Post by saint on Oct 14, 2005 5:40:55 GMT -4
Alright, I've gotten back into the RTS thing, and in doing so I've played two games in the last week.
Warhammer: Dawn of War
Dungeons and Dragons: Dragonshard
I mention both in the same thread because they're perfect games to compare, because each one clearly demonstrates the flaws in the other.
First, just so you know where I'm coming from, I want to make clear that I believe Starcraft is probably the best RTS ever made, and will most likely never be displaced from that position. That being said, I absolutely loved Dawn of War.
Dawn of War is probably the most intricately detailed and most visually stunning real time strategy game I've ever played. Each unit has several different animated combat sequences that directly affect the outcome of the individual battles those units participate in.
Visually, I don't think they could have possibly created a game that not only perfectly captures the feel of the warhammer world, but bridges the gap between the omniscient 'commander view' that these games put you in, and the direct involvement you should feel in the setting of the battle.
Each unit is exquisitely detailed, from the way they move down to the decorations and battle scars on the actual units. Each unit is customizable in terms of what weapon it wields and the 'army painter' feature allows you to, in true to game fashion, determine the color scheme of the army. For example, the basic human unit, the space marine, is created in groups of four; each unit can be upgraded individual to contain 8 space marines, four of which can wield different weapons, and a commander unit can be added who's weapon can also be upgraded separately, furthermore you can add one of three different leader units to the individual space marine groups to further alter the way that they fight.
Dawn of war also introduces a new feature to the RTS genre with the addition of morale. Each unit has a morale rating that rises and falls depending on how the unit is faring in combat. Units with higher morale fight better, and if the morale falls to low the unit will disperse and become nearly ineffective. Obviously, certain unit upgrades affect the morale of the units that wield them, and the morale of the units they are engaged in combat with. Space marines with commander units attached maintain higher morale through the course of a battle, and with the 'flamer' weapon upgrade, they reduce the morale of enemy units faster.
Dawn of war features four reasonably balanced races that each have their own unique way of fighting. I personally believe that the Space Marines are by far superior, though it may just be because they match my playing style.
The space marines seem to be a well balanced force mixing overwhelming firepower with solid defensive capabilities; the basic space marine unit, when produced in large numbers and strategically upgraded is strong enough that other units become almost unnecessary, which I perceive as the games only, but tragic flaw.
The orks, reminiscent of the orcs in warcraft, and the zerg in starcraft, find their small advantage in the speed at which huge numbers of units can be produced, and while easy to kill, wave after wave of orks can wear down even the most well structured space marine defenses.
The Eldar, the elf/protoss type race has a unique advantage, they can produce teleportation structures that allow the rapid and stealthy movement of large numbers of troops to any location on the map. A hit-and-fade style offensive is clearly the way these units were meant to be used; not so easily employed due to the massive amount of micromanaging these units require. They tend to be easily overwhelmed, and knocked down in a strong breeze.
Finally, Chaos marines, which are based strongly on the space marine template, they exchange armor and damage for massive amounts of 'supernatural' upgrades and special abilities; one of those races that is initially weak but can produce some outstandingly powerful units. Chaos has the advantage of being able to immediately produce a useful infantry unit that is well suited for taking an early lead in the resource gathering department.
Dawn of War is a distinctly aggressive game, and winning means constant expansion and defense of key strategic map points. Having a strong defense is important, but not as important as taking an holding the multiple resource nodes that litter the huge maps.
The restrictions on the number of units that can be produced means that resources must be carefully managed, and units must be actively monitored and maintained, making Dawn of War a very intense and involving game.
All the reviews I've read claim that the game is extremely balanced, but I just don't see it, the campaign mode, even at the most difficult setting, was a breeze using the classic protoss strategy of claiming a resource site, littering it with cannons and moving a fleet of high powered vehicles to the next area to cleanse and conquer. The campaign mode features 11 missions, that even though they grow longer in time to complete, don't really get any more difficult.
The multi-player mode is very dynamic, allowing you to set several different victory parameters. The computer AI is tricky and uses several different strategies, making it a worthy opponent even at standard difficulty, however, again, the simple strategy of cannon placement and large sweeping forces seemed like an easy victory.
On-line play against smart people showed me the weaknesses in the simple strategy, as combinations of units make short work defensive emplacements, and clever unit management makes any of the four forces equally formidable. However, the skill level you encounter in on-line play demonstrates the sheer muggery of the games fans, and the super-intense Korean fury of hardcore gamers was enough to scare me off the net for a while.
Now, onto Dragonshard.
This game sucked. It was the stupidest, most poorly designed, idiotic game I ever sat through the first twenty minutes of.
The units are utterly simple, all of which apparently follow the 'charge at the nearest enemy without any strategic organization' model of AI, and have no distinct or unique qualities to speak of. The models are bulky and ridiculous looking, the special abilities are all pointless, and the game plays more like a retarded version of diablo than any rts I've ever seen.
The story mode is insanely boring and straightforward, and the skirmish mode is so ridiculously pseudo-intricate you actually believe for a moment that what you do has some affect on the game play. It doesn't.
Every unit you create will mindlessly charge the closest enemy until it is dead. The cleric units mindlessly heal the closest units. The barbarian units die right away. The rangers get their asses handed to them instantly. The resources are a pain in the to gather. The hero units have stupid abilities. The random magic items you find will completely destroy any illusion of balance the game pretends to have.
The voice acting on both games is awful, but at least in Dawn of War it's appropriate.
Dragonshard is such a colossal waste of time, I regret I spent the six minutes installing it.
Warhammer: Dawn of War
Dungeons and Dragons: Dragonshard
I mention both in the same thread because they're perfect games to compare, because each one clearly demonstrates the flaws in the other.
First, just so you know where I'm coming from, I want to make clear that I believe Starcraft is probably the best RTS ever made, and will most likely never be displaced from that position. That being said, I absolutely loved Dawn of War.
Dawn of War is probably the most intricately detailed and most visually stunning real time strategy game I've ever played. Each unit has several different animated combat sequences that directly affect the outcome of the individual battles those units participate in.
Visually, I don't think they could have possibly created a game that not only perfectly captures the feel of the warhammer world, but bridges the gap between the omniscient 'commander view' that these games put you in, and the direct involvement you should feel in the setting of the battle.
Each unit is exquisitely detailed, from the way they move down to the decorations and battle scars on the actual units. Each unit is customizable in terms of what weapon it wields and the 'army painter' feature allows you to, in true to game fashion, determine the color scheme of the army. For example, the basic human unit, the space marine, is created in groups of four; each unit can be upgraded individual to contain 8 space marines, four of which can wield different weapons, and a commander unit can be added who's weapon can also be upgraded separately, furthermore you can add one of three different leader units to the individual space marine groups to further alter the way that they fight.
Dawn of war also introduces a new feature to the RTS genre with the addition of morale. Each unit has a morale rating that rises and falls depending on how the unit is faring in combat. Units with higher morale fight better, and if the morale falls to low the unit will disperse and become nearly ineffective. Obviously, certain unit upgrades affect the morale of the units that wield them, and the morale of the units they are engaged in combat with. Space marines with commander units attached maintain higher morale through the course of a battle, and with the 'flamer' weapon upgrade, they reduce the morale of enemy units faster.
Dawn of war features four reasonably balanced races that each have their own unique way of fighting. I personally believe that the Space Marines are by far superior, though it may just be because they match my playing style.
The space marines seem to be a well balanced force mixing overwhelming firepower with solid defensive capabilities; the basic space marine unit, when produced in large numbers and strategically upgraded is strong enough that other units become almost unnecessary, which I perceive as the games only, but tragic flaw.
The orks, reminiscent of the orcs in warcraft, and the zerg in starcraft, find their small advantage in the speed at which huge numbers of units can be produced, and while easy to kill, wave after wave of orks can wear down even the most well structured space marine defenses.
The Eldar, the elf/protoss type race has a unique advantage, they can produce teleportation structures that allow the rapid and stealthy movement of large numbers of troops to any location on the map. A hit-and-fade style offensive is clearly the way these units were meant to be used; not so easily employed due to the massive amount of micromanaging these units require. They tend to be easily overwhelmed, and knocked down in a strong breeze.
Finally, Chaos marines, which are based strongly on the space marine template, they exchange armor and damage for massive amounts of 'supernatural' upgrades and special abilities; one of those races that is initially weak but can produce some outstandingly powerful units. Chaos has the advantage of being able to immediately produce a useful infantry unit that is well suited for taking an early lead in the resource gathering department.
Dawn of War is a distinctly aggressive game, and winning means constant expansion and defense of key strategic map points. Having a strong defense is important, but not as important as taking an holding the multiple resource nodes that litter the huge maps.
The restrictions on the number of units that can be produced means that resources must be carefully managed, and units must be actively monitored and maintained, making Dawn of War a very intense and involving game.
All the reviews I've read claim that the game is extremely balanced, but I just don't see it, the campaign mode, even at the most difficult setting, was a breeze using the classic protoss strategy of claiming a resource site, littering it with cannons and moving a fleet of high powered vehicles to the next area to cleanse and conquer. The campaign mode features 11 missions, that even though they grow longer in time to complete, don't really get any more difficult.
The multi-player mode is very dynamic, allowing you to set several different victory parameters. The computer AI is tricky and uses several different strategies, making it a worthy opponent even at standard difficulty, however, again, the simple strategy of cannon placement and large sweeping forces seemed like an easy victory.
On-line play against smart people showed me the weaknesses in the simple strategy, as combinations of units make short work defensive emplacements, and clever unit management makes any of the four forces equally formidable. However, the skill level you encounter in on-line play demonstrates the sheer muggery of the games fans, and the super-intense Korean fury of hardcore gamers was enough to scare me off the net for a while.
Now, onto Dragonshard.
This game sucked. It was the stupidest, most poorly designed, idiotic game I ever sat through the first twenty minutes of.
The units are utterly simple, all of which apparently follow the 'charge at the nearest enemy without any strategic organization' model of AI, and have no distinct or unique qualities to speak of. The models are bulky and ridiculous looking, the special abilities are all pointless, and the game plays more like a retarded version of diablo than any rts I've ever seen.
The story mode is insanely boring and straightforward, and the skirmish mode is so ridiculously pseudo-intricate you actually believe for a moment that what you do has some affect on the game play. It doesn't.
Every unit you create will mindlessly charge the closest enemy until it is dead. The cleric units mindlessly heal the closest units. The barbarian units die right away. The rangers get their asses handed to them instantly. The resources are a pain in the to gather. The hero units have stupid abilities. The random magic items you find will completely destroy any illusion of balance the game pretends to have.
The voice acting on both games is awful, but at least in Dawn of War it's appropriate.
Dragonshard is such a colossal waste of time, I regret I spent the six minutes installing it.