Moderator: Thanas
What does this have to do with the humourous suggestion that Generals is a particularly realistic iteration of the type? Nothing? It uses realistic NAMES, don't you know!Darth Servo wrote:Who the hell plays video games (particularly military based ones) because they are like real life? If they were, most players would consistantly get their ass kicked. Personally I use them as an escape from reality.
The RA1 nuke couldn't destroy an Allied barracks, which was clearly just two tents..Trogdor wrote:Atomic weaponry being painfully underpowered in C&C games is nothing new, though. Hell, I remember having to pick my jaw off the ground after a direct nuke blast failed to level the Kremlin in RA2.
Well the model of warfare presented would be a lot more realistic if you where fighting a guerrilla campaign, but I’ve yet to see an RTS game where you fight a guerrilla war. That would be real fun, you start out with a charismatic, or insane bomber, or both, leader and a couple of barely goon level soldiers and work your way up to TOTAL Soviet neutrality when the entire Cuba Army arrives to fight for you.Darth Wong wrote: It's true; the whole RTS genre is a joke as far as realism goes. The very notion of simultaneously harvesting raw materials, constructing vehicles and buildings, training men, and fighting a nearly continuous battle with nearby enemy forces is utterly insane. But that's the genre, and I suppose it's not really any sillier than most other genres (just look at the gameplay conventions of FPS games).
