|
Posted By
|
Message
|
MattB
Registered
23/05/2002
Points
342
|
22nd November, 2003 at 14:51:22 -
I used to be a big strategy fanatic. I've played every C&C game except for Generals (I don't know why I haven't played that) and beat all sides on at least easy on all the Red Alert games. I used to play the first AoE (and AoE2 when it first came out) religiously every weekend via LAN at one of my friends' houses. And I've played Warcraft I, II, and III, plus all the II expansions, though I think they get a bit boring after about the fourth mission.
But then, I realized that most strategy games don't really involve that much strategy. Pretty much, like in AoE2, it's just collect enough resources to build some starting units, rush while collecting resources to build defenses and make a more permanent army, advance a few ages, build siege weapons to destroy enemy defenses, then wander around aimlessly for a few hours with some massive force until you hunt down every last peasant. I don't call that fun, and where's the strategy? Sure, you can build a specific unit to defeat some other type of unit, but let's face it, by the time you've selected an adequate force to defeat a group of enemies, you're dead. It's easier to just build a varied force and sick them all on your enemy at once. And even if you do make use of individual unit abilities, it's not much more than a very complicated rock-paper-scissors match.
Among all standard strategy games, however, Rise of Nations is really my preference. Unit advantages are so extreme that the game actually forces at least some kind of strategy in the form of that rock-paper-scissors match. Wonders add a massive element to your strategy and compliment your styles nicely. Nuclear missiles are awesome, and while massively destructive, their use is at least limited.
Battle Realms had some of the most interesting strategic elements I've seen in a while. The use of the trees to avoid detection is great for troop transporting. The idea of different training combinations allows for lots of flexibility of your army, and actually being able to use higher ground for increased archer ability are all great features. Too bad none of the maps really make use of any of these. The later campaign missions just fall back to the old formula of building troops as fast as you can, with trees nonexistant and ground almost totally flat. It had so much potential!
Actually, my favorite strategy game is Baldur's Gate. I know it's not technically strategy, but all of the things that I mentioned for Battle Realms are present and used gratiously, plus your units actually have some kind of value, since they can't be very easily replaced. That's my bag of chips. So I'm kinda experimenting with tactical strategy games, mainly Rainbow Six-esque shooters and such.
Anybody else into that kind of stuff? Anyone else notice the total lack of strategy in most strategy games?
"The light which puts out our eyes is darkness to us."
-Henry David Thoreau
|
Aali [Crazy_Productions]
Registered
13/10/2002
Points
843
|
22nd November, 2003 at 18:23:56 -
yep.. try the Ground Control or Original War demos, that's real strategy.
especially Ground Control, which is a very good game (very good looking 3d with ALOT of cool special effects runs perfectly on a P733, 128 MB RAM, 32MB nVidia TNT 2 Ultra)
"If Darl McBride was in charge, he'd probably make marriage unconstitutional too, since clearly it de-emphasizes the commercial nature of normal human interaction, and probably is a major impediment to the commercial growth of prostitution."
-- Linus Torvalds, December 5th 2003.
(Darl McBride is CEO of The SCO Group)
this place sucks but don't tell anyone, it's our little secret, ok?
|
|
|
|
Advertisement
Post Reply