 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DataAeolus
Any thoughts about Rise of Nations? |
my pc didn't like it, even though the specs were way over the mins. It was fun until it teh frame rate was shot. I would recommend it if you like RTS and have a decent pc. There is a demo I think.
quote:
Originally posted by DataAeolus
Diablo I and II? |
fun games. Good multiplayer, but has drawbacks of multiplayer. Hack in slash, not much thinking involved. However, I would recommend for some mindless entertainment.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
If you like Civ3, SMAC is definitely worth at least 10 hours of your time. There's just so much to see, learn and do in that game, and it all fits within a great theme. While I do believe that Civ3 is an improvement over Civ2 in almost every single way, it's not clear to me that Civ3 is a huge improvement over SMAC.
True, the AI is not as good as Civ3's, but it's not like you can beat the hardest difficulties right away. You need to play at least 10-12 full games to start beating Transcend regularly, which is about 200 hours of good gaming.
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter).
I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid.
As for other RTS games, Warcraft 3 is still the best one out there IMO. The Replay feature is awesome in that it demonstrates how strategic the game can really be (i.e. it's not just about good micro).
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I found galciv to be boring. I probably didn't give it enough of a chance, I think after the MoO3 debacle I gave things a quick hook if I wasn't "getting" them right away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
|
I've played all the Heroes games off-and-on since they were released. I've probably spent more time with them than Civ. In fact, unlike just about any other strategy game I've played (real-time or turn-based), I find replaying missions for a better score to be enjoyable (to a degree). Most strategy games, I play through any scenario or campaign and then forget about them.
That is, I think, I disagree.
quote:
If I were to start playing another TBS game seriously it would be GalCiv. I've tinkered with it a couple of times, but never really got into it. It looks really promising, although I'm slightly worried about the lack of enthusiasm in the GalCiv forum here at 'Poly (or anywhere else for that matter). |
I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.
quote:
I'm not quite sure exactly what went wrong with Rise of Nations, but we all know now that it's quite poor. I feel vindicated because I was one of the ones that "called it" when the free trial version was released. Still, RoN is probably one of the best attempts at a RTS/TBS hybrid. |
We all know this? All of us?
PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.
I haven't played it. But at worst I've heard it damned with faint praise. You'd be the first I've heard say it was "poor", though.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by okblacke
I've put in a few hours on it. I haven't figured out where the fun is yet. I liked playing Civ 3 on Warlord and Chieftain when I was starting out. So far, GC seems to be too easy at these levels to give shape to good strategy ideas for a competitive game.
|
Why not just play at the harder difficulty levels (with more "intelligent" alien races)? The AI in GalCiv is quite interesting compared to Civ3's: as the difficulty level increases, the AI actually gets smarter (i.e. it uses more advanced planning and strategy algorithms).
quote:
PC Gamer, GameSpot and GameSpy give it a "Best of 2003" awards, it was in the running for a dozen more. GameRankings lists it at 89%, with no score under 70%.
|
I would like to believe those publications are not all about hype, but that's not really true; "Brian Reynolds' new game? Buy, buy, buy!".
The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.
By the way, where is the RoN expansion?!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ErikM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
I'm not a big fan of the Heroes series: although fun once in a while when you're bored, it's more about eye candy than strategy. The replay value is very low.
|
Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding. Best scenarios are very difficult and are more engaging than Civ games, if only because they require out-of-the-box thinking and remain competitive until the end - something where Civ falls short. "Eternal love" campaign, "Pride wars" trilogy, "Sander's Folly", "Reavers or the North", "Vengeance is mine", to name few famous user-made scenarios.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ErikM
Campaigns/scenarios that come with a game are a bit too simple with a few exceptions. But there are 1000+ user-made scenarios and campaigns for HOMM (HOMM scenario editor is very easy to use), complete with ratings, reviews, etc, and some of them are outstanding. |
I never knew about that. I'll have to check it out...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lockstep
|
 |
Vienna, Austria
Aug 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me.
By the way, where is the RoN expansion?! |
IIRC, a lot of online players dropped RoN in the first 6 months because there were lots of connectivity issues plus a rather poor matchmaking system. Both problems were greatly diminished with patch 1.03 which was released in November, but by then the online community was already very small, perhaps too small. We'll see if BHG is able to create another 'hype' (and attract new online players) with the X-pack ('Thrones and Patriots'), which should be released on April, 28th.
BTW, as RoN's gameplay and pace are similar to TBS (compared to that of other RTS games), and as RoN's AI seems to be rather good (at least I haven't read a criticism that resembles that of SMAC's AI), it may be unfair to judge the game as 'poor' only because of the small online community. I haven't played many RoN games until now (got interested in it only recently), but by now it seems that building up a good economy does require sound strategy, but not the heavy micromanagement I dislike about Civ3.
EDIT: While I can't comment on Warcraft 3's 'awesome' replay feature, I liked RoN's replay feature and recorded games from the beginning.
Last edited by lockstep on 28-02-2004 at 20:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lockstep
EDIT: While I can't comment on Warcraft 3's 'awesome' replay feature, I liked RoN's replay feature and recorded games from the beginning. |
As far as I know, Warcraft 3 was the first game to incorporate this feature into its engine. I'm not surprised other games are following suit because it's such a great feature. If only something like this could be done for Civ3 (the end of game replay movie is not really on the same level)!
Dominae
|
|
| |
|
|
|
okblacke
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dominae
Why not just play at the harder difficulty levels (with more "intelligent" alien races)? The AI in GalCiv is quite interesting compared to Civ3's: as the difficulty level increases, the AI actually gets smarter (i.e. it uses more advanced planning and strategy algorithms).
|
I'm slowly getting there. While it's somewhat true with Civ games, it's especially true of space-games that it's hard to get one's bearings. After playing a few games on "beginner" and smaller maps, I boosted the intelligence to "sub-normal" and played on a huge map.
The huge map was a bad idea, though. Also a bad idea was going for a tech-transcendence victory. The last 150 turns were torture. I really didn't want to keep shuffling constructors around the unvierse, but when I stopped, the Arceans (ultimately the only other race left) started piling up influence.
So, I've played half a dozen games and I have a sense of the basic shape of the tech tree and the starbase/planet build tree. Military I'm still foggy on.
quote:
I would like to believe those publications are not all about hype, but that's not really true; "Brian Reynolds' new game? Buy, buy, buy!". |
I think as far as CGW went, the fact that it was Brian Reynolds worked against him. They agreed that he had made some interesting innovations but they were expecting a masterpiece.
Also, CGW and a lot of 'net sites have no problem changing their minds a few months later. (cf "Black and White" wihch went from editor's choice to coaster of the year.)
quote:
The fact of the matter is even the most hardcore players of the game have commented how the online RoN community died a about 6-7 months after release. So either everyone is playing the game but no one is talking about it, or no one is playing the game and (therefore) no one is talking about it. The first makes more sense to me. |
Bad multiplayer can kill an on-line community but that's not necessarily a reflection on the single-player experience.
quote:
By the way, where is the RoN expansion?! |
A missing expansion pack is a bad sign, tho, for sure.
[ok]
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
furrykef
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SpencerH
I think you mean AoE was an improvement over AoK. |
I don't know how the first game of a series can be an "improvement" over the second. It might be better (though I dunno anybody who prefers AoE over AoK), but even so it wouldn't be an "improvement".
- Kef
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binyo66
|
|
Indonesia
Oct 2003
time: 05:34
|
|
OK, thank u vmxa1
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-02-2004 00:05
|