Homeworld2: that's no moon, its a Space Station!

[Sarxis]

Heh! I've got no pics here, but its coming this week.

You can't tell me I'm the only one overly excited about this?

[Nubclear]

The original homeworld was quite boring. Heck, even more boring than your averege RTS.

[FrostyBoy]

I played HW2 the other day, I do love the graphics engine, I love the fact that the ships look like models (rl models) and when you zoom in on one, they appear massive. Really good scaling!

I also love the cutscenes, they are so so very well done, screw hollywood!


BUT... I played a death match... and I quickly realised that this is just another RTS, and I hate to say this to you Anunikoba, but RTS's are just so so utterly boriiinnggg.... every single one that comes out, all the same, all stupid.. doesn't matter how 'original' the story is, its all just so pointless. Do this, build that, destroy that, you win. The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth. Not even the Warcraft series has ever had that much depth.

If RTS's didn't make the building and balancing stuff so OBVIOUS, it wouldn't feel so much like BORING WORK rather than PLAY. RTS's are only cool once. Replayability is zero!

My opinion. But I do think that those who do love RTS's would love a proper RTS game more.

[Sarxis]

I can understand your points Snoopy; I mean, its the same deal with the Beatles I guess.

[Verto]

Demo?

[Sarxis]

There is a demo:

HW2 Demo at Avault

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I played HW2 the other day, I do love the graphics engine, I love the fact that the ships look like models (rl models) and when you zoom in on one, they appear massive. Really good scaling!

I also love the cutscenes, they are so so very well done, screw hollywood!


BUT... I played a death match... and I quickly realised that this is just another RTS, and I hate to say this to you Anunikoba, but RTS's are just so so utterly boriiinnggg.... every single one that comes out, all the same, all stupid.. doesn't matter how 'original' the story is, its all just so pointless. Do this, build that, destroy that, you win. The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth. Not even the Warcraft series has ever had that much depth.

If RTS's didn't make the building and balancing stuff so OBVIOUS, it wouldn't feel so much like BORING WORK rather than PLAY. RTS's are only cool once. Replayability is zero!

My opinion. But I do think that those who do love RTS's would love a proper RTS game more.

you've never played age of empires/age of kings/age of mythology

the strategy in those games (actually, especially in age of kings) is just fantastic... I haven't seen any other RTS game with that kind of strategic value... there's shogun and the sequel however, but i haven't played those..

I'm looking forward to rome: total war.. it promises to be a damn good game, i'll almost surely get it! also because the theme interests me (as an archaeologist you see... )

[Verto]

Much obliged, Anun.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Trajanus


you've never played age of empires/age of kings/age of mythology

the strategy in those games (actually, especially in age of kings) is just fantastic... I haven't seen any other RTS game with that kind of strategic value... there's shogun and the sequel however, but i haven't played those..

I'm looking forward to rome: total war.. it promises to be a damn good game, i'll almost surely get it! also because the theme interests me (as an archaeologist you see... )

Nope...the word you're looking for is tactics, which has absolutely nothing to do with strategy.

Asmodean

[Atahualpa]

The only RTS I have ever enjoyed throughout was the old old C&C, and I think that is because it has so much depth.

I hope you do not mean depth as in gameplay terms

Nevertheless the MSFT RTS Suite is quite extraordinary. AoE was a great game and AoK was excellent. Rise of Nations is also a good game.
Same with Gettysburgh or Antietam, both excellent Games.

Nevertheless I love TBS more since I dont like the stress of RTS games.

[Curiosity]

Asmo,

I wonder why you would argue there's no strategy in AOK? There seem to me to be plenty of distinct strategies, and the state of the game in MP has long centred around revolutions in strategy, even if tactics tend to decide the games among the very top players.

I used to be pretty into AOK, back before my 'unlimited access' ISP cut me off for overuse. I could handle tactics fairly well - I think I still hold the record for the fastest fuedal - but getting things to cohere into a strategy, and altering strategy when things don't go according to plan, is a real challenge.

[General Ludd]

Games like AoK do have straegy, but it is a different kind of strategy then what a turn-based player is looking for. Primarily, the strategy relies around 'powergaming' ie. building up a base and army and issuing orders as quickly and efficiently as possible. While a turn based player is typically looking for strategy that revolves around well thought out plans and long-term goals.

This is why EU2 appeals to the TBS crowd more then it does the RTS.

[Asmodean]

And why I prefer to call it tactics rather than strategy. But okay...let's not mince words. Osweld just explained why I don't like Age games.

Asmodean

[Curiosity]

OK, I'll argue with Osweld instead.

Os,

what you call powergaming is a vital element in the civ-Wline, too. in almost all strategy games size is power. As for TBS lacking long tern goals... I'm really only familiar with AOK/AOC, but it's normal for the better players to have a set of goals and landmarks in mind for up to the first 45 minutes of the game. (Doesn't sound like long, but it can seem like eternity!) IMO, many of these are more distinct and varied than in the civ-line.

The main difference that I can see is that you are forced to react much more to the opponent... at least unless you play Black forest maps. This does mean that you need a much higher skill level to fully enjoy the strategic element, but I've found it worth the effort.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Curiosity
OK, I'll argue with Osweld instead.

Os,

what you call powergaming is a vital element in the civ-Wline, too. in almost all strategy games size is power. As for TBS lacking long tern goals... I'm really only familiar with AOK/AOC, but it's normal for the better players to have a set of goals and landmarks in mind for up to the first 45 minutes of the game. (Doesn't sound like long, but it can seem like eternity!) IMO, many of these are more distinct and varied than in the civ-line.

The main difference that I can see is that you are forced to react much more to the opponent... at least unless you play Black forest maps. This does mean that you need a much higher skill level to fully enjoy the strategic element, but I've found it worth the effort.

No, it does not mean you need a higher skill level. It means you must react quickly. That is what I was geting at - RTS is about quick decisions and efficiency, TBS is about creating huge complicated plans.