So what is your favourite Rts???
| |
|
Welcome to KnowledgeSutra - Dear Guest 
, Please Register here to get Your own website. - Ask a Question / Express Opinion / Reply
w/o Sign-Up!
| |
0
3 replies to this topic
#1
-
- Kontributors
-
- 106 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 15 October 2005 - 05:35 PM
My favourite Rts genre is the war and building for the fact I enjoy the age of series and prefer to be able to build up my cizilazation as well as destroy other peoples, I also like to play on the internet against other people.
So what is your favourite Rts???
So what is your favourite Rts???
#2
-
- Kontributors
-
- 127 posts
Advanced Member
Posted 17 October 2005 - 09:22 PM
War. Preferably ones with only 1 type of resource. I find resource management and city management very boring. I prefer action and commanding units in battle instead. And BTW, Civilation isn't technicaly an RTS - it's turn based.
#3
-
- Kontributors
-
- 29 posts
Newbie [Level 2]
Posted 20 October 2005 - 05:10 PM
World of WarCraft isn't an RTS...
If you really wanted to break RTS into genres, you'd do something more like:
-Traditional (StarCraft, WarCraft, Age of Empires, etc...)
-Action (Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, etc...)
-Realistic (Desert Rats v Africa Corps, etc..)
-Grand War (Rome: Total War, Empire at War)
Traditional is basically where you build your base, produce your units, and attack your enemies, with the intent of destroying all their structures.
Action is similar to Traditional, but places a lower focus on base-building, and puts a higher focus on getting out of your base and attacking. It's generally slightly more realistic, and usually units come in squads, and the AI of individual units is usually better.
Realistic ones are not necessarily more realistic, but in a sense they kind of are since you get a set number of troops and must win with them. Most of the time you fight until all your troops are gone. They are simulations of one battle as opposed to a war.
I personally can't decide between Traditional and Action, and I feel that a great game can be made for the Realistic category, but there hasn't yet been one of that caliber. I like games such as StarCraft, WarCraft III, Battle for Middle Earth, Act of War: Direct Action, and Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War. I played the Age of Empires 3 demo and hated it (the graphics are no better than DoW's, and I had it on full resolution and detail; the campaign available was extremely boring; the game itself bored me to death...). I didn't much like Age of Mythology either, although Age of Empires 2 was ok.
In terms of future games, Ghost Wars looks like it will be an excellent Realistic RTS game. It should be much better than Desert Rats. Empire at War looks very, very good at the moment. I like Star Wars anyways, but EaW seems like a game I'd like even if I hated Star Wars. The current graphics for surface maps look much better than those of AoE3 ever will. Company of Heroes seems to have even better graphics than EaW's, and will revolutionize RTS games as we know them. If you have no idea what this game is, look it up on ign or something. Company of Heroes will have extremely advanced AI for individual units. They will take cover in shell holes, buildings, etc... It will be more realistic than any other game I've played, seen, or heard of.
If you really wanted to break RTS into genres, you'd do something more like:
-Traditional (StarCraft, WarCraft, Age of Empires, etc...)
-Action (Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, etc...)
-Realistic (Desert Rats v Africa Corps, etc..)
-Grand War (Rome: Total War, Empire at War)
Traditional is basically where you build your base, produce your units, and attack your enemies, with the intent of destroying all their structures.
Action is similar to Traditional, but places a lower focus on base-building, and puts a higher focus on getting out of your base and attacking. It's generally slightly more realistic, and usually units come in squads, and the AI of individual units is usually better.
Realistic ones are not necessarily more realistic, but in a sense they kind of are since you get a set number of troops and must win with them. Most of the time you fight until all your troops are gone. They are simulations of one battle as opposed to a war.
I personally can't decide between Traditional and Action, and I feel that a great game can be made for the Realistic category, but there hasn't yet been one of that caliber. I like games such as StarCraft, WarCraft III, Battle for Middle Earth, Act of War: Direct Action, and Warhammer 40k: Dawn of War. I played the Age of Empires 3 demo and hated it (the graphics are no better than DoW's, and I had it on full resolution and detail; the campaign available was extremely boring; the game itself bored me to death...). I didn't much like Age of Mythology either, although Age of Empires 2 was ok.
In terms of future games, Ghost Wars looks like it will be an excellent Realistic RTS game. It should be much better than Desert Rats. Empire at War looks very, very good at the moment. I like Star Wars anyways, but EaW seems like a game I'd like even if I hated Star Wars. The current graphics for surface maps look much better than those of AoE3 ever will. Company of Heroes seems to have even better graphics than EaW's, and will revolutionize RTS games as we know them. If you have no idea what this game is, look it up on ign or something. Company of Heroes will have extremely advanced AI for individual units. They will take cover in shell holes, buildings, etc... It will be more realistic than any other game I've played, seen, or heard of.
Reply to this topic
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
