By Jove I think I Cracked the Code

By Jove I think I Cracked the Code (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> By Jove I think I Cracked the Code (2/27/2003 8:48:24 PM)
Ok I have it, the actual best way to interpret RTS games always looking the same. I am going to call it d20 system syndrome. Yeah likely won't mean anything if you have never rolegamed. At any rate, for those out there that actually "like" RTS games, saw this article on Blitzkrieg. Looks pretty, but so didn't Sudden Strike II. http://www.pczone.co.uk/news/news_story.php?id=87673 I doubt they have re invented the wheel. And I would expect the game will operate like a grade 3 classroom (but with better graphics).

rockymtndoc -> (2/27/2003 10:09:55 PM)
The screen shots look like Rorsarch Test blots. The whole thing looks like Sudden Strike revisited in an attempt to correct many of the obvious errors in that particular genre. Most interesting comment? Most of the artists and a large part of the company are women.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (2/27/2003 10:17:36 PM)
Interesting where women crop up in some hobbies eh. For instance, next time you are pondering how outrageously over done the girls are drawn in Japanese anime (incredible boobs etc), keep in mind persons like Rumiko Takahashi (a woman) are considered national treasures (and a lot of that anime is drawn by women). Although, to get back to Blitzkrieg, no matter how ell it's drawn, if its just more of the same style of game, it will be just more of the same style of game. Last non turn based game that interested me was Airborne Assault at Battlefront. They didn't strive for prettier graphics it seems, they attempted to make the game behave more like a military simulation.

Veldor -> Re: By Jove I think I Cracked the Code (2/28/2003 2:13:00 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 [B]Ok I have it, the actual best way to interpret RTS games always looking the same.[/B][/QUOTE] The same can be said about wargames, MMPORG's, or virtually any other genre of gaming. It's just a matter of perspective. Non-wargamers looking at wargames are going to think they all look alike. If there is any reason they dont its only because some are last generations graphics, and some are this generations. Graphics abilities are what they are. If you have a good enough staff they will be on par with everything else maybe slightly improved. But I imagine by "looking the same" you may also be refering to the interface, which my own take is that its the "interface" that is always the same and the true reason that new RTS games are so lame. The actual "look" of the graphics has little to do with the problem..

Fred98 -> (2/28/2003 4:18:34 AM)
I don't like RTS. But I do like "continuos tactical" I am tempted to try Airborne Assaulty but the map graphics are just so bad. I understand there are plans for a follow up game and it might have improvements.

Fallschirmjager -> (2/28/2003 4:51:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Joe 98 [B]I don't like RTS. But I do like "continuos tactical" I am tempted to try Airborne Assaulty but the map graphics are just so bad. I understand there are plans for a follow up game and it might have improvements. [/B][/QUOTE] Buy Airborne Assault....Its excellent.....And I think after these sell out they are gona disscontinue the product. Once you get to playing you dont even notice the graphics....alll you can think about is how slow your lard *** paratroopers are making it to the bridge.

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (2/28/2003 5:02:14 AM)
Ahh the spectre of graphics again. I personally found absolutely nothing "wrong" with the graphics. Sure they are using counters instead of awesome renditions of animated military hardware. But that doesn't make it a bad game. And when you consider how many games out there possess "awesome" graphics, and are pure crap as far as games are considered, graphics is not an issue near as much as some make it.

Veldor -> (2/28/2003 5:12:30 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1 [B]Sure they are using counters instead of awesome renditions of animated military hardware. [/B][/QUOTE] Some things do have a "middle ground". Besides HQ's,X's,O's,/'s and M's that are actually E's my own knowledge starts to get a little fuzzy. Just what represents helicopter aircav again? I forget and I have played plenty of wargames... What about the poor sap who hasn't, and doesn't have the benefit (or pain?) of having a military background? 3D Tanks, no, we don't really need them.. But it's a hell of a lot easier to me to see even a "generic" tank, helicopter, plane, or whatever silhouette than cryptic symbols that all look the same... And ultimately.. let the player choose... Standard Symbols or Black Silhouettes, standard coordinates or military coordinates, etc. etc. Not really much additional effort in doing so...

Fallschirmjager -> (2/28/2003 5:28:43 AM)
Airborne assults counters have symbols that make sense...a guy and a parachute is a airborne unit...you can also use NATO symbols.

Veldor -> (2/28/2003 5:42:58 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fallschirmjager [B]Airborne assults counters have symbols that make sense...a guy and a parachute is a airborne unit...you can also use NATO symbols. [/B][/QUOTE] That would probably do for me personally then.. But if Im remembering the game correctly (and apparantly I may not be) the map was of very poor artistic quality.. Panzerblitz quality rather than SquadLeader quality to put it in Les's terms...

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (2/28/2003 6:36:19 AM)
In an effort to give a more exacting opinion on Airborne Assault. I will grant the counters are a bit bare minimum. I like counters, but a counter can still be well drawn...or not. I think the counters are not quite as much as they might have been. But they seem alright. They might be inadequate to joe new gamer though. I forget that some wargamers have not being staring at counters since the 70's hehe. The map is like as was mentioned, more PB and less SL looking. I think (just guessing here) the intent was to make it look like military topographical looking images. That's just the feel I get from looking at them. The images of the terrain are fairly basic. This is also the case in TacOps (which has even more drastically rudimentary unit icons). All in all the game actually "plays" very well though. A person passing this game by based solely on it's visual content, might be passing up a rather well thought out Real time game. I have not really played it to assess how it actually plays. I can only report on how it doesn't behave like yet another damned RTS game. My first irritant though was the overly "cute" game set up screen. Man I hate having to look at a dumb cute interface and wonder just where the hell the button for just starting the bloody game is. I liken it to a commercial so caught up in being clever, it accomplished nothing.

Fallschirmjager -> (2/28/2003 11:51:09 AM)
The map is accurate down to 4m...and only the buildings are abstracted...its look alot like a military planning map. My biggest praise of the game is the awesome AI. you tell your untis to do something and give them a few paramiteres and they do it well...it take a very stratigic approach. Its very hands off...but it works for me...and the Germans fight beautifily..they know the routes you are gona take and they skirmish you the whole way. They also flank and hit you in the rear as you move. I was very impressed that the game didnt make you do the job of an entire command staff...you played the part as general in chief and that was it...I wish other wargaming companies would take notice.

rockymtndoc -> (2/28/2003 12:34:35 PM)
I recently got started, or tried to get started, with Cossacks:Back to War. This is an RTS with resource development and management as it's very soul. You usually start out on a barren portion of the map, unable to see anything but the small circle you occupy, with only a chief and twenty peasants. From there you have to build your city, plant your crops, mine resources, cut wood, quarry stone, increase your peasant population to keep pace with constant resource development while beinbg very careful not to outstrip either your food - famine, death and defeat - or your gold - mutiny and self-destruction - create and train your army and do all this while being attacked by ever increasing numbers of enemies on all sides. If you survive all that, which I rarely do, you then have to accomplish the actual objective. I have been trying on the latest mission for more than two days, and I'm only about two-thirds of the way along. On the other hand, the "Campaign" selection puts you into a never-ending tutorial - I've been playing it for over a week now, and have the entire map occupied and developed to the max, and there still seems to be no end in sight, nor does the rather vague "objective" offer any clues on how to finally "win." "Cossacks" - an ancient Russian word meaning "to frustrate"... Great graphics, good sound effects, great buildings, ships up to and including HMS Victory, great weapons and troops, and the chance to start in the 17th Century and play into the Eighteenth, great ships, troops and armaments, but the AI will drive you batty. I see the same problem with all of the RTS AI's: units on their own, no matter how large and well-sited and organized, don't fight worth a hoot unless you micromanage everything. When you are fighting a three-front battle, very common in Cossacks, and try to develop, managee and track all of your resources as well, you quickly become overwhelmed. SSII was the same way. What I really want is an RTS that lets me play only the armed forces, and I am still looking for a good Civil War version that is compatible with Windows @#$%^&*! XP. Has anybody else tried this thing?

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> (3/3/2003 3:31:35 AM)
clean up post, just ridding a certain name here move along nothing to see. Everyone should add a bump or something and do there part to keep our Forums looking free of annoying spam hehe.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875