Contributing the the death of RTS games... BLAST YOU RELIC!!!!!!

[CaptainHaplo]

Ok - RELIC has always been known for innovation. I would bet most of the gamers on here have enjoyed either the Dawn of War or Company of Heroes games, if not both.

However, Relic made a wrong turn in their RTS games when they decided to rework DOW 2 game into TTS games instead. It has its positives, but really the game is more about pretty graphics that it is strategy. Its really gotten MUCH more "shooter" style in gaming.

Now they went and did the same thing with COH: Tales of Valor. No base building. No strategic points. Resources are gained by blowing up your opponent.

UGH!

I am really ticked off here. Next thing you know the RTS games will be gone entirely.

I mean - one review even stated that in COH you can play being your tank - driving it and aiming and shooting. It went so far as to say you would often be "rushing to get a shot off and click a little to fast and miss" - I read that and was like WTH???

There are plenty of FPS games out there - stop killing GREAT games with lots of potential by remaking them into FPS remakes using an established series.

Whats next? SH5 - no wolfpacks, no enemy ships, no bridge view, no water even, but hey, you can run around and shoot stuff - just don't get an itchy mouse finger or you might miss whatever kind of baddie they put in!

*Yes, I know the devs for SH5 are more responsible, but really, this is getting ridiculous!

There is no real good RTS games out there hardly anymore - the latest ones are going the wrong way now - and Relic is "leading the way" to the RTS funeral. Blast it! *Just not with an itchy mouse finger - you might MISS!"*

[stabiz]

I agree, but then again I got tired of CoH pretty fast, so I am not getting the sequel. Men of War is more to my liking.

[kiwi_2005]

Well DOW was trashed to bits with the series if it wasn't squad based then it would of been the same strategy as before with updated graphics & there's really not much else apart from adding rpg into it like WC 3 still a basebuilding but your heros role played - When Warcraft 3 came out i stopped playing it on the first mission when i realized this Hero class that lvled up with new moves. I thought it was the end of strategy games too I was so annoyed i remember emailing Blizzard support and ranting about the change! They had ruined my game. 4yrs went by before i went back and finally played WC3 & the expansion right through. Took me a long time to accept the changes Hero class with rpg elements thrown in how stupid of blizzard, i was so use to strictly good ole basebuilding, get that huge army out before the AI can and rush them

DOW has followed the squadbase I can't comment on the game but if it sucks & they listen to the fans then the next series will be a full blown stragty but it better have something new added to it otherwise only the diehard will be happy while everyone else will be writing up oh its just DOW 1 with better graphics the devs are just lazy.

[ajrimmer42]

meh, tbh unless I was playing C&C, I never really liked base building anyways. I think that's one of the reasons why I always prefered World in Conflict to CoH. But I see what you're getting at and I do agree that some games often get changed for the worst, rather than improvement. It is surprising that they changed CoH so much as it was pretty awesome to begin with. Never liked DoW so can't comment really.

[Dowly]

Relic has the tendency to make a new style of gameplay, use it in few of it's games and then come with a new style. First was WH40koW, then came CoH which had exactly the same game mechanics, now the same seems to happen with DoW II & CoH:ToV.

Meh 90% of major game companies only care about graphics and bowing to people who like linear games and consoles.

Indie games are just better these days.

[Tachyon]

I prefer the "MYTH" games developed by Bungie.

No base-building or resource management, just lead your troops on an epic journey. It totally addicted me to the RTT (Real-Time Tactics) genre. Myth 2 was my favourite.

[NeonSamurai]

Personally I had hoped Relic would expand on the planetary battle concept. Would have loved to have a dynamic campaign and the ability to use my own painted army rather then the lousy blood (s)eagles all the darn time.

I also don't mind the idea of possessing units and playing them with in a RTS. It can be fun and can turn the tide of battle (especially in dungeon keeper 1&2). Heroes wasn't a bad idea either for Warcraft 3, and added another layer to the game.

I don't mind variations, as they can help keep the gendre interesting and alive. I mean otherwise we would be playing basicly the same thing game after game, just with different names and graphics.


Btw personaly I like massive rts games like Supreme Commander hard to beat maps 80x80km or larger, and with hundreds of different units covering air, land, and sea, plus extensive base building options.

As far as I know, you can't pilot the tanks in the new COH game, just move the turrets around (which is kind of useless). At least that is according to what I read.

[Blacklight]

Meh. I never likes real time stragegy games anyway with a few exceptions. Harpoon 3 ANW, and maybe some of the old ones like Warcraft, Warcraft II, and Total Annihilation.
There was one pretty innovative RTS that kind of went FPS that I recall was set up pretty good and that was the remake of Battlezone.

I always found most RTS's to be too arcade like for my taste. That's why Harpoon was a breath of fresh air for me.

It's a shame that for the video game market, it's all glitz and no substance (Pretty much followng the trend of the TV and movie industries.)

[Castout]

Relic where's my Homeworld 3?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Blacklight

It's a shame that for the video game market, it's all glitz and no substance (Pretty much followng the trend of the TV and movie industries.)

Yes, that's the problem. Today's games cost too much to make to risk them being a flop. I remember seeing some telly show about games and they said that it took under $800-1000 to make a game a decade or so ago, today it takes millions. It's catching up the movie business very fast.

And that's the reason there isnt that many well made cutscenes, for example, anymore ála C&C or good CGI. Game companies are paying others to do their job in that front, which is VERY expensive. Take intro for example, that is made by an professional company that has done tons of CGI for blockbuster hollywood movies, it cant be cheap.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Also nowadays I think the industry is swamped with the same old FPS games. Its gotten so bad that I have actually been able to tell which engine they created it with without looking it up.

I miss those classic point and clicks where it wasnt all about combat, or those interactive movies where you made choices. I miss games like Crisis in the Kremlin, where you had to use your head to try to get Russia out of its post Soviet political vacuum.

Dont get me wrong, I like a good shooter sometimes, but its like the game companies think we're retarded, and will flock to buy anything with a gun and some enemies in it.

If you want me to buy one of your games, then make me do something other than point at the next Nazi/zombie/mutant/mother-in-law and shoot.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neon, I'm with you on the planetary/sector expansion. That had so much more potential.

Heck - I would have liked to see them go that route with CoH as well - imagine being able to select where you will strike, then have to worry about where your enemies will try to hit back. It could make for a great strategic game...

Alas - it doesnt look like that will happen.

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Castout

Relic where's my Homeworld 3?

Couldn't agree more...

[Arclight]

Well, they're definitely looking at it.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/re...at-homeworld-3