All RTS are boring except....

[QUOTE="RandomDying"]

I've played all these RTS games said (Starcraft to Rise of Nations to Total War) and they are all good in their own way. You can never say one is the dominant RTS since they all specialize in certain types of RTS.

You have to stop thinking so simply since RTS's can be broken down into different categories. Theres some where building/economy/battle take place all in the same map (Starcraft/RiseofNations etc) and then theres the others where battles and building take place separately (Total War series).

The fact is that it is not easy to play all of these games online. Starcraft and Warcraft3 do an excellent job of allowing millions of gamers to use strategies against each other while Total War hasn't done the same. You can't play a whole campaign online in Total War in a time effective manner since its not set up that way. Total War is more "single player" in the sense that you only focus on your own turns and the computer just breezes over whatever the other nations/factions are doing during their turns. A single campaign on Total war would go on for weeks since not everyone is playing 24hrs straight, and then theres lag to deal with and other issues that set back gameplay. While in Starcraft/Warcraft3 you can jump into a game and have it over within an hour or two and still be able to replay those battles again and again during the same timeframe a campaign of Total war would take.

So in the end I really don't see how you're comparing Total War and Starcraft and all the others. Sure Total War has a lot of Single Player replayability but I've spent many more hours online playing other RTS since its always more fun to play with other people than the same stupid AI.

On an Opinion matter: I loved Homeworld 2, my favorite RTS so far.

True_Gamer_

[QUOTE="project343"]Warcraft? Starcraft? They are Gods among videogames.Baird-06

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="RandomDying"]

I've played all these RTS games said (Starcraft to Rise of Nations to Total War) and they are all good in their own way. You can never say one is the dominant RTS since they all specialize in certain types of RTS.

You have to stop thinking so simply since RTS's can be broken down into different categories. Theres some where building/economy/battle take place all in the same map (Starcraft/RiseofNations etc) and then theres the others where battles and building take place separately (Total War series).

The fact is that it is not easy to play all of these games online. Starcraft and Warcraft3 do an excellent job of allowing millions of gamers to use strategies against each other while Total War hasn't done the same. You can't play a whole campaign online in Total War in a time effective manner since its not set up that way. Total War is more "single player" in the sense that you only focus on your own turns and the computer just breezes over whatever the other nations/factions are doing during their turns. A single campaign on Total war would go on for weeks since not everyone is playing 24hrs straight, and then theres lag to deal with and other issues that set back gameplay. While in Starcraft/Warcraft3 you can jump into a game and have it over within an hour or two and still be able to replay those battles again and again during the same timeframe a campaign of Total war would take.

So in the end I really don't see how you're comparing Total War and Starcraft and all the others. Sure Total War has a lot of Single Player replayability but I've spent many more hours online playing other RTS since its always more fun to play with other people than the same stupid AI.

On an Opinion matter: I loved Homeworld 2, my favorite RTS so far.

trix5817

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="RandomDying"]

I've played all these RTS games said (Starcraft to Rise of Nations to Total War) and they are all good in their own way. You can never say one is the dominant RTS since they all specialize in certain types of RTS.

You have to stop thinking so simply since RTS's can be broken down into different categories. Theres some where building/economy/battle take place all in the same map (Starcraft/RiseofNations etc) and then theres the others where battles and building take place separately (Total War series).

The fact is that it is not easy to play all of these games online. Starcraft and Warcraft3 do an excellent job of allowing millions of gamers to use strategies against each other while Total War hasn't done the same. You can't play a whole campaign online in Total War in a time effective manner since its not set up that way. Total War is more "single player" in the sense that you only focus on your own turns and the computer just breezes over whatever the other nations/factions are doing during their turns. A single campaign on Total war would go on for weeks since not everyone is playing 24hrs straight, and then theres lag to deal with and other issues that set back gameplay. While in Starcraft/Warcraft3 you can jump into a game and have it over within an hour or two and still be able to replay those battles again and again during the same timeframe a campaign of Total war would take.

So in the end I really don't see how you're comparing Total War and Starcraft and all the others. Sure Total War has a lot of Single Player replayability but I've spent many more hours online playing other RTS since its always more fun to play with other people than the same stupid AI.

On an Opinion matter: I loved Homeworld 2, my favorite RTS so far.

mightywarlord

50unit battles? Lets get the facts straight.  If you think a game with only 50 unit battles sucks well in fact then you just said the whole Total War series sucks. 

Looking at the Total War series: A group of say 80 soldiers (depending on the army size you play on) is grouped in a "fixed" formation and all under ONE unit card.  Meaning that all of the 80 soldiers will follow together as one group, this in essence drastically reduces the amount of "clicking" involved to move those 80 men but yet limits your possibilities with those men.  You can't split them up in the middle of battle as you could have in most other RTS (command and conquer or starcraft for example where you could Ctrl+number group men to move together yet customize those groups and disband/reform them however you desire.  Total War does not allow that and in a way "dumbs down" the game play to yours and many others liking (i like this in some ways yet it is still a limitation in many others)). 

So for example in Rome Total War it may look like you controlling 100s of men... in fact you are only controlling 10-20unit cards.  Thus the battle is only 10-20unit cards vs the enemy's 10-20unit cards.  It may LOOK great but in fact you are quite limited with the possibilities of battle and strategy.  Only 20-40 units are facing off at any time in most Total war battle.

You're argument of the "50 unit battle" in other RTS (say Warcraft 3 for example) is very weak since the Total War falls under this "flaw" as well.

Never ever go to south korea true-gamer. You just made 2 million enemies.Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Iron-Dragon"]total annihilation and starcraft are boring?

ok.
ZimpanX

yeah and I would not certainly call Comany of Heroes or Dawn of War boring either

50unit battles? Lets get the facts straight. If you think a game with only 50 unit battles sucks well in fact then you just said the whole Total War series sucks.

Looking at the Total War series: A group of say 80 soldiers (depending on the army size you play on) is grouped in a "fixed" formation and all under ONE unit card. Meaning that all of the 80 soldiers will follow together as one group, this in essence drastically reduces the amount of "clicking" involved to move those 80 men but yet limits your possibilities with those men. You can't split them up in the middle of battle as you could have in most other RTS (command and conquer or starcraft for example where you could Ctrl+number group men to move together yet customize those groups and disband/reform them however you desire. Total War does not allow that and in a way "dumbs down" the game play to yours and many others liking (i like this in some ways yet it is still a limitation in many others)).

So for example in Rome Total War it may look like you controlling 100s of men... in fact you are only controlling 10-20unit cards. Thus the battle is only 10-20unit cards vs the enemy's 10-20unit cards. It may LOOK great but in fact you are quite limited with the possibilities of battle and strategy. Only 20-40 units are facing off at any time in most Total war battle.

You're argument of the "50 unit battle" in other RTS (say Warcraft 3 for example) is very weak since the Total War falls under this "flaw" as well.

RandomDying

[QUOTE="RandomDying"]

50unit battles? Lets get the facts straight. If you think a game with only 50 unit battles sucks well in fact then you just said the whole Total War series sucks.

Looking at the Total War series: A group of say 80 soldiers (depending on the army size you play on) is grouped in a "fixed" formation and all under ONE unit card. Meaning that all of the 80 soldiers will follow together as one group, this in essence drastically reduces the amount of "clicking" involved to move those 80 men but yet limits your possibilities with those men. You can't split them up in the middle of battle as you could have in most other RTS (command and conquer or starcraft for example where you could Ctrl+number group men to move together yet customize those groups and disband/reform them however you desire. Total War does not allow that and in a way "dumbs down" the game play to yours and many others liking (i like this in some ways yet it is still a limitation in many others)).

So for example in Rome Total War it may look like you controlling 100s of men... in fact you are only controlling 10-20unit cards. Thus the battle is only 10-20unit cards vs the enemy's 10-20unit cards. It may LOOK great but in fact you are quite limited with the possibilities of battle and strategy. Only 20-40 units are facing off at any time in most Total war battle.

You're argument of the "50 unit battle" in other RTS (say Warcraft 3 for example) is very weak since the Total War falls under this "flaw" as well.

True_Gamer_

All units in other RTS's are "self aware" and will turn and fight which ever enemy is closest to them as the units in Total War do however they can not be micro managed as effective as in other games.  Phalanxs in RTW for example have their flaws in the way they can only be made in straight lines and can not properly/effectively conform with a fluid battle line.  Also once engaged these group formations are impossible to modify since doing so would involve your men stupidly running around and adjusting to your new set formation rather than fighting/expanding out to it. 

Sure many other RTS dont have Morale well thats because it isn't even that perfect of a system in RTW.  In reality when a unit routes and is tracked by the enemy you have the option of catching them and enslaving them.  Total War only allows them to die which is in essence what other RTS do aswell.  If they are going to die, then they might as well have fought bravely to the bitter end as most other RTS games allow you to. 

One thing I hate about TW group formations is the missile units' friendly fire (for example mixing a missile card group with ANY other unit)... how realistic is it for you to perfectly plant an arrow into the back of your allies/friends head whenever they stand any where near you and you're firing especially in a high angle?  If Total war units are so self aware wouldnt you think they wouldnt do that?  I'm sure friendly fire was an issue as it is now but it wouldn't have happened as often as Total war forces you to think.  Most other RTS only allow friendly fire due to "splash damage" which makes much more sense.  In these other RTS you can individually redirect these men to not friendly fire rather than disrupting the entire "group" of archers.

All units in other RTS's are "self aware" and will turn and fight which ever enemy is closest to them as the units in Total War do however they can not be micro managed as effective as in other games. Phalanxs in RTW for example have their flaws in the way they can only be made in straight lines and can not properly/effectively conform with a fluid battle line. Also once engaged these group formations are impossible to modify since doing so would involve your men stupidly running around and adjusting to your new set formation rather than fighting/expanding out to it.

Sure many other RTS dont have Morale well thats because it isn't even that perfect of a system in RTW. In reality when a unit routes and is tracked by the enemy you have the option of catching them and enslaving them. Total War only allows them to die which is in essence what other RTS do aswell. If they are going to die, then they might as well have fought bravely to the bitter end as most other RTS games allow you to.

One thing I hate about TW group formations is the missile units' friendly fire (for example mixing a missile card group with ANY other unit)... how realistic is it for you to perfectly plant an arrow into the back of your allies/friends head whenever they stand any where near you and you're firing especially in a high angle? If Total war units are so self aware wouldnt you think they wouldnt do that? I'm sure friendly fire was an issue as it is now but it wouldn't have happened as often as Total war forces you to think. Most other RTS only allow friendly fire due to "splash damage" which makes much more sense. In these other RTS you can individually redirect these men to not friendly fire rather than disrupting the entire "group" of archers.

RandomDying

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="RandomDying"]

50unit battles? Lets get the facts straight. If you think a game with only 50 unit battles sucks well in fact then you just said the whole Total War series sucks.

Looking at the Total War series: A group of say 80 soldiers (depending on the army size you play on) is grouped in a "fixed" formation and all under ONE unit card. Meaning that all of the 80 soldiers will follow together as one group, this in essence drastically reduces the amount of "clicking" involved to move those 80 men but yet limits your possibilities with those men. You can't split them up in the middle of battle as you could have in most other RTS (command and conquer or starcraft for example where you could Ctrl+number group men to move together yet customize those groups and disband/reform them however you desire. Total War does not allow that and in a way "dumbs down" the game play to yours and many others liking (i like this in some ways yet it is still a limitation in many others)).

So for example in Rome Total War it may look like you controlling 100s of men... in fact you are only controlling 10-20unit cards. Thus the battle is only 10-20unit cards vs the enemy's 10-20unit cards. It may LOOK great but in fact you are quite limited with the possibilities of battle and strategy. Only 20-40 units are facing off at any time in most Total war battle.

You're argument of the "50 unit battle" in other RTS (say Warcraft 3 for example) is very weak since the Total War falls under this "flaw" as well.

trix5817

Im sorry but

Warcraft 3

(and if you consider these RTS)
Pikmin and Advance Wars

beg to differ
HappyInvader101

I thought Advance Wars was a turn based strategy game.

[QUOTE="Iron-Dragon"]total annihilation and starcraft are boring?

ok.
 ZimpanX

yeah and I would not certainly call Comany of Heroes or Dawn of War boring either

..the Total War series.
I read many people and espessially console fans posting that they dislike the RTS genre, to be frank I do too. I hate them they are dumbed down simplified to the level of a 12 years old kiddo...toys.
1. The whole green bar hitpoints system is lame at best, there is NO complexity of angle of attack, ground advantage and angle of missile attack (like shield angle etc).Supreme Commander

2. The whole basebuilding is dumbed down and pathetic, little peasants gathering resources and turning them into humans...now that sucks. And even worst the whole system leads to build order memorising and pathetic clickfests. And it's so horrible that you have to remember what order you make buildings :cry:

3. The locked camera. The from the top view can be described as half@ssed 3d, you cant view the sky, can change camera angle from the general's POV and simply there is NO cinematic epic experience. Dawn of War has a full 3d camera

4. The scale of the battles is laughable, 50 guys duking it out? What is this a bar fight? And you call this a WAR? Also the scale of the buildings...how on earth did that sodlier train in those barracks if he has the same height as them? Supreme Commander counters this whole thing.

5. NO morale, hey we are being slaughtered but we dont have fear so we stand and die...No flanking, with the aforementioned green bar hitpoint system this aint a surprise... Morale is a big part in DoW

Since 2002 when I got M1TW I have NEVER touched a basebuilding RTS again in my life...And its no surprise that many people hate the genre it has been the same since Dune2....

True_Gamer_

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]..the Total War series.
I read many people and espessially console fans posting that they dislike the RTS genre, to be frank I do too. I hate them they are dumbed down simplified to the level of a 12 years old kiddo...toys.
1. The whole green bar hitpoints system is lame at best, there is NO complexity of angle of attack, ground advantage and angle of missile attack (like shield angle etc).Supreme Commander

I havent played the demo yet Ill try it...

2. The whole basebuilding is dumbed down and pathetic, little peasants gathering resources and turning them into humans...now that sucks. And even worst the whole system leads to build order memorising and pathetic clickfests. And it's so horrible that you have to remember what order you make buildings :cry:

Its boring when everyone has memorised SAME lame rush cr@p and it happens SAME every time. Try doing that in M2TW online...youll be owned royally.

3. The locked camera. The from the top view can be described as half@ssed 3d, you cant view the sky, can change camera angle from the general's POV and simply there is NO cinematic epic experience. Dawn of War has a full 3d camera

If you play M2TW online youll see what I mean it has an FPS camera and WASD controls!!! Its like Counter Strike version of strategy game Hollywood epic stuff!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZztOQIcVxA&mode=related&search=

4. The scale of the battles is laughable, 50 guys duking it out? What is this a bar fight? And you call this a WAR? Also the scale of the buildings...how on earth did that sodlier train in those barracks if he has the same height as them? Supreme Commander counters this whole thing.

So it took us almost 14 years to get away from Dune2? But as I said ill try the demo.

5. NO morale, hey we are being slaughtered but we dont have fear so we stand and die...No flanking, with the aforementioned green bar hitpoint system this aint a surprise... Morale is a big part in DoW

I have DoW with all Xpacks and there is NO running away just fighting capablities get lower...MORALE=ROUTING

Since 2002 when I got M1TW I have NEVER touched a basebuilding RTS again in my life...And its no surprise that many people hate the genre it has been the same since Dune2....

Shadow_op

[QUOTE="trix5817"][QUOTE="True_Gamer_"][QUOTE="RandomDying"]

I've played all these RTS games said (Starcraft to Rise of Nations to Total War) and they are all good in their own way. You can never say one is the dominant RTS since they all specialize in certain types of RTS.

You have to stop thinking so simply since RTS's can be broken down into different categories. Theres some where building/economy/battle take place all in the same map (Starcraft/RiseofNations etc) and then theres the others where battles and building take place separately (Total War series).

The fact is that it is not easy to play all of these games online. Starcraft and Warcraft3 do an excellent job of allowing millions of gamers to use strategies against each other while Total War hasn't done the same. You can't play a whole campaign online in Total War in a time effective manner since its not set up that way. Total War is more "single player" in the sense that you only focus on your own turns and the computer just breezes over whatever the other nations/factions are doing during their turns. A single campaign on Total war would go on for weeks since not everyone is playing 24hrs straight, and then theres lag to deal with and other issues that set back gameplay. While in Starcraft/Warcraft3 you can jump into a game and have it over within an hour or two and still be able to replay those battles again and again during the same timeframe a campaign of Total war would take.

So in the end I really don't see how you're comparing Total War and Starcraft and all the others. Sure Total War has a lot of Single Player replayability but I've spent many more hours online playing other RTS since its always more fun to play with other people than the same stupid AI.

On an Opinion matter: I loved Homeworld 2, my favorite RTS so far.

mightywarlord

Not even going to read your post. Starcraft, Supreme Commander/Total Annihilation, and the Dawn of War series are all better. :?AlbertE-

I like Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced. Kikouken

FFTA is a TBS.

the only RTS series I liked was PikminThug_Pikachu

lol 

[QUOTE="Thug_Pikachu"]the only RTS series I liked was PikminTrue_Gamer_

lol 

[QUOTE="True_Gamer_"]

[QUOTE="Thug_Pikachu"]the only RTS series I liked was PikminShadow_op

lol