[video=youtube;PnDWLDTPysA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=PnDWLDTPysA[/video]
Hope this turns out good.
its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead
-snip im dumb-
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
Your point? Halo Wars was a console game and that was an okay game. Same with Halo Wars 2.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
Nonsense StarCraft was released on the Nintendo 64.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
People like Battle for Middle-Earth, Halo Wars, C&C 3, Red Alert 3 and Supreme Commander and those had console releases. The only unifying flaw is that naturally the console versions are inferior.
I really have high hopes for this. I really hope they execute it well.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
Tooth and Tail is a great RTS on console.
[QUOTE=Vilusia;53018262]Your point? Halo Wars was a console game and that was an okay game. Same with Halo Wars 2.[/QUOTE]
It was also probably one of the most shallow and worst RTS's I've ever played.
Looks very much inspired by MoW and CoH, which can only be a good thing imo
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
This really doesn't make sense given all the RTS games listed here
[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;53018293]People like Battle for Middle-Earth, Halo Wars, C&C 3, Red Alert 3 and Supreme Commander and those had console releases. The only unifying flaw is that naturally the console versions are inferior.[/QUOTE]
Had console releases, and I can say the PC version of BfME and the C&C games did not suffer due to the console port.
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
There's no reason why an RTS wouldn't work on consoles
Except if it relies on mouse control
[QUOTE=jonoPorter;53018205]its an RTS that is also getting a console release
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
so any hopes of it being good are already dead[/QUOTE]
C&C 1 and Red Alert 1 were both released on consoles. So was Starcraft 1. But I guess those are all bad games, right?
[QUOTE=Skyward;53018350]Tooth and Tail is a great RTS on console.[/QUOTE]
It also has an incredibly simple system where you really don't control the units like regular RTS games. It's a great game, but it's a new take on the genre (that I hope I see more of).
This game looks like a traditional RTS with some cool elements. The issue I'm seeing is that the game has to choose between dumbing down specifically the console version, or the whole game. You can't get around this issue at all unless you have completely different mechanics like what Tooth and Tail is.
[editline]31st December 2017[/editline]
RTS is a genre that doesn't really convey well over to controllers unless you take some liberties.
[QUOTE=lonefirewarrior;53018293]People like Battle for Middle-Earth, Halo Wars, C&C 3, Red Alert 3 and Supreme Commander and those had console releases. The only unifying flaw is that naturally the console versions are inferior.[/QUOTE]
Supreme Commander 2 was brought to console, not the first game. Myself, like a lot of people, really didn't like Supreme Commander 2, prefer Forged Alliance far more, and it was pretty much because of the fact that it was heavily simplified for consoles.
The original Supreme Commander was a game where putting a single engineer unit to build an experimental death robot would take over 20 minutes because of the scale of resources involved. That death robot would be able to stomp through all but the most heavily fortified bases without breaking much of a sweat. Playing it was a constantly refreshing learning experience because I could come up again and again with increasingly inventive ways of building a massive economy, quickly, and exploiting it with a workforce of builders that could churn out the best units in record time.
In the second game, experimental super units pale in comparison and are nowhere near as game-ending or powerful. They feel extremely underwhelming and take very little time to build relatively. The economy itself was basically reduced to a very generic 2 resource system where engineers were marginalised and SC1's resource capacities/flow mechanic was removed. Any player can commit with little real strategic or economic investment to building entire batteries of artillery buildings that can shoot across the map and delete any player that doesn't habitually cover their entire base with loads of overlapping shield generators. As a direct result you get a massive artillery vs shields slogfest every match, and the game feels a lot less dynamic and interesting.
So, directly on topic: I don't think Iron Harvest being brought to consoles dooms the game to be bad. I do think personally because of how often I play RTS' I would get bored with it very quickly because developing RTS' for consoles involves certain compromises with scale and complexity and that's not what I want to see in an RTS
I don't think that you can attribute many of the problems SupCom2 had due to the console release. There is no reason why a resource system that was in SupCom1 couldn't work on consoles or the way experimentals worked. One of the only things that could be attributed to the console port is probably the smaller map size which I do think was a detriment to the game as a whole.
On the other hand, the console port gave the game a function I hope other RTS games would copy: if you hold right click you can paint individual attack commands to a large group of enemies easily. This way you don't have to individually queue up the commands to make sure your units are focusing the enemy down one at a time. If you combine this with the 'divide attacks' command that SupCom1 had, you could easily set up that perfect alpha strike for your bombers or whatever with just a few clicks.
[QUOTE=Oblivion Knight;53018410]This really doesn't make sense given all the RTS games listed here
Had console releases, and I can say the PC version of BfME and the C&C games did not suffer due to the console port.[/QUOTE]
Don't forget EndWar had a console release. That game was severely underrated. That also had squad commands and destructible cover and buildings.
[video=youtube;PtSVsYNvgWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSVsYNvgWU&index=5&list=PLDD094E29C69E7587[/video]
[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;53018457]Supreme Commander 2 was brought to console, not the first game. Myself, like a lot of people, really didn't like Supreme Commander 2, prefer Forged Alliance far more, and it was pretty much because of the fact that it was heavily simplified for consoles.
The original Supreme Commander was a game where putting a single engineer unit to build an experimental death robot would take over 20 minutes because of the scale of resources involved. That death robot would be able to stomp through all but the most heavily fortified bases without breaking much of a sweat. Playing it was a constantly refreshing learning experience because I could come up again and again with increasingly inventive ways of building a massive economy, quickly, and exploiting it with a workforce of builders that could churn out the best units in record time.
In the second game, experimental super units pale in comparison and are nowhere near as game-ending or powerful. They feel extremely underwhelming and take very little time to build relatively. The economy itself was basically reduced to a very generic 2 resource system where engineers were marginalised and SC1's resource capacities/flow mechanic was removed. Any player can commit with little real strategic or economic investment to building entire batteries of artillery buildings that can shoot across the map and delete any player that doesn't habitually cover their entire base with loads of overlapping shield generators. As a direct result you get a massive artillery vs shields slogfest every match, and the game feels a lot less dynamic and interesting.
So, directly on topic: I don't think Iron Harvest being brought to consoles dooms the game to be bad. I do think personally because of how often I play RTS' I would get bored with it very quickly because developing RTS' for consoles involves certain compromises with scale and complexity and that's not what I want to see in an RTS[/QUOTE]
The first game did come out on consoles.
There really aren't enough multi-platform RTS games to make an accurate judgement on whether console development would hurt the whole game, especially since most of the few examples we can find(the games already mentioned in this thread are like 95% of them) are still good games. And the fear of developers oversimplifying an RTS or it's sequels is something that happens to PC-only releases as well. Dawn of War 2/3 and C&C 4 come to mind.
[QUOTE=maddogsamurai;53018561]Don't forget EndWar had a console release. That game was severely underrated. That also had squad commands and destructible cover and buildings.
[video=youtube;PtSVsYNvgWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtSVsYNvgWU&index=5&list=PLDD094E29C69E7587[/video][/QUOTE]
I heard a lot of people had trouble with the voice commands but I never had issues at all. I only played the demo though.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;53018701]I heard a lot of people had trouble with the voice commands but I never had issues at all. I only played the demo though.[/QUOTE]
Voice commands were pretty responsive, but the commands felt limited and you had to be super clear. My only gripe is that the Ai couldn't take cover so you had to make them take cover without voice commands and keep an eye on them until they did.
Sadly there doesn't seem to be a sequel and I heard the "MMORTS" is doing awful.
I mean they could just have a pause button and smart shortcuts and it'd work just fine in my opinion.
Don't see how they can do that for multiplayer, though.
Dieselpunk is best punk
RTS fans might hate lowered complexity but if this game is doing what I think it's doing and is focusing more on smaller unit counts and real time squad tactics then that'd be a breath of fresh air to all the base builder tank rush RTS games I see.
It feels like there aren't many games like that which is why I preferred Dawn of War 2 over the originals tbh.
[QUOTE=cdr248;53019337]RTS fans might hate lowered complexity but if this game is doing what I think it's doing and is focusing more on smaller unit counts and real time squad tactics then that'd be a breath of fresh air to all the base builder tank rush RTS games I see.[/QUOTE]
In all honesty, I'd want you to please point me to any of those, since I haven't seen a fun large-scale RTS for quite some time.
We have plenty of games like Starcraft already. It's good to see games on the scale of Tooth and Nail and this come out because those are great tools to get the fairly dying(I don't know how else to phrase this, but as a fan of RTS's, we all know it's not doing well at all) genre back on its feet with new players, and renewed interest in its concepts without overwhelming players.
[QUOTE=gufu;53019421]In all honesty, I'd want you to please point me to any of those, since I haven't seen a fun large-scale RTS for quite some time.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, if anything RTS has all been about squad based, limited combat, type gameplay recently. I still go back to Forged Alliance now and then because there hasn't really been anything comparable since.
i haven't seen any good classic style rtses since RA2
which is kind of telling since that came out in fucking 2000
[editline]1st January 2018[/editline]
really since CoH started a push towards squad based tactics management rtses just haven't been the same and neither has relic or even petroglyph. it's a real fucking shame
[QUOTE=duckmaster;53018263]Nonsense StarCraft was released on the Nintendo 64.[/QUOTE]
I still play splitscreen with a buddy of mine from time to time. Shit gets intense.
[QUOTE=lintz;53019703]i haven't seen any good classic style rtses since RA2
which is kind of telling since that came out in fucking 2000
[editline]1st January 2018[/editline]
really since CoH started a push towards squad based tactics management rtses just haven't been the same and neither has relic or even petroglyph. it's a real fucking shame[/QUOTE]
Old School RTS games have pretty much been sacrificed for things like MOBAs and such. I forget the interview, but a Petroglyph or former CnC developer basically pointed at MOBAs.
[QUOTE=gufu;53019421]In all honesty, I'd want you to please point me to any of those, since I haven't seen a fun large-scale RTS for quite some time.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you're right, there haven't really been any recent C&C-like titles, but my point is that the majority of RTS games throughout history have followed that same sort of gameplay whereas games like Men of War, DoW2, and Full Spectrum Warrior feel entirely unique.
To me it just seems like these cover, destruction, and mech-unit mechanics feel more suited to squad tactics than large scale strategy.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.