like it will capitalize on all of the successful innovations we've seen in recent RTS's and take things even further, all the while maintaining the franchise's unique and intense gameplay style. The addition of a non-linear campaign (hopefully improved from soulstorm) should add a bit more spice to the mix as well.

And I can't overstate my pleasure of the fact that base building is basically eliminated from the equation in DoW II. It's good to see that the emphasis of the game is being placed where it should be: combat.

Empire, of course, is pretty much in a league of it's own, what with the combo of real-time combat and turn based campaigning. I'm very glad to hear that they are stream-lining the campaign map actions. The time consumed on managing a large empire in the previous titles was nearly too much to handle.

Honestly, SC2 is probably the only one I don't have any interest in. It really just looks like more of the same.

Edit: I was sad as well to see no Tau in DoW II. They are the coolest race in the series as far as I'm concerned. Hopefully they will be included in an expansion though, if for no other reason than public demand.

[HighandDriving]

You're weird.

[stevensonmat2]

Well I was a huge fan of the original SC, it really is a great game. But my personal preference is for squad-based tactical play. Even IGN seemed to favor DoW II in their SC2-DoW comparision, which surprised me. Regardless of what type of RTS you favor, the fact that Relic is innovating and Blizzard is not is undeniable.

[HighandDriving]

Innovating is for fags.

[The Transporter]

Age of Empires 2 is all you need

[shadowswithin]

im quite excited for Empire, the naval battles will be a cool addition, but im also more excited for a bigger campaign map.

[JizzInMyPants]

Age of Empires 2 is all you need

quoted for the ****ing truth, you dont even need the expansion...

how is the online community in AOE 2 now? i used to play it non stop when msn had an in game lobby on their website

[IgniteYourAvail]

Dawn of War 2 should be awesome, don't really care about SC2, and I'm hoping there's a new Supreme Commander coming out.

[Six Foot Revolver]

i'm excited about sc2

[stevensonmat2]

quoted for the ****ing truth, you dont even need the expansion...


Ahh, I had some good ole times with AoE2. However, any time I try it again these days, it's just too dated. I'll leave it as a good memory.

I'm hoping there's a new Supreme Commander coming out.

I have never understood the love for supreme commander. I found it bland and poorly realized. There were some cool elements, especially the way they did flying units, but again I thought the idea was poorly executed. And the entire naval combat system seemed like a token effort.

More superficially, the game didn't have much of a personality to me. Boring designs and landscapes, uninspired story and dialouge, and a lack of any defining characteristics left little for me to enjoy.

[HighandDriving]

You over analyze ****

[Prince of Darkness]

Age of Empires 2 is all you need

:chug:

[stevensonmat2]

You over analyze ****

I've always thought of it as not being an idiot.

[GreyHam]

SC2 is very much aimed at the online community - blizzard are updating a tried and tested system, and have obviously spent a fair bit of time tinkering and tweaking to make sure that its balanced for online play off the bat (although id expect swift patches)
DoWII on the other hand is strongly aimed at the single player tacitcal squad mumbo jumbo market, and so they can afford to be more innovative - after all, AI can be scripted to make a campaign work the way its meant to, humans are unpredictable

even so im hoping SC2 single player will be good fun - ive never been a fan of RTS online like i have with FPS' (mostly because of the learning curves involved)

[stevensonmat2]

SC2 is very much aimed at the online community - blizzard are updating a tried and tested system, and have obviously spent a fair bit of time tinkering and tweaking to make sure that its balanced for online play off the bat (although id expect swift patches)
DoWII on the other hand is strongly aimed at the single player tacitcal squad mumbo jumbo market, and so they can afford to be more innovative - after all, AI can be scripted to make a campaign work the way its meant to, humans are unpredictable

even so im hoping SC2 single player will be good fun - ive never been a fan of RTS online like i have with FPS' (mostly because of the learning curves involved)

I can't say I agree with you. Both DoW and SC2 are intended for online and offline play, and both are building off an existing franchise. Relic didn't have any sort of leg up as far as being able to try new things. The difference between the two is that SC2 is only tweaking and adding new units, a 'don't fix what isn't broken' approach. DoW II is shifting it's gameplay emphasis further towards what DoW I was hinting at: purely tactical squad based combat. They are different styles of RTS, I just happen to prefer DoW's.

And as far scripting campaigns, the gameplay of DoW isn't any better suited than SC2's. Unpredictability is exactly what DoW's style is going for in their extensive use of cover, morale and other realistic battlefield dynamics. The lack of such features is part of the reason that I find Sc2 to look a bit stale.

I'd like to go into it a bit more but I need to leave work >.<

[PshSam]

I'm very much looking forward to dawn of War II. Looks like an amazing game. Starcraft 2 looks very good also, but it just looks that DOWII has more depth(on the surface anyway).

I hope my 6400+ will be able to handle it flawlessly.

[GreyHam]

I can't say I agree with you. Both DoW and SC2 are intended for online and offline play, and both are building off an existing franchise. Relic didn't have any sort of leg up as far as being able to try new things. The difference between the two is that SC2 is only tweaking and adding new units, a 'don't fix what isn't broken' approach. DoW II is shifting it's gameplay emphasis further towards what DoW I was hinting at: purely tactical squad based combat. They are different styles of RTS, I just happen to prefer DoW's.

And as far scripting campaigns, the gameplay of DoW isn't any better suited than SC2's. Unpredictability is exactly what DoW's style is going for in their extensive use of cover, morale and other realistic battlefield dynamics. The lack of such features is part of the reason that I find Sc2 to look a bit stale.

I'd like to go into it a bit more but I need to leave work >.<

your probably right. ill probably enjoy DoWII more, but SC2 will have the staying power

[HighandDriving]

Like all Blizzard games.

[Klown]

Looking forward to DoW2, played the original and the expansions a load and having it on the CoH engine should be noice.

[Mr. Pickle]

Halo Wars

[IgniteYourAvail]

You over analyze ****

I never understood why people scrutinize video games so anally. I just sit there like a zombie and enjoy them.

[Crapdragoon]

lol sc2


from what ive seen theres still some balancing issues.

[Already_Taken]

they aren't innovating with sc2 blah blah blah

STARCRAFT IS THE BEST DAMN GAME EVER MADE. if it ain't broke don't fix it. i think they will do a good job refreshing our favorite game from 1998. that's all we want, something new, but with the same perfection.

[GreyHam]

so starcraft with fancy graphics and pathfinding that works. meh, i can buy into that...

still, rehashing a 12 year old game without any useful or interesting changes is the sign of a stale developer, and id like the think blizzard has a few tricks up its sleves. Hell, even EA tried something a little different with Red Alert 3 (which was worth the £15 i payed for it, but isnt going to be winning any best anything of the year awards)

[stevensonmat2]

I never understood why people scrutinize video games so anally. I just sit there like a zombie and enjoy them.

That is exactly why most games suck today. Games can either be engaging experiences or useless time wasters, and the latter is becoming the most common.


STARCRAFT IS THE BEST DAMN GAME EVER MADE. if it ain't broke don't fix it. i think they will do a good job refreshing our favorite game from 1998. that's all we want, something new, but with the same perfection.

First sentence is pretty lol, but I already agreed with the rest of your post (with the exception of "the same perfection"). I just don't want to play the same game I played constantly for 2 and 1/2 years in middle school.

I'm sure it would be fun, and I might eventually get it, but at this point DoW II looks much more to my satisfaction. And to be quite honest, while StarCraft was innovative for it's time, I feel the whole setup is rather dated and basic by this point.

[Smell The Cheese]

The new Starcraft is going to be nothing short of revolutionary I hope, like Halo was for FPS's back in the day. I am so excited.

[stevensonmat2]

The new Starcraft is going to be nothing short of revolutionary I hope, like Halo was for FPS's back in the day. I am so excited.

Has there been any info to make you believe it will be in any way revolutionary?

[Smell The Cheese]

Its Starcraft 2, there is no way they are going to skimp out and not take advantage of the power of computers today for merely an upgrade to graphics. As one of the biggest Star Craft fans on the planet, I have faith.

[stevensonmat2]

Well they certainly aren't skimping on the graphics, but other than that it's been looking very similar to the original. Elements that would make use of today's systems, such as detailed physics, seem to be largely absent from the game.

[Smell The Cheese]

It's not like they are going to turn it into a dancing game, it will still be Starcraft in essence but still it will push the genre in other ways I am sure.

[stevensonmat2]

It's not like they are going to turn it into a dancing game, it will still be Starcraft in essence but still it will push the genre in other ways I am sure.

I hate to sound contrary, but pretty much everything shown indicates that pushing the genre is exactly what they won't be doing. Pretty much every new feature has either been done before or is a slight modification of something from SC.

[Smell The Cheese]

It's only in prototype.

[beso negro]

are they adding heroes to starcraft 2 like they did to warcraft 3?

[stevensonmat2]

It's only in prototype.

It is in the alpha stage, but they have gameplay videos up as well as details of what their intentions with the game are.

[beso negro]

i hope the map editor for SCII is even more in-depth than the WCIII editor. programming maps is one of my favorite parts of RTS games.

[stevensonmat2]

i hope the map editor for SCII is even more in-depth than the WCIII editor. programming maps is one of my favorite parts of RTS games.

Yeah man, map-making was a major hobby of mine back in my SC days. Making maps and playing other peoples custom games is what made SC great for me.

[GreyHam]

no, or at least not in multiplayer
SP campaigns will certainly have unique units (ie jim raynor etc) that will be more powerful, but will im sure result in mission over if they die. which I hate

The new Starcraft is going to be nothing short of revolutionary I hope, like Halo was for FPS's back in the day. I am so excited.

i still, for the life of my, cannot understand what was so revolutionary about Halo. i dont know wether its just me, but it has always (since the beginning) been very standard FPS gameplay with a good co-op system and multiplayer. Aside from probably being the first game to really use Xbox live and popularising the regenerating shield/health thing, what did it do for shooters that hadn't been done before?

[stevensonmat2]

i still, for the life of my, cannot understand what was so revolutionary about Halo. i dont know wether its just me, but it has always (since the beginning) been very standard FPS gameplay with a good co-op system and multiplayer. Aside from probably being the first game to really use Xbox live and popularising the regenerating shield/health thing, what did it do for shooters that hadn't been done before?

I'm of the same mind on this one. It was only it's accessibility which made it so popular. As far as I'm concerned, halo (among others) spearhead the idiot-gamer movement of recent years.

Oh, and as for halo wars: an rts on a console doesn't work. It was a terrible idea with warcraft, and it's a terrible idea with halo.

[beso negro]

no, or at least not in multiplayer
SP campaigns will certainly have unique units (ie jim raynor etc) that will be more powerful, but will im sure result in mission over if they die. which I hate

is this referring to my comment about heroes? heroes worked very well in WCIII multiplayer. I hope they are in SCII and i bet they will be.

i hope there is no population limit in SCII like there is in WCIII. the 100 limit is very annoying. It makes 3v2 games impossible unless the smaller team rushes.

[Smell The Cheese]

It is in the alpha stage, but they have gameplay videos up as well as details of what their intentions with the game are.

Like I said, it's in prototype stages and still being developed.

[stevensonmat2]

WcIII was a joke, I'm glad I played my friends copy instead of buying it.

I'm not a huge fan of hero units, too often they feel like a liability or just another thing to keep up with. DoW's use of hero units in multiplayer was OK, since you could revive them at any time (and they weren't over-powered), but I still prefer tactics to be the focus of battle rather than who has the strongest commander.

Like I said, it's in prototype stages and still being developed.

My point was that they are far enough into making the game that we know they are just doing StarCraft 2.0. The game videos have shown no indication of interactive environments, unit dynamics (morale, cover, etc.), or any radical changes. And from reports, Blizzard doesn't intend to use any of those concepts in SC2.

[HighandDriving]

I don't want that ****, I want awesomeness not nerdiness.

[stevensonmat2]

I can't tell if you're a troll or a moron =\

[Already_Taken]

My point was that they are far enough into making the game that we know they are just doing StarCraft 2.0. The game videos have shown no indication of interactive environments, unit dynamics (morale, cover, etc.), or any radical changes. And from reports, Blizzard doesn't intend to use any of those concepts in SC2.

first off there are no heroes in SC2 multiplayer. confirmed by blizzard.

2nd, dude what are you talking about? interactive environments. they have watchtowers that when you control part of the map you get extended vision. there are also areas with tall grass where your units cannont see out and outside you cant see in. there are also high yield resource expansions. they are making nearly all new units while keeping the staple units like marines, tanks, and zealots. with unit dynamics you get into luck. starcraft is a purely competitive game, and at the south koreans demands they will keep it that way.

check this out : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94pwYo2S0bo

the beauty of SC is that the person who played the best that game always wins.

[stevensonmat2]

2nd, dude what are you talking about? interactive environments. they have watchtowers that when you control part of the map you get extended vision. there are also areas with tall grass where your units cannont see out and outside you cant see in. there are also high yield resource expansions.

Those features are hardly comparable to the near fully destructible world DoW II will have. Garrisonable and fully destructible buildings, various degrees of cover (some of which will be destructible as well) and a responsive landscape make SC2's destroyable rock piles and watchtowers look like a joke. And if SC multiplayer trends taught us anything its that the high-yield deposits will be useless outside of single player once the custom maps featuring infinite one-tile deposits come out (and as a vet SC player, that's the only kind of map anyone played).

they are making nearly all new units while keeping the staple units like marines, tanks, and zealots.

Your point? Yes, the new units freshen things up a bit, but the core gameplay is unchanged.

with unit dynamics you get into luck.

This is simply untrue. A realistic as DoW (and CoH) may strive to be in terms of combat, no more luck is involved than in the choices of your opponent, and this is true to the same degree in SC. The only difference is that there is more depth to the amount and types of choices which each player can make with relic's design.


the beauty of SC is that the person who played the best that game always wins.

The best at what? Memorizing a set strategy and trying to execute it faster than their opponent? That's fine, and could be said to some degree for any of relic's RTS', but ultimately SC2 and DoW II belong to two separate and distinct styles of RTS. I won't say either one is superior, but I don't think anyone can truthfully deny that DoW II will be the most progressive RTS of the two.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not bashing SC2, I'm just not impressed by it's lack of development from SC. I think the gameplay model which SC was built on was great for the time but has been surpassed by innovations in the genre, and frankly I expect more depth from my games at this point.

[beso negro]

WcIII was a joke, I'm glad I played my friends copy instead of buying it.

actually it's the best RTS game of all time thanks for playing

[Already_Taken]

Those features are hardly comparable to the near fully destructible world DoW II will have. Garrisonable and fully destructible buildings, various degrees of cover (some of which will be destructible as well) and a responsive landscape make SC2's destroyable rock piles and watchtowers look like a joke. And if SC multiplayer trends taught us anything its that the high-yield deposits will be useless outside of single player once the custom maps featuring infinite one-tile deposits come out (and as a vet SC player, that's the only kind of map anyone played).



Your point? Yes, the new units freshen things up a bit, but the core gameplay is unchanged.



This is simply untrue. A realistic as DoW (and CoH) may strive to be in terms of combat, no more luck is involved than in the choices of your opponent, and this is true to the same degree in SC. The only difference is that there is more depth to the amount and types of choices which each player can make with relic's design.



The best at what? Memorizing a set strategy and trying to execute it faster than their opponent? That's fine, and could be said to some degree for any of relic's RTS', but ultimately SC2 and DoW II belong to two separate and distinct styles of RTS. I won't say either one is superior, but I don't think anyone can truthfully deny that DoW II will be the most progressive RTS of the two.

I'd like to clarify that I'm not bashing SC2, I'm just not impressed by it's lack of development from SC. I think the gameplay model which SC was built on was great for the time but has been surpassed by innovations in the genre, and frankly I expect more depth from my games at this point.

you clearly never played starcraft on a high level if you are saying you want more depth.

starcraft is for the hardcore gamer. dow is for fun. i'll bet a dollar starcraft 2 has more staying power.

[beso negro]

of course it will have more staying power WCIII is still played heavily.

will dow2 even have a map editor?

[GreyHam]

i hadnt seen that battle report before - its shaping up to be pretty sweet id say

SC's staying power was in its balance - balance = serious competition = money. last time i played soulstorm there were serious balance issues with the 9 factions (but the game was fun, and a bit different)

DoWII, hopefully, is going to make an ex 40k nerd wet

[shadowswithin]

srsly DoW is overrated i played the first two and i tried to shove the poopty graphics into the back of my mind and focus on other aspects but it was a pretty unremarkable game all together.

DoW does look like an improvement though.

[stevensonmat2]

you clearly never played starcraft on a high level if you are saying you want more depth.

starcraft is for the hardcore gamer. dow is for fun. i'll bet a dollar starcraft 2 has more staying power.

You can say what you like, but starcraft was pretty much my life in middleschool; I was about as "hardcore" as you got. I played online matches day and night and almost always won. I knew all of the strategies for each race, and how to win on each map. And it all boiled down to who knew the best strategies and who could pull them off first. So in fact it had very little depth, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

What made the game great was it's fast pace and super-competitive style of play. Fun, yes, but nothing quite as engaging as, say, CoH. At least not to me. I'm a military history buff, so I really enjoy the tactical gameplay DoW and CoH provide. I understand some people want to crunch in 6 ten-minute games an hour (god knows I did), but I personally get much more satisfaction from a long(er), hard fought battle with lots tense moments and tables turned.

And you may be right; starcraft 2 might be the game people are playing 10 years down the road, but that is irrelevant. It's not a fanboy competition (or it shouldn't be, at least) and what I have been saying all along in terms of innovation is still true.

actually it's the best RTS game of all time thanks for playing

haha, well you say what you will but I had an awful time with it.

i hadnt seen that battle report before - its shaping up to be pretty sweet id say

SC's staying power was in its balance - balance = serious competition = money. last time i played soulstorm there were serious balance issues with the 9 factions (but the game was fun, and a bit different)


SC2 does seem like it will deliver the same super-competitive gameplay as before. Should be just as enjoyable, if not more so, as the original.

I had weird feelings about soulstorm. While I loved the gameplay and the races, the planet campaigning got old too quickly, and there definitely were some balancing issues. The Tau were just too cool, though. :p

srsly DoW is overrated i played the first two and i tried to shove the poopty graphics into the back of my mind and focus on other aspects but it was a pretty unremarkable game all together.

DoW does look like an improvement though.

The first time I played DoW I was pretty let down, too. The story is just lame, and I wasn't terribly impressed with the gameplay. However, as I played it more (both offline and on), I really started to feel the style. The morale system coupled with the cover aspect led to some spectacularly glorious battles, and that is what I play for.

My friend and I played one match where we had a continuous battle in the center of the map for a steady 30 minutes. Eventually tactics (not swarming or rushing) won the day.

The graphics in DoW blew my mind. Zooming in and seeing the level of detail (such as bullet casings flying out and finishing moves on enemy units) was very impressive to me; the camera system was just fantastic.

[Smell The Cheese]

i still, for the life of my, cannot understand what was so revolutionary about Halo. i dont know wether its just me, but it has always (since the beginning) been very standard FPS gameplay with a good co-op system and multiplayer. Aside from probably being the first game to really use Xbox live and popularising the regenerating shield/health thing, what did it do for shooters that hadn't been done before?

You understate the importance of the regenerating shield/health thing was an incredible addition, apart from this Halo really pushed the boundaries with multiplayer gaming and proving that FPS games can work in the context of a console. Couple that in with ingenious level designs, the fact you can ride vehicles and hours and hours of solid gameplay and I think it is no understatement to say Halo is one of the most important FPSs to ever be released.

I'm of the same mind on this one. It was only it's accessibility which made it so popular. As far as I'm concerned, halo (among others) spearhead the idiot-gamer movement of recent years.

Idiot gamer movement? What is this? Gaming has become increasingly mainstream. Regardless, the game itself cannot be held responsible for people who cheat and hack ending up on gaming servers.

My point was that they are far enough into making the game that we know they are just doing StarCraft 2.0. The game videos have shown no indication of interactive environments, unit dynamics (morale, cover, etc.), or any radical changes. And from reports, Blizzard doesn't intend to use any of those concepts in SC2.

It is early days yet. Things may not be looking good but it is quite simple, the game simply has not being released and it cannot be judged.

[Jacaranda]

quoted for the ****ing truth, you dont even need the expansion...

how is the online community in AOE 2 now? i used to play it non stop when msn had an in game lobby on their website

oh man aoe2 i used to play custom scenarios online like crazy. i was big into the LOTR maps for some reason and i dug castle blood even tho it was nooby. i was pretty decent and chaos and killed at graves.

[GreyHam]

You understate the importance of the regenerating shield/health thing was an incredible addition, apart from this Halo really pushed the boundaries with multiplayer gaming and proving that FPS games can work in the [b]context of a console[/bp]. Couple that in with ingenious level designs, the fact you can ride vehicles and hours and hours of solid gameplay and I think it is no understatement to say Halo is one of the most important FPSs to ever be released.



i think this is where the problem lies for me. im very much a PC gamer at heart, although i had my N64 from 98 onwards. For me, Perfect Dark and GoldenEye were the console games that proved that FPS' were in fact doable, and not just terrible ports of Doom and Quake

Halo came out in 01, and my now housemate had an Xbox, so we got to play it mostly in its glory. and it was fun, and engaging, and we could play it together (i was playing a lot of CS1.5 on a 56k modem - mostly through a commitment to the cause) without any problems. The controls worked, the shield kept things simple without healthkits to worry about, and there were vehicles, which were fun

my big gripe with the entire halo series is how badly designed the maps are. with the exception of one or two, they are endless repeating symmetrical corridors, and you can say what you want about style and realism - its a science fiction shooter, things don't need to adhere to a realistic sense of repetitiveness.

The fact it was designed for the console and set the bar for console shooters to follow (and so many, so so many have risen above that bar since) is all well and good, but in the grand scheme of the game world it falls flat on its face. Half Life came out 3 years previously, and yes - the graphics were already looking dated, and the health system was mostly standard. But it was one of the first shooters where the enemy had anything resembling AI - before then, they just ran towards you firing (or swiping) away. The level design was great, there was pacing between puzzles and combat, and most importantly, you felt an affinity to gordan freeman that you never felt with the master chief. Halo is a perfect example of style over substance, and one that hasnt changed since its first inception. nothing about halo 3 is different from halo 1, save the improvements in level design (and after 6 years, id ****ing well hope so)

The port of Halo to the PC came out in 03, next to games like CnC Generals, Warcraft 3, Rise of Nations, Galactic Civilisations and of course, Knights of the Old Republic. You know my opinion on it, you guys can form your own


TL;DR - Halo = wai overated, GoldenEye > Halo

[stevensonmat2]

You understate the importance of the regenerating shield/health thing was an incredible addition, apart from this Halo really pushed the boundaries with multiplayer gaming and proving that FPS games can work in the context of a console. Couple that in with ingenious level designs, the fact you can ride vehicles and hours and hours of solid gameplay and I think it is no understatement to say Halo is one of the most important FPSs to ever be released.

It certainly was influential, but I think it did more to harm gaming in general by helping mainstream it to a fault.



Idiot gamer movement? What is this? Gaming has become increasingly mainstream. Regardless, the game itself cannot be held responsible for people who cheat and hack ending up on gaming servers.

When I say idiot-gamer movement I'm not referring to hackers or cheaters, though it does pertain to the mainstreaming of gaming. Games are becoming increasingly accessible to the general public by simplification and mass production of proven formula. This in it self doesn't bother me so much, but what is happening more often now is that great franchises (like fallout) are being mutated and ruined just to satisfy the low standards gamers hold today.

It is early days yet. Things may not be looking good but it is quite simple, the game simply has not being released and it cannot be judged.

I'm not saying things are looking bad, it just doesn't look like anything new. It is early, but I'm only judging what I've seen. I'll hold my final call for when it does come out, though ;)

[IgniteYourAvail]

When I say idiot-gamer movement I'm not referring to hackers or cheaters, though it does pertain to the mainstreaming of gaming. Games are becoming increasingly accessible to the general public by simplification and mass production of proven formula. This in it self doesn't bother me so much, but what is happening more often now is that great franchises (like fallout) are being mutated and ruined just to satisfy the low standards gamers hold today.

Just out of curiosity, what would have you done differently with Fallout 3?

[Mister_Che]

This in it self doesn't bother me so much, but what is happening more often now is that great franchises (like fallout) are being mutated and ruined just to satisfy the low standards gamers hold today.

What are you getting at with this?

[Smell The Cheese]

i think this is where the problem lies for me. im very much a PC gamer at heart, although i had my N64 from 98 onwards. For me, Perfect Dark and GoldenEye were the console games that proved that FPS' were in fact doable, and not just terrible ports of Doom and Quake

Halo came out in 01, and my now housemate had an Xbox, so we got to play it mostly in its glory. and it was fun, and engaging, and we could play it together (i was playing a lot of CS1.5 on a 56k modem - mostly through a commitment to the cause) without any problems. The controls worked, the shield kept things simple without healthkits to worry about, and there were vehicles, which were fun

my big gripe with the entire halo series is how badly designed the maps are. with the exception of one or two, they are endless repeating symmetrical corridors, and you can say what you want about style and realism - its a science fiction shooter, things don't need to adhere to a realistic sense of repetitiveness.

The fact it was designed for the console and set the bar for console shooters to follow (and so many, so so many have risen above that bar since) is all well and good, but in the grand scheme of the game world it falls flat on its face. Half Life came out 3 years previously, and yes - the graphics were already looking dated, and the health system was mostly standard. But it was one of the first shooters where the enemy had anything resembling AI - before then, they just ran towards you firing (or swiping) away. The level design was great, there was pacing between puzzles and combat, and most importantly, you felt an affinity to gordan freeman that you never felt with the master chief. Halo is a perfect example of style over substance, and one that hasnt changed since its first inception. nothing about halo 3 is different from halo 1, save the improvements in level design (and after 6 years, id ****ing well hope so)

The port of Halo to the PC came out in 03, next to games like CnC Generals, Warcraft 3, Rise of Nations, Galactic Civilisations and of course, Knights of the Old Republic. You know my opinion on it, you guys can form your own


TL;DR - Halo = wai overated, GoldenEye > Halo

I disagree. Halo is awesome.

It certainly was influential, but I think it did more to harm gaming in general by helping mainstream it to a fault.

Making something great for mainstream consumption has no impact on other games around it.

When I say idiot-gamer movement I'm not referring to hackers or cheaters, though it does pertain to the mainstreaming of gaming. Games are becoming increasingly accessible to the general public by simplification and mass production of proven formula. This in it self doesn't bother me so much, but what is happening more often now is that great franchises (like fallout) are being mutated and ruined just to satisfy the low standards gamers hold today.

I don't see how you can say there are low standards in the mainstream gaming population. If a game doesn't excel it is critically panned, and nobody buys it. Not everything can be GTA or Metal Gear Solid or Starcraft.

I'm not saying things are looking bad, it just doesn't look like anything new. It is early, but I'm only judging what I've seen. I'll hold my final call for when it does come out, though ;)

I have faith in Blizzard, they have never failed me in all my years as a fan in pushing the envelope with games.

[GreyHam]

a lot of the 'dumbing games down' criticism is aimed squarely at the console market. and fair enough, for some games (FPS and RTS, the two biggest competetive genres) nothing but a PC or at least PC style interface will suffice. Consoles are aimed more at the casual gamer than the PC style nerd anyway, given the costs involved.

the gripe i have is when PC games are simplified so that a cross platform port can be made. Given that PC games shuld theoretically, be easier to code for, they should be pushing forward (and generally they do) but recently theyve started to make sure theyre games are identical over the 3 main platforms - PS3, 260 and PC. They say its due to piracy and the costs involved in making a platform exclusive but im not sure i buy that at all

even valve are becoming more and more under EA and Microsofts influence with the orange box and left 4 dead being available on the 360 (microsoft are insisting that DLC on the 360 is payed for, and valve dont want to let the 360 crowd suffer while the pc crowd get it for free)

[stevensonmat2]

Just out of curiosity, what would have you done differently with Fallout 3?

Where to begin? FO3 is a complete mess as far as I'm concerned. The writing is atrocious, the gameplay becomes stale very quickly, the small map is unjustified by lack of content, the karma system seems like an afterthought and has no real bearing on the game... I could go on. The biggest problem for me, however, was the fact that no matter what you do, your actions don't really matter. The game is 100% forgiving; you can't lose. What's more, the game is as hollow as Oblivion. It's fun for a couple of weeks, and then all the curtains come down and there is no substance.


I think ultimately I would have given FO3 to the guys who made the original two :p That would have ensured a title that was true to the series and was of an excellent standard.



What are you getting at with this?

Just that, in general, game studios are catering more to the lowest common denominator of gamer. If they make it simple and accessible, then they can sell more units. The consequence is the loss of important aspects which make games great, such as an engaging story or depth of gameplay.

EDIT: To clarify, I don't care if studios make bad games, but it is unacceptable when a series that exemplified excellence (fallout) is corrupted by the quest for profit.

[IgniteYourAvail]

Just that, in general, game studios are catering more to the lowest common denominator of gamer. If they make it simple and accessible, then they can sell more units. The consequence is the loss of important aspects which make games great, such as an engaging story or depth of gameplay.

Well, that's business. Indie developers are still belting out awesome and original titles, while most big-name developers are shi‪t‪ting out Generic Shooter #5326 every year. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

[RetiredAt21]

**** Halo, seriously. Most overrated game of all time. It's ridiculous.

[stevensonmat2]

I disagree. Halo is awesome.

Making something great for mainstream consumption has no impact on other games around it.

This is entirely untrue. Successful games set the standards which studios follow in order to sell units.



I don't see how you can say there are low standards in the mainstream gaming population. If a game doesn't excel it is critically panned, and nobody buys it. Not everything can be GTA or Metal Gear Solid or Starcraft.

The broader the the spectrum of gamers, the lower the average of standards becomes. Again I say, important aspects, such as well-written stories and thoughtful gameplay, are less important to most consumers than excellent graphics or ease of play.

As for the critics, video games have perhaps the worst standard of journalism in any media. Games that I consider mediocre or even bad often receive high marks from the media (such ad FO3).



I have faith in Blizzard, they have never failed me in all my years as a fan in pushing the envelope with games.

We'll see.

Well, that's business. Indie developers are still belting out awesome and original titles, while most big-name developers are shi‪t‪ting out Generic Shooter #5326 every year. That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Very true, but I don't have to like it. And I'm not blaming the companies solely, the consumer should be more discerning in what games they buy.



the gripe i have is when PC games are simplified so that a cross platform port can be made. Given that PC games shuld theoretically, be easier to code for, they should be pushing forward (and generally they do) but recently theyve started to make sure theyre games are identical over the 3 main platforms - PS3, 260 and PC. They say its due to piracy and the costs involved in making a platform exclusive but im not sure i buy that at all


Too true. I wouldn't care if consoles kept their crap to themselves, but they are seriously affecting the PC market in a bad way.

[stevensonmat2]

EDIT: uhh, post above me dissapeared...anyways haha.

Here are the reqs for DoW II:

Minimum Requirements
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
* P4 3.2 GHz (single core) or any Dual Core processor
* 1 GB RAM (XP), 1.5 GB RAM (Vista)
* A 128MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 6600 GT / ATI X1600, or equivalent
* 5.5 GB of Hard Drive space

Recommended
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
* AMD Athlon 64?2 4400+ or any Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2 GB RAM (XP and Vista)
* A 256MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900, or equivalent
* 5.5 GB of Hard Drive space

[PshSam]

my computer is gonna kill this game, nice.

[beso negro]

oh man aoe2 i used to play custom scenarios online like crazy. i was big into the LOTR maps for some reason and i dug castle blood even tho it was nooby. i was pretty decent and chaos and killed at graves.

germs blood anyone

Recommended
* Windows XP SP2 or Windows Vista SP1
* AMD Athlon 64?2 4400+ or any Intel Core 2 Duo
* 2 GB RAM (XP and Vista)
* A 256MB Video Card (Shader Model 3) - Nvidia GeForce 7800 GT / ATI X1900, or equivalent
* 5.5 GB of Hard Drive space

cool those requirements aren't too demanding

[Mr. Ron]

awesome, my machine is up to it.

[Mister_Che]

I saw these earlier today, I should've posted them on here.

My computer will be able to man-handle it.

[Already_Taken]

buy DOW but see how much support they give the game after it comes out. once they have your cash they won't be able to charge you for a patch to actually balance the game, which inevidably will have to happen. once there's a strategy that makes all the others insignificant everyone will stop playing.

blizzard takes care of their games. they still upgrade starcraft regularly to keep hackers out. they had to majorly rebalance the game with v1.08 in 2001, if they never did that starcraft would have been just another rts game. blizzard is what sets starcraft apart from dow. you can look at your bullet holes and nice shadows, but that isn't what makes a fun game.

[stevensonmat2]

buy DOW but see how much support they give the game after it comes out. once they have your cash they won't be able to charge you for a patch to actually balance the game, which inevidably will have to happen. once there's a strategy that makes all the others insignificant everyone will stop playing.

It's amazing how you can predict the future like that. Stunning, really.

What makes you think DoW will not support it's game after release?



blizzard takes care of their games. they still upgrade starcraft regularly to keep hackers out. they had to majorly rebalance the game with v1.08 in 2001, if they never did that starcraft would have been just another rts game. blizzard is what sets starcraft apart from dow. you can look at your bullet holes and nice shadows, but that isn't what makes a fun game.

I agree, pretty graphics don't make a game fun. Fortunately DoW II will feature much more than that.

[Mister_Che]

buy DOW but see how much support they give the game after it comes out. once they have your cash they won't be able to charge you for a patch to actually balance the game, which inevidably will have to happen. once there's a strategy that makes all the others insignificant everyone will stop playing.

blizzard takes care of their games. they still upgrade starcraft regularly to keep hackers out. they had to majorly rebalance the game with v1.08 in 2001, if they never did that starcraft would have been just another rts game. blizzard is what sets starcraft apart from dow. you can look at your bullet holes and nice shadows, but that isn't what makes a fun game.

You are the definition of fanboy if I've ever seen one.

[Mr. Ron]

I think blizzard is a good company, but some of the fanboys (not saying already_taken is one) are funny. They'll eat any sort of **** blizzard throws at them.

[Jacaranda]

germs blood anyone
oh aha. i sucked at that. plus all the good clans would gang up on me :(
i was friends with a few LCs who could get me into the private games <.<

[Mister_Che]

I think blizzard is a good company, but some of the fanboys (not saying already_taken is one) are funny. They'll eat any sort of **** blizzard throws at them.

They also seem baffled if someone doesn't like StarCraft and prefers other games instead.

[Smell The Cheese]

This is entirely untrue. Successful games set the standards which studios follow in order to sell units.

You are taking one thing and calling it another.

The broader the the spectrum of gamers, the lower the average of standards becomes. Again I say, important aspects, such as well-written stories and thoughtful gameplay, are less important to most consumers than excellent graphics or ease of play.

Name one video game that has a narrative that isn't a cliche hacking out of other forms of media that can be said to actually have literary merit. The story should never be a focus in my opinion, but I do agree with you that complex gameplay is much more worthwhile in the long run. However I still believe that ergonomic usability should start at the beginning and a steep learning curve should NEVER stop people from being able to enjoy a game off the bat. A game like Starcraft is gold in this case, easing yourself in is a breeze but it doesn't even scratch the surface.

As for the critics, video games have perhaps the worst standard of journalism in any media. Games that I consider mediocre or even bad often receive high marks from the media (such ad FO3).

The style of journalism can be full of poor writing indeed, however I do not believe this reflects the merit of high scores being handed out. Just because you don't believe a game is exceptional merely because it is popular and easy for people to play does not make it so, the fact that it is accessible should be taken into account for its praise. If the game does not go beyond this surface, well I believe you would be right in being underwhelmed but I believe the average score from gaming critics is more or less on the money as longevity and depth is something most gamers strive for.

[Already_Taken]

They also seem baffled if someone doesn't like StarCraft and prefers other games instead.

DOW : yahtzee :: starcraft : chess

[Mister_Che]

Quit acting like Starcraft is some ****ing olympic sport you ****ing infant.

[GreyHam]

the problem with game reviews is that, especially with magazines, theres always an ulterior motive. Even the online sites have given some dubious reviews (like GameSpot not reviewing any game by EA thats ultra shite - have a look for any EA game with a poor score, and think about games that are missing)

at the end of the day though, people experience games differently based on their preferences. You could give me the most fantastic football game and id still find it dull. FO3 and Oblivion arent to everyones tastes, but neither are J-RPGs, but games that demand as much time and attention as them are likely to make some serious divides

Games that become popular gather fanboys, and fanboys ruin everyone elses opinion of a game. in not wanting to eithe rbe percieved as a fanboy or spend time playing with them, people look elsewhere for their fun. the most obvious examples of this are when Valve have the free weekends for X game (usualy TF2) and anyone serious about a game with any substance stays well away from the screams of children down the mic, playing their gansta rap and what not

When you think about Halo online, whats the first thing that hits you? For me, its Xbox live fanboys screaming down the mic when theyre supposed to be in school

Starcraft is a great game, and its online community 12 years on is testament to that. But its success has less to do with the original state of the game and more to do with the continuous balancing that blizzard have done over the years, offering new patches when most would leave the game for dead. They did the same with Diablo II, and for very little financial recuperation (if anyones buying the games still its for a fiver each)

having said that, Relic have become a very forward thinking developer for RTS', to the extent that theyre more RTT's than anything. the CnC series is fun, and simple, Starcraft is balanced and competitive, and DoW and CoH requires an entirely different strategy (given the very different style of resource aquisition)

[Mister_Che]

having said that, Relic have become a very forward thinking developer for RTS', to the extent that theyre more RTT's than anything. the CnC series is fun, and simple, Starcraft is balanced and competitive, and DoW and CoH requires an entirely different strategy (given the very different style of resource aquisition)

How dare you? Starcraft is the pinnacle of RTS, no, the pinnacle of all gaming! :angry::angry::angry:

[GreyHam]

How dare you? Starcraft is the pinnacle of RTS, no, the pinnacle of all gaming! :angry::angry::angry:

My life for Aiur...

[Mister_Che]

Have you played CnC 3? Any good?

[DBoons Ghost]

Starcraft would have been classic if the AI pathing wasn't horrendous and the stupid things followed orders properly. Who am I kidding it's classic anyways.

I look forward to SC2. Also to DoW2.

I've been playing RTS games again. Mostly AoE3 which is meh.

[Mister_Che]

I've been playing RTS games again. Mostly AoE3 which is meh.

It didn't hold my attention as well as AoE2. While cannon and gunpowder is cool, the time period really didn't hold my interest.

[GreyHam]

Have you played CnC 3? Any good?

Given that its LAN support is non existant i havent reinstalled it since my new computer (although the box is on my desk begging to be played)

CnC 3 is fun. theres no denying, its pretty fun. theres loads of different units, plenty of fun strategies to try, and it looks great. The third faction gives some variety and makes each faction more defined. Its worth getting. I havent got Kanes Wrath - too expensive from the reviews ive had, but when its a tenner ill nab it, im sure itll amuse.
Its not earth shattering, but its enjoyable, and thats just great

RA3 is very much the same. Probably fair to say its dumbed down, and the co-op campaign feels very forced at times. but worth the £15 quid id have payed for it if i hadnt got it for xmas

the CnC series is become very predictable in gameplay, but the unit design and sense of nostalgia is what keeps it going for me.

[DBoons Ghost]

It didn't hold my attention as well as AoE2. While cannon and gunpowder is cool, the time period really didn't hold my interest.

Yeah I agree with you. I liked the old ones better but in a pinch AoE3 will suffice when I want to play that style.

I usually play co-op with buddies against the computer on the hardest difficulty. That's so much fun to play.

[Mister_Che]

John, have you played Company of Heroes? It's easily one of the best RTS games I've ever played. I probably got more enjoyment out of that than nearly any other RTS game.

[stevensonmat2]

You are taking one thing and calling it another.

What do you mean?

Name one video game that has a narrative that isn't a cliche hacking out of other forms of media that can be said to actually have literary merit.


Really your argument here is invalid. You could dismiss countless excellent films on that premise.

None the less...

Fallout 1 and 2, Morrowind, Half Life 1 and 2 just off the top of my head. And those are some great original stories. But I don't think every game needs to go that far to be exceptional. When I say 'great story' I'm not looking for a Pulitzer prize winner, all I ask for is a story that's not completely transparent and predictable that is backed by believable characters with actual motives and well written dialouge.

Sadly, as corners are cut to push games out faster, the aspects tht matter least to most gamers are the ones to go first. This explains why EA games almost always have god awful stories.


The story should never be a focus in my opinion, but I do agree with you that complex gameplay is much more worthwhile in the long run. However I still believe that ergonomic usability should start at the beginning and a steep learning curve should NEVER stop people from being able to enjoy a game off the bat. A game like Starcraft is gold in this case, easing yourself in is a breeze but it doesn't even scratch the surface.

The story doesn't need to be the main focus in every game, but in some genres (such as RPG's) a good story is vital. In other genres it would only do a service to the quality of play. And I agree with your sentiments in regards to difficulty to an extent. Games such as Steel Battalion are unforgivably difficult to a fault (and no tutorial!), where the fun stops and the frustration takes hold. That is a challenge of making an excellent game, though. Balancing fun with challenge, reward with consequence. StarCraft did this well, and I still think SC was a great game.


The style of journalism can be full of poor writing indeed, however I do not believe this reflects the merit of high scores being handed out. Just because you don't believe a game is exceptional merely because it is popular and easy for people to play does not make it so, the fact that it is accessible should be taken into account for its praise.

I don't dislike a game if it is accessible. DoW is accessible, Half Life is accessible. Good games should be easy to get into, but not master. I dislike games for being shallow, and not going beyond accessible. I'll use Fo3 as an example again. It is a contender for game of the year in a few places I believe, and it's merits are totally lacking for reason I've already explained.


If the game does not go beyond this surface, well I believe you would be right in being underwhelmed but I believe the average score from gaming critics is more or less on the money as longevity and depth is something most gamers strive for.

I would have to disagree totally here. It has been my experience that the majority of gamers today want something they can consume in a matter of weeks and then toss aside, lest it be an online game that is quick to learn and is super-competitive. Take Halo for instance. Gamers will spend hours upon hours, in a zombie-like daze, repeating the same levels, killing and dieing over and over.

DOW : yahtzee :: starcraft : chess

Are you ever going to construct an actual argument or are you going to continue making an *** of yourself?

the problem with game reviews is that, especially with magazines, theres always an ulterior motive. Even the online sites have given some dubious reviews (like GameSpot not reviewing any game by EA thats ultra poope - have a look for any EA game with a poor score, and think about games that are missing)

I try to avoid game review sites when I can. As you said, their motives often seem questionable, and in an relatively new industry like video games there are few checks for such corruption.

at the end of the day though, people experience games differently based on their preferences. You could give me the most fantastic football game and id still find it dull. FO3 and Oblivion arent to everyones tastes, but neither are J-RPGs, but games that demand as much time and attention as them are likely to make some serious divides

This is great way to look at it. I agree totally; not every game is for everyone. My only beef with the industry is that many devs clearly cut corners and lessen the quality of games, and in the end the entire industry suffers for such conduct.

having said that, Relic have become a very forward thinking developer for RTS', to the extent that theyre more RTT's than anything. the CnC series is fun, and simple, Starcraft is balanced and competitive, and DoW and CoH requires an entirely different strategy (given the very different style of resource aquisition)

This is why I've been praising relic so much. They really are taking the broad specturm of RTS into interesting new avenues. I'll get behind any company so long as the are progressing the art.


EDIT: Here's the real Dawn of War for all you history buffs out there: http://pc.ign.com/objects/013/013400.html lol

[GreyHam]

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14243516/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/videos/starcraft2vdow2_011509.html

possibly most relevant video to a thread ever (even if it is the god awful IGN doing it)

EDIT: except it doesnt really say a lot about either that anyone who has been keeping up wont already know

ah well

[nungman]

no, or at least not in multiplayer
SP campaigns will certainly have unique units (ie jim raynor etc) that will be more powerful, but will im sure result in mission over if they die. which I hate



i still, for the life of my, cannot understand what was so revolutionary about Halo. i dont know wether its just me, but it has always (since the beginning) been very standard FPS gameplay with a good co-op system and multiplayer. Aside from probably being the first game to really use Xbox live and popularising the regenerating shield/health thing, what did it do for shooters that hadn't been done before?

half life was much more innovative than halo. halo blows.

[stevensonmat2]

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14243516/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/videos/starcraft2vdow2_011509.html

possibly most relevant video to a thread ever (even if it is the god awful IGN doing it)

EDIT: except it doesnt really say a lot about either that anyone who has been keeping up wont already know

ah well

The video was basically a rehash of their comparative article. Still, good for a quick catch up on the issue.

I have to say I've been impressed with IGN's coverage of of SC2 and DoW2. They have been very objective in the matter, and have actually been grilling blizzard for some of it's choices, which surprises me greatly. Here's an interesting piece from a few writers at IGN on Blizzard's choice to split the game into three episodes: http://pc.ign.com/articles/919/919378p1.html

And the comparative article (I don't remember if it's been posted): http://pc.ign.com/articles/943/943461p1.html

Also, quick question for players of COH. Do you play online? I tired to play online last night and there were no games going on. I'm pretty sure I have the newest patches, so I don't know what the deal is.

[GreyHam]

By holding out on the release of the subsequent races' campaigns until at least a few years after the first Terran campaign, they're also giving other developers a peek at what they're doing. If Blizzard doesn't manage to incorporate new gameplay features in the latter two games, are they in danger of falling behind the RTS curve?

And Steve, you brought up whether Blizzard is worried about falling behind the RTS curve. I wonder what that really means at this point. It seems like Blizzard isn't so much interested in staying ahead of the curve, but rather tweaking and adjusting an existing formula. They're presenting their campaign from a different kind of perspective this time around, but the core of what makes StarCraft feel like StarCraft is still intact as far as we've seen…and that core is 10 years old. If you look at what Relic's doing with Dawn of War II, you can see they're more interested in moving the genre into new areas, and obviously looking at what Blizzard did with Warcraft 3 and adding in more elements of persistence as well as the flavoring of the Warhammer 40,000 fiction.

some good points in that article, must be said

[stevensonmat2]

some good points in that article, must be said

Regarding the second quote, I feel that DoW II's innovations will eventually overtake loyalty to SC in terms of holding gamer-interest. On various message boards, favor has been mostly for DoW II. While SC is a classic with legions of loyal fans, new gamers and old vets ready for something new will probably wander away from Blizzard's aging formula. It certainly looks like I will be.

[GreyHam]

the most important thing to remember of course is:




















are you ready?















We can buy both

[stevensonmat2]

GASP! Heresy!

You're absolutely right, though. While I think comparing the two is relevant in terms of where the genre is going, it's not an either or situation. However, if SC2 turns out to be SC1 with new units an better graphics I simply won't be interested. My tastes have evolved along with the RTS genre since my SC days, and I'd rather spend my time (and money) playing something I haven't done before.

[DBoons Ghost]

John, have you played Company of Heroes? It's easily one of the best RTS games I've ever played. I probably got more enjoyment out of that than nearly any other RTS game.

Nah I haven't bought it yet. I was gonna because you recommended it to me already but I just haven't had time to go buy it.

[Mister_Che]

Download the demo. If you've got Steam, you can get it from there.

[Mr. Ron]

http://uk.pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14243516/warhammer-40000-dawn-of-war-ii/videos/starcraft2vdow2_011509.html

possibly most relevant video to a thread ever (even if it is the god awful IGN doing it)

EDIT: except it doesnt really say a lot about either that anyone who has been keeping up wont already know

ah well
you have to buy three separate games for the new SC? LOL thanks Blizzard $$$$$$$$$$

[shadowswithin]

i second that, that games amazing

why is there all this talk or relic RTS game without mentioning Homeworld 1-2?

[Mister_Che]

I think it's mostly because this is about new games coming out, but a few of us did mention old games.

Homeworld 2 is fantastic. At times, I'd send a scout squadron to just explore and I'd link up different points in space. Once their path was set, I'd lock onto them and remove the HUD. Other times I'd follow a fighter squadron if I was in a big battle with frigates and capital ships flying about and see how long they'd last. I need to get a hold of this game.

[Mr. Ron]

I'm downloading the demo for company of heroes

[stevensonmat2]

Company of heroes is one the most fun and challenging games that I've played in quite a while. I just don't get why I can't play online :confused:

I can't believe I forgot about homeworld! One of the most unique games out there and probably my favorite soundtrack in any game.

[DBoons Ghost]

I never played Homeworld. There was a period of a couple of years that I was lost in MMOs.

I don't need to get the demo to know I'll love Company of Heroes. Can I buy it over Steam as well?

[stevensonmat2]

Surely

[Mister_Che]

You can, and I think there may be a discount for buying it along with the expansion.

[DBoons Ghost]

Awesome. Looks like I got something to do this weekend!

[Mister_Che]

What's your SteamID? Mine is Leunam23. We can try and catch a game sometime this weekend.

[DBoons Ghost]

Yeah Manny my Stead ID is Hadishi_JP. Do you have Left 4 Dead? What other games do you have on Steam?

[Mister_Che]

I just bought Mirrors Edge. That and Far Cry 2 have been killing a lot of time. As for Multiplayer:

Left4Dead
Company of Heroes (and expansion)
Team Fortress 2
Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 (probably buying it this weekend)

[Already_Taken]

Starcraft would have been classic if the AI pathing wasn't horrendous and the stupid things followed orders properly. Who am I kidding it's classic anyways.

see not everyone's a noob like yourself though, noob. if you're good you can control your army.

Quit acting like Starcraft is some ****ing olympic sport you ****ing infant.

bahghahahahahhahaha

by the way you can watch competitive starcraft gaming on the youtube jon747 account, and the nevake account. several other people commentate the games in english too. top players have been known to make more than $200,000 usd a year.

[Mr. Ron]

already taken you sure are tuff

[shadowswithin]

ja, woudlnt liek to get z3rg ru5hed by him!

[Already_Taken]

i dont really zergling rush, i go more for mutalisks and zerglings and lurkers after my mutas die.

zergling rushes are for people who can't play in the late game when you actually have to be good

[shadowswithin]

zergling rushes are for people who can't play in the late game when you actually have to be good
exactly

[Mister_Che]

Oh he's trolling. I should've known.

[stevensonmat2]

It's hard to tell sometimes. Either way it's annoying as hell.

[Already_Taken]

Oh he's trolling. I should've known.

yeah but the funniest part is how you said it's not an "olympic" (like that makes things legit; have you seen the stupid *** sports that make it into the olympics?) sport when it is more of a sport than any other video game in the world.

but it was also funny how mad you got when i compared DoW to yahtzee. :lol:

[stevensonmat2]

Here's an interview with senior designer Philippe Boulle discussing DoW II's bosses and multiplayer.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/940/940095p1.html

[Mister_Che]

It's hard to tell sometimes. Either way it's annoying as hell.

Yeah, because there are people who actually feel that way.

yeah but the funniest part is how you said it's not an "olympic" (like that makes things legit; have you seen the stupid *** sports that make it into the olympics?) sport when it is more of a sport than any other video game in the world.

but it was also funny how mad you got when i compared DoW to yahtzee. :lol:

You're still going, just stop.

[Already_Taken]

Here's an interview with senior designer Philippe Boulle discussing DoW II's bosses and multiplayer.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/940/940095p1.html

it seems cool however i think comparing starcraft and dow is stupid and i apologize if i did so. they are very different in their mechanics and cater to different people. i like controlling big armies and having bases and stuff, not micromanaging individual units in a smaller army so much. that's too much like an rpg for me.

i think my love for starcraft is also embedded in my fascination with battlefield history and tactics.

[shadowswithin]

wtf? starcraft is just about having more units, not much tactics in the game.

[beso negro]

lol what

[Already_Taken]

not like you ever have to fight other armies or kill enemy bases or anything

[Mr. Ron]

so now that I know that Blizzard are being cockfiends by releasing the game in three seperate units, I think I'm going to buy the terran one first.

[shadowswithin]

im saying compared to other games, yeah theres tactics but its more like an onslaught type RTS than a really tactical type.

[Already_Taken]

well that is a retarded opinion


Ron- the terran one is the first one coming out. it will have all 3 races for online, so basically it's going to be a full game for each race. i think it's awesome

[shadowswithin]

only fact

so now that I know that Blizzard are being cockfiends by releasing the game in three seperate units, I think I'm going to buy the terran one first.

where are you seeing this?

[Mr. Ron]

well that is a retarded opinion


Ron- the terran one is the first one coming out. it will have all 3 races for online, so basically it's going to be a full game for each race. i think it's awesome
I think its crappy that they're just trying to get more money out of me than what is necessary.

[Already_Taken]

ok see you suck at starcraft you spend your time building your base and army and just attack move across the map and don't control your army. that is why you lose every time you play, because a good player builds up an army and then arranges his troops in a strategic fashion to eliminate the other army. battlefield tactics are what wins the game in starcraft noobie.


ron- i havent seen it yet, but i assume it's going to be like a full game for each campaign. like the length of each campaign in the original x3.

[shadowswithin]

who said i was talking about what I do? i was saying every other kid that plays it.


and please don't pretend you know how i play the game, you obviously don't.

[Already_Taken]

1v1 noob?

[Mr. Ron]

I'm pretty excited about the new terran units. The viking looks pretty useful.

[shadowswithin]

:lol: seriously every time you call someone a noob it just makes you look like more of a childish dolt.

no i will not verse you because even though i did use tactics i still wasn't amazing at the game (plus comparing e-penises isin't my thing), Pretty much because i enjoy games like Total War.

plus i lost my copy a LOOONG time ago and don't feel like buying one of those big battle chests just to play it again.

EDIT: yeah viking and Thor look pretty awesome.

[Already_Taken]

nice dodge noob

I'm pretty excited about the new terran units. The viking looks pretty useful.

yeah definitely it will probably be fairly weak and easy to kill though- albeit powerful. i am looking forward to the reaper with the mines. and the sensor tower is awesome allowing you to see enemies in the fog of war. im excited about this game for sure.

[Mr. Ron]

I have to relearn the entire game, since I haven't played it in years.

[shadowswithin]

yep you win, im the lowly noob your the internet tough guy that throws noob into every sentence....


real smart :rolleyes:

[Already_Taken]

i play on average 2-3 matches a day. i've been playing for 7 years now :-p

shadowswithin you're a noob

[shadowswithin]

shadowswithin you're a noob only better than you

what is this about it coming out in 3 segments? im looking on the site and doesn't say anything about it?

[stevensonmat2]

only better than you

what is this about it coming out in 3 segments? im looking on the site and doesn't say anything about it?

http://pc.ign.com/articles/919/919378p1.html

ok see you suck at starcraft you spend your time building your base and army and just attack move across the map and don't control your army. that is why you lose every time you play, because a good player builds up an army and then arranges his troops in a strategic fashion to eliminate the other army. battlefield tactics are what wins the game in starcraft noobie.

Tactics do not win StarCraft games, strategy does. There is a big difference. The only tactical actions you can really make in StarCraft are where you put your units in relation to your enemy. Otherwise the game is solely based around strategy (hence the whole RTS designation). That includes your base construction plan, your army layout, and your choice of who to attack when.

greyham had it right when he said games like CoH and, to a lesser degree, DoW are closer to being RTTs. The tactics involved include unit placement, maneuvering, bombardment, building defensive structures, selecting squad or unit-specific upgrades, garrisoning buildings, etc..

ron- i havent seen it yet, but i assume it's going to be like a full game for each campaign. like the length of each campaign in the original x3.

It has been suggested that the three installments will each be full length.

[Mr. Ron]

ok guys lets put away our yard sticks this is dumb

[Already_Taken]

greyham had it right when he said games like CoH and, to a lesser degree, DoW are closer to being RTTs. The tactics involved include unit placement, maneuvering, bombardment, building defensive structures, selecting squad or unit-specific upgrades, garrisoning buildings, etc..


yeah starcraft has none of that. :rolleyes: and thank you i know what a tactic is.

[GreyHam]

yeah starcraft has none of that. :rolleyes: and thank you i know what a tactic is.

not in any meaningful sense

defensive structures in startcraft are rarely placed tactically - theyre spammed with the intention of hoding an enemy back a bit or just as detector units. theres no garrisoning. dividing your army rarely has any real merit (short of slipping in a few units into a base thats undefended) - attacking from an enemies flank etc makes no difference.

i think people understate the cover mechanics when thinking about RTS/RTT games. things like rear tank armour, suppressing, pinning, flanking make battlefield positioning much more thoughtful than simply 'if i A-move with my zerglings and focus fire my hydralisks, im bound to win!'

the more nitty gritty decisions can be made in starcraft, and its charm lies in its almost hidden depth and complexity, but Relic are forcing players to think about these things by seriously punishing their army if they dont, even on easiest difficulties, and thats just super

[Already_Taken]

you don't flank in starcraft? wasn't the pathfinding terrible in sc? when you a-move all your men line up into a line which is sooo easy to slaughter with a pincer attack or a flank.

flanking is almost required for a lot of melee units because otherwise they will get clogged behind one another instead of getting hits on the enemy.

[GreyHam]

theres no bonus for it though. in CoH, you were incourage to use flanking manouvers because units seek cover when attacked, and tanks have weak rear armour. Rather than just being a mechanism for getting the right units into the right location, it became something tactically relevant.

[Already_Taken]

there's no bonus, other than you win.

[stevensonmat2]

Anyone up for a CoH sometime?

[Mister_Che]

What's your Steam ID? I've never played online but I'm willing to give it a shot.

SteamID: Leaunm23
Relic ID: Leunam1

[stevensonmat2]

I don't play through steam, but my relic ID is stevensonmat2.

I have a lot of problems playing through relics multiplayer, do you think steam would be better?

[Mister_Che]

I'm pretty sure it goes through relic regardless. Are you in the US? I can try and catch you on there some time tonight.

[stevensonmat2]

I am indeed. East coast.

I should be on for sure, I'll be looking out for you. :amaze:

[DBoons Ghost]

What's your Steam ID? I've never played online but I'm willing to give it a shot.

SteamID: Leaunm23
Relic ID: Leunam1

Did you get my friend request?

[Mister_Che]

Did you get my friend request?

I did. Reason I wasn't sure if I got it is because there's usually a little pop up when I get requests but there wasn't any this time.

[Mister_Che]

I made a game called MX, password Sputnik. Post here and I'll check it every now and then.

[Shadows Within]

my steam ID is kse48 i just bought Company of Heroes again.

[Mister_Che]

Jump into the game.

[AA-12]

DoW2 beta is awesome

[PshSam]

Tell us about it, quick!

[GreyHam]

just downloading it now.

anyone wants a game (or a game of anything actually) steam id ghambleton@hotmail.com

[stevensonmat2]

DoW2 beta is awesome

I have soulstorm, how do I get into the beta?

EDIT: Nvm, I'm downloading it now. I'll take you up on that later, greyham.

Also, when I activated my retail soulstorm (which was already installed) it started downloading the beta as well as soulstorm. The SS download is labeled the same as the game already installed, but on the right click it says pause updating. You think this is a patch?

[AA-12]

no idea, i played on a friend's pc. i should buy SS though. for $7 it's well worth everything.

[stevensonmat2]

Yeah, I'd say $7 is worth playing the beta early as well as getting to experience the awesomeness of the Tau.

[Mister_Che]

Tau aren't in DOWII. Unless you mean Soulstorm.

[stevensonmat2]

I meant SS.

I hope using windows live for DOW 2 will eliminate the problems I've had with relics online system.

[GreyHam]

tau arent in soulstorm, either

sisters of battle and dark eldar i think (tau were in dark crusade with necrons)

im v simple, and am mostly unable be at all decent on this game. plus, the utter shite of windows live is being blocked by zonealarm and i cant seem to open it up(keep having to turn ZA off for it)

annoyingly, the windows for games live standallone program connects fine, as does messenger. just the cancer on DOW2 thats breaking

tbf i was looking forward to the campaign the most but so far its looking pretty good, although the cover doesnt work as well as it did with CoH imo

[stevensonmat2]

I'm certain Tau are in SS, I played the game yesterday :p

I'm looking forward to the campaign as well, though I have to say that I'm glad I'll be part of the first generation of online DoW II players. I hate the fact that I'm a newb on CoH (which I bought last week) while most of the players online are old vets.

EDIT:

I've been browsing other forums and there has been a good bit of negative response to the beta (although plenty of good feedback as well). Some of the issues sound like balancing or just whinny losers, but a few folks are saying the game is fairly shallow. Perhaps the combat isn't engrossing enough to fill the time lost with base building? I'm at work right now and I have band practice at six... ARGGH! I just want to go home and play!

[Mr. Ron]

there's not some kind of demo out for this yet is there?

[stevensonmat2]

The beta came out yesterday, good sir!

That is, if you have Soulstorm.

[Mr. Ron]

idk what soulstorm is

[stevensonmat2]

It's an expansion for DoW. You can get it on steam for $5, apparently.

[AA-12]

EDIT:

I've been browsing other forums and there has been a good bit of negative response to the beta (although plenty of good feedback as well). Some of the issues sound like balancing or just whinny losers, but a few folks are saying the game is fairly shallow. Perhaps the combat isn't engrossing enough to fill the time lost with base building? I'm at work right now and I have band practice at six... ARGGH! I just want to go home and play!

eh, it's dumb to think it would be balanced. DoW was one of the most unbalanced RTSs ever. it's not deep either, but it's really fun.

[stevensonmat2]

eh, it's dumb to think it would be balanced. DoW was one of the most unbalanced RTSs ever.
it's not deep either, but it's really fun.

I agree, which is why I've been dismissive of most peoples comments concerning balance. I think a lot of the issue is people just don't have a grasp of the game yet. It's beta, and it's only been one day. Honestly though, from the accounts of some expert rts players, it sounds like the game is fairly well balanced already.

I can't wait to get home and try it for myself.

[Already_Taken]

lol you're such a fanboy. so am i. but the game i'm in love with is actually worth playing for more than 4 months. dow 2 is gonna suck. it will be on the wal mart shelf for 10 dollars in 6 months

[AA-12]

what game are you talking about loving and why are you thinking DoW2 is bad? it's far from it.

edit: oh, starcraft. stop comparing two totally different games.

[Mister_Che]

Dudes a troll, no use talking to him.

[AA-12]

i figured as much, haha.

[stevensonmat2]

I've only been able to play three games (way too busy), but I haven't seen any morale system. Did they take it out?

I really enjoy the style of play dow 2 has shown so far. It seems a lot more focused, my only complaint thus far (and this has been shared by many) is that the user interface is just bad. There are so many abilities and upgrades which are barely visible, that alone will take some time getting used to.

[GreyHam]

ive found the 3v3 to be much more engaging than the 1v1, but that might just be the maps on offer.

i like that the pop cap is combined for infantry and vehicles. hopefully itll stop vehicle spam, although ive managed to win a fair few games just by spamming dreads/wraithlords

either way its been a massive change from RA3, which is nice. change in gaming is a nice thing imho