A question for Mr. Yahtzee
#1
Posted 09 March 2009 - 06:34 PM
#2
Posted 10 March 2009 - 02:24 AM
- Hi.
- Mr. Yahtzee doesn't post here anymore.
- He might still read a few things written here every now and then though.
- ... it's not that likely, so don't get your hopes up.
- Am I getting old?
- Because I seriously don't know what RTS games are.
- And I can't even be bothered to google it... my, oh my...
- I am getting old, ain't I?
- Anyways.
- Enjoy your stay.
- Try not to trip on the landmines.
Quote
#4
Posted 10 March 2009 - 05:15 AM
Warcraft 3 has possibly the greatest editor ever, since you can make your own triggers. You can basically make your own game without having to do all the messy stuff of graphics, units and spells. And then you can edit every unit anyway.
Red alert 3... ugh. If you've played Red alert 1 and 2 you'll know they're just being stupid now. It was originally a game with some interesting ideas for how reality may have been different if a significant figure had died. Then along comes number 3 with giant samurai robots and trucks that launch troops into the air.
Gobbler, RTS is real-time strategy. Think age of empires.
Chaotic Good
#5
Posted 10 March 2009 - 05:47 AM
Well I always thought RA was a bit silly, hiring bad actors when hand-drawn graphics would have perfectly sufficed, but in this 3rd installment they really started taking the piss.
#6
Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:14 PM
I guess hiring new voice actors may improve things since Tim Curry is one of my favs, simply because he looks like a frog and sounds like Hanibal Lecter's homosexual British brother.
RTS is not highly enjoyable, IMO.
#7
Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:45 PM
I guess hiring new voice actors may improve things since Tim Curry is one of my favs, simply because he looks like a frog and sounds like Hanibal Lecter's homosexual British brother.
RTS is not highly enjoyable, IMO.
I think RTS's are fun, but parachuting in armored bears! Come on what the hell!
#8
Posted 10 March 2009 - 03:52 PM
Get over it. RTS is all fantasy.
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ZcGnYV-wvBk
you certainly expect the soviets to be like this!
I imagined the with huge beard, tall boots and Vodka bottle bigger than their heads.
#10
Posted 11 March 2009 - 06:09 AM
So it goes.
What about Stronghold? I reckon that was quite fun, considering the economy based gameplay actually mattered. Like with AOE2 you just build a few farms and spawn hordes of little shelby cobras and naked men to obliterate the enemies' flying dogs. (That actually happens).
#11
Posted 11 March 2009 - 06:52 AM
Settlers. Battle Realms. Warcraft (specifically 3 for the world edit). Impossible Creatures.
Admittedly, they're not very recent games (with the exception of settlers sequels, but 2 was always the best anyway), but they show life after AoE 2 and Warcraft 2.
Settlers showed enjoyable resource management, and I was happy to pick up settlers 2 anniversary addition. Battle Realms was the first game I played where an archer couldn't shoot at point blank range. I've rambled enough about war3. Impossible creatures was probably better then spore, because it actually put an appropriate level of focus on both creature creation and gameplay.
In many years time I hope to be looking back on the RTS of today as fondly as I look at those. But my point is, AoE2 wasn't the end, Warcraft 2 wasn't the penultimate pinnacle and only starcraft is balanced.
Chaotic Good
#12
Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:07 AM
#13
Posted 11 March 2009 - 07:37 AM
Dune was a bit too simple and unhandy, same for Dune 2, though it really did stuff better.
The re-hash called Dune 2000 came with the good ol' zany B-movies, but just wasn't a good game anymore at that time. It's pre-decessors were innovative and fun back in the days - but that couldn't really be translated into modern times.
Command & Conquer... hrmm... only the very first part of the Tiberian series was really fun. Same for the Red alert series. The B-movies made it interesting, but multiplayer... errr... no.
Generals really provided a lot of fun in multiplayer, but sorta lost on the whacky scenarios and campaigns that you came to associate with the good ol' Westwood brand.
Overall they started a good trend back in the days, but now that they're in the hands of EA, no one should really expect a lot of innovation there anymore.
As for Blizzard Entertainment...
WarCraft was very very very short term fun. WarCraft 2 was fun because of the campaigns, but otherwise... every side had the same units with different colours, plus a few more-or-less useful individual spells. WarCraft 3 did that all right and the Battle.net ladder was really well balanced, but... come on, they let Mediv get away far too easily, after all that the spoiled brat had done.
StarCraft was brilliantly balanced indeed. Let's see how StarCraft 2 will turn out (wait, was it already released? Eh, nevermind...), though I don't really expect a lot of interesting stuff there.
Don't know how much Blizzard will continue to add to the whole genre, but they surely provided lots of creative input and awesome gameplay in the past.
BlueByte...
The Settlers was fun - slow, difficult, but fun. Settlers 2 built well on that. I couldn't bring myself to care for the other games, except for the brilliant remake of 2. Didn't think that they'd leave the gameplay intact like they did, really nice. Still, the AI... just no good at all, sorry.
Creative Assembly...
Rome: Total War, was boring. Shogun: Total War, was boring. Also featured horrible AI. Didn't play any other of that series, not my kinda thing.
Microsoft...
Age of Empires and Age of Empires 2 were really good, never got too much into them to explore the multiplayer options though. Way too sterile to be long term fun, in my opinion.
This post has been edited by Gobbler: 11 March 2009 - 07:45 AM
Quote
#15
Posted 12 March 2009 - 09:38 AM
Jay-zus...that almost makes the live action 5DAS thing with "Tribly" in it look half-decent.