StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

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!

My point is is that they used real names and real unit designs. You would think they would get the characteristics correct also. At least a little bit.

Nah, the real models just lend an air of authenticity. It's like those FPSs that use correct gun names and models: they certainly don't use correct damage mechanics or any other characteristics of the weapons.

Stark wrote:Nah, the real models just lend an air of authenticity. It's like those FPSs that use correct gun names and models: they certainly don't use correct damage mechanics or any other characteristics of the weapons.

I see.

For a long time now I've avoided traditional RTS games do to the get-resources-build-buildings-build-units archetype (including Dawn of War - tried it for about an hour before my dislike of the archetype got the better of me - last game of the genre I've played properly is Warcraft 3) because they turn into grindfests where individual units don't matter and it turns into a game of attrition.

On the other hand, I love the games that abstract the resource gathering and unit recruitment phases into either a strategic game or a between-missions element and have a more "realistic" tactical component. Games like the Total War series, the two plain ol' fantasy Warhammer games (Shadow of the Thorned Rat and Dark Omen IIRC), Mechcommander series etc. Funny how a game can seem much more realistic with elves and ogres when there are actual tactics required to use said units then a faux-realistic C&C game.

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.

The RA1 nuke couldn't destroy an Allied barracks, which was clearly just two tents..

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).

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.

Tropico would have had a lot more replayability if there was a multiplayer mode that allowed invading other peoples islands.

Some of the ideas given here seem pretty good, but would they be popular enough to warrent a major company spending the time and money to make and market them? The bestsellers lists I have seen make me think that there is currently a "change is bad" attitude with the buying public.

Anyone that have C&C the First Decade?

All C&C games on one DVD, a must have!