Well, is this the RTS game of the year, or another in an endless series of RTS clones?

It certainly has high hopes...And, I think we all agree that if they can pull this off without compromising gameplay, they could have a real contender. But, I think we also agree on the fact that that's going to be quite a task! But, hey, I say more power to 'em for trying.

"Well, is this the RTS game of the year, or another in an endless series of RTS clones?"

Not too many RTS clones out there that let you start with cavemen and end up with giant robots! I really hope they'll get it right, this is one of my must-have games in 2001.

You and Tom didn't happen to see the age transition in action? Did you get an impression how long it would take to move up the ages, and how big an advantage newer units have over older ones? I want to know if a phalanx can beat a battleship. ;-)

"You and Tom didn't happen to see the age transition in action? Did you get an impression how long it would take to move up the ages, and how big an advantage newer units have over older ones? I want to know if a phalanx can beat a battleship. ;-)"

Nah, we're working from screenshots here. In fact, I don't recall seeing it at E3. I doubt too many press people have seen it.

It certainly looks good. But beating AOE ? I don't know. AOE2 is one of the most finely crafted and balanced titles I have ever played.

Love the aircraft carrier.

Sure, but if they can take the finest elements from AOE2, and mix in the civilization flavor -- sounds intriguing, doesn't it? And I really miss air units in AOE2. Granted, they would be incredibly out of place, but I sure like air units for their scouting capabilities. I hate having one little scout that has to traverse the entire region. (I'm really bad at that in AOE2, by the way.) I openly admit AOE2 is going to be tough to beat, but everybody's trying, sooner or later someone has to succeed -- why not somebody who worked on the original AOE?

I have a feeling that the only ones who can one up Ensemble are Ensemble themselves. Empire Earth looks interesting, but I think the periods of history covered are way too broad to end up with anything less than a project that's too ambitious for its own good (in real-time anyway).

We'll see. I'm not too keen on going from Cavemen to giant robots myself. I'd prefer a game focused only on one or the other. :)

Also, hasn't this been in development for like 3 years now? Seems like an awful long time. Though given the scope of the game, it could take an epoch to create one in the game.

--Dave

"We'll see. I'm not too keen on going from Cavemen to giant robots myself. I'd prefer a game focused only on one or the other. :) "

Yeah, this concerns me too, although the game has 12 epochs, so if we get 3 scenarios in each epoch that's a 36 scenario game, which is about right for an RTS.

My guess is for multiplayer you will pick a starting epoch. I can't imagine a game where players start in the stone age and make it to the nano age.

I think the gameplay's going to be pretty good, though. I guess I'm just optimistic.

Well, let's hope. While there is no shortage of RTS games out there, there aren't enough good, solid games. Very few qualify as "great games." In my opinion, the originals that set the standards -- Westwood, Blizzard -- have still pretty much got the only winning strategy, though Ensemble scored a good, solid win with AOE and AOE2. It's gonna be tough for them to pull this off, but if they can do it, it could set a new standard.

Warlords Battlecry was the best new RTS last year and it really added a lot to the genre. The Age expansion was great, but it could be argued that it was as much a Patch Pack as it was a new product. I'm sure the next game will be great and I'm guessing it's also in 3D.

I think there's a lot of good, solid RTS games. More than anyone has bothered to play and a number of cool hybrids like Majesty and Sacrifice. Those two also stretched the genre in new ways. I'd love to have the intelligence of the Majesty heroes in a more standard RTS game.

Empire Earth is something I'll probably play, but with its humongous looking design, I'll take a very strong wait and see on it.

--Dave

"While there is no shortage of RTS games out there, there aren't enough good, solid games."

I would disagree, Murph. I think 2000 was an excellent year for RTS games. A column I wrote for Computer Games Magazine this month basically supposes that 2000 entirely revitalized a genre that was being choked by poorly designed clones. The year saw some excellent titles in addition to those Dave mentions, not to mention some bold new design choices. I didn't use to particularly care for RTSes, but 2000 changed that.

-Tom

I apologize. Perhaps I have not delved deeply enough into the world of RTS's. There are many that are out that I have not played, and perhaps I should have done my homework a little better before making such a statement.

I have played several RTS games that were basically mindless clones, and probably made a hasty judgement. Perhaps I'm a purist, or perhaps I just have a problem with change, because I still haven't found anything I like better than Warcraft 2, but AOE2 is pretty phenomenal. More likely, though, I just haven't looked hard enough. I'm curious, too, how the multiplayer for Red Alert 2 shaped up in comparison to the original. While I never found the single player missions overly captivating, I always enjoyed playing one of my buddies a little multiplayer Red Alert...

"I apologize."

Pshaw! Don't be silly, Murph. You might have missed some of this year's better RTSes, or maybe you just didn't like them. But I can completely understand your being disillusioned about the years of clones that followed C&C and Warcraft 2. But to me, 2000 was a stellar year for the genre.

Warlords: Battlecry, Majesty, Age of Empires 2, Sacrifice, Shogun, Earth 2150 were all *excellent* games. Dark Reign 2 and Tzar were very good. Even Star Trek: Armada and Red Alert 2 were great multiplayer RTSes that would have been wonderful in single player if they had been given an AI. Try some of these if you're soured on RTSes and you'll probably be pleasantly surprised.

As for Red Alert 2, it went over very well with some of the casual gamers at Shoot Club. In fact, I think it might have been instrumental in getting them to try some other RTSes. I actually recommend it. If you're interested in more detailed comments, have a look at a RA2 review I did for Sharky's Games.

http://www.sharkygames.com/games/reviews/r/red_alert2/

-Tom

I wouldn't place Majesty and Shogun in the RTS category. I feel like a game has to follow the harvest/build/attack formula to be an RTS in the sense that we usually mean it.

"I wouldn't place Majesty and Shogun in the RTS category. I feel like a game has to follow the harvest/build/attack formula to be an RTS in the sense that we usually mean it."

Stuff and nonsense, Mr. Asher! Majesty, Shogun, and Sacrifice are all twists on the genre that belong in any discussion of real time strategy games! If you define it so narrowly, then you're going to strangle the discussion. Is Myth not a real time strategy game? What about gameplay modes in Earth 2150 where you have no harvesting but an automatic income? What about modes in Warlords Battlecry where you have a fixed number of units and can't build more? What about disabling harvesting and building in AoE2? Are they then not RTSes? You sound like Old Salt on csipg.war-historical who won't let them discuss Europa Universalis because the game lets you avoid armed conflict! Harumph.

-Tom

No, Myth is not an RTS. C&C and Warcraft 2 are the games that gave birth to the RTS term. RTS doesn't really fit those, either, but it's a label that has stuck.

I will allow that harvesting can be stretched to include some kind of income. It doesn't have to be actual resource collecting. It's a term that covers the idea of an influx of resources that you expend to get new units and buildings.

I like the narrow definition; otherwise you get people arguing that RRT2 is an RTS and a game like Rainbow 6 can be a hybrid RTS, etc. We can't have that.

Besides, I'm not keeping you from discussing Majesty and Shogun. I'm just asking that you not abuse the terminology.

I know -- ask Trevor. He can break the tie. :)

I've kept tabs on this game for awhile and told many people who love RTS games. They love me now for introducing this game to them (well not "love" but you get the idea). I think this will be the one that breaks reccords and win awards.

"I would disagree, Murph. I think 2000 was an excellent year for RTS games. A column I wrote for Computer Games Magazine this month basically supposes that 2000 entirely revitalized a genre that was being choked by poorly designed clones. The year saw some excellent titles in addition to those Dave mentions, not to mention some bold new design choices. I didn't use to particularly care for RTSes, but 2000 changed that. "

For the love of God, tell me you at least mentioned Ground Control and Homeworld: Cataclysm. I know your pet game Sacrifice was featured prominently without having to read the article. ;)

And yes, I agree with you. Those games (plus Shogun et al) mean we had a banner year for good, innovative RTS games.

http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. Y'know what sucks? the way discus disables automatic URL formatting if you use their quote tags.

Also, really kick ass RA2 review. By far the best I've seen.

This is why I want Mark and Tom to AT LEAST please link all the other writing they do on this site. Hell, the people who pay you would only benefit from this, since you're basically driving traffic to their site(s).

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I kick puppies. No amount of so-called "fun" can make up for Giant Squids and Psychic Dolphins. What next? A Richard Simmons unit?

Well, I played a demo of Majesty, and that one I just wasn't impressed with. I give it points for originality, but didn't find it as revolutionary as several on this board have. Perhaps it's just me. Perhaps I should give it a second chance. Or perhaps the demo just doesn't do it justice. But I will sing the praises of AOE2 as long as anyone else. The more realistic flavor of units is often a pleasant change, and while I find the lack of air units and mages (I miss my mages) occasionally frustrating, I openly admit that they would not fit with the rest of the game. But I certainly tip my hat to the AI. It's as smart a game as I could ever imagine, especially with the Conquerors expansion.

As for most of the rest of the games you've named, I admit I haven't tried them. I probably should, and perhaps I will soon. I'll probably start with RA2 or Shogun, as those have both held my attention for quite a while. I'm glad to see that in RA2 they did something for the allies to offset the Soviets' tesla coil.

And I for one would enjoy a Richard Simmons unit. Excellent for distraction. More fun to kill!

"For the love of God, tell me you at least mentioned Ground Control and Homeworld: Cataclysm."

Good points, wumpus! I didn't care for Ground Control because of the lack of AI and the scripted single player game. But it is one of the better uses of 3D in an RTS and I do keep forgetting about it when listing how 2000 has really done RTSes right.

-Tom

"What next? A Richard Simmons unit?"

I think they had this in Talonsoft's Tribal Rage, which actually had, no lie, Elvis Impersonators.

-Tom

Tribal Rage was pretty wild. I should try to find a copy. It's so bad it's good. That's one of those games you like to pull off the shelf and show people. It had a great opening cinematic too.

"I didn't care for Ground Control because of the lack of AI and the scripted single player game. But it is one of the better uses of 3D in an RTS and I do keep forgetting about it when listing how 2000 has really done RTSes right"

Odd, Ground Control is on many gaming sites' best of 2000 lists. I certainly didn't notice any more scripting or AI failures than I did in Sacrifice.

And I bet you a million bucks Ground Control wouldn't get the cold reception that Sacrifice got at Shoot Club. ;) Some of the mechanics in Sacrifice need work, eg, how do I control units that aren't near my character? Sometimes the FPS/RTS hybrid doesn't exactly work.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

---

Quote:

And I bet you a million bucks Ground Control wouldn't get the cold reception that Sacrifice got at Shoot Club. ;) Some of the mechanics in Sacrifice need work, eg, how do I control units that aren't near my character? Sometimes the FPS/RTS hybrid doesn't exactly work.

---

---

Quote:

There's a stong push for reality-based gaming to the detriment of all other facets of play that I think affects all designs adversely.

---

---

Quote:

It means "Do I take the sewers and how many people on my team do we dedicate to sniping? Hey team, watch out for my flashbangs and when I do throw them everyone get around the corner and unload like mad! When I throw my smoke grenade everyone find a place to hide so we can ambush them when they come out of the doorway. Do we keep the door to our base opened or closed ? Make sure as hell you all stay around the hostages and give me cover when I run them out the door to the rescue zone. Everyone pile into the back of the APC and lets drive it right into their base and then everyone OUT.

This and MUCH more actually HAPPENED to my clan while we played other clans. Even in random internet games that are disorganized this sort of stuff just *happens*. That's what makes it fun.

---

---

Quote:

The point is, you don't. When you're down there on the field working with your units instead of giving them only God-Like direction, you can't hope to micromanage their positioning and actions. This is a consistent theme of the game. You give direction to their actions, not specific placement and action commands (though you can be more specific if you're close by).

---

I just re-read the Sacrifice shoot club, and it's an even better example than I realized at the time I made those original comments. If you're following this discussion, I strongly urge you to go re-read that column. It's just eerie how accurate it cuts to the heart of the issues.

I bet you one million lira that Shoot Club would immediately be able to understand, appreciate and enjoy Ground Control.

And that is precisely why I think GC was, in some ways, a better RTS than Sacrifice. And I'm not the only "journalist" who thinks GC was one of the year's best, either. Don't make me post links! I will!

http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/0,6,0-4328,00.html
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/028/157/groundc_review.html

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. And I don't want to hear any more about Sacrifice somehow being magically immune from scripting and deficient AI.. pshaw, I say!

wumpus, wumpus, wumpus,

Where to start?

"I was a little shocked that Mark and Tom weren't in the loop on this one, frankly, since this is easily the biggest gaming story of 2000."

I've been on board for Counter-Strike since *way* back when. Have a look at Gamecenter's and CGO's various mods articles and you'll find my name on some of them singing Counter-Strike's praises. I've spoken with Minh Le and I've written plenty on his mod. We actually spent some time with it at this week's Shoot Club, since I haven't played it since version 1.0.

Now about your slandering of my precious Sacrifice...

"It's very action oriented-- and not particularly strategic through the four missions I played before I lost interest in the game."

Only four missions, wumpus? Do I need to go any further? I've played hundreds of games and I'm still discovering the various strategies in how the nearly 100 unique units and spells interact.

The "problem" with Sacrifice, which the Shoot Club column points out, is that it's not easily accessible (which is, IMO, what makes Counter-Strike so much more popular than TF2). If accessibility is your priority (which is criteria #1 for Shoot Club, BTW), then of course you won't like Sacrifice. But for you to call it "a thin veneer over Quake" and "not particularly strategic" is just plain wrong. And I'm curious what problems you've seen with Sacrifice's "scripting and deficient AI". Perhaps we should meet on the fields of Hyperborea and I'll trounce you for your slander. :)

As for Ground Control, maybe I should set that up one week. I only tried a few multiplayer games, but it might be just the right speed for Shoot Club.

-Tom

---

Quote:

Only four missions, wumpus? Do I need to go any further? I've played hundreds of games and I'm still discovering the various strategies in how the nearly 100 unique units and spells interact.

---

---

Quote:

I've been on board for Counter-Strike since *way* back when. Have a look at Gamecenter's and CGO's various mods articles and you'll find my name on some of them singing Counter-Strike's praises. I've spoken with Minh Le and I've written plenty on his mod. We actually spent some time with it at this week's Shoot Club, since I haven't played it since version 1.0.

---

"But the fact that counter-strike didn't make you guys' best games of 2000 list in any way, shape or form..."

I guess my response is that a) I don't really consider Counter-Strike one of the games of 2000, since I started playing it in...umm...early 1999? I'd have to double check on that.

And b) I'm not sure I'm comfortable considering a mod on the same level as full retail versions of completed games. If someone were to ask for my list of best mods, you can bet Counter-Strike would be on there. But, AFAIK, things like Counter-Strike, Action Half Life, Infiltration for UT, and Jailbreak are never included in "Best of" lists. Should they be? I don't deny that stuff like Unreal Tournament 4 Ever has provided me with more fun than most retail releases, but should it be considered on the same level?

Thoughts?

-Tom

"There really was no bigger PC gaming story in 2000 than the meteoric rise of Counter-Strike. It came out of nowhere to become HUGE, and justifiably so."

Just how big is it? I think it's huge in the FPS community, but if you look at players playing online at a given moment, games like Diablo 2 and Everquest have it beat, don't they? Heck, you can probably tally up the people playing Hearts and Spades on the various networks and get higher numbers than CS.

Okay, wumpus, the gloves are coming off!

"I guess the only point I'm trying to make with Sacrifice is that it is good, yes, but it isn't the universally accepted brilliance that some people make it out to be. I won't mention any names, but it's Tom Chick. That's spelled C-h-i-c-k."

Surely you've seen the overwhelming praise Sacrifice has gotten from the press and the newsgroups? You're acting as if it's just me. I'm happy to defend Sacrifice without referring to others' opinions, but this isn't a situation like Flying Heroes or Shadow Watch or Deus Ex where I'm a voice crying out in the wilderness. Sacrifice is widely adored.

Having said that, allow me to be the first to point out that being "widely adored" counts for squat. Ditto for Ground Control.

Ground Control wouldn't make my own list of Best RTS Games of 2000 for the simple reason that it violates one of the most important factors in an RTS: it has NO SINGLE PLAYER GAME! There is no AI in Ground Control! Why do you think there's no skirmish mode? All the single player scenarios are corridor crawls, for pete's sake! The developers were too a) lazy, b) rushed, c) understaffed, or d) Swedish to create a single player game around their graphics engine.

"Again, don't take my word for it. Read the glowing reviews."

Glowing reviews from game sites aren't worth the paper they're not printed on. You can quote me on that and you can even include my own glowing reviews in that assessment. :)

-Tom

---

Quote:

I guess my response is that a) I don't really consider Counter-Strike one of the games of 2000, since I started playing it in...umm...early 1999? I'd have to double check on that.

---

---

Quote:

And b) I'm not sure I'm comfortable considering a mod on the same level as full retail versions of completed games. If someone were to ask for my list of best mods, you can bet Counter-Strike would be on there. But, AFAIK, things like Counter-Strike, Action Half Life, Infiltration for UT, and Jailbreak are never included in "Best of" lists. Should they be? I don't deny that stuff like Unreal Tournament 4 Ever has provided me with more fun than most retail releases, but should it be considered on the same level?

---

---

Quote:

Just how big is it? I think it's huge in the FPS community, but if you look at players playing online at a given moment, games like Diablo 2 and Everquest have it beat, don't they? Heck, you can probably tally up the people playing Hearts and Spades on the various networks and get higher numbers than CS.

---

---

Quote:

Surely you've seen the overwhelming praise Sacrifice has gotten from the press and the newsgroups? You're acting as if it's just me. I'm happy to defend Sacrifice without referring to others' opinions, but this isn't a situation like Flying Heroes or Shadow Watch or Deus Ex where I'm a voice crying out in the wilderness. Sacrifice is widely adored.

Having said that, allow me to be the first to point out that being "widely adored" counts for squat. Ditto for Ground Control.

---

---

Quote:

Ground Control wouldn't make my own list of Best RTS Games of 2000 for the simple reason that it violates one of the most important factors in an RTS: it has NO SINGLE PLAYER GAME! There is no AI in Ground Control! Why do you think there's no skirmish mode? All the single player scenarios are corridor crawls, for pete's sake! The developers were too a) lazy, b) rushed, c) understaffed, or d) Swedish to create a single player game around their graphics engine.

---

---

Quote:

Glowing reviews from game sites aren't worth the paper they're not printed on. You can quote me on that and you can even include my own glowing reviews in that assessment. :)

---

Tom, I just stumbled across your Rollercoaster Tycoon review again. Positively sublime. It's the review that prompted me to buy a copy for my wife.

http://www.gamecenter.com/Reviews/Item/Cont/0,7,0-2643_2,00.html

I prostrate myself at your feet! I'm not worthy! I'm not worthy!!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

This game looks frickin' awesome!!! It looks like it has great potential to become the best game ever. That is if it stands up to its claim.

I thought Dark Reign 2 had the best interface of ANY 3d rts to date . . . even better than GC imo. sorta OT but i think the holding down right mouse button to scroll the map is the best way to do ANY rts (3d or 2d). . . weird that it hasn't been implemented as an option in other RTS games (KKND is the only one that i know that uses it as well).

etc

"Finally, GC, by your own admission, is the absolute best implementation of a 3D RTS we've seen to date. This is not exactly chopped liver, given the incredible levels of crap we've seen in every single attempt prior to this. Force Commander anyone? Dark Reign 2? Just PAINFUL to play. And that's merely the tip of the iceberg"

"I thought Dark Reign 2 had the best interface of ANY 3d rts to date . . . even better than GC imo. sorta OT but i think the holding down right mouse button to scroll the map is the best way to do ANY rts (3d or 2d). . . weird that it hasn't been implemented as an option in other RTS games (KKND is the only one that i know that uses it as well). "

Erm, you're on your own there. Myself and the few friends who tried it specifically singled out the wacky camera control as one of the reasons (among many) that we didn't like Dark Reign 2.

Poor Dark Reign. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.

OTOH still waiting from a response from Tom "do what I say and not what I do" Chick on the other issues. ;)

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"OTOH still waiting from a response from Tom "do what I say and not what I do" Chick on the other issues. ;)"

Where did I say that? I've always advocated people doing what I do.

As for the other issues, here where I came out:

1. I wouldn't include Counter-Strike in a list of Best Games of 2000.

2. You haven't even played Sacrifice enough to be wrong about it.

3. Umm, I forgot #3.

-Tom

"I wouldn't include Counter-Strike in a list of Best Games of 2000."

How sad for you! I weep for the baby Jesus!

You know, Tom, you're just reinforcing the stereotype I have of great game writers who are criminally out of touch with their audience. I've got three words for you: "It's not fun."

Meanwhile check out the user poll on the front page of Voodoo Extreme. Hey, look ma, we're *all* insane!

I'd like to see sales figures for Sacrifice, too. I bet they suck. Not Sanity: Aiken's Artifact level of suck, but suck nonetheless.

"You haven't even played Sacrifice enough to be wrong about it. "

I might say the very same thing about you and Ground Control.

Difference is, I'm not advocating GC as game of the year; I'm just irritated that a quality RTS would be left out of an article about "the best RTS games of 2000". Especially by an author who really should know his games better than that.

That smacks of bias, frankly. Hell, I may not love Sacrifice, but you damn well better believe I'd put it in a list of best RTS games of 2000.

I mean, WTF. "I, Tom Chick, didn't care for this game so clearly it's not one of the best RTS games of 2000!". How about some perspective, champ?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"I'd like to see sales figures for Sacrifice, too. I bet they suck. Not Sanity: Aiken's Artifact level of suck, but suck nonetheless."

Same thing could be said for GC's sales figures (which i think are worse then Sacrifice). though i dont see the point in a games sales figures related to its being good. . . i mean a million ppl who play Deer Hunter 10 and/or Barbie Fashion can't be wrong then . . right?

etc

"Same thing could be said for GC's sales figures (which i think are worse then Sacrifice). though i dont see the point in a games sales figures related to its being good. . . i mean a million ppl who play Deer Hunter 10 and/or Barbie Fashion can't be wrong then . . right? "

That's what I'm saying.. fat lot of good the accolades are doing for Sacrifice sales. It's just not resonating with gamers the way a "game o' the year" should, and that's reflected in the sales. (it is on sale at compuexpert, btw, $24.95 + free Darkstone, which is a great deal.)

Anyway, I'm not here to promote one game over the other, merely to point out that whatever contributions Sacrifice made to the RTS genre this year are _comparable_ to the contributions Ground Control made. How could one write an article about "best RTS games of 2000" without even *mentioning* Ground Control? That's lame. Heck, as a devotee of the genre, that's tantamount to a friggin' slap in the face.

I hate to point to a Daily Radar review, but I will. Read their sacrifice review. I agree with it. Good game, yes! God's gift to RTS games, I don't think so. And furthermore I'm vaguely offended by the assertion. Maybe if I was really, really drunk.

http://www.dailyradar.com/reviews/game_review_1066.html

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

GC was a nice attempt at a Myth in the future game. But its not a game many would consider an RTS. personally i don't really conisder it an RTS, as with Myth. Even a game like Dungeon Keeper is more RTS than GC.

I think Sacrifice DESERVES the accolades because it does alot of genres well without being mots. plus the gameplay is fun as hell. but I haven't played much GC, whereas i replayed Sacrifice 3x and play sac multi once in awhile.

anyway, i agree with some of the complaints with Sacrifice, they're understandable (too frantic, hard to control). As well as the unit balance issues (ie the level 1 charnel melee unit is a powerful rush unit)

and GC is one of the games ill have to get back to (currently like 8 missions in). . . i still haven't seen the thermonuclear weapon in it!!!

etc

"You know, Tom, you're just reinforcing the stereotype I have of great game writers who are criminally out of touch with their audience."

Because I wouldn't pick Counter-Strike as one of the Best Games of 2000? CS is great, but as I mentioned before a) it's a mod and b) I've been playing it for nearly two years now.

"Difference is, I'm not advocating GC as game of the year; I'm just irritated that a quality RTS would be left out of an article about "the best RTS games of 2000". Especially by an author who really should know his games better than that."

Bullocks. As I said before, Ground Control has no AI. It's all scripted corridor crawling. In fact, it has even less AI than Star Trek: Armada. I have a problem with that.

"I mean, WTF. "I, Tom Chick, didn't care for this game so clearly it's not one of the best RTS games of 2000!". How about some perspective, champ?"

Why would I pick a game I don't like for "best of the year"? I'm not sure what your criteria for "best games of the year" are, but for me, liking a game is definitely a prerequisite.

-Tom

"anyway, i agree with some of the complaints with Sacrifice, they're understandable (too frantic, hard to control)."

I think the control issue is part of the design. It's not built so that you're supposed to babysit your units. Rather you command them and lend a hand with spells. You don't have a god's eye view, so if you get in the thick of the action, you're not going to be able to act as precisely as if you're watching from a hilltop. Wading into battle can be a definite liability in Sacrifice (hence the shield spells and stuff like Soul Wind and Soul Mole).

"As well as the unit balance issues (ie the level 1 charnel melee unit is a powerful rush unit)"

I know there are some complaints about the level 1 units, but the most common I've heard is that Stratos' level 1 creatures are too weak. However, once you gain a few levels, the sides definitely balance better. For this reason, I tend to like starting games with the wizards at middling levels (at least level 3).

But I like starting with Charnel, too. :)

-Tom

i dont think the controls in sacrifice are frantic or hard to control, i'm used to these games so i havent been hampered by sacrifice's controls. . .but i can see others having that problem. basically any person who has played any rts/fps these past years really shouldnt have a problem with control in Sacrifice though newbies to pc games would, but the same could be said for alot of games really.

playing the game, i usally never get into the frontline! thats sucicide! like you say its better to lend a hand with spells.

anyway, sacrifice is easily one of my fave games last year, i mean just look at those awesome lvl 10 spells like Bore, Volcano or even the VineSprouts! graphics like those make me friggin smile like a madman.

its weird other games sorta like Sacrifice didnt play as well, like Battlezone and Uprising. . . i think its the fantasy element. . . maybe

btw, the end credits in sacrifice was hilarious stuff! those poor manahoars. . .

etc

"As I said before, Ground Control has no AI"

Tom, TOTAL ANNIHILATION HAS NO AI. Yet it is still one of the best RTS games of all time. Why is that?

"Why would I pick a game I don't like for "best of the year"?"

This isn't about best of year; it's about covering the *genre* for the year. Your whole article was about how 2000 was a banner year for RTS games, right? Then why would you completely leave out a critically acclaimed game like Ground Control? Like I said, that smacks of bias. Agree with it or not, the game got a lot of good reviews. Pardon me if I think that makes it worthy of inclusion in a year-long genre roundup.

"CS is great, but as I mentioned before a) it's a mod and b) I've been playing it for nearly two years now."

CS appeared in a retail box on store shelves in the year 2000, with official support from Sierra. If that isn't worth at least mentioning, then dizamn, I don't know what is, Tom.

This is like arguing that Doom shouldn't be included in a list of best games of 1993 since it was only a shareware release. The mind boggles...

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"a) it's a mod"

Please name another 'mod' sold in a retail box. I'm waiting. G'wan. I double dog dare you.

"b) I've been playing it for nearly two years now."

Aren't you way over your poetic license limit by now, Tom? Beta 1 was released 6/19/99. Even in the laughably unlikely event that you picked up on CS within the first month, that's not 'nearly two years'.

Have you been "playing" beta 1 for two years? Because from where I'm sitting, the game evolved radically up until Beta 5. I hesitate to even call it the same game, frankly.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Aren't you way over your poetic license limit by now, Tom? Beta 1 was released 6/19/99. Even in the laughably unlikely event that you picked up on CS within the first month, that's not 'nearly two years'.

"Have you been "playing" beta 1 for two years? Because from where I'm sitting, the game evolved radically up until Beta 5. I hesitate to even call it the same game, frankly."

If people started playing it as a mod in 1999, it's hard to pick it as the best game of the year for 2000, no matter how you slice it.

Besides, as everyone knows, Flying Heroes was the best game released in 2000. :)

"Besides, as everyone knows, Flying Heroes was the best game released in 2000. :)"

Clearly. *cough*

Hey, everyone has preferences, so do I. All I'm asking for is a little fairness to the games we may not personally like-- yet a significant number of other reviewers and other gamers do.

This reminds me of the argument many people use against Wal-Mart: "Wal-Mart is evil! I would never shop there!" Are we supposed to assume that all the consumers that make Wal-Mart such a success are all idiots and assholes?

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Hey, everyone has preferences, so do I. All I'm asking for is a little fairness to the games we may not personally like-- yet a significant number of other reviewers and other gamers do."

First, did Tom actually write an article about the best RTS games of 2000?

Second, I'd prefer reviewers to have strong opinions and voices and not be afraid to go against the grain. The last thing I want a reviewer to do is tell me a game is good just because that's the popular consensus. If Tom really doesn't care for GC, I don't really see why he should include it in his list of the year's best RTS games.

Finally, since it doesn't have harvesting, it's not really an RTS game. How many times do I have to tell you guys this! :)

---

Quote:

Finally, since it doesn't have harvesting, it's not really an RTS game. How many times do I have to tell you guys this! :)

---

"First, did Tom actually write an article about the best RTS games of 2000?"

I assume wumpus is referring to the column in this month's CGM.

"Ground Control is more of a tactical game than an RTS. It just happens to be in real-time. I wouldn't really categorize Sacrifice as an RTS either though it does have harvesting. It's too action oriented to fit neatly in a category."

Good points, Dave, but I think both games are closer to being RTS titles than anything else. Part of the way a game can serve its genre is to break out of the conventions. I think Sacrifice did this (in much the same way as Battlezone and Uprising before it).

I'd include Ground Control in the RTS category much as I'd include the Close Combat series. I'd even include Shogun, which has no harvesting, but a strategic shell that substitutes for harvesting. I guess the question I have is where would you put these games to talk about them in context with the rest of the business? For me, including them in RTSes makes for helpful discussions.

-Tom, GC-hater extraordinaire

"GC-hater extraordinaire"

You bastard!!!!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I love you anyway. In a non-threatening, masculine, fight club sort of way. I think.

"Second, I'd prefer reviewers to have strong opinions and voices and not be afraid to go against the grain. The last thing I want a reviewer to do is tell me a game is good just because that's the popular consensus. "

That is NOT what I said.

What I said was, the reviewer needs to be honest with the audience about the particular things he or she looks for in a game.

In other words, if I dislike "keep-turning-left-and-go-real-fast" Nascar driving games, would it be realistic for me to review Nascar 4 or Nascar Heat? Regardless of how good the game may or may not be, I'm not going to enjoy them. Does that make them "bad" games? Only if I have a messianistic complex. I'm not saying I don't, just that I recognize it when I see it. Take that as you will.

Similarly, Ground Control was a great game, even though it had some problems. I would also say that about Deus Ex, though the problems are even more severe. Whether you like either game depends on how your personal preferences match with the strengths of either game, and whether you can deal with the weaknesses.

Again, read Steve Bauman's review of ONI (linked above) for how I think this should be done. A lesser reviewer would have completely panned the game; Steve's review does a nearly perfect job of serving himself and also serving his readers.

Disagree with me, cite how it should be done using a review of your choice. Otherwise, goddamit, I'm right about this.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"What I said was, the reviewer needs to be honest with the audience about the particular things he or she looks for in a game."

What I don't understand is how you come to this from the fact that I didn't include Ground Control in my list of Half-Life equivalents for last year's RTSes. It's just not up there with the six games I mentioned in the column.

"I love you anyway. In a non-threatening, masculine, fight club sort of way. I think."

Nice try, but I still don't like Ground Control. :)

-Tom

Though I think arguing about the definition of a real-time strategy game is somewhat pointless (we can go on forever classifying and putting every game into its little box, which is little more than pseudo-intellectual masturbation), perhaps they would be better classified (versus other strategy games that happen to operate in real-time) as "action strategy" games versus pure strategy ones. Maybe that's a term that needs to enter gaming jargon.

Red Alert 2 and Ground Control are both "action strategy" games, in the sense you have god-like control and they do involve fast-paced strategic play (Sacrifice would qualify too). Tactical or strategic... who cares? Sure, that may be part of its longer description, but for a quickie classification, "action strategy" says more to more people than "real-time tactical strategy," or "real-time strategy with base building and harvesting."

"Though I think arguing about the definition of a real-time strategy game is somewhat pointless."

Excellent point, since there are very few games in the "real-time strategy" genre that are either "real time" or "strategic". "Action strategy" is interesting. But I think the label "RTS" has been used to much it's here to stay. I'm happy to keep using it so long as people don't expect it to mean what it says. And so long as Mark quits trying to exclude games without harvesting.

-Tom

I agree that action strategy is a better term. As to the harvesting, I just think the people have spoken. If you toss out the term and label the game as an RTS, then people expect a game that follows the harvest/build/attack formula.

Is Corporate Machine an RTS? Railroad Tycoon 2?

"I agree that action strategy is a better term."

I back the Tom/Steve definition. RTS simply means what it says-- real time strategy. That's plenty vague enough to encompass all the titles we've discussed here. Does it happen in real time? Is there some kind of strategic thinking involved? Seems plain enough to me. Action Strategy is a fine choice as well, but the RTS term is already so entrenched that I'm not sure there's any value in switching at this point, and the subtle difference in meaning doesn't seem to merit the effort.

"As to the harvesting, I just think the people have spoken. If you toss out the term and label the game as an RTS, then people expect a game that follows the harvest/build/attack formula. "

I disagree. There are so many variations on this formula that you'll end up splitting hairs. And as Tom said, we want new games to innovate and riff on the themes.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Is Corporate Machine an RTS?"

Absolutely. I think Stardock might even bill it as such.

"Railroad Tycoon 2?"

I think it's more like a business sim game, like Industry Giant, Transport Tycoon, or RollerCoaster Tycoon. RTS tends to imply some sort of warfare (which is true of Corporate Machine), but the Sim-so-and-so and Tycoon-such-and-such are more about building up a system of commerce. For that reason, I don't think they're normally considered RTSes.

-Tom

>>As to the harvesting, I just think the people have spoken. If you toss out the term and label the game as an RTS, then people expect a game that follows the harvest/build/attack formula.

What people? The people in your head? I suspect people consider games like Myth and Ground Control real-time strategy games. I think few people make the "tactical" distinction. I think real-time denotes "action" more than it does harvest/build/attack.

>>Is Corporate Machine an RTS? Railroad Tycoon 2?

For our awards, we put games like these in "strategy" despite their being real-time because having them compete with games like Red Alert 2 is loopy. When we first split up our "strategy" category we did it specifically down the "real-time" and "turn-based" line. But we had, one year, Caesar III competing against Command & Conquer (or Total Annihilation, whatever year it was). That was equally loopy. So that's where "action strategy" versus "strategy" is a nice distinction.

I suspect the popularity of real-time strategy games for a lot of people IS the action, not the harvesting/build phase. (I prefer the latter myself, but then again I prefer turn-based strategy games.) RTS games brought in the action gamers, many of which probably find the pacing of turn-based games too slow for their tastes.

"What people? The people in your head? I suspect people consider games like Myth and Ground Control real-time strategy games. I think few people make the "tactical" distinction. I think real-time denotes "action" more than it does harvest/build/attack."

The people in my head? No, I don't share those conversations with anyone, so I don't know how you could know about them unless my people have been talking to the people in your head behind my back.

I'm thinking back to Usenet discussions. Most people seemed to not label Myth as an RTS when we talked about that game. Maybe the label is expanding now.

I'd say that the action strategy label is a better one because it makes a better divide between games like RCT and Myth. Otherwise you have to make arbitrary distinctions like Tom was doing and say that RTS games have to have militaristic leanings, etc. That just gets hopelessly muddled then.

Also, it's clear that the harvest/build/attack type of RTS is a distinct genre or sub-genre, so it would be helpful to have a label that clearly points to that kind of game instead of having to say harvest/build/attack all the time. It's kind of like the 4X label for strategy games. It gives you an instant idea of what kind of game it is.

>>I'm thinking back to Usenet discussions. Most people seemed to not label Myth as an RTS when we talked about that game. Maybe the label is expanding now.

Well... that's Usenet, which pretty much represents nothing. Myth was classified an RTS by pretty much everyone else, and won multiple "RTS of the Year" awards (I believe). I think we gave it that (and Game of the Year).

>>Otherwise you have to make arbitrary distinctions like Tom was doing and say that RTS games have to have militaristic leanings, etc. That just gets hopelessly muddled then.

Well, it's not that muddled if you say a real-time strategy game is a game that focuses on combat that takes place in real-time.

>>It gives you an instant idea of what kind of game it is.

Actually these labels should be tossed away, because they pidgeonhole games and actually help keep games from innovating. People feel they need to bullet-point match people's expectations for a genre and that restricts innovation.

I'm all for completely eliminating genre distinctions. We killed them in the magazine, and focused our editors on article types instead of genres. You expend all this energy saying, "Um, is Empire Earth an RTS, a wargame or a strategy game?" Who cares, it's a game. What point does it serve to expend energy on properly classifying it? If a gamer is so hung up on a game matching their expectations for a genre, why do they bother playing games in the first place? To repeat the same experience over and over again with different graphics?

There are reviewers out there--and we've been guilty of this too--that review to genre instead of looking at a game as a whole. That has to stop as well. And so do I... ugh, I'm overly caffeinated.

"Actually these labels should be tossed away, because they pidgeonhole games and actually help keep games from innovating."

Although your point is well taken, context is an important part of discussing games. RTS is useful to me as a basis from which to discuss stuff like Myth, Majesty, and Sacrifice. What have they done that's new? How are they different? How are they similar? What can players expect?

I *like* genre labels. I *like* categories. I don't think they have to be restrictive. As far as I can tell, there's not much confusion about the RTS label (aside from Mark thinking Myth isn't an RTS): "real time" is a game in continuous time and "strategy" involves some kind of warfare. Usually at the tactical level, but who's counting?

Of course Corporate Machine is an RTS. Of course Railroad Tycoon isn't an RTS. Where is the confusion about that?

And of course Myth is an RTS. Mark, if you can't play nicely with the other children, I want you to write "Myth is an RTS" one hundred times on the blackboard.

-Tom

Now that is an idea that would make a game site stand out! A game website that would make an authoritative effort in accurately categorizing game titles but including a bar with relevant category definitions!

With so many cross genre title and with the definition of certain title getting hazy, I think the core gaming community would flock to a site that made that effort. A recent war on the UseNet tried to define the difference between tactics and strategy. The Consensus was that strategy usually involves some sort of logistics or resource allocation, using this defintion as part of it's premise... a website could create catagories such as...

Logistics- The management of resources; allocation and deployment of forces

Tactics- The maneuvering or direct control of multiple units engaged in conflict

Strategy- this would essentially be any title that incorporates BOTH tactics and logistics as part of their play elements!

Roleplaying- Where individual unit stats and their equipment and skills are a consideration for player interaction.

Action- any game that requires the quickness of reflexes of the player to respond to an obstacles or challenge. Strictly following this definition games that require the management of multiple units without the ability to pause the game and evaluate and queue commands would fall include this category.

Puzzlers-Puzzles or challenges that require the user to consider multiple variables and sort them into a certain order to achieve a certain result.

Adventure= a story driven game with a focus on plots and character interaction

The results:

Baldars Gate = Tactical Roleplaying Adventure and maybe a bit of Puzzler

Civilization 2 = Strategy

Myth = Tactical Action and maybe again a bit of Puzzler

Myst = Puzzler Adventure

Railroad Tycoon 2 = Strategy

Oni= Action Adventure Puzzler

Jagged Alliance 2 = Strategy Roleplaying Adventure

Shadow Company = Tactical Roleplaying Action

NO CONFUSION NOW! :) LOL

ACK! Mark, Tom, include an edit function for the forum! I must have slept through my quick proof read of this post! ICK!

>>With so many cross genre title and with the definition of certain title getting hazy, I think the core gaming community would flock to a site that made that effort.

For the redesign of our website we're allowing games to have up to four (I believe) genres associated with them, so if you go to the Action, Role-playing and Adventure page you could see a review of, say, Deus Ex.

It serves a nice double purpose. It shows how games, and gamers, cross genres and it shows more stuff in more areas of the site.

"It serves a nice double purpose. It shows how games, and gamers, cross genres and it shows more stuff in more areas of the site. "

Are you guys getting rid of frames in the new site? As a developer, I like frames from a conceptual point of view, but in practice they tend to be a pain in the ass.

And this is coming from a guy whose site uses frames, so I've certainly given it a fair shot.

Anyway looking forward to the new site-- cdmag is one of my bedrock reference game review sites!

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>Are you guys getting rid of frames in the new site? As a developer, I like frames from a conceptual point of view, but in practice they tend to be a pain in the ass.

No frames.

in regards to GC being rts. . . ppl buy a game specifically with the resource/rts build and rush aspect. . . just look at warcraft 3 . . . they were planning to make it more Myth-rpg like, and then they pull it back to RTS. blizzard knows the formula and i think most starcraft/warcraft fans would prefer to play with resources imo. im rambling. . .

uhm, i guess GC is an rts. . . in a way. it does have REAL TIME STRATEGY.

etc

Grrrr... fucking newbies.

Not even a mention of STARCRAFT when you're discussing RTS games?

Granted.. it's not a 2000 game, but it's still the greatest RTS game ever created.

I don't mind newbies... but when they post their pathetic opinions about games they know NOTHING about, It's really fucking disgraceful and quite atrocious.

Lets say it one more time "STARCRAFT"... again "STARCRAFT".

AOE 2 is a fucking joke. The races are so fucking similiar it's disgusting, and the game play is horrendous. AOE2 is for newbies who can't play STARCRAFT. If you'd like to discuss this in detail, by all means.. just ask.

In AOE2 you are SO extremely limited in what you can do, in COMPETITIVE play. Not necessarily NEWBIE play... so i suppose I can understand why you enjoy that silly game. It's also UNBALANCED... quite unbalanced actually.

Tch... btw, CS < Tribes. Tribes is the greatest FPS of all time, it requires more mastery than you could possibly fathom. CS is a joke game... but because it's so fucking easy (people start playing and "oh gee, i'm killing people" while in Tribes you can't kill shit for quite some time :) everyone plays it. Oh.. wow, LOL teamwork in CS? Sure.. i suppose. But not even close to the level of teamwork in tribes. Hahaha.. in CS it's like, "Ok.. run here.. run there. Shoot enemies that you see or run away... stick together or stay with your group as in.. run with them and shoot enemies with them" LO-FUCKING-L!

Have you ever played competitively? Are you gosu? If not.. kindly STFU. K? Thx ^^.

Note to self: frequent use of word "fuck" in my arguments does not make them any more compelling

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Not even a mention of STARCRAFT when you're discussing RTS games?"

I love Starcraft. I think it, AOE2, and TA are top 3 RTS games, and for sheer fun I'd go with Starcraft.

In response to the post above about how bad AOE2 is.... how can a game in which you believe all races are so similar be so unbalanced at the same time? If anything I think the similarities in the races (or tribes... whatever) leads to more strategic play instead of just focusing of a single factor your side would have over the units of the other side. Dont get me wrong, though. Starcraft is a great game... I just dont think you give AOE2 what it deserves.

I think that this game is one of the greast RTS games ever, but to put it over the edge you need to put in one of the greast civilizations in history... THE ROMANS!

p.s. AOE2 could beat the shit out of StarCraft any day

I like Total Annihilation.

Empire Earth might be like having the whole earth as an empire. Words to think about. . .

I watched The Mole last week. I knew it was that girl. A+

etc

This website is phat!

"This website is phat!"

That's good, right? If so, thanks!

will there be romans in this game.

Ack is meassages like this that make me long for a tree sturcure. It went from a discussion of EE into a battle over game of the year into trying to classify games to why various games kickass, finaly to the wieght class of the site.

AOK was a little simple for my tastes EE looks to be a bit more complex so it should be good if it can be pulled off. But then it will face toguh comption with many other promising RTS titels tihs year. 3 years development is only slightly longer than average.

I wasnt praticualry impressed with the realeases this year. Im farily sure that AOK came out in 99 and Sacrifice and GC while they were probaly good games werent for me.

Hey its Quarter to Three now! Up one min past now.

If Tom were compiling a list of innovative RTS designs then he should add GC in there however if he didnt like it he dont need to add it to his list of Games of the Year.

Puting things in catagories is a very human trait. It obvious that RTS is too broad now. But we hafta be sure that we dont go over board and over divide each genere. I think that the best way to go would be to keep our all inclusive acromyms of today and make pie-charts for games like Sacrifice and War3.

StarCraft Rocks!
This site i definatly phat.
Yes i know my spelling is bad.

3am and prolly a foot of snow on the ground by the time i get up. Good night!

Tom said:

"Bullocks. As I said before, Ground Control has no AI. It's all scripted corridor crawling. In fact, it has even less AI than Star Trek: Armada. I have a problem with that. "

Don't you mean Bollocks? Are you British?

"Don't you mean Bollocks? Are you British?"

No, but I listened to a Sex Pistols album once in college.

-Tom

""Don't you mean Bollocks? Are you British?"

No, but I listened to a Sex Pistols album once in college.

-Tom "

Heh, good enough.