[QUOTE="rjdofu"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Not saying they didn't. Just saying Marathon was stupidly influential.
I skimmed through the games you listed, and none of them had the impact on the RTT genre that Myth did. Myth changed the way people made RTT games. That is a fact.
Okay, it dropped by a combined total MetaScore of 6 over ten years and 4 games (I'm not counting ODST because expansions always score lower, no matter what franchise they belong to). That's ridiculously impressive considering that
1. Most video game series go down with the odd title that may go up, regardless of that fact that most sequels are better than their predecessors.
2. That happened over the course of ten years, so we're factoring in franchise fatigue and troll reviews (see: Reach) and the drops from game to game, were,at most, 3 points. The drop from CE to 2 was 2 points, and the drop from 2 to 3 was 1.
3. Halo: CE has a MetaScore of 97. You can count the games with a MetaScore as high or higher on two hands. The only place you can go at that point is down. Not even Super Mario Galaxy 2 could outscore SMG despite being a better game in every single way.
DarkLink77
Yes, I've read through a gamesradar article and mouselook is indeed very important, guess we learn something everyday :P
What evidence can you back up the claim that Myth changed the way people made RTT games, when considering the fact that Warhammer has done that in 1995? And how many RTT games thesedays that actually are inspired from that game? As far as I know, all it did was introducing better & bigger maps (which is nothing special). So no it's not a fact.
1. Agree, that's a fact when you stated it that way (gaming as a whole), but when we move to individual franchise, it comes down to opinion i.e. it may not be the fact that most sequels are better than their predecessors within an individual franchise.
2. Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't franchise fatique means that many games are released within a short period of times (the likes of CoD for example)? Troll reviews happens to every games out there (especially popular ones). Halo Reach drop 3 point, Uncharted drop 4 points between UC2 &UC3 , Jak drops 3 points (jak 1 > jak 2 > jak 3 btw, same as Halo), and there's just simply not enough reviews on MC for Crash. How is that inconsistent when Halo Reach is not?
3. Well yes, it's exstremely hard to top a game of that score. But it's not about toping that score, it's about consistency & SMG is a perfect example of consistency (both SMG & SMG 2 can maintain the same MC score). Demands change with times, sequels are supposed to be better, enough to be remain at the same score range (around 95), Halo Reach was not. I know it's ridiculous, but then this is a discussion about consistency, and Bungie doesn't have that much consistency.
I'm beginning to think you don't know much about why Myth was important. From Wikipedia: Unlike many other strategy games available at the time of its release, Myth's combat does not focus on the collection of resources and the building of armies. In contrast to the "meat grinder" style of some games, it is possible for a skilled player to defeat a much larger force with few or no casualties. This is largely due to the advanced physics engine the game employs. Physically modelled environments, unit interactions, and diverse unit behaviours combine to create a gameplay experience in which realistic battlefield interactions can and do occur. Myth employs a sophisticated physics engine which greatly affects gameplay. Nearly all objects on the map, even the remains of dead units, are potential projectiles. These objects react with one another, units on the map, and terrain with nearly all expected physical behaviour, including rolling, bouncing, and crashing. Projectiles, including those fired by ranged units, have no guarantee of hitting any target; they are merely propelled in the directions instructed by the physics engine, based on the actions of the players. Arrows may miss their targets due to a small degree of simulated aiming error that becomes significant at long range, or the target may simply move out of the way before the arrow reaches them. This aiming error may cause the arrow to hit the attackers own melee unit instead, causing the same amount of damage, and friendly fire is a permanent aspect of the game. Unit formations are tactically important in Myth, since the game simulates a real battlefield accurately enough for maneuvers such as flanking and encirclement to be effective. When placed together in formation, units can provide an effective defensive front, block an enemy forces escape route, or exploit bad positioning of an enemy force by surrounding it. Since healing is a rare ability, units do not regenerate health, and there is no way to construct new units, hit and run skirmishes are effective and unit conservation is essential. In light of this, each point of damage can be significant. Terrain and environmental factors are also important. Rain or standing water will put out some fire- and explosive-based attacks. Archers on high ground are able to shoot farther than those on level ground. Most units will flinch when damaged, interrupting actions such as movement and attacks. This has many strategic implications: for example, if two or three melee units gang up to attack one enemy melee unit, it may flinch too frequently to have a chance to attack or escape. Each unit has a name and gains individual experience for each kill it makes, with some monstrous units being worth more experience than smaller units. Experience increases attack rate and accuracy, as well as (for units with shields) the probability of blocking an attack. All else being equal, an experienced army will destroy a comparable force of fresh units. So, yeah, damn influential. Most of that stuff is commonplace in RTT games today. 1. It's true in nearly every franchise, mostly because mechanics and design have improved over time. 2. There's been one Halo game for every year since 07. That's called franchise fatigue. Go read the reviews for Reach. Many of the complaints are, "it's just more Halo." 3. Um... yes they do. 97>95>94 is consistent. Reach's score is due to franchise fatigue and the odd bad review. And most sequels do not score better than their predecessors despite being better games. The original Devil May Cry outscored DMC3 by a margin of 7. DMC3 is far and away the better game. The only time that trend is bucked is when the sequel is so good that it cannot be scored lower, usually because the original was severely flawed (see: Uncharted, Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc). So you list a bunch of game mechanics and call them revolutionary :|? That source didn't say anything about Myth being the first game to apply all that mechanics, neither did it state how those mechanics influence other game in the franchise (note the source said "unlike many" not "unlike any", and they are actually refer to other member of RTS like warcraft in that statement). New mechanics are introduced everytimes, If you have to copy & paste wikipedia, then you know as much about this game as I do. Warhammer has always been the most influential RTT franchise, not Myth. I always avoid wikipedia because it's not a reliable source. But because there's no other way here goes:
"Around 1995, computer hardware and developer support systems had developed enough to facilitate the requirements of large-scale real-time tactical games. It was in 1995 that the regimentally focused wargame Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat was released, groundbreaking not only in that it focused purely on the operational aspects of combat (with all aspects pertaining: regimental manoeuvring and formations, support tactics, terrain, etc.), nor only in that it was entirely real-time, but also that it introduced zoomable and rotatable 3D terrain"
"The leading High Fantasy real-time tactics games belong to the Warhammer Fantasy Battle series. This loose series began with one of the earliest mainstream real-time tactics games, Warhammer: Shadow of the Horned Rat (1995"
"Released in 1996 by Atomic Games, the Close Combat series is a simulation of squad- and platoon-type World War II combat tactics which introduced a higher degree of operational realism than seen before"
"In 1997, Bungie released Myth, which introduced radically larger battlefields than ever before and included a realistic (at the time) physics engine" Total Annihilation is another strategy game released within the same year which also included a custome physics engine.
So yeah, Myth was not that influential, nor did it "invented" the RTT genre like you said (my argument was mainly to counter your later point)
About the consistent thing:
1. Ok, but that point kinda help every franchise out there, including Naughty Dog franchise, not just Halo.
2. "There's been one Halo game for every year since 07" No there's not, even if you include ODST (which you shouln't), there's only 3 Halo games within the course of 4 years. The gaps between Halo 3 and Halo Reach is 3 years, same gap as Halo 1 > Halo 2 > Halo 3. No where near the level of COD & Madden. "it's just more Halo.", the same happens with many Uncharted 3 reviews or any other games with highly appraised predecessors. In fact, franchise fatique is just another excuse for a franchise that lacks innovation. If you're innovative enough, I don't think there would be that much drop of critical reception. Troll reviews drag many popular games down, not just Halo. And I'm not gonna argue about the reviews quality, that's an entirely different discussion.
3. You cannot simply exclude Halo Reach just because you think its reviews dont meet your standard, which is subjective, I cannot argue with that. Because again, the same thing can be said to Uncharted 3.
Log in to comment