Went to a Lan gathering yesterday with the intention of playing some Empire Earth. After the first game, we got bored...

"Anybody up for some TA?" I said.
"Ah that games old." they say.

After the first game everybody is back into it with Stumpys, Krogoths, Annihilators etc etc etc.

Four games (and six hours later) we barely remember EE.

What a game! Whatever happened to TA2?!? Damn...

etc

Cavedog died.

Yeah, but Chris Taylor didn't! Whether or not it's called TA2, I betcha Chris will make another robot-filled RTS game. He's all but confirmed it in numerous interviews.

-Vederman

No, he didn't, but he did get divorced in the middle of development. That, my friends, is dedication.

Well, he's got to ship Dungeon Seige first.

Didn't he also get remarried? This month's Computer Gaming had a quote from him that his "new" wife had introduced him to Tropico. Or was that someone else?

I remember reading somewhere that Taylor IS making an RTS after Dungeon Siege, though if its anything like TA is another story. I would think that it would resemble TA in some way since ... well there hasnt been ANY rts quite like it (even TAK was far enough from TA), at least i hope he does!

etc

Since Total Annihilation's release, no other strategy game since has been able to captiviate me in the same way. I loved Warcraft II and Red Alert and played them all the time until TA came along. For me, it's just a "fun" game, with a lot of cool and useful ideas and units in it. I hope Chris Taylor does get around to make another RTS and advances the genre as TA did. I would really love it if he got the rights back and could continue the struggle of the Arm vs. the Core.

ARM RULES (Especially the Brawler!)

Chris

Chris:

"advances the genre as TA did."

You said a mouthful there. This thread insprired me to go back to TA for the first time in many a moon and I was just amazed. Not by just how well the game holds up after 4 years, but by how many RTS games that have followed it have not incorporated its advances.

With all the fully 3D RTS games in the last few years, in how many of them has taking the high ground been tactically important? They use terrain to restrict movement and limit line of sight, and that's pretty much it.

And then there's the interface. Not just the simple shift-click waypointing and order stacking, and the ability to give order while paused, but little things like units displaying their group numbers and health bars even when they're not selected. Is that so damned hard to implement?

Warlords: Battlecry took every innovation from TA's interface to heart. It's really only missing the elevation. Now with Battlecry 2, they're putting that in there.

Battlecry is quite literally the only RTS game to capture the same feel of TA in the interface. You always feel like things are easy and you can focus on strategy. Kohan is another example but that takes the genre in a different direction. Battlecry has the heroes too which is another one of its advances that has been overlooked across the genre.

I think the major problem is that there are simply too many people still playing Age of Kings, Starcraft or the Westwood games to notice all these enhancements. Though I have no fault with AoK...it's brilliant in its own right.

--Dave

Problem is, you and I like inovation...but Joe GameBuyer doesn't. Your standard game buyer may say he wants neat things like true physics, deformable terrain, and high-ground tactics, but in truth he doesn't. He wants a game where he can amass 30 tanks and plow through the enemy without effort. He wants to dominate withough thinking about it. He wants the appearance of challenge without a true challenge.

A truly innovative and engaging game will sell you 100 - 200 thousand copies, if you're lucky (see also: Battlezone). Mindless, lowest common denominator games will sell you a million+.

"I think the major problem is that there are simply too many people still playing Age of Kings, Starcraft "


Yea Starcraft did nothing to enhance the genre...sheeesh. The game hasn't sold the millions copies becasue of neat cut-scenes people.

No one said Starcraft sold millions because of cutscenes. But even the most ardent fan of the game has to admit it didn't really go anywhere that Warcraft II didn't before it. It's simply the first Blizzard RTS game with Internet play on Battle.net. That was a HUGE feature to hand to the zillions of screaming Warcraft and Blizzard fans. The gameplay is very much the same as any of its predecessors.

By comparison, Total Annihilation brought many enhancements to the table, the most important of which is the automation, IMO. Now instead of micromanaging every single thing my units do, I can set waypoints and queue commands allowing some time to actually plan a strike. Starcraft is more of an "action RTS" like Red Alert, etc.

Oh...and BTW...selling millions doesn't guarantee it's a top notch game. Deer Hunter anyone? No one was talking quantity here...we're talking quality and innovation.

But then...anytime Total Annihilation is brought up, there's usually a Starcraft fan wanting to tear it down...

--Dave

Starcraft didn't do anything for the genre. Name a single innovation that it brought to the table. Hell, it didn't even bother with LOS or terrain.

But it's a simple game that used established methods that people were comfortable with and enjoyed. People played Warcraft II, so the whole "SCVs are just like Peons" was easy for them to grasp. Vespane is just gold, minerals are wood. A Protoss is a fighter, a marine is an axe thrower, a wraith is a griffin, etc.. People loved Warcraft, so Blizzard put it in space and knew they would have a hit.

Don't get me wrong. Starcraft has the single best set of campaigns I have ever seen in an RTS. All three races are as close to being balanced as you get while being distinctly different. The game is a blast, I love playing it, and it is extremely well made...but it set back any hope of improving the genre by years.

"Yea Starcraft did nothing to enhance the genre...sheeesh. The game hasn't sold the millions copies becasue of neat cut-scenes people."

A game doesn't have to advance the genre or be innovative to sell well. Westwood has proven that over and over and over again. It also doesn't have to innovate to be a good game. StarCraft is an excellent game, but that doesn't mean it pushed the genre forward.

>even the most ardent fan of the game has to admit it didn't really go anywhere that Warcraft II didn't before it. ...The gameplay is very much the same as any of its predecessors

I think that's overlooking the quality of the game. Sure, it wasn't particularly innovative (although the three different races with completely different units/styles was a huge innovation over WarCraft 2), but I think it's still the best game of its type. Both Dark Reign and TA featured some great AI enhancements (and predated StarCraft), and TA featured great graphics and use of 3D terrain (and deservedly won GameSpot's Game of the Year in 1997), but StarCraft offered a polished package that I enjoyed a lot more than TA.

I'm somewhat biased because StarCraft's easily the best single player RTS I've seen (in story mode, or just for skirmishes). Frankly, it's pretty shocking that nothing has topped it since -- in spite of the fact that more games are released for that genre than any other.

I'd still recommend StarCraft to someone who hasn't tried an RTS over any other game (and Halflife for FPS). Man, 1998 was a great year for gaming.

Stefan

---

Quote:

I think that's overlooking the quality of the game.

---

Desslock:

"Sure, it wasn't particularly innovative (although the three different races with completely different units/styles was a huge innovation over WarCraft 2), but I think it's still the best game of its type. Both Dark Reign and TA featured some great AI enhancements (and predated StarCraft), and TA featured great graphics and use of 3D terrain (and deservedly won GameSpot's Game of the Year in 1997), but StarCraft offered a polished package that I enjoyed a lot more than TA."

SSI's Warwind (a very underappreciated game), which I believe came out more than a year before StarCraft, offered four very different playable races. And Dark Reign had two. So I was never very impressed with StarCraft's "innovation." Yes, the campaigns were more interesting than TA's. But an RTS's longevity is based on skirmish and multiplayer, not the campaigns. And on either one of those scores, I vastly prefer TA.

"But an RTS's longevity is based on skirmish and multiplayer, not the campaigns. And on either one of those scores, I vastly prefer TA."

The skirmish mode in SC is great; the AI really plays well. Starcraft had superior multiplayer support to via BNet, and included a sophisticated editor. Players had to hack TA to create new maps.

Also, the unique races in SC are much more interesting than the similar sides in TA.

BNet was great for finding other players. For the multiplayer gameplay in and of itself, I prefer TA. I think it simply requires more thought. SC I always felt that I could play on autopilot. Same for skirmish mode.

As for the editors, I've never really had the time or patience to develop my own maps for a game, easy to use editors or not, and someone could always do a better job than me anyway. I never felt like I ran short of interesting maps to play in TA, and it certainly had a lot more units to experiment with than SC.

But, again, what it comes down to for me is that TA always seemed to offer something beyond the standard build and rush that SC didn't.

---

Quote:

The skirmish mode in SC is great; the AI really plays well.

---

"Also, the unique races in SC are much more interesting than the similar sides in TA."

Yeah, that chess game is so goddamn boring.

People who prefer Starcraft over TA probably come out of Baskin-Robbins eating vanilla ice cream out of a cup. With a wooden spoon.

"I'm somewhat biased because StarCraft's easily the best single player RTS I've seen (in story mode, or just for skirmishes)."

I don't get this. I played Starcraft through about six missions, and I couldn't have cared less about the "story". I guess I was too blinded by the utter sameness of the gameplay. And cool cutscenes plus talking heads between missions isn't my definition of an interesting story, anyway.

But in all fairness, I don't really value Blizzard's type of static story delivery very highly. Give me interesting things to do in the game, and make THAT the story. If I wanted something that wasn't interactive, I'd crack a book, or go see a movie. I cannot hit ESC fast enough when watching cutscenes. You want to tell a story? Tell it WITH THE GAME, you morons. That is the whole point. I just want to run up to some developers and shake the snot out of them when they don't get this.

Anyway.

Sometimes more of the same, with a spit polish and an increment in the version number, isn't necessarily a bad thing. For example, I have yet to see a game that out-Diablos Diablo. Therefore I enjoyed Diablo II. But there's no doubt that TA was a vastly superior gameplay alternative both then and now. Instead of a clapboard sign reading "The End is Nigh", try to imagine me wearing one that says "It's The Gameplay, Stupid."

I don't PLAY story. I don't PLAY polish.

There's a whole other side to this discussion based on gameplay. Where are the long-range weapons in Starcraft? Where are the defensive emplacements? Where are the water units? Hell, for that matter, where are the physics?

And worst of all, it's nonsensical. There is NOTHING I hate more than arbitrary rules such as "you can't fire at this unit that is firing at you because it's.. invisible!" What is this, childhood cowboys and indians? "You missed me!" "Did not!" "Did too!" If it is firing at me, clearly I can see where the shots are coming from and fire blindly in that direction if nothing else.

To give you a TA specific counter-example: ground cannon emplacements could and WOULD target aircraft. Of course they sucked at it, horribly, unless the plane was a air-to-ground specialist like the brawler or rapier doing some ground attacks. But if it was the only enemy unit nearby, they would sure try. Nothing was funnier than watching a Brawler get plugged by an Intimidator cannon.

"The AI in Starcraft can only be described as "relentless" -- not "great"."

We used to have a grand old time trying to beat the computer AI in Warcraft II. The first step was to completely wall yourself off from the AI. Otherwise you were screwed, because WC2 AI was the rush builder from HELL.

In fact, Stronghold reminds me a lot of the way we used to play WC2 AI in coop mode. Build up a gleaming fortress of hatred so impenetrable that even someone with a 3:1 unit advantage gets massacred. It is fun, in a sick and perverse way.

But it's hardly AI.

In all fairness, Total Annihilation wasn't known for its great AI either.

>How is my above quote overlooking the quality?

You indicated that it didn't go anywhere that WarCraft 2 didn't go -- I strongly disagree, for the reasons I mentioned (different races, non-parallel units, innovative campaign).

>But when it comes to the gameplay, the thing that defines how you play, Starcraft is kind of uh... mediocre

...In your opinion. I enjoy the gameplay more in StarCraft than any of the games you mentioned. Sure there's some convenient tools in those games, which are absent in StarCraft, and there's also some additional command complexity -- but the gameplay in StarCraft is always more interesting to me, because of possible unit match-ups, and resulting available strategies.

>But an RTS's longevity is based on skirmish and multiplayer, not the campaigns.

I'm not, and I suspect a lot of purchasers feel similarly, really interested in playing multiplayer for hundreds of hours. After playing through StarCraft's campaigns (which took 20-30 hours) and playing multiplayer for about a month, I was content. If I was recommending an RTS to someone that I suspected, or knew, was going to love online multiplayer match-ups, I'd recommend TA, Age of Kings, or even Red Alert 2 -- but that's a pretty small niche of hardcore players. For most gamers, I'd recommend StarCraft over any RTS released to date.

>I don't get this. I played Starcraft through about six missions, and I couldn't have cared less about the "story". I guess I was too blinded by the utter sameness of the gameplay

I went into StarCraft with very low expectations. That game was extremely late -- it didn't seem to feature the innovative AI of Dark Reign or TA, and I suspected the graphics would look bad compared to TA's. Yet I ended up completely engrossed in the game -- loved the storyline, most missions, the NPC conversations, the music (TA's was great too) - the weirdness of the Zerg, the "noble warrior" motifs of the Protoss. Then I loved the skirmish mode, and playing cooperative and competive multiplayer. The "world" of StarCraft just seemed much more developed, and "alive" to me, which is why I found it more interesting than the kinda sterile rock/paper/scissors gameplay of TA.

>trying to beat the computer AI in Warcraft II. The first step was to completely wall yourself off from the AI. Otherwise you were screwed, because WC2 AI was the rush builder from HELL

Yeah, but if you could build a wall, victory was inevitable, because the AI could never get by it (other than through sheer luck, by casting a nearby Blizzard spell). The StarCraft AI didn't have such an obvious weakness. Beating two AI players was damn tough, and other than starting with some additional resources, I'm not aware of any way that they cheated -- after you held off the initial rush or two, things were pretty even, and it was still often difficult to beat 2 (or more) AI opponents.

Stefan

"I'm not, and I suspect a lot of purchasers feel similarly, really interested in playing multiplayer for hundreds of hours. After playing through StarCraft's campaigns (which took 20-30 hours) and playing multiplayer for about a month, I was content. If I was recommending an RTS to someone that I suspected, or knew, was going to love online multiplayer match-ups, I'd recommend TA, Age of Kings, or even Red Alert 2 -- but that's a pretty small niche of hardcore players. For most gamers, I'd recommend StarCraft over any RTS released to date."

I agree that the average player would like StarCraft better; would find its game play more accessible. But we were talking here about why WE like TA so much. This IS that "pretty small niche of hardcore players." Most games don't last longer than 30 - 40 hours with me either. TA was an exception. It's precisely those things that take it out of the "average gamer" category that have led me to install the game on successive machines over a 4-year-period, while StarCraft has sat on my bookshelf for at least two years.

No Innovation in SC? uhh yea. Its called 3 UNIQUE sides. No other RTS game, and I mean no other RTS has done it like SC did, period. Its called quality over quantity. Blizzard actually crafted a smaller set of very diffrent units for the 3 sides. Not the bazzilion same units(with a unique here and there) where each unit level becomes obsolete every 10 mins of play. Marines, zerglings, and zealots were still effective even in the end games when used properly and in the right situations. Leaning to be effective with each side was like learing a new game.

Ohh its not just the sales(the Deer Hunter comparision was just lame too), its the awards and the fact its still played so many people after almost 4 years. Why havn't all these people gone to a new game yet?

Nuff said.

"No Innovation in SC? uhh yea. Its called 3 UNIQUE sides. No other RTS game, and I mean no other RTS has done it like SC did, period."

I agree. Blizzard did a great job crafting the races, each with their own unique units, yet each balanced well against the other sides.

I like TA, but for single player and skirmish mode, SC has it beat hands down. For multiplayer it's lots of fun, but you tend to run into rabid TA players who are hard to compete against. SC had the same problem in multiplayer.

"I don't PLAY story. I don't PLAY polish."

Have you played Halo? Are you going to tell me that the story in that game didn't greatly enhance your experience?

Games don't need good stories, but good stories make good games even better.

"In all fairness, Total Annihilation wasn't known for its great AI either."

Of course not. You could simply walk your commander over and destroy the AI's fledgling base. Game over.

I'm not sure there's "great AI" in any game. SC's is challenging at least, and it will prosecute a combined arms attack well. Like just about every other RTS AI I've played you can beat it by withstanding the initial onslaught which consists of several early waves, but you have to continue to play efficiently to beat it.

Anyway, who cares? Why must one be proclaimed the superior game? They're both great games.

"Then I loved the skirmish mode, and playing cooperative and competive multiplayer. The "world" of StarCraft just seemed much more developed, and "alive" to me, which is why I found it more interesting than the kinda sterile rock/paper/scissors gameplay of TA."

That's almost exactly the same sentiment that Mark expressed on this subject. Fair enough.

However, I would expect seasoned game reviewers to be the first people to appreciate the magnificent gameplay paradigm that TA established. I can't help thinking that you guys are judging a book by its cover and not looking deeply enough into the gameplay mechanics. C'mon people. The commander avatar? Radar and Jammers? Destroyed units that stay on the battlefield, blocking passage? The energy and metal economy? Units that respond to physics and gravity? The list goes on and on.

Sterile? Man. I've seen some EPIC battles in TA that were anything but. Battleship cannons roaring, amphibious tanks rolling out of the water to the shore, bombers streaking across the sky on a bombing run, and returning to an aircraft carrier. In the background, a massive krogoth looms. It was truly glorious-- real WAR.

"The StarCraft AI didn't have such an obvious weakness."

Yeah, because there are all of two defensive structures in the entire game. And neither one of them is a wall. That's some crazy strategic design there!

"I agree that the average player would like StarCraft better; would find its game play more accessible. But we were talking here about why WE like TA so much."

Disagree. Starcraft was great, but it was a shiny, superficial kind of greatness. TA is deep, innovative gameplay to the bone.

---

Quote:

You indicated that it didn't go anywhere that WarCraft 2 didn't go -- I strongly disagree, for the reasons I mentioned (different races, non-parallel units, innovative campaign).

---

'I'd recommend Age of Kings over all the above to a casual RTS player or first timer. Ensemble does 2D standard RTS the best and it's easy to understand the conventions of medieval warfare.'

I have to agree: Starcraft vs. AOK is kind of like SMAC vs. Civ. It really helps if a new player can sit down and have a useful idea of what the units do.

To some extent, I remember Starcraft being a rock/paper/scissors game between the sides, instead of between the units. That is, the Zerg would slaughter the Humans, who easily handled the Protoss, who had no trouble with the Zerg. Maybe I have the ordering wrong, but am I the only person who thinks this?

"Games don't need good stories, but good stories make good games even better."

I'll take the game with great gameplay and no story over the good game with a good story any old day.

Hell, the gameplay is a story. It's the story of me riding roughshod over my enemies in 24-bit color. What other story does there need to be? Does counter-strike need a story to be compelling? Does Everquest? Did Mario 64? I can't even tell you what the story was in Goldeneye.

Damn, I'm almost to the point now that I consider story a NEGATIVE. It's overrated. Particularly when companies like Blizzard use it for a crutch in place of innovation and gameplay design. Let's get our priorities straight here.

Here's an interesting case study. Tom's review of IL2.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2829773,00.html

Man, as Tom spins it, this game is a poster child for gameplay strengths outweighing lack of story, lack of a compelling singleplayer campaign, lack of manual.. you name it.

While you're at GS check out Bruce's review of Comanche 4 which was a hoot.

I agree with Mark that it's not important whether TA or SC is the "superior" game (though it's obviously TA :-). Both games have strengths and weaknesses. What bothers me is that the weaknesses of SC are still prevalent in today's RTSs while the strengths of TA have often been ignored. And this is especially true in relation to micromanagement. Why do developers persist in having uninteresting and repetitive tasks be part of their game? Don't they play these things? I'm a programmer and when I have to do something more than once, I almost always write a script or program to do it for me rather than do it by hand.

One more point: someone above mentioned the "rock/paper/scissors gameplay of TA". I have to disagree with this. It's SC and almost all other RTS games out there that have rock/paper/scissors relationships between units. In TA, unit A is useful for fighting unit B because of it's physical properties (of which there are many), not because the programmer coded unit A to do 2x damage to unit B. For example, a missile tower is much better than a plasma cannon for taking out aircraft because the missiles are fast and they are guided. A plasma cannon can still fire at aircraft, but it has almost no chance to hit because it's turret rotation speed is slow, the shot vecocity is slow, and the plasma ball doesn't track. However, the plasma cannon does a lot more damage and has greater range than the missile tower so it's a lot better for fighting slow moving ground units. No other game that I know of has this amount of physical detail.

"'No Innovation in SC? uhh yea. Its called 3 UNIQUE sides. No other RTS game, and I mean no other RTS has done it like SC did, period.'

I agree. Blizzard did a great job crafting the races, each with their own unique units, yet each balanced well against the other sides."

Polish, yes. They polished the rock/paper/scissors formulas to perfection. But given that other RTS games had offered multiple, differing races before StarCraft (and I still maintain that the original WarWind did a pretty fair job of it), I don't see how this can be called "innovation."

"Disagree. Starcraft was great, but it was a shiny, superficial kind of greatness. TA is deep, innovative gameplay to the bone."

Where's the disagreement, Jeff? I said that StarCraft had more appeal to Joe Average who is not all that concerned about "deep, innovative gameplay." As Peter K explains quite well in his post, TA is the antithesis of the rock/paper/scissors RTS formula. It requires more tactical thought. That's why I still play it and not StarCraft.

"That is, the Zerg would slaughter the Humans, who easily handled the Protoss, who had no trouble with the Zerg. Maybe I have the ordering wrong, but am I the only person who thinks this?"

Any side in SC could beat the other. If someone says otherwise, then frankly they arn't a very good player.


"Both games have strengths and weaknesses. What bothers me is that the weaknesses of SC are still prevalent in today's RTSs while the strengths of TA have often been ignored."

Love these backhanded slaps. "Ohh there both good..but blah blah". Whatever. SC is a classic. It stands up to anything thats come out since, and has more than cemented itself as one of the best RTS ever.

"What bothers me is that the weaknesses of SC are still prevalent in today's RTSs while the strengths of TA have often been ignored. And this is especially true in relation to micromanagement. Why do developers persist in having uninteresting and repetitive tasks be part of their game? Don't they play these things? I'm a programmer and when I have to do something more than once, I almost always write a script or program to do it for me rather than do it by hand."

Peter K-- well said. Ever tried to turn a battleship? Ever tried to have an airplane make a ninety degree turn in the middle of combat? Well, you can with the cheesy bitmap units of Starcraft. I fully expect Warcraft III to be full of the same kind of shinola.

"and has more than cemented itself as one of the best RTS ever."

To the detriment of the genre, unfortunately. This is why innovators like TA need to be promoted.

Ok, I couldn't resist but here goes anyway...

From Gamespot's Review section:

StarCraft - 9.1

Total Annihilation - 9.3

I guess the points rating system does have some uses.

:^)

Chris

"Ever tried to turn a battleship? Ever tried to have an airplane make a ninety degree turn in the middle of combat? Well, you can with the cheesy bitmap units of Starcraft. I fully expect Warcraft III to be full of the same kind of shinola."

Ah, so the game that models the war between the two great robot races wins because it's...realistic?

"To the detriment of the genre, unfortunately. This is why innovators like TA need to be promoted."

It got great reviews. What kind of promotion do you want? I had more fun with Starcraft, but so what? Fortunately I'm allowed to play both and enjoy both, which I did. I also enjoyed TAK; in fact, I prefer its resource model to TA's.

Starcraft is an excellent example of craftsmanship (pun not intended). The interface is clean, and the single player campaign is entertaining. Its two major contributions were proving that radically different factions could co-exist in the game, and that micromanagement of a few units could viably compete with massed unsupervised units. Unfortunately, SC did little else to challenge the traditional RTS gameplay model.

TA is an excellent example of attention to detail. TA had slightly better approach to every aspect of the game, and all of the little details add up. They're cumulative in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. If I tried to list all of the features, this would become longest - post - ever. TA's main drawbacks are the weak single player campaign, and the fact that the two factions are virtually identical. Of course with multiplayer and hundreds of units to choose from, these were essentially non-issues.

- Alan

I also disagree with your assessment of Warcraft III, but that's just because I'm a Blizzard-RTS fanboy...

It's gonna rock!

Oops, sort of rambling with that last post. I guess the point is: I wish more RTS games would incorporate features from SC and TA instead of just rehashing the same old game model. That isn't to say modern RTS games are terrible, but they just seem so uninspired.

- Alan

Close Combat 4: Battle of the Bulge. You're desperately trying to hold a few maps outside Bastogne against the tidal wave of the German offensive, and every unit- particularly armor- counts. I've yet to see a strategy game that does battle tension and combat confusion so well. Plus, there's no resource gathering. Play as the 101st airborne in the Grand Campaign and just pray you can hold of the Nazis until Bastogne is relieved. Great game. Still haven't checked out CC Invasion Normandy, though.

"[...] and the fact its still played so many people after almost 4 years. Why havn't all these people gone to a new game yet?"

You know, this is a really good question. I should ask my roommate, who only stopped playing StarCraft when Diablo2 came out. He isn't really "into" computer games (in the sense that he doesn't read game magazines, websites, or anticipate upcoming games, or even discuss games with others). He just has a game he plays (one game only) as a distraction, in the way that people flip on the TV for a little while. I wonder why he chose StarCraft. Maybe because of the really cool story about the space wars!

Wumpus said:

"People who prefer Starcraft over TA probably come out of Baskin-Robbins eating vanilla ice cream out of a cup. With a wooden spoon."

Oh, God, what the f--k does this MEAN? I'm trying so hard to understand ...

I preferred CC 5: Invasion Normandy to Battle of The Bulge. The maps are more varied as are unit compositions. As always, though, the AI does much better on defense than offense so there's really only one challenging side to play but that's plenty. CC 2 and 3 are also worth checking out. Overall, CC 2: A Bridge Too Far was the most polished and tight game of the series. CC 3: The Russian Front had a good campaign game where you followed and developed one unit in particular over the course of the game - it also boasted the most detailed soldier info from the series. Unfortunately, this led to many unrealistic situations and upgrade options - also was way too dependant on armor. All the Close Combat games have mod packs out there including one for Vietnam and a Western Front mod for The Russian Front.

Frankly, I like this sort of game better than the build, explore, tank rush styles out there. I like the personalization of the units as named individuals with actual behavior (within the squad elements) and the historical and more or less realistic setting. Makes for a more immersive experience which is high on my list of priorities as opposed to purely rock-paper-scissors but alot of rocks thrown really fast always wins RTS games.

About the AI in TA, go to

http://www.planetannihilation.com/aicentral/

They've made AI as comparable or even harder than the SC Skirmish AI, though most of the AI is cheating it gives a good match.

There's quite a few that make a big change to the AI in skirmish... particularly NUKES!

etc

"To the detriment of the genre, unfortunately. This is why innovators like TA need to be promoted."

Thats some weak ass fanboy talk there...

Brian:
Agreed. I don't mind the usual RTS fare, and games like AOE2 are truly well designed and fun, but you just don't get attached to your units the way you do in the CC games. Of course, in games like Starcraft and AOE you're not meant to get attached to units and I'm not going to compare apples and oranges. But as far as strategy games go, I get far more pleasure out of CC because every unit really does count, down to the last man. When your bazooka team manages to take out that Panzer coming down the road, you cheer them on and feel satisfaction.
You're right about the AI, but that doesn't really bother me as much as the shady LOS implementation. Still, the CC games are incredible strategy titles. You can get Invasion Normandy for like 5 bucks in a bargain bin..for pennies. Highly recommended.

Hey Brian, can you post some links to those mod packs you mentioned? The Vietnam one looks mighty tasty...

There's a good introductory article at CGOnline .

Most of the mods are available from Clan Close Combat. They use a mod manager device I haven't messed with yet. Let me know what you think if you try them out. I'm sure others here know much more about these than I do.

I dunno you guys. Starcraft and TA are kind of the yin and yang of good RTS games. They occupy different spaces. TA is kind of like this open ended War Engine, using real world data, and it's cool enough so that you don't miss so much the fact that the campaign has been glossed over. Starcraft, OTOH to me is like a gleaming, polished diamond. They took the Red Alert model and just looked at every teensy detail in depth, until everything was perfect.

Also, you know what, those cutscenes in StarCraft were just great. The front end in SC was just as slick as the game as well, and I like a slick front end. This stuff counts for me in the "reasons why I like Starcraft better than TA" list. Just as the slow battleship turning and the metal debris left on the battlefield mentioned above goes in the "TA is better than SC' list. Just because some of StarCraft's strong points fall in the 'glitz' category don't make them any less valid for me as far as why I liked the game. Hell, I just thought of the Science Vessel saying, "Greetings, Command!!" in that gay voice of his, and I cracked a smile. Anyway, I'm of the opinion that everything, absolutely everything, is critical when making a video game. No stone should be left unturned in the quest for excellence, because it all adds up and complements each other if done right.

Finally, the only game I've seen since TA that *really* tries to do something really different as far as the gameplay model is concerned is Combat Mission. And I would kill for a Combat Mission that used TA-type units, I really would.

DeanCo--

I am amazed that the SC vs TA discussion can still incite such passion. What's it been 5 years?

Combat Mission is one game I was delighted to be wrong about. My first assumption was "Oh, grogs have discovered 3D. Welcome to the new millenium, guys." Even the demo didn't do much for me but I eventually broke down and got it after hearing so many raves. It deserves them all. Here's a game with great AI, realistic simulation routines, excellent fog-of-war systems and it's all in easily modded 3d graphics so treadheads could wipe themselves out with digital modelling to everyone's benefit. And it even had an excellent skirimish mode generator which only proved how great the AI was in compensating for different situations. The last may be my favorite part of the game. Yeah, the immersion factor is very high here when you're dealing with this level of realism and uncertainty.

There are also things that could be said about Steel Panthers: WaW - the quality of scenario design, the vast suite of gameplay options and excellent campaign modes, the huge arsenal of arms and equipment, the deep command and control system.

As I've said before, my ideal game, that I'd kill for would blend the best elements of Close Combat (units as individual soldiers within groups and good battle psychology AI), Steel Panthers (the sheer amount of options and modes of play - especially random/dynamic campaigns), and Combat Mission's on the spot 3D realism, fog of war, and AI.

Great post by DeanCo, and it really is different strokes for different folks. I loved WarCraft II and Red Alert. When I played WCII I wished I could cast spells as fast as the computer and had a way to keep farm production going without doing it myself each time. In Red Alert I wished my defenses, especially early in the game, were capable of with standing an attack. I wanted to see my aircraft move in the air and fly instead of changing the bitmap to show movement. But, since no other game in the genre that I had played gave me these options I didn't really fret over it. When StarCraft came out I enjoyed it for a while, though I never finished it. Playing it felt like the same old thing, even with 3 different races. TA drew me in and thrilled me with the gameplay, the unit movement was realistic within the game setting, real world tactics were feasible and the fights were awesome to participate in as well as to watch.
To each his own, StarCraft is certainly pretty and is exactly what it promised it would be. I certainly don't think it is a bad game, but I didn't find enough in it to make me keep coming back for more.
TA pretty much came out of nowhere, had radical (for the time) changes in gameplay and in controlling that gameplay (which still seem fresh compared to the majority of RTS' these days) and was supported by Cavedog like no other game at the time. New units every week, new maps, etc. I think if Boneyards had been up and running when TA was released that it would have enjoyed even more success in the gaming community.

That's my two cents, fanboyish or not.

Chris

Xbox 0wnz Gamecube. Dreamcast is better than PSOne and PS2.

I think the Mac is better than the PC.

Unreal is better than Quake III.

And N*Sync rocks you harder than Backstreet Boys.

Discuss.

Mr. Becker: My statements were honestly not meant as a backhanded slap against Starcraft. I do think it was a good game. I played it for several months. (You could argue that my parenthetical expression was a backhanded slap, and for that I'm sorry.) The point I was trying to make is that many developers continue to make games in the style of Starcraft but close to none try to emulate the style of TA.

Mr. Asher: What I was trying to say about the way TA models physical properties was not that the more the realistic a game is the better. My point is that there is more flexibility in the way TA units can be used because of the physical modeling. It gives opportunities for a smart player to find secondary uses for a unit. Let me give an example - take the anti-air tank in TA. It primary use, of course, is for shooting down aircraft but it can also be used to fight ground units, too. It's not as good as other tanks in that role, but at least they're not totally useless if your opponent decides not to use any aircraft. In addition, they're large and inexpensive relative to the other large units. They can take up a lot of area on the front line so that fast units can't flank you and head for more vulnerable targets. And when one of these tanks is destroyed, the amount of wreckage left can block an avenue of attack. I doubt that the person who designed the unit thought of all these uses. In most games, the units are pretty much going to be used the way the developer wanted them to be used (with the exception of units with "spells", but don't get my started on those. :-) TA's unit method allows for more tactical creativity. It's a subtle distinction perhaps and maybe it doesn't make a huge difference, but I think it was a step in the right direction and it's a shame that more developers haven't done similar things.

Just as an aside, my ultimate RTS game would be a combination of elements from TA, Shogun, and Kohan and would take place during WWII.

'Just as an aside, my ultimate RTS game would be a combination of elements from TA, Shogun, and Kohan and would take place during WWII.'

Come to think of it, why are there so few WWI games? Talk about your unvisited time period.

Well fair enough, but their are RTS games that don't just try and copy SC or C&C even. Shogun is a good game and Kohn is another. There are always clones but that happens in any genere.

Everybody has their preferences. Some Are SC fans others Red Alert, and others AOE or TA. Its annoying though when people say a game is superior, and act as if there is some sort of scientific reasoning behind it.

"Come to think of it, why are there so few WWI games? Talk about your unvisited time period."

Same with film, lately. I'd love to see an accurate Flying Ace film. Even if it had a stupid love story attached....

-Andrew

I used to have a wargame called "Guns Of August". As an old friend of mine would say, "An excellent simulation of WWI...that's the problem." :-)

I guess you could fire up Empire Earth and stick to the Atomic - WWI age. I keep trying to get my teenage son to do this when we play but he always wants to play the Nano age. Durn kids...why does everything have to be futuristic with mechs and lasers?

"I used to have a wargame called "Guns Of August". As an old friend of mine would say, 'An excellent simulation of WWI...that's the problem.'"

Paths of Glory does an excellent job of simulating WWI without being in the least bit tedious.

Ok, looked around the web this afternoon for some Close Combat goodies, and I found some good stuff. This website:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/cclinks/
is a massive collection of links and downloads for all the CC games, from 1 to 5. It's pretty clean and well laid-out, too. Also noteworthy:
http://www.explodinghouse.com/soundsofwar.html
Sound mods for Close Combat 5 and 4. Sticks to most of the original sounds, but adds incredible background sound of far-off battles with whizzing/exploding shells, planes in the distance, etc...Really makes you feel like you're in a larger battle than what's going on on the map. This sound mod also retools some of the infantry weapon sounds to include more audible reload sounds, a much better sniper rifle sound, and other subtle enhancements. The music mod adds songs from Saving Private Ryan and Thin Red Line (I think) to replace the generic menu music. Overall, great stuff.

Damn, now I might actually have to pick up the rest of the CC games. The last one I played was CC2, and I really enjoyed it.

Cause using mustard gas in a game would be completely tasteless.

And they should make a sequel to the Rocketeer. How come there are no movies about ace derigible pilots? Maybe someone should just edit together every Snoopy as the ace WWI pilot sequence from all the Charlie Brown specials and release it theatrically. My favorite is the one where he gets caught behind enemy lines!

Brad Grenz

What, but games using nuclear weapons aren't?

I loved Total Annihilation. It was the game that got me hooked on gaming web sites. I then was part of a TA fan site for two years as team manager before coming over to GameSpy. TA still provides me a lot of fun with all the third party maps. It is the game that has resided longest on my hard drive and still one of the best RTSs around.

... oh, and the last time I talked to Chris Taylor, he is still interested in making another RTS with tanks and planes and robots. But I seriously doubt it will be called TA2. I think the license is still property of Infogrames US.

---

Quote:

I think the license is still property of Infogrames US.

---

The TA brand name isn't the selling point as far as I am concerned; rather it's Chris Taylor's name that catches my eye. I mean, look at TA:Kingdoms. As far as TA sequels goes, I could even do without the robot theme, although it did help to justify the salvage concept. Really it's the gameplay rules that matter, and that's why I think that having Chris attached to the project would be the most influential factor.

- Alan

For guys like us Chris Taylor means something. But for Joe Average, he's more likely to remember Total Annihilation and maybe even still play it. I'd love it if gamers knew the people behind the games, but frankly, you're lucky if many game players even know who John Carmack is. Sid Meier they know because his name goes on the box. Beyond a few like that and the obvious big name console developers like Miyamoto, people just don't care.

Kingdoms is often looked down upon because it's the game made after Mr. Taylor left. But in reality, it's a pretty darn good RTS in its own right. It had performance issues on release, but once solved, the game shone on its own merits. It's still quite good today.

--Dave

Yeah, I actually enjoyed Kingdoms more than Starcraft. No idea why; it felt like there were more options, somehow. After a while in SC I felt like I was playing the same dozen game patterns over and over.

For those that might still be interested in the point made about the Starcraft AI before...it cheats because it knows exactly where you are, and where all the resource piles are.

The other problem w/Starcraft's AI is that it can be held off if you are in a "good" spot on a map. It basically doesn't know how to crack hardened defenses properly -- its use of siege weapons is not backed up with the appropriate units to defeat counters, and the AI's use of air units (other than straight fighters) is pretty dumb. The map 'Green Valleys' included with the game is a good example -- if you're good, you can hold off 7 computer players by hunkering down. Eventually you grind the computer players down to the point where they can't build anything anymore, and then you just mop up.

Note: not saying that other games have better AI (although I'm certain that some do), just that Starcraft's skirmish AI left a lot to be desired. Oh, and it didn't have any adjustable difficulty, either.

When it comes to skirmish AI, Age of Kings is hard to beat. Kohan is right there too. AoK has adjustable difficulty and opponents that know most of the tricks of the top level players. It even handles random maps very well. It's really refined. It's just one more reason the game is easily recommendable to anyone.

The Kohan Ahriman's Gift AI was superb in the beta. That's the one game in the last couple years I applied to test and luckily got in. We played one online game with three AIs against three humans and it was an incredibly satisfying slugfest that lasted about two hours until we were finally toppled. It could have been human opponents on the other side for all we knew. Ahriman's Gift is on my Christmas list.

--Dave

TA Kingdoms also had one of the best fantasy realms imo... especially with the expansion pack and its DaVinci influenced technology realm... TAK was an underrated game. I think they should have made it MORE like TA.

etc

On the question of the lack of WWI games and films:

1) The US didn't dominate WWI the same way we dominated WWII. It's an ego thang, don't you know.

2) The Germans weren't as interesting of a bad guy back then. They were just interested in territorial expansion, like everyone else. Genocide = box office $$$.

3) "The Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy from Company C" is more danceable than "All the Way to Tipperary." (The "Swing Kids" factor.)

4) The main combatants in WWI were white; WWII had the Japanese to get all worked up about, to stereotype and descriminate against.

5) General American knowledge of WWI history is basically nil, beyond a vague image of people in trenches wearing gas masks.

1 & 5 are valid points. Point #3 is hilarious ("It's a Long Way to Tipperary" is the tune though).

#2 is just a stupid thing to say. Of the many WWII films made since, um, WWII, only a tiny handful mention the Holocaust.

And #5 is exactly why we need them. I can just imagine a film about the air combat, some of the anecdotes are just amazing. After Gallipoli and All Quiet, the trenches are, pardon me, covered.

-Andrew