Red Alert III live action trailer

[Covenant]

Total War's gameplay is obviously dominated by the turnbased elements more than the battles--which are good but certainly nothing that is as fun standalone.

But with the exception of the Total War series, I'd probably be safe in saying that Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Homeworld, World in Conflict and Ground Control are all fairly well-recognized as members of the Real Time Strategy/Tactics genre. Merging tactics and strategy might be cheating, but it's basically a difference in scale. Managing a squad of soldiers differs only from a squad of starfighters or division of tanks in terms of graphics. At least, in most cases, games that put an emphasis on garrisons or such make infantry a special case.

What's the understood difference between a RTS and a RTT anyway? In general it seems to refer to a style of play that is less about resources, more about military unit behavior, but to me that simply seems like a good RTS game rather than an entirely different genre. If we are to define an RTS as a game with all those lame elements like static resource models and tedious basebuilding, then yes, I can definately see where there's been no progress since the first DUNE game. I think that's a bit of semantical gerrymandering though, the reason they play differently is because they're actually well made and better thought out, not because of some massive genre difference that's nearly invisible to most players.

That's not a rebuttal to anyone, I'm just trying to establish what it is people are defining as an RTS here.

[Hotfoot]

And ... you feel that those are all RTS games?

Yes, and I would include such games as Full Spectrum Warrior in the classification as well. If your definition of RTS game is so narrow as to only include C&C, Warcraft, and so on, you're not looking at the larger picture, but that's fine, I'm sure we can come to an agreement for the terms of this discussion.

No, I'm not a hardcore gamer, and I don't follow the latest developments in the field. Why don't you educate me on the fantastic developments in RTS games? And I'm only including actual RTS games here, not games like Total War which isn't an RTS game (it's a turn-based strategy, real-time tactics game).

Ah, yes, now we get into the crux of the matter: How far can a game be removed from the original set before a new classification needs to be made for it. The RTT moniker is one that, fairly, should be applied to many RTS games, if we apply it at all. The "strategy" in many of these games is loosely applied to the economy and base management, which are largely included for the sake of pacing the games. The fact that Total War's pacing is handled in a turn-based section is itself an evolution from the standard model which also happens to be its own model of game. The idea, however, is far from being completely divergent. Rebellion was essentially a Real-Time game with tactical battles much in the same vein as total war, however the empire management section, while real time, was still generally slow enough to make it essentially turn-based.

Meanwhile, Dawn of War's second and third expansions both had a turn-based "empire management" element to them. It was considerably less advanced than the Total War games, but it existed. Still, when played online, or in skirmish mode, they were immediately recognizable as part of the RTS genre.

Ground Control, which was entirely a tactical game with limited units you chose at each mission, was an evolution of the RTS genre without the aspect of base building, or even calling in for reinforcements (that was added in GC2, and kept in WiC). At it's core, it's little different from the multiplayer options in the Total War series, which were all about picking your forces and going to battle.

Meanwhile, games like C&C, Warcraft, et. al. still use many of the advancements made in tactical control that the "RTT" games use, so at best, I would describe the "RTT genre" as a subgenre of RTS games. In short, when you complain about a game being called "RTS" instead of "RTT", you're effectively complaining about me calling a square a rectangle. You're technically right in that it's more appropriately called a square, there's nothing wrong with calling it a rectangle.

But, in the effort of clarity, I will stick with games where resourcing is a factor during combat, which is the primary difference between "strategy" and "tactical" games. That leaves me with *Craft, C&C, Conquest, The Homeworld series, Dawn of War/Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Metal Fatigue, Battlezone, Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising, and Ground Control 2/World in Conflict as games of the genre that I can use as examples.

Ground Control 2: Perhaps the original source of painless resourcing, how fast you gained points to call in units was determined by your control points. While base building was limited, it was by no means completely removed. You could still set up defensive positions, man buildings, and build defensive structures in the form of turrets. This game also was one of the few early games that allowed for cooperative play of the primary campaign.

World in Conflict: Building on the ideas from GC2, WiC streamlined things further, and instead of giving each player an entire army at their disposal, narrowed the focus to a (relatively) small group of units, which needed to work in concert with the rest of your team. Higher numbers of players on any given maps plus the distinct need for teamwork help define this game, and while base building is even more marginalized, defending objectives is still very important to ensure victory.

Conquest: Frontier Wars: On the face of it, this game is little more than Starcraft in space, right down to the races and what sorts of things they can do. Still, it allowed for co-op multiplay, battles over numerous maps, scaling to quite large in size, and establishing the need to maintain supply lines when fighting. Rush into enemy space without supply, and your attack force will quickly find itself in a very bad way.

Homeworld: This one should be obvious, because no other game has managed what this series has achieved: workable 3D space combat. The interface is intuitive, and the rewards for thinking three-dimensionally are obvious. While I didn't enjoy the sequels quite as much as the original, it was still a series that has little comparison outside of itself.

Warcraft 3: I hated this innovation, but I'll mention it here anyway. Heroes. The degree to which Warcraft 3 revolved around these hero units was unlike any RTS before it, coming partway between Diablo 2 and Warcraft 2. Again, I didn't like it, but it's still an innovative move that set it apart from its competitors.

Command and Conquer: Tiberium Dawn: Meaningful differentiation between armies. It's something that's common now, but back in the early days, it's what set apart the series from its competitors. The way you played GDI was vastly different from the way you played NOD. This continued through the series, and it remains a good addition, but now it is the standard in games like this, and can no longer be fairly applied as "Innovative" in the current generation of games.

Command and Conquer: Red Alert: Army specializations: This is the beginning of what many games today use to make each side even more customizable and promote teamplay. Again, it is slowly becoming a standard, though different games often employ it in varying ways.

Metal Fatigue: An older Mecha-based game, this was one of the first games that allowed custom-built units in the field, including salvaging parts from destroyed enemy Mecha. What's more, each map had three levels, each with their own importance to the overall game and each with their own unique method of play.

Supreme Commander: The best thing I can say about this game is that the UI control had some really nice improvements, including such things as being able to zoom out to minimap scales and then zoom in where you needed to be very easily. Later improvements also help the game, like being able to make building templates to reduce the amount of clicking you have to do to keep your base managed. Still, these improvements are notable, and can be used to improve numerous games of their type.

Battlezone: One part vehicle action sim, one part RTS. You managed a base from the front lines inside your hovertank, though you could build other vehicles. This was one of the first games that put you in the role of a field commander, and let your actions directly influence combat while your forces were in battle. This blurs the line a little, but it's still quite clearly an RTS. You collect resources, you use them to build units and structures, and you have your forces fight in battles.

Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising: A lesser known game that had horrible marketing, this was actually quite an innovative title. Taking with it the "lead from the front" innovation from Battlezone, it added a few other nice touches, including a decent "live chatter" system between units (though this is more style, it was pretty cool), and a very intuitive command system, which is so dead easy I'm shocked and appaulled that more games haven't used it. In your standard 3x3 grid (3x4 for most games these days, of course), the keys were bound to (from top row to bottom row, left to right) QWE, ASD, ZXC. The difference this makes isn't immediately apparent, but if you are able to rebind the various hotkeys most RTS games use (which are commonly on a letter associated with the name of what you're doing, rather than any sort of ordered system) to this sort of grid system, managing the menus actually becomes a lot easier. The difference is really night and day, and it's something I wish more games used.

Dawn of War: The biggest innovation from this game is a combination of painless resourcing akin to the ground control model, but merged with standard forward base expansion. You don't need to reinforce every point, but you generally need to set up some sort of front line. Also included in this game was one of the first squad models (Homeworld 2 and a few other games technically beat it out, but this game refines it nicely), where the standard up until this point had been building and controlling individual soldiers. The ability to "repair" a squad in the field helped this model succeed where others had failed, of course. However, this really leads into my next, and final example...

Company of Heroes: Gaius brought up several of the points earlier, but I'll go over some of them again. Deformable terrain that generates in-game benefits (craters from shelling give cover to infantry units), the ability to retreat squads effectively, which allows someone who is losing a fight to pull out without being at a massive disadvantage from having lost the squad (reinforcing is generally cheaper than buying a new unit), streamlined base-building which allows for more attention in the front lines, painless resourcing which allows for more focus on the fighting, while having the points themselves be focuses OF the fighting. Builder units that are actually useful in combat and can join in on heavy fighting, plus a host of other innovations from numerous games that had not been melded effectively until this point. Oddly enough, the inclusion of tanks that don't take damage from basic infantry is something else that must be considered. While C&C tanks took little damage from Riflemen, they still took damage. Tanks and many other vehicles in CoH have thresholds of damage: if you're not doing enough, it doesn't matter.

So there you have it. Several of the innovations that various RTS games have brought to the genre. While I may have some errors here and there over which feature came first and from where, in general these are the games that are credited with getting it done WELL.

Would you care to show me where anyone in this thread said that it was "innovative" before you showed up and tried to make this nonexistent claim into an issue with your "I'm a more serious gamer than you" bullshit?

Um, the very post I responded to, if you cared to read it.

I must say, I was looking towards this with some trepidation initially, but now I may just buy it. The fact that they're trying (and at least somewhat succeeding) to not make this Generic RTS 256473 is a good sign.

That they're trying to make it not generic means they're including something unique to the game itself. I'm simply noting that there is not much unique to this title. If you take offense to that, too bad. I never said it wasn't going to be a good game (though the beta is certainly buggy enough that I can't get a game in), so stop acting like I pissed in your C&Cheerios and accept the facts for what they are. Someone claimed the game was going to be not generic, I called them on it, and (get this), they in retrospect agreed with me and said it was a silly thing to say. Others have (tongue in cheek, I assume) tried to sell up the camp of the cinematics, and I wasn't having it, since Cinematic camp was the primary reason I got C&C3 (hoping for a fun game underneath), but I ended up so dissapointed in C&C3 that I'm only going to give RA3 the chance of a beta and a demo this time around. If it strikes my fancy (which I doubt), I may get it, otherwise, I'll watch the cinematics on youtube while playing something more to my tastes.

[Hotfoot]

I will add an addendum to my previous posts:

Red Alert 3 is supposed to have one feature I do find interesting, as it is uncommon: A Co-Op singleplayer campaign. While hardly unique, it is still a rare addition and if done well will markedly improve my opinion of the game.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, and I would include such games as Full Spectrum Warrior in the classification as well. If your definition of RTS game is so narrow as to only include C&C, Warcraft, and so on, you're not looking at the larger picture, but that's fine, I'm sure we can come to an agreement for the terms of this discussion.

I suspect your idea of this "agreement" will be that my definition is wrong, and yours is right.

Ah, yes, now we get into the crux of the matter: How far can a game be removed from the original set before a new classification needs to be made for it. The RTT moniker is one that, fairly, should be applied to many RTS games, if we apply it at all. The "strategy" in many of these games is loosely applied to the economy and base management, which are largely included for the sake of pacing the games. The fact that Total War's pacing is handled in a turn-based section is itself an evolution from the standard model which also happens to be its own model of game. The idea, however, is far from being completely divergent. Rebellion was essentially a Real-Time game with tactical battles much in the same vein as total war, however the empire management section, while real time, was still generally slow enough to make it essentially turn-based.

Meanwhile, Dawn of War's second and third expansions both had a turn-based "empire management" element to them. It was considerably less advanced than the Total War games, but it existed. Still, when played online, or in skirmish mode, they were immediately recognizable as part of the RTS genre.

Ground Control, which was entirely a tactical game with limited units you chose at each mission, was an evolution of the RTS genre without the aspect of base building, or even calling in for reinforcements (that was added in GC2, and kept in WiC). At it's core, it's little different from the multiplayer options in the Total War series, which were all about picking your forces and going to battle.

Meanwhile, games like C&C, Warcraft, et. al. still use many of the advancements made in tactical control that the "RTT" games use, so at best, I would describe the "RTT genre" as a subgenre of RTS games. In short, when you complain about a game being called "RTS" instead of "RTT", you're effectively complaining about me calling a square a rectangle. You're technically right in that it's more appropriately called a square, there's nothing wrong with calling it a rectangle.

But, in the effort of clarity, I will stick with games where resourcing is a factor during combat, which is the primary difference between "strategy" and "tactical" games. That leaves me with *Craft, C&C, Conquest, The Homeworld series, Dawn of War/Company of Heroes, Supreme Commander, Metal Fatigue, Battlezone, Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising, and Ground Control 2/World in Conflict as games of the genre that I can use as examples.

Ground Control 2: Perhaps the original source of painless resourcing, how fast you gained points to call in units was determined by your control points. While base building was limited, it was by no means completely removed. You could still set up defensive positions, man buildings, and build defensive structures in the form of turrets. This game also was one of the few early games that allowed for cooperative play of the primary campaign.

World in Conflict: Building on the ideas from GC2, WiC streamlined things further, and instead of giving each player an entire army at their disposal, narrowed the focus to a (relatively) small group of units, which needed to work in concert with the rest of your team. Higher numbers of players on any given maps plus the distinct need for teamwork help define this game, and while base building is even more marginalized, defending objectives is still very important to ensure victory.

Conquest: Frontier Wars: On the face of it, this game is little more than Starcraft in space, right down to the races and what sorts of things they can do. Still, it allowed for co-op multiplay, battles over numerous maps, scaling to quite large in size, and establishing the need to maintain supply lines when fighting. Rush into enemy space without supply, and your attack force will quickly find itself in a very bad way.

Homeworld: This one should be obvious, because no other game has managed what this series has achieved: workable 3D space combat. The interface is intuitive, and the rewards for thinking three-dimensionally are obvious. While I didn't enjoy the sequels quite as much as the original, it was still a series that has little comparison outside of itself.

Warcraft 3: I hated this innovation, but I'll mention it here anyway. Heroes. The degree to which Warcraft 3 revolved around these hero units was unlike any RTS before it, coming partway between Diablo 2 and Warcraft 2. Again, I didn't like it, but it's still an innovative move that set it apart from its competitors.

Command and Conquer: Tiberium Dawn: Meaningful differentiation between armies. It's something that's common now, but back in the early days, it's what set apart the series from its competitors. The way you played GDI was vastly different from the way you played NOD. This continued through the series, and it remains a good addition, but now it is the standard in games like this, and can no longer be fairly applied as "Innovative" in the current generation of games.

Command and Conquer: Red Alert: Army specializations: This is the beginning of what many games today use to make each side even more customizable and promote teamplay. Again, it is slowly becoming a standard, though different games often employ it in varying ways.

Metal Fatigue: An older Mecha-based game, this was one of the first games that allowed custom-built units in the field, including salvaging parts from destroyed enemy Mecha. What's more, each map had three levels, each with their own importance to the overall game and each with their own unique method of play.

Supreme Commander: The best thing I can say about this game is that the UI control had some really nice improvements, including such things as being able to zoom out to minimap scales and then zoom in where you needed to be very easily. Later improvements also help the game, like being able to make building templates to reduce the amount of clicking you have to do to keep your base managed. Still, these improvements are notable, and can be used to improve numerous games of their type.

Battlezone: One part vehicle action sim, one part RTS. You managed a base from the front lines inside your hovertank, though you could build other vehicles. This was one of the first games that put you in the role of a field commander, and let your actions directly influence combat while your forces were in battle. This blurs the line a little, but it's still quite clearly an RTS. You collect resources, you use them to build units and structures, and you have your forces fight in battles.

Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising: A lesser known game that had horrible marketing, this was actually quite an innovative title. Taking with it the "lead from the front" innovation from Battlezone, it added a few other nice touches, including a decent "live chatter" system between units (though this is more style, it was pretty cool), and a very intuitive command system, which is so dead easy I'm shocked and appaulled that more games haven't used it. In your standard 3x3 grid (3x4 for most games these days, of course), the keys were bound to (from top row to bottom row, left to right) QWE, ASD, ZXC. The difference this makes isn't immediately apparent, but if you are able to rebind the various hotkeys most RTS games use (which are commonly on a letter associated with the name of what you're doing, rather than any sort of ordered system) to this sort of grid system, managing the menus actually becomes a lot easier. The difference is really night and day, and it's something I wish more games used.

Dawn of War: The biggest innovation from this game is a combination of painless resourcing akin to the ground control model, but merged with standard forward base expansion. You don't need to reinforce every point, but you generally need to set up some sort of front line. Also included in this game was one of the first squad models (Homeworld 2 and a few other games technically beat it out, but this game refines it nicely), where the standard up until this point had been building and controlling individual soldiers. The ability to "repair" a squad in the field helped this model succeed where others had failed, of course. However, this really leads into my next, and final example...

Company of Heroes: Gaius brought up several of the points earlier, but I'll go over some of them again. Deformable terrain that generates in-game benefits (craters from shelling give cover to infantry units), the ability to retreat squads effectively, which allows someone who is losing a fight to pull out without being at a massive disadvantage from having lost the squad (reinforcing is generally cheaper than buying a new unit), streamlined base-building which allows for more attention in the front lines, painless resourcing which allows for more focus on the fighting, while having the points themselves be focuses OF the fighting. Builder units that are actually useful in combat and can join in on heavy fighting, plus a host of other innovations from numerous games that had not been melded effectively until this point. Oddly enough, the inclusion of tanks that don't take damage from basic infantry is something else that must be considered. While C&C tanks took little damage from Riflemen, they still took damage. Tanks and many other vehicles in CoH have thresholds of damage: if you're not doing enough, it doesn't matter.

So there you have it. Several of the innovations that various RTS games have brought to the genre. While I may have some errors here and there over which feature came first and from where, in general these are the games that are credited with getting it done WELL.

When the fuck did this turn into a debate over whether there had ever been any innovations in the entire history of RTS games? I'm talking about whether there are any innovations lately, and all we've got is enhancements of old ideas.

Would you care to show me where anyone in this thread said that it was "innovative" before you showed up and tried to make this nonexistent claim into an issue with your "I'm a more serious gamer than you" bullshit?

Um, the very post I responded to, if you cared to read it.

I must say, I was looking towards this with some trepidation initially, but now I may just buy it. The fact that they're trying (and at least somewhat succeeding) to not make this Generic RTS 256473 is a good sign.

That they're trying to make it not generic means they're including something unique to the game itself. I'm simply noting that there is not much unique to this title. If you take offense to that, too bad. I never said it wasn't going to be a good game (though the beta is certainly buggy enough that I can't get a game in), so stop acting like I pissed in your C&Cheerios and accept the facts for what they are. Someone claimed the game was going to be not generic, I called them on it, and (get this), they in retrospect agreed with me and said it was a silly thing to say. Others have (tongue in cheek, I assume) tried to sell up the camp of the cinematics, and I wasn't having it, since Cinematic camp was the primary reason I got C&C3 (hoping for a fun game underneath), but I ended up so dissapointed in C&C3 that I'm only going to give RA3 the chance of a beta and a demo this time around. If it strikes my fancy (which I doubt), I may get it, otherwise, I'll watch the cinematics on youtube while playing something more to my tastes.

Hate to break it to you, but "not generic" does not mean "technically innovative". All it needs is personality in order to be "not generic". It seems like you've simply used this thread as an opportunity to get up on your soapbox about how you take videogames soooooo much more seriously than the rest of us. Well bully for you, I'm sure your mother is very proud.

[Hotfoot]

I suspect your idea of this "agreement" will be that my definition is wrong, and yours is right.

If you suspect that, then by all means offer up your own definition. If you disagree with what I've outlined, then by all means, say so. Alternatively, read my entire post before responding to one section. If you disagreed with what I said later on, you can say so, rather than include a snide comment about what you think I'm going to say.

When the fuck did this turn into a debate over whether there had ever been any innovations in the entire history of RTS games? I'm talking about whether there are any innovations lately, and all we've got is enhancements of old ideas.

Patently untrue on both fronts. You made the laughably ridiculous statement that, and I quote

All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

YOU are the one who said "ALL RTS GAMES ARE BASICALLY GENERIC RTS GAMES". You are the one who brought in every game ever made, you don't get to now backpedal and say you only meant "modern" or "recent" games unless you are admitting that you misspoke and that you didn't say what you mean, and that in correction you meant to say that you only meant "within the last 2-3 years".

And even taking those into consideration, you're STILL just plain wrong. World in Conflict, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander are ALL recent games. They ALL have innovative and new features, as detailed in my previous post.

Hate to break it to you, but "not generic" does not mean "technically innovative". All it needs is personality in order to be "not generic". It seems like you've simply used this thread as an opportunity to get up on your soapbox about how you take videogames soooooo much more seriously than the rest of us. Well bully for you, I'm sure your mother is very proud.

Well what other way is it going to break from the mold here, Mike? Campy realtime cutscenes are the staple of the C&C franchise, there's nothing new there. Making a generic C&C title is a double whammy, the gameplay's been done, and the cutscenes have been done. What's new? What's fresh? What has not been DONE TO DEATH? Answer so far, not much, save the co-op campaign.

Meanwhile, you come into the thread saying that no RTS is unique, and that basically the only way they differ is in superficial fashions. I responded with a big list of key points illustrating how that assumption is incorrect, and all you can do is say, "nuh-uh, you're a loser"? Really? I thought intelligent discourse, supporting one's positions, and all that meant more than throwing insults.

But hey, it's easier to mock someone who just knows more about a subject than you than to just take the lesson and move on, isn't it? Jesus, you run a website about comparing two fictional universes in battle, and you're mocking me about my pastime? Seriously Mike, that's low. You should damn well know that what we do for shits and giggles outside of our real lives is something we take seriously. Just like you would jump on someone for suggesting that a new Trek show with Berman and Braga at the helm would be new and innovative Sci-Fi and revitalize the series, it's the same sort of thing here. They both mean little in the long run, but at the end of the day, we both do research on the subject. Why? For shits and giggles. You watch episodes of a show that drive you mad, I play games, even demos, just to see what they offer and to have a good time.

[Stark]

While I don't think the RTS genre is static, from a certain perspective the great majority of recent 'innovations' (squads, TA, supply areas, non-base play, etc) are concepts used many years ago in games nobody remembers, because the RTS playerbase is so conservative. I feel the RTS genre is actually going somewhere at the moment, because features like this are now turning up in games that get exposure - not necessarily because they're new or 'innovative'. The players are still conservative - and literally cry like babies if you 'break' the Starcraft formula - but there seems to be a tendency for devs to put in 'contraversial' 'innovative' features regardless.

Even CnC3, a deliberately retro-style game, has features like squads and TA. That's a step in the right direction for a genre that has consisted of 'remake Starcraft... but UNDERWATER THIS TIME' for ages.

[Darth Wong]

I suspect your idea of this "agreement" will be that my definition is wrong, and yours is right.

If you suspect that, then by all means offer up your own definition. If you disagree with what I've outlined, then by all means, say so. Alternatively, read my entire post before responding to one section. If you disagreed with what I said later on, you can say so, rather than include a snide comment about what you think I'm going to say.

I did read your entire post, fucktard. It's 99% you trying to show off how seriously you take this shit. It's simple enough to characterize RTS games as games where the primary concern is strategy in real-time (duh), which obviously excludes things like games with a turn-based component or where you switch into something almost akin to a first-person shooter.

Patently untrue on both fronts. You made the laughably ridiculous statement that, and I quote

All RTS games are basically generic RTS games. They only differ in terms of their personality, unit selections, atmosphere, storylines, etc., none of which count as a unique or innovative feature.

YOU are the one who said "ALL RTS GAMES ARE BASICALLY GENERIC RTS GAMES". You are the one who brought in every game ever made, you don't get to now backpedal and say you only meant "modern" or "recent" games unless you are admitting that you misspoke and that you didn't say what you mean, and that in correction you meant to say that you only meant "within the last 2-3 years".

Apparently, you are too goddamned stupid to understand that "are" means "in the present", not "throughout all of history". If I say that all armies use guns, would you laugh and say that I'm wrong because the ancient Macedonians didn't? This is the same bullshit you did to the earlier comment you quoted from somebody else: you're reading things into statements because you're deperate for an opportunity to spout your bullshit.

And even taking those into consideration, you're STILL just plain wrong. World in Conflict, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, and Supreme Commander are ALL recent games. They ALL have innovative and new features, as detailed in my previous post.

Bullshit. Deformable terrain? Ground control? ZOOMING? All old features, simply expanded.

Well what other way is it going to break from the mold here, Mike? Campy realtime cutscenes are the staple of the C&C franchise, there's nothing new there.

That's like saying all movies are generic.

Making a generic C&C title is a double whammy, the gameplay's been done, and the cutscenes have been done. What's new? What's fresh? What has not been DONE TO DEATH? Answer so far, not much, save the co-op campaign.

Meanwhile, you come into the thread saying that no RTS is unique, and that basically the only way they differ is in superficial fashions. I responded with a big list of key points illustrating how that assumption is incorrect, and all you can do is say, "nuh-uh, you're a loser"? Really? I thought intelligent discourse, supporting one's positions, and all that meant more than throwing insults.

Not my fault you're too goddamned stupid to understand the difference between present tense and past tense. Perhaps your mother snorted windshield washer when she was pregnant?

But hey, it's easier to mock someone who just knows more about a subject than you than to just take the lesson and move on, isn't it? Jesus, you run a website about comparing two fictional universes in battle, and you're mocking me about my pastime? Seriously Mike, that's low. You should damn well know that what we do for shits and giggles outside of our real lives is something we take seriously. Just like you would jump on someone for suggesting that a new Trek show with Berman and Braga at the helm would be new and innovative Sci-Fi and revitalize the series, it's the same sort of thing here. They both mean little in the long run, but at the end of the day, we both do research on the subject. Why? For shits and giggles. You watch episodes of a show that drive you mad, I play games, even demos, just to see what they offer and to have a good time.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity in drawing this moronic false analogy. When I bash Trekkies in debates, it's not because they don't know enough Trek. It's because they say something that betrays horrible logic or profound ignorance of real-life science or other issues. When they say stupid things like "Star Trek is realistic" or "200 GT would destroy a planet", the problem is not that they don't know Trek well enough. It's that they don't know anything about science (or they're dishonest), which is important. You, on the other hand, try to make it seem as if your knowledge of videogames actually matters. Videogames are not important. Science is. Get it through your thick skull, dipshit.

[Hotfoot]

I did read your entire post, fucktard. It's 99% you trying to show off how seriously you take this shit. It's simple enough to characterize RTS games as games where the primary concern is strategy in real-time (duh), which obviously excludes things like games with a turn-based component or where you switch into something almost akin to a first-person shooter.

Congratulations. Again, you fail to define what you consider to be "strategy" or how this concept is somehow reduced by the addition of other elements. Mock me all you want, but you're the one turning this into a serious debate and the eschewing any sort of logical model. Rather than attack any specific point, you discard the entire argument by saying the subject matter is pointless and then attacking me for having knowledge of it. Bravo.

Apparently, you are too goddamned stupid to understand that "are" means "in the present", not "throughout all of history". If I say that all armies use guns, would you laugh and say that I'm wrong because the ancient Macedonians didn't? This is the same bullshit you did to the earlier comment you quoted from somebody else: you're reading things into statements because you're deperate for an opportunity to spout your bullshit.

Semantic nonsense. You're pulling this out of your ass to cover for the idiotic blanket statement you made earlier. What, I'm now not only supposed to divine your perfect definition of what an RTS game is despite your lack of knowledge of the genre itself, but I'm also supposed to divine that when you use the word "are", you mean a specific number of months or years in the past, or are you really trying to be dense and demand that only games currently in development or about to be released matter? Even THAT standard is retarded and can be disproven. Citing games released in the last few years is hardly akin to talking about Macedonian armies in modern contexts, at worst it's talking about military tech used in the 1990's versus the stuff used today.

Meanwhile you yell at me for reading into statements of others (even though the person I was originally talking to ended up agreeing with me, which makes this crusade you're on even more ridiculous), but you expect me to divine things you left unstated from the ether. Nice.

Bullshit. Deformable terrain? Ground control? ZOOMING? All old features, simply expanded.

Do you need a dictionary definition of what "Innovative" means? Using old things in new ways is, in fact, innovative. More to the point, some of these "small" changes can drastically alter the way a game is played, especially combined with other elements. Other games had deformable terrain, this is true, but none had that terrain actually do anything significant in terms of gameplay. It was just a setpiece that looked nice. Reworking tired old UI into something that makes control easier is an innovation, because it removes the need for two seperate maps that need to be managed, each with limited utility. Now, if there are two maps, they can have full functionality, something which was not possible before that time.

I also note that you're picking at the easiest targets, while completely ignoring the other subjects, but hey, I guess that's less you have to actually ponder what someone has put in front of you. It's easier to try and tear it down than take it in.

That's like saying all movies are generic.

How many times must one see something before it becomes expected instead of exciting? Take a look at James Bond movies. They were the same thing, over and and over and over again. Very little new was done with them, they were campy action films. That wasn't BAD per se, and again, I'm not arguing that it's bad: just that it's nothing new. After a while, Bond flicks became just that: Nothing new. Fun, if you like it, but it didn't bring anything new to the table, just new chicks, gadgets, and actors. Obviously, I'm excluding Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace from this analysis, because that's actually a different line of movies, since the franchise got an effective reboot.

Not my fault you're too goddamned stupid to understand the difference between present tense and past tense. Perhaps your mother snorted windshield washer when she was pregnant?

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that in your world, the word "all" means whatever the fuck you want it to mean. In this case, because you were using the present tense, you clearly mean games only published in the present, which is none, so obviously we can assume that you're right, because all of none is exactly the same.

See, I can be pedantic when it suits me too. Grow up. It's assumed that when you talk about all RTS games being something, you mean literally ALL games. Note that I specifically chose a large cross-section of games, old and new, mainstream and not, to illustrate my point, because I expected you to pull some retarded backpedalling, either trying to limit the definition of what an RTS is, or the kind of bullshit you're pulling now. I did expect you to apply a little more logic, or at least acknowledge that you're backpedalling from a ridiculous position that maybe you didn't mean seriously, but no, now you're just flailing your arms. Guess what? Tough shit. You said something stupid, now you can own up to it or keep demanding that I ignore what was said for what you meant to say. You can bitch and moan all day long that I should have been able to divine what you meant, but you aren't even saying WHAT YOU MEANT. You're not applying a damn threshold to the "present tense", or what YOU consider to be the definition of an RTS. You're just babbling that I'm wrong.

Well put up or shut up. I listed thirteen games that met my criteria for an RTS. Which of them fail by your criteria, and why? Which games are not "modern" enough to warrant comparison to Red Alert 3, and what's the cutoff point, and why? Remember, these games come around in long production cycles. The difference of a few years is almost meaningless. A game that comes out tomorrow can have worse gameplay and graphics than a game that came out five years ago.

Yet again you demonstrate your stupidity in drawing this moronic false analogy. When I bash Trekkies in debates, it's not because they don't know enough Trek. It's because they say something that betrays horrible logic or profound ignorance of real-life science or other issues. When they say stupid things like "Star Trek is realistic" or "200 GT would destroy a planet", the problem is not that they don't know Trek well enough. It's that they don't know anything about science (or they're dishonest), which is important. You, on the other hand, try to make it seem as if your knowledge of videogames actually matters. Videogames are not important. Science is. Get it through your thick skull, dipshit.

Ah, so you would maintain that you only rip into someone when they're being dishonest or stupid? So when someone tells you something that flies in the face of what you've seen, you never pop in a post and go, "WTF?" More to the point, when someone attacks your hobby, you don't roll your eyes and flip them the bird?

Bottom line, someone here said something stupid. You followed up by saying something even more stupid. I challenged that. I provided reasoning and evidence to support my point. You backpedaled and ridiculed, all the while not actively supporting your own positions.

You are the one who says we can apply the same rigor of science and logic in reality to the things that don't matter as much, and yet you're mocking me for it here, while you do the same exact thing with Science Fiction. It's laughable. More to the point, now you're trying to construct a strawman wherein I'm supposed to be upholding videogames as more important than science. Nothing could be further from the truth, I'm just applying similar rigor to my hobby as you are to yours.

That you don't want to apply that rigor to your gaming is FINE. Believe it or not, I don't give a shit if you care about gaming enough or not to apply logic to it. However, I expected a man of your intelligence and reason to at least be able to see when he's being silly and just back off. Fact of the matter is, it's that level of respect I have for you that resulted in my explaining myself and my position at all. If you had just been another user, I probably would have just laughed in your face and moved on.

But hey, I guess I insulted C&C, and by extension anyone who likes it. Because if I don't like a game and comment that it brings nothing new to the table I haven't seen before, then anyone who does enjoy it must be a retarded assclown who doesn't deserve to have a computer, right? I mean, that seems to be what YOU are reading into my posts. With all the commenting you're doing there, I can only wonder how much is projection.

[Darth Wong]

Congratulations. Again, you fail to define what you consider to be "strategy" or how this concept is somehow reduced by the addition of other elements.

So now you want a definition of the word "strategy" too? If I give one, what will you demand next? A definition of the concept of "real-time"?

It's pretty obvious that this is really important to you, but frankly, I don't actually give enough of a shit to waste time with your increasingly long-winded spittle-flecked ravings, or your bizarre delusion that I have some huge emotional attachment to C&C. Fine, you're right, I'm wrong, the RTS genre is a wonderland of fantastic innovations and any company which dares bring out an RTS game which doesn't embody some fantastic new development that makes you cream your pants (like "more zooming") is obviously a pack of losers who don't deserve to be in the business. There, are you happy now?

You are the one who says we can apply the same rigor of science and logic in reality to the things that don't matter as much, and yet you're mocking me for it here, while you do the same exact thing with Science Fiction.

Emphasis on the "science", moron. I care about science, which includes horrendous misuse of it in sci-fi debates. You're such an imbecile that you can't see why this is more important than caring about videogame features, which is only proof that you have lost all perspective on reality. You still keep thinking that I care about science only insofar as it relates to sci-fi, which is nothing more than a horrible case of projection on your part.

Your sphere of expertise is worthless. You keep trying to pretend there is some equivalence between getting up in arms about popular abuse of science and getting up in arms about misconceptions about videogames. There really isn't, and you need to seek help.

[Hotfoot]

So now you want a definition of the word "strategy" too? If I give one, what will you demand next? A definition of the concept of "real-time"?

I provided MY definition of what separates a RTS from an RTT. You seem to disagree, but you will not articulate HOW you disagree. The primary difference that I noted is the addition of managing resources during a battle that determines how you construct your army. Disagree? Then say where and how, or say that agree. Your asinine personal attacks are not an acceptable argument.

It's pretty obvious that this is really important to you, but frankly, I don't actually give enough of a shit to waste time with your increasingly long-winded spittle-flecked ravings, or your bizarre delusion that I have some huge emotional attachment to C&C.

The subject matter is unimportant. What matters is that you initiated a damn debate and then used little more than personal attacks and vague claims that you flatly refuse to back up with any points whatsoever.

Fine, you're right, I'm wrong, the RTS genre is a wonderland of fantastic innovations and any company which dares bring out an RTS game which doesn't embody some fantastic new development that makes you cream your pants (like "more zooming") is obviously a pack of losers who don't deserve to be in the business. There, are you happy now?

Not at all. Again, this is a strawman. My issue was when someone tried to tell me something which was, on the face of it, untrue. I challenged that statement, provided reasoning as to why, and we moved on. You, meanwhile, saw fit to make even more preposterous statements and be a general ass while adding little to the ongoing conversation.

Moreover, I repeatedly stated that at no point did I consider that making a sequel that gives fans what they want and doing it well means the company shouldn't be in business. Again, you are projecting what you think I'm saying into your posts, not what I actually said.

Emphasis on the "science", moron. I care about science, which includes horrendous misuse of it in sci-fi debates. You're such an imbecile that you can't see why this is more important than caring about videogame features, which is only proof that you have lost all perspective on reality. You still keep thinking that I care about science only insofar as it relates to sci-fi, which is nothing more than a horrible case of projection on your part.

Your sphere of expertise is worthless. You keep trying to pretend there is some equivalence between getting up in arms about popular abuse of science and getting up in arms about misconceptions about videogames. There really isn't, and you need to seek help.

Debates of science fiction are more important than discussions of video games? My god, alert the presses! You keep coming back to somehow trying to paint my position as "Video Games > Science", despite little to no evidence to support it. I guess we don't debate here anymore, we just flame?

Take a step back and try to understand just how preposterous that comment is. This board isn't supposed to be just about science, it's also about PROPER DEBATE PROCEDURES, unless you've made some changes lately of which I am unaware. If you do not address the points given, respond to criticisms, and use nothing but fallacies left and right, who gives a crap about the rest of it? I'm talking about the rigors of the debates and the analysis, which of course does go part in parcel with proper scientific procedure, but is something easily applied to the rest of our lives, and really any aspect of it.

But hey, I guess you're right. I shouldn't apply critical thought to anything but science fiction debates. How foolish of me to think that I could apply critical thought to something ELSE than what you decree as acceptable. What next? No more critical thought or debates about processors, operating systems, or other programs? I mean, all word processors are the same, and by that I mean all word processors in the current generation and are ONLY word processors, not sharing any code with spreadsheet programs, or slideshow programs, or whatnot.

[defanatic]

Another live action trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=483mZMqKoQU

For freedom