| Just Adventure News : |
| Home - Forum Home |
| Page 1 |
| 20 JUN 2005 at 9:53pm | |
kuddlesPrivate Detective  Posts : 702 Joined: 22 OCT 2004 Status : Online | I’ve been back into gaming for about a year after having left it for ages. In general, adventures still played a small role) Naturally there are a lot of games I haven’t played because of such a deficiency. I’ve had my fingers in every proverbial pot amongst recent releases (aka anything after 1999 and even some before). This has included but not been limited to titles as varied as Neverwinter Nights, Call of Duty and Splinter Cell. I've started threads in these forums to help make both turn-based and RPG choices, which was very beneficial for me. There has only been one genre I have avoided due specifically to my complete dislike of it: the dreaded Real Time Strategy. I was always a turn-based man, playing X-Com, Jagged Alliance until the days grew tired. So when I returned, I obviously played the crap out of games like Disciples II and Silent Storm. But during my previous game playing past, I have anything but fond memories for games like Warcraft II or the like. I found this type of game to be an affront to the term “strategy”, for twitch jockeys with no brains, where the main goal is hide in a corner, collect resources, build structures and then overpower the other side, and do it all as quickly as possible. While the earlier RTS games certainly had their share of faults, they have enhanced dramatically over the years. I now realize these thoughts have been sweeping generalizations to hide my bitterness over not knowing what the fuss is about. As well, the truth is that while a good story and interesting atmosphere won’t keep me away from an FPS, my reflexes aren't worth a damn compared to the average veteran. I can’t get through a few levels of Freedom Force without pausing and changing commands constantly. But they are improving. And a lot of these games look pretty fun. And it is time to shed this unhealthy bias once and for all. The following are some games that have caught my attention after downloading their demos, but a training campaign can certainly be misleading, and any alternative suggestions will be more than welcome. I am automatically excluding Warcraft III, as I feel it would be best not to associate my poor memories with my future experiences. Battle Realms I like the idea of a medieval setting and the screenshots look beautiful Kohan Series Most hardcore gamers call this the “game where you do nothing”, but a game that removes some of the building micromanagement and individual units that makes me frightened. Apparently the story feels contrived as well, but hey, it’ll feel new to me. Rise Of Nations This game essentially feels like Civilization with real-time elements, so naturally it looks right up my alley. Is the depth and detail worth the high learning curve? Warlords: Battlecry Series Carrying a hero who gains experience with each mission? I’m used to that Age of Empires/Mythology This one just feels good. Warhammer: Dawn of War I like the idea of resources coming from different spots on the map, forcing you to explore instead of hiding out, and the game engine is impressive. I prefer story and I require at least a bit of linearity. Unless things can get too “gummy” with polygons and/or pixels, outdated graphics aren’t too much of a concern to me. I plan on choosing one “fantasy” and one “real” RTS for purchase, if that distinction makes any sense at all. Also, AI is important before mulitplayer, because I'm the type of person who likes playing and leaving halfway through a mission. Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. [size=10][b]Games:[/b] Europa Universalis III&&[b]Music:[/b] [i]Awoo[/i] - Hidden Cameras&&[b]Series:[/b] Dexter (S1)&&[b]Movies:[/b] The Prestige (8/10) Little Miss Sunshine (5/10)&&[/size] |
| Profile Search | |
| 20 JUN 2005 at 10:18pm | |
WimliGuild Master  Posts : 3259 Joined: 14 MAR 2003 Status : Offline | I'm as much a stranger to real-time strategy games as you, but I've always heard good things about Empire Earth: http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/empire-earth I've heard it been described as the Civilization (made me think of this one, as you mentioned Civilization in your post) with more focus on combat, as it spans the entire history of warfare, from the Greeks, to the bloody middle ages right into the space age. It's apparently also rather similar, but wider in scope, to the Age of Empires series. Sierra recently released a sequel, but i think that was designed by an entirely different team than the first one. Have no idea how it was reviewed. The only real-time strategy game that has given me some fun hours is Relic Studios' Homeworld. http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/homeworld-game-of-the-year-edition It asks some getting used to the controls for selecting units and maneuvering, as its also completely viewed in 3D, no isometric topdown look, and has some awesome intense gameplay. Unfortunately, I gave up on it as it is rather difficult for novices like myself. I might give it another try one of these days. Apart from that, I'm looking forward to the responses of the others, as I for the most share your feelings towards the RTS genre and might just need that one good game to really understand how addictive and fun this genre can be. |
| Profile Search | |
| 20 JUN 2005 at 10:27pm | |
Mike_ASorcerer Apprentice  Posts : 292 Joined: 21 OCT 2002 Status : Online | The reason I don't play RTS games much isn't that I hate them, but it seems that so much time goes into playing and just disappears. There was a period of time where I did play them far too much. The same applies to turn-based strategy (curse you Civilization series) so I'm guessing that's not an issue. There are some RTS games that I enjoy playing on occasion - Age of Empires I & II, Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds, Stronghold, Stronghold Crusader - but I'm not completely absorbed by them. The only RTS that has ever sucked me in, despite the simple storyline, was Total Annihilation. It's nicely balanced and not overly complex, so it's fun. I still like to play it years after beating all the included levels. The fantasy spiritual successor to it, Total Annihilation:Kingdoms, is a beautiful game and maintains much of the feel, but I don't enjoy it as much. It's still fun, though. If you want to try something different that might hit the spot for you, try Moonbase Commander. It's primarily marketed toward kids and it has a really simple interface, but it's so nicely done that it's a lot of fun. It's unlike any other strategy game I've played. It feels like an RTS because it moves quickly, but it's actually turn-based. The turns are timed however at 15, 30 or 60 seconds. Resources are very limited so you can't build up a lot without expanding. Not only that, there is no base rushing because you only have one truly mobile unit. Everything else is connected as a continually expanding base. There's no real story to it, just a premise behind the game and factions, but it's fun, which is really what I look for in a game. You could try the demo, but it's time-limited and cuts out just when things start to get interesting. Or go fishing. [i]- MI2 [/i]&&Okay. [i]- Me[/i] |
| Profile Search | |
| 20 JUN 2005 at 11:26pm | |
Terry PenrodGrand Inquisitor  Posts : 6693 Joined: 16 OCT 2004 Location: US, Texas Status : Offline | . I've played a few of the most popular RTS games for the PC like Warcraft 1 & 2 and Starcraft with the Brood War EP (as well as Sid Meier's great TBS titles). Also played Freespace when it first came out but never really got into space sims due to serious time restrictions and an interest in way too many other genres. They are fun but they're also very time consuming, addictive and wow, there are lot of them. Glad to hear about your renewed interest in strategy games Kuddles, including the newer 3D real-time titles. That whole genre has exploded in recent years and I wish I had time to try them all too. But that would mean having to give-up at least one other major genre like RPGs and I'm just not ready to do that yet. Speaking of a new one that appears to have a nice mixture of strategy. adventure and RPG-like elements in a big, seamless package, have you looked into Sid Meier's Pirates!? I promised myself to play that before it (and I) get too old and it really looks like a superb game that captures the whole flavor of the swashbuckling seafaring life of yore. Cheers, Terry |
| Profile Search | |
| 20 JUN 2005 at 11:45pm | |
egroegIntergalactic Janitor Posts : 56 Joined: 12 AUG 2005 Status : Online | i don't quite know where the total war series would be classified, Shogun, medieval total war & Rome total war but they are amazing games, turn/season based strategy, building diplomacy etc, then amazing real time batle with tens of thousands of individual soldiers within units which behave convincingly realisticly, all are truly excellent games, |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 12:30am | |
| Deleted User | I'm not a huge RTS fan, these games are too historical to my taste or seem to complicated. But STARCRAFT and the Broodwar expansion...ooooooh, that's different. So it's my one and only recommendation. |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 8:47am | |
MorgausePrivate DetectivePosts : 687 Joined: 2 SEP 2004 Status : Online | My basic problem with RTS is simply how repetitive games tend to be: you will be building the same base mission after mission, likely recruit the same units (or similar ones), and sending them in similar formations to the enemy. Granted, it is true for some turn-based games too, but some of them do a much better job and... Well, here are my comments: Battle Realms: The game has a limited number of units (no more than thirty units at most at once, if memory serves), and fighting is the way to increase your "technology", so it does have a different feeling than most other games. It is also one of the best games if you are interested in battle tactics, as all your units can get special powers... one out of two powers per unit, more specifically. So, your archers could have regular arrows (no power), fire arrows (first power), or Zen arrows (second power, a sort of recon arrow), and you could use those Zen arrows to target the enemy troops waiting in ambush ahead of you with a bombard-like power of another unit (the Sumo, if memory serves). I am not sure if the AI does a good job at that, however. The campaign is a scripted story (not sure about the add-on, but it is probably the same thing), and works reasonably well, in my opinion. Rise of Nations: The game has a more economic feel to it, with quick increases in technology, and a better approach to resource gathering (put a citizen to a resource building, and they will generate, say, 10 wood units per second). Armies also tend to be bigger than in other games, and they do a pretty good job at fighting on their own. The industrial age and beyond have been said to be the weaker part of the game however (I have the same feeling about that); in the early games, rushes are somewhat difficult (compared to other RTS), and are more likely to backfire. The campaign is a "Conquer the World" thing, with a succession of battles to take over provinces (ala Risk). The expansion has brought specific scenarios for Conquer the World, such as the Cold War, and others. Warlords Battlecry: I have found the AI to be very weak in this game personally. In WB2, the AI had very different levels of aptitude (some of them were downright cheating, others were not using all their resources), so some AIs would repeatedly wipe you out, with little hope of fighting them back. In WB3, I have run into a much more annoying problem: the AI seems way too fond of attacking your base straight away with its hero and troops, especially in the campaign. Getting attacked on the very first minute when you have nothing is not fun: the only way to survive is to have a fighting hero, and that ruins the whole point of having variation. Resources are scattered thorough the map, so expansion is an issue here. The game does offer a lot of variety in units and heroes however, and the levelling system is open-ended: if you want, you can pour all your points in a single area (generating one resource, for example, or Necromancy), and you will get better and better at it, with no apparent limit (I haven't gone above 50 though). The game would be especially interesting in multiplayer, I think, though rushes are again going to be a problem: a Merchant is going to suffer against a buffed Barbarian. The campaign in WB2 is again a Conquer the World, and an even freer campaign is available in WB3, where you travel on a map and do miscellaneous things in provinces (buying or selling stuff, attacking someone or helping them...). Age of Empires/Age of Kings: I wouldn't recommend them myself. The AI is very poor (especially in AoK), if you happen to figure out how to play effectively: the AI doesn't know the meaning of "strategy", and will gladly send wave after wave against your row of 50 Longbowmen, and get slaughtered time and again (add a couple of Castles for fun). The AI has also a lot of trouble with the economy, and barely does anything at all in this field. The campaigns are fairly heavily scripted (especially in AoK, again), and can be interesting, though I cannot say I liked them that much. Total Annihilation: The campaigns have little storyline, but there is still some, and two expansions have added on the number of missions available; it is also possible to play in skirmishes with the AI, and it will do a pretty good job at it. While the standard AI isn't the best in the world (especially under 3.1), third-party AIs can give you the AI you want, ranging from the mild to the expanding, cheating AI. TA also has several mods available, and a *lot* of maps for skirmishes (again, check on the Internet), so it can make for an interesting game if you are interested in variety. I still think TA is one of the best games in the area of multiple armies in battle: tanks, quicker troops, aircraft, warships, hovercraft, the odd submarine and a seaplane or three, and all of that can mesh in fairly well. |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 8:48am | |
MorgausePrivate DetectivePosts : 687 Joined: 2 SEP 2004 Status : Online | Warzone 2150 (2100?): I have found this game to be quite enjoyable, on a different kind of setting ("oops, we did a bit of a mistake with Earth". Some of its features include customisable units, a vast tech-tree, and a 3D engine... or pseudo 3D perhaps. I believe this game is no longer sold though, but it should be available on the Underdogs. Battlezone: In this game, you are no longer God alone in the skies, but a commander on the ground, and can command vehicles yourself if you feel so inclined, or simply send your forces to battle if you are not the most courageous soldier in the whole army. There will be fewer resource and building in this game than in a regular RTS, so it can be more manageable, but the game can be overwhelming at times, if you have no idea of what's going on. Battlezone 1 was set in an alternate Cold War setting, where you fight (or die trying) the Communists/the Americans in our solar system, among other things. Battlezone 2 was set in a "Humankind vs Aliens" setting, and reportedly improves on the game somewhat, but I have never played it. On another note, the Internet community is said to have improved Battlezone 2, so there may be other things of interest to be found there. And Freespace is always plenty of fun: be sure to pick up Freespace 2 if you like space sims though, as Freespace can be played under Freespace 2 by using a mod. The game is a lot of fun, has quite a few third-party campaigns, and is being improved by other players (the source code was released a couple of years ago). It also has a very effective difficulty setting: the different settings actually matter, with easiest being really easy, and insane being quite difficult. |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 9:45am | |
TechnoSpikePrivate DetectivePosts : 581 Joined: 26 APR 2005 Location: PT Status : Offline | Just my cup of tea..... I tend to think the same away as Kuddles do: I usually think RTS is less strategical then turn based... and to the people who disagree with this ...isn't chess a strategy game? )...but that doesn't mean I don't like playing them... I would recommend what for me are the strategy games that made me play them untill I finished them: Command & Conquer : Red Alert 2 This game, if you like alternate futures, is funny and hard...and you will find yourself beaten pretty quick if you don't plan ahead..also you can have different tactics according to the Country you choose. As the multyplayer part..that is the most challenging (I used to spent hours playing against friends), and if you can't play with anyone, you can also play against enemys controlled by the computer. Rise of Nations is also an interesting game, specially because of that mix between RTS and Civilization look-a-like.... I didn't find it very hard to learn (although I didn't played the tutorial, nor read the manual, I only played one time), and I think people who are familiar to Civilization will learn pretty fast the game mechanics. |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 7:35pm | |
Mike_ASorcerer ApprenticePosts : 292 Joined: 21 OCT 2002 Status : Online | I've been thinking about this and if you want a challenge in what is really an RTS but is definitely very strategic, try Commandos 2. I haven't played the other Commandos games, so they may be just as good, but that one is very nice. Never have I had to work so hard just to get through a tutorial level. And never has getting through a tutorial been so challenging. Then is just gets harder and better from there. At least after all the time spent you feel like you have accomplished something impressive, much like solving a difficult puzzle from an AG, rather than just spent too much time amassing resources and building armies. Or go fishing. [i]- MI2 [/i]&&Okay. [i]- Me[/i] |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 7:48pm | |
kuddlesPrivate DetectivePosts : 702 Joined: 22 OCT 2004 Status : Online | Thanks for the responses, guys. I'm taking everything into consideration but I'm leaning towards Rise of Nations as my first choice for the following reasons: 1. I'm already used to the mechanics, since it mixes turn-based elements into it. 2. Number One has something to do with the fact that apparently the man behind it was second-in-command on several Sid Meier games, including Alpha Centauri. The fact that the civilization advances while you play means things may stay interesting. 3. It was a commercial and critical hit when it came out. It's also still relatively new, so oodles of people still have it on their shelf, but it is also old enough that some of those same people found it not to be their thing or got sick of it, leaving used copies of said game to be a buyer's market, thus minimizing risk if it turns out I hate the thing. Terry: Played Pirates, but had to give it up due to it causing random crashes with my video card. Maybe when I upgrade, I'll go back to it. Mike_A: I've actually played the Commandos series (except for number 3). Being a fan of squad-based strategy games in the turn-based world it seemed like an obvious stepping stone. But you're right, they are difficult as all hell, but mostly because a lot of the strategy is almost trial-and-error based. It makes for a cinematic experience, but leaves little depth for playing the games a second time, unlike the turn-based ones. [size=10][b]Games:[/b] Europa Universalis III&&[b]Music:[/b] [i]Awoo[/i] - Hidden Cameras&&[b]Series:[/b] Dexter (S1)&&[b]Movies:[/b] The Prestige (8/10) Little Miss Sunshine (5/10)&&[/size] |
| Profile Search | |
| 21 JUN 2005 at 10:16pm | |
Lucien21Guild Master Posts : 4876 Joined: 9 JUL 2003 Location: 0 Status : Offline | Looking for turn based one play Advance Wars or it's sequel on the Game Boy Advance. I'm not a fan of strategy games in general, but one of my mates is a big fan. As far as I can remember he liked the Warcraft Games/ Command and Conquer and is currently playing and enjoying Age of Mythology. I would also give the likes of Rome Total War a shot as it's widely regarded as the best around (it's No 29 on Gamespots top rated games list). Upcoming games well: Company of Heroes looks very good and theres always Civ IV or a Rise of Nations sequel. Dear Diary, My teenage angst bullsh*t now has a bodycount. |
| Profile Search | |
| 23 JUN 2005 at 4:59am | |
AjSorcerer ApprenticePosts : 278 Joined: 25 JAN 2005 Status : Online | RTS games I play: Advance Wars, so fun, and portable too. Rise of Nations, better than Empire Earth and Age of Empires, basically does the same job, tech age, economic, combat isn't too epic. Medievil:Total War, it hasn't got a steep learning curve but there is room to get good at it. Warcraft 3, cool theme, story, very balanced, very polished. It's probably the best RTS game, although there are quite a variety. Total Annihilation, years ahead of its time, I love it. Starcraft, it's still popular after all this time for a reason. Red Alert 2, it's a pretty cool game that I didn't appreciate for a while, I prefered Tiberium Sun but you notice subtle but important advances. Westwood games have horrible online services. Cut scenes are awful, TS was ok, RA1 was fun as hell, C&C was classic. |
| Profile Search | |
| 25 JUN 2005 at 8:37pm | |
egroegIntergalactic JanitorPosts : 56 Joined: 12 AUG 2005 Status : Online | Kuddles "you love PC RTS games" (JEDI mind trick hand movement) "you want to go home and re-think your life" |
| Profile Search | |
| 27 JUN 2005 at 8:49pm | |
sTyLnKIntergalactic JanitorPosts : 46 Joined: 2 JUN 2005 Status : Online | i like virtually every type of game out there...these games are fun..but i'm just too bad at them..i tend to do something but forget about something else...they attack..i'm screwed..lol...starcraft is the best game ever... |
| Profile Search | |
| 1 AUG 2005 at 11:05pm | |
JohnBoyIntergalactic Janitor Posts : 31 Joined: 26 JUL 2005 Status : Online | Kuddles, Try some of the games by Impressions. They were lots of fun, easy to get the hang of, and very absorbing. But they will consume lots of your time once you start. Very addictive, IMO. The latest one was "Rise of the Middle Kingdom". |
| Profile Search | |
| 16 AUG 2005 at 4:06pm | |
JA_StiCIntergalactic Janitor Posts : 54 Joined: 22 MAY 2005 Status : Online | I'm really surprised that Command & Conquer didn't come up more often. I highly recomend this series for beginner RTS players. As your tech tree grows the new units appear on the screen. All you have to do is scroll through the units and click on them to build. A lot of other RTS games require you to return to your base, click on a building, and choose a unit to build from a menu. Meanwhile your forces fall under attack in the field. The stories aren't great but they fit into the gameplay making for interesting missions. C&C Generals tried to cash in on the popularity of Starcraft by copying the gameplay, and I feel the series suffered because of it. Huge props to Alneyan for suggesting Battlezone. I can only recomend BZ2 for multi-player. I found the single player missions became tedious after awhile. Regards S |
| Profile Search | |
| Page 1 |
Back to Top | Home | News | Articles | Forum | About Us | Contact Us
Copyright ©2013, Just Adventure LLC. All rights reserved in the United States and throughout the world.
All other products and copyrights mentioned on
Just Adventure LLC are the property of their respective companies, and Just Adventure LLC makes no claim thereto.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
