PDA

View Full Version : The big RTS battle? Who will last the distance?


DarthMaulUK
08-25-2005, 12:41 PM
As mentioned, the end of this year and early next sure sees some RTS heavy weights back in action.

2005
Age Of Empires 3.
Civilization IV
Black and White 2

2006
Battle for middle earth 2
Warhammer
Empire At War
Casear IV

to name but a few. Theres alot of games out there all fighting for our money but which one do you think will stay the distance? Good multiplayer is the key to any strategy RTS game - Rebellion went on for almost 3 years online and Age Of Empires still is played!

The chances of most of these titles spawning expansions are extremely high - especially the ones from EA (expanded everything)

Put your vote and views down below. How will you spend your hard earned cash?

DMUK

DoctorNerve
08-25-2005, 01:20 PM
There is a reason I keep watching Star Wars movies and collecting the toys... and it's the spirit of the fantasy I enjoy so much... if EAW hits the mark I bet it has major staying power. 5 years worth even. My $$ is with EAW personally.

FroZticles
08-25-2005, 02:23 PM
I think AOE 3 will last the longest but there high graphics will kill most gamers but even still there engine is set up better for online gaming.

Empire at War might surprise me and be great and have replayability but its doubtful.

Darth Alec
08-25-2005, 04:05 PM
AOE3 wins in the end. A gut feeling from AOK and AOE.

general ackbar
08-25-2005, 04:58 PM
i say EAW because i feel it will have a huge replay value.

Panzer517
08-25-2005, 07:46 PM
Yeah especially with the mods that are coming already for it.

DoctorNerve
08-25-2005, 08:04 PM
I get the feeling AOE3 is nothing more than a visual update across the board. I dont think that game will be anything new when it comes out. EAW will definately have new ways of playing an RTS so I can't consider AOE3 as a long runner. People will see it for what it is... another AOE with more eye candy.

Also... think about how much of a team AOE3 has. Microsoft is spending mucho $$ on it and I hear a ton of it is graphics alone.

Juggernaut1985
08-25-2005, 11:04 PM
EaW....no question.

starmark2k
08-26-2005, 09:30 AM
I think this poll is extreamly bias considering we are in an E@W forum, It's almost as bad as the "will you get KotOR 2" poll in the KotOR2 forum... the answers yes otherwise you wouldn't be there. The same is true here, I'd advise you edit the poll and Remove E@W and have what other game will last the distance.

All that aside i voted for E@W anyway as i'll proberly only get that 1.

DarthMaulUK
08-26-2005, 09:59 AM
Its not really bias at all. I've put in some extremely big titles in the poll. Yes, you might expect EaW to win because thats what we do here, but its upto you all to give us your views and consider all the facts.

DMUK

PoM
08-26-2005, 12:51 PM
I picked Black & White 2 just because...I'm expecting it to pwn.
A lot.

Thats kinda that.

Garbageben
08-26-2005, 01:40 PM
As much as I'd like to say EAW, I think Battle for Middle-earth 2 has a good chance of being played the longest. Fans of the movies and books will play it. There are many people that still play BFME and I bet many of them will switch to #2 and continue playing it for a while. As for me, since I am getting both, I will play both online, but probably EAW more so because of the game itself. (8 player space battle skirmishes are going to rock!)

lukeiamyourdad
08-26-2005, 10:18 PM
I say Civ IV because the Civ games have awesome replay values.

Snafu7
08-26-2005, 10:20 PM
I'm waiting for Civ IV as well, but the RTS that I'm really waiting for is Company of Heroes.

StealthWar42
08-26-2005, 11:20 PM
I couldn't really decide between AOE3 or EaW, for multiple reasons.

First off, the AoE series has already generated a huge fan base that followed from AoE1 to AoE2. I'm one of them. I broke off when I found Rise of Nations, personally, but the point is that a lot of people will buy AoE3 because they're already playing or have played and loved AoE2. Another thing about AoE3 that will attract more people is the high-end graphics, attracting a lot of people who just value visuals over all else. There's also a lot more publicity for this game, and a lot more is known about the game functions for this game than others (probably because it's closer to release than most, right?). However, I think that the time setting might throw people off. Seems to be, and correct me if I'm wrong, but most people really like medieval combat (east and west), World War 1 & 2 combat, modern combat, or futuristic combat or fantasy. There seems to be a gap where the colonial-to-victorian era, muzzle-to-muzzle combat interest should be. I know people out there who like this stuff but I don't know many, this might bring AOE3 down a bit.

EAW probably has a good chance. For one, there's been a lot of non-classic era Star Wars games released lately, namely the KoToR series, Jedi Knight/Dark Forces games, and the SW:BF stuff. There's also been some crappy things done to other games like Star Wars Galaxies, like bringing in Clone stuff and making it more powerful than classic equipment in a classic setting. A lot of games have been warped by Episodes 1-3, but this one shows promise to the classic Star Wars fans who have been left in the dust for a while and there's quite a few of them. Secondly, the star wars games have an even bigger fan base than the AoE series, and there's a lot of those fansthat will buy it at release.

Still, my vote goes AOE3, just have a feeling it will pull ahead, but I don't intend on getting it myself.

Dagobahn Eagle
08-27-2005, 01:59 PM
Civ 4 had better have a new battle approach. I'm fed up with losing five Panzer tanks to one archer.

Age of Empires 3 looks positively awesome, as does many other games in production.

I think EaW will be fun and get a moderate fan base, but I don't think it'll become a classic. But we'll see.

general ackbar
08-27-2005, 02:03 PM
This RTS will have some interesting features!

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/supreme-commander/


looks like it could be one of those games that revolutionizes the genre

popcorn2008
08-27-2005, 03:47 PM
It's between EaW and AoE 3 in my opinion. I love both but i am way more loyal to star wars. Im putting my dollars toward EaW cause it looks like I will finally get a worthy real time strategy star wars game. But AoE 3 will be a major competetor because there games are good.

DK_Viceroy
08-27-2005, 06:41 PM
Age Of Empires 3. In my Opinion one of the main contenders


Civilization IV Not really sure about


Black and White 2 Isn't really an RTS it's in a genre of it's own


Battle for middle earth 2 Hasn't a chance in hell


Warhammer Does an expansion pack count? regardless though I doubt it'll be THAT good it's only putting in the imperial gaurd something like Necrons would have been better


Empire At War In my Opinion one of the main contenders


Casear IV Will end up being a cross between age of empires and a Rome Total War Clone the series is good bu it's getting a little long in the tooth since there wern't any "DRAMATIC" differnces between 2 and 3

Darth Andrew
08-27-2005, 06:59 PM
I personally think EaW will win. Why? Besides the droves of Star Wars fans who will purchase it, many Command and Conquer fans will because former Westwood developers are working on the game, and I bet it will have a C&C feel. Besides, I think the main draw of AoE 2 was massive sword battles and sieges, but since AoE 3 is set in the New World, I think all what it really has going for it is naval clashes.

popcorn2008
08-27-2005, 07:33 PM
I personally think EaW will win. Why? Besides the droves of Star Wars fans who will purchase it, many Command and Conquer fans will because former Westwood developers are working on the game, and I bet it will have a C&C feel.
Exactly! EA made a huge mistake when they shut down westwood. So this game is also attracting the hardcore westwood fans. Their fans will probably get this game cause it, like you said, will have that C&C feel to it. AoE 3 just doesnt have that much of a fan base.

PoM
08-29-2005, 04:20 PM
Black and White 2 Isn't really an RTS it's in a genre of it's own


If you're evil, you make that genre to somewhat rts-ish...With physics and 500 feet tall creatures!

FroZticles
08-29-2005, 11:09 PM
AOE series>3000 players SWGB>100 players

Theres replability for you.

DarthMaulUK
08-30-2005, 07:18 AM
Not everyone plays online. Plus, the AOE series has been around a lot longer than Galactic Battlegrounds.

DMUK

FroZticles
08-30-2005, 09:53 AM
Thank You for furthering my point ^

Star Wars has been around alot longer then AOE and if E@W is basing all there sales towards Star Wars fans and not appealing to RTS players then this game will crash faster then Windu's discussion points.

lukeiamyourdad
08-30-2005, 10:17 PM
Star Wars has been around alot longer then AOE and if E@W is basing all there sales towards Star Wars fans and not appealing to RTS players then this game will crash faster then Windu's discussion points.


Your point is? It might die fast, but will be good for as long as it lasts.

RTS players are not as numerous as Star Wars fans.
God, what would LucasArt's head of marketing do?!

FroZticles
08-30-2005, 10:21 PM
Make it good.... make it strategic....make it a good RTS.

And if an RTS dies fast its not good if it lasts for a few years thats how it should be not sum up its life-span in 3 months.

lukeiamyourdad
08-30-2005, 10:24 PM
I don't think you grasp any kind of marketing knowledge.

Look at the waves of people wanting to get Battlefront 2 even after the short-lived game that was Battlefront 1.

LucasArts marketing knows these things. They're going to make it live 3 months. Then comes an ex-pac and after that a sequel (or prequel).

They're smart.

I'm not being supportive of these methods, I'm being realistic. This is how it works today and you'll have to deal with it.
Marketing folks realized that making a game that lasted a long time didn't bring as much money as spamming many games.
Deal with it, there's no reason to whine. Again.

Garbageben
08-31-2005, 01:39 PM
Yeah I agree with you. EA with Battlefield 2 is an example. They are already releasing the Special Forces expansion 5 months after they released the game.

Pho3nix
08-31-2005, 05:47 PM
I put my vote on Empire at War and Age of Empires III.

FroZticles
09-01-2005, 03:10 AM
They have to release expansion after expansion to keep making money thats still doesn't define it as a good RTS. I'd rather buy 1 good quality game then buy 1 that has been rushed and is only worth a week of entertainment then they try to get you to buy there expansions sorry but thats not going to happen.

Hey without me arguing with you all this would be one boring forum. Lets all be happy and bored.... Hmmm

Quality>quantity the game sites all know how to weed them out thats why its a huge phase in the first few months of release and then bammm ummmm what was the name of that game again?

Take MMO's for an example... World of Warcraft was released almost coming up to a year of its release nothing has really changed in the game the patches are slow but filled with a new dungeon or battleground to explore. Why is it so popular the quality content is there thats why. Game sites still review them they have an expansion in the works due for late release next year. They don't need to push out expansion after expansion to keep the game alive. It is still currently the best MMORPG out there and I think noone is even going to come close to it. Updates are slow but filled with great content and its great to see someone finally getting it right.

Now take SWG was a great phase I bought it a few months after release then the community started to realise that the game lacked alot in alot of different areas. The game was being patched alot faster then WoW like 2 patches a month full of crap. Then they added in Jedi (game killer) that annoyed and saw the community change. Now they rely on expansions space was released big thing for about 2 weeks people got bored of that landed there ships and never flew again. Wookiee were added around the time of Episode 3 release trying to keep there dying community alive adding in quests and episode 3 content. Now they are trying a pathetic gimic of Obi-Wan trials. I bet they are marketing there next expansion as we speak just to keep it going.

I'll say it again

Quality>Quantity

Lets hope E@W has the quality to back up the quantity they are going to sell to star wars fans,

Jan Gaarni
09-01-2005, 03:58 AM
SWG is by far the crappiest Star Wars game so far, filled with bugs and continuity problems (mainly Jedi).

lukeiamyourdad
09-01-2005, 10:21 AM
Quality>quantity the game sites all know how to weed them out thats why its a huge phase in the first few months of release and then bammm ummmm what was the name of that game again?

Did I ever say that I support the spamming of games? No.
I simply realize that marketing says so and it has become one of the realities of the gaming world and neither you, nor I, can do anything about it.
I still remember the 90's when games could last you a few years. It isn't the case anymore and the marketing department of every gaming company knows that.

Take MMO's for an example... World of Warcraft was released almost coming up to a year of its release nothing has really changed in the game the patches are slow but filled with a new dungeon or battleground to explore. Why is it so popular the quality content is there thats why. Game sites still review them they have an expansion in the works due for late release next year. They don't need to push out expansion after expansion to keep the game alive. It is still currently the best MMORPG out there and I think noone is even going to come close to it. Updates are slow but filled with great content and its great to see someone finally getting it right.

Now take SWG was a great phase I bought it a few months after release then the community started to realise that the game lacked alot in alot of different areas. The game was being patched alot faster then WoW like 2 patches a month full of crap. Then they added in Jedi (game killer) that annoyed and saw the community change. Now they rely on expansions space was released big thing for about 2 weeks people got bored of that landed there ships and never flew again. Wookiee were added around the time of Episode 3 release trying to keep there dying community alive adding in quests and episode 3 content. Now they are trying a pathetic gimic of Obi-Wan trials. I bet they are marketing there next expansion as we speak just to keep it going.

MMOs are different from RTS. They are normally supposed to last a long time since you happen to pay-to-play a fee every month.
Thus, making an MMO last only a few months is quite stupid.
Frankly, you cannot compare the same model with other games that only make money on the sale of the code in order to play.

Also, SWG died because it did not reach anyone's expectations. The game was way overhyped and when the result was less then average, people quickly threw it out while LA marketing and SOE tried to spam expansions in order to boost it up. It's more the result of bad marketing decisions then anything. You'll note that the Jedi were part of these bad decisions, as it used to be too hard to become one, no one was a Jedi. People whined. Then Jedi were given. People whined about too many Jedi.

FroZticles
09-01-2005, 10:35 AM
BF2 is nothing like an RTS but you still used it to back your claims up.

Did I say you did support that type of marketing? No.

Also, SWG died because it did not reach anyone's expectations. The game was way overhyped and when the result was less then average, people quickly threw it out while LA marketing and SOE tried to spam expansions in order to boost it up. It's more the result of bad marketing decisions then anything. You'll note that the Jedi were part of these bad decisions, as it used to be too hard to become one, no one was a Jedi. People whined. Then Jedi were given. People whined about too many Jedi.

E@W could fit right into this catergory if the current trends continue. It is being overhyped and I have a feeling it will be a flop even though I don't want that to happen. Sales will be great but in 3 months of release we will just be hanging on for the next SW RTS to come out.


It was more than just Jedi that killed this game the overall state of the game before Jedi was just as bad.

lukeiamyourdad
09-01-2005, 10:48 AM
BF2 is nothing like an RTS but you still used it to back your claims up.

Does BF2 require a monthly fee? No.
Does BF2 make money after the sale of the core game code in order to play? No.
Who ever said anything about gameplay anyway? We're talking about how they make money.

Did I say you did support that type of marketing? No.

You argued about this, which I said I agreed that quality was more important then quantity. Thus, if it wasn't used as a counter-argument, then that part about quality and quantity in your post was vastly irrelevent.



E@W could fit right into this catergory if the current trends continue. It is being overhyped and I have a feeling it will be a flop even though I don't want that to happen. Sales will be great but in 3 months of release we will just be hanging on for the next SW RTS to come out.

Absolutely not. The RTS genre still has its niche market, no matter the success of the recent DoW and R:TW.
E@W gets nearly no hype compared to SWBF2 or even the next SWG expansion.
Even AoE3 is more overhyped then E@W.
This simply cannot be compared with the hype surrounding SWG. SWG had legions waiting for it to come out. E@W has a handful of people compared to that.


It was more than just Jedi that killed this game the overall state of the game before Jedi was just as bad.

I don't doubt it, though it still is partly because of the expectations of gamers everywhere. Even casual gamers were interested in SWG, which was rare during that period since MMO's had a bad reputation.
When casual gamers came in a realized what an MMO was, they quickly went away.
As opposed to WoW, SWG was still aimed at the MMO audience (and indirectly the SW audience).
On the other hand, WoW was aimed at everyone. The game is accessible for everyone from the most hardcore MMO player to the MMO newbie. That's its beauty, one that SWG didn't have, a vision that they didn't have.

jokemaster
09-01-2005, 09:00 PM
Civ IV, and Ceasar aren't RTSs,

lukeiamyourdad
09-01-2005, 11:11 PM
I guess it should have been "Which Strategy Game" then. You're right though, they aren't exactly RTS.

jokemaster
09-01-2005, 11:18 PM
B+W 2 is a bit of a stretch too, but it does have more RTS elements than civ so I'll let it go

FroZticles
09-02-2005, 01:43 AM
AOE3 gets more hype because its earlier titles were more successful then the SW ones.

I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all. Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult.

SOE is the worst MMO company out there LA was stupid to team with them. Now that the new kid on the block "Blizzard" has come along and blown away all of there titles even the recent EQ2. They need to step it up or step out.

Its unfortunate that this is the way most games are marketed these days but with them releasing a demo there still might be some light at the end of the tunnel.

lukeiamyourdad
09-03-2005, 02:58 AM
I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all. Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult.



Because you don't use strategy in R:TW? It's the only game that allows a smaller force to defeat a much larger one with almost strategy alone.

FroZticles
09-03-2005, 02:57 PM
I don't care if one guy can solo whole armies with strategy the game did not interest me at all.

lukeiamyourdad
09-04-2005, 05:46 PM
There's a difference between disliking a game and making fallacious claims.

FroZticles
09-05-2005, 10:41 PM
I can't dislike something? Or does everything have to be one big statement with you?

jokemaster
09-05-2005, 11:00 PM
He means that you acted as if though that game had no strategies, when in fact it's one of the few games that does allow you to win a straight battle with a much smaller army as long as you have a better strategy.

lukeiamyourdad
09-05-2005, 11:06 PM
For the purpose of demonstration, I'm going to separate this quote in two parts.

First part:

I've played R:TW and did not enjoy its engine or gameplay at all.

Which is all fine and nobody cares.

Second part:
Guess I'd rather have strategic battles and not a large scale assult.


Which is a false statement.

FroZticles
09-06-2005, 04:29 AM
False statement according to you... and noone cares whether you think its false or not

lukeiamyourdad
09-06-2005, 10:16 PM
It's not what I think, it's what it truly is. Not only according to me, but according to many. A game that allows you to defeat a larger army using strategy is indeed a game with strategy well implemented. IGN considers it the best representation of warfare yet.

You claiming that the game only rewards brute strength and numbers over strategy is therefore a false statement.
See, if you had not added that last part, there wouldn't even be a problem. It equals to uninformed bashing.

popcorn2008
09-06-2005, 10:40 PM
Even games that must be won with large scale assault vs. large scale assault have strategy. So games that allow a small force to overcome a big force must have quite a bit of strategy.

FroZticles
09-07-2005, 06:25 AM
I've already stated I did not enjoy the game I think a full page of comments over it is efficient enough.

Jan Gaarni
09-07-2005, 09:05 AM
Alright, let's just get over this and agree that FroZ didn't like it and Luke did, and get on with our lifes. ::

DarthMaulUK
09-08-2005, 02:42 PM
Currently playing the AOE 3 trial and I have to say that I am not impressed at all. Its almost like playing Rise of Nations and all those fancy screenshots we saw with the Harbour are not actually playable it seems at first glance.

The graphics are nothing special either(I have a Geforce 6800 GT 256MB) and overall seems to be just an average game with the same sounds from AOE2 hehe. Looks like people are going to be disappointed here especially as the AI dates back to the dark ages!

I dont want to turn this thread into an AOE thread so head http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=151998 there to debate it

DMUK

Sithmaster_821
09-11-2005, 11:31 PM
I chose AoE3 (big surprise).

Since we are discussing longetivity, I won't disagree with DMUK about the demo here. It has the largest fanbase and the most hype. It also has a very addictive MMO side that is currently stopping me from doing my requisite work. E@W is innovative and potentially very awesome, but I have a feeling that it will get the similar treatment as SWGB (which was an awesome game which people and reviewers dumped on for the retarded reason that it resembled AoK). It will be overlooked and the mutliplayer situation will go down to like 200 players in a couple of months. I hope and pray that it will be different and the game will catch on and we can have a long lasting online community. But the pessimist in me thinks the same thing will happen that happened with SWGB. It wont stop me from buying the game and enjoying it online, however.

FroZticles
09-12-2005, 04:37 AM
The trail of AOE 3 lacked and yes I said it would just be like AOE2 just better graphics and some gameplay add-ons. Still I think this will catch on alot better then E@W.

DarthMaulUK
09-12-2005, 06:06 AM
The hardcore fan base will love AOE3 but it is awful. For a game thats been 3 years in development - this is the best they could do? The demo certainly wont be winning over any new fans.

Publishers are having a habit of late, releasing screenshots that just aren't possible in the game itself. Even if you look closer at Empire At War - some of those screenshots appear to be drawings (art) rather than actual in game shots.

DMUK

Sithmaster_821
09-12-2005, 09:16 AM
I think that they are possible, but only on the most top of the line computers. I don't expect E@W to look like the screenies on my computer. I just expect it to look good compared to what other games look like on the same machine.

cardif
09-12-2005, 11:18 AM
i guess i am somehow old-fashioned... but who cares about grafics in an rts.
easy to handle - good atmosphere - innovative gameplay/ideas... imho these and some others (i prolly forgot the most important points :D ) are way more important than grafics. of course the developers and publisher these days want great, never-seen-before grafics, but as i said before:
grafic is, what i personally consider not important. it prolly makes you "whoa" at the start, but on the long run, you wont enjoy it as much as simple (easy-to-learn) controls and various gameplay-features. :)

sincerely,
a geek, who still likes good grafics and long posts without any new content -_-