Commenting on the “polish” behind Blizzard games, SynCaine likens every Blizzard product as being a rehashed version of old IP. Says SynCaine on Blizzard’s next product:

…what happens when you apply the Blizzard business model to a Blizzard game and play it really, really safe? You get StarCraft 2, a highly polished port of SC1 that leaves you feeling bored and burned out halfway through your first game. When you can build a base and pull off a rush with your eyes closed using the same strategy and hotkeys you used in 1998, you’re game just MIGHT be a little too similar to its predecessor.

Starcraft was a good RTS. We never played competitively, but as someone who probably played every RTS up until Starcraft’s release (and likely sometime thereafter, too), Starcraft didn’t leave us with the impression that it was way ahead of the pack. The backstory wasn’t fantastic, the races were only marginally unique, and in truth, we can’t even say we loved Starcraft more than Blizzard’s previous RTS offerings.

So now we have Starcraft 2 on the horizon, with many bloggers already having posted early play impressions of the game. And really, we can’t help but think it’s just more of Starcraft. And that’s not to say this is a bad thing, because we’re all for sequels being “more of the same” if the formula was perfect. We just don’t think the Starcraft formula was perfect, and we’d much rather have seen something more epic for Starcraft 2. Maybe that puts us in the minority. Either way, we’re way more eager to see what comes out of the Diablo franchise, because between Diablo 2 and World of Warcraft, Diablo 3 doesn’t need to be revolutionary to be perfect – it just needs to take one small iterative step forward.

Similar Posts:

• Diablo III: the mini-WoW? – Show us a gamer who’s not excited about Diablo 3, and we’ll show you a liar. Diablo 2 was the maste…
• Why Diablo III could disappoint. – No one can seriously dispute that the Diablo franchise was a major player in PC gaming. For us, Diab…
• Blizzard should thank Mythic. – It’s an accepted fact that competition among companies is good for consumers, as it gives them more…

Electronic Arts (EA) is already preparing the Command & Conquer (C&C) franchise for the future vehicle for software proliferation: digital distribution. Kotaku, meanwhile, says that some fans are skeptical:

News of the transition was sending fears of a Facebook-ized, watered-down C&C among some series fans.

And yet C&C always was watered down, offering little more than eye-candy to recent sequels. The good news is that EA CEO John Riccitiello hopes to change that, and bring more innovation to the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.

“…I have a shared vision that the RTS category is due for fundamental innovation and not just cooler graphics,” Riccitiello said. “We’ve gotten to the point where you can see the particles around individual grenade explosions inside rooms where windows fall apart. That was never what made RTS good. That was just sort of eye candy on top of a very traditional game mechanic. From when Red Alert and Starcraft sort of defined the genre, it hasn’t moved.”

While Riccitiello’s take on RTS games mirrors our own, his seniority is at question when he uses Red Alert and Starcraft as examples of genre-defining games. In reality, predecessors Command & Conquer (yes, the original), Warcraft, and Warcraft II, solidified the genre that Dune II built. And really, nothing fundamental has changed since then, either. And that portends danger for developers not willing to let go of the tried-and-true method of simple throwing a new unit or two at a player each level, while making them rebuild from scratch on a new map. The repetitive play is what kills the genre in one game alone, let alone when looking at new RTS games.

“Some of what Facebook does, in terms of letting you collectively experience things, have not been stitched together by the game industry in terms of lessons learned there. You start applying that thinking to a C&C franchise you get something pretty special.”

This is where Riccitiello’s price as CEO may be worth it, because at least Riccitiello is looking at some aspects of what make Facebook games, and MMOGs, so alluring. If RTS games are meant to illustrate a greater struggle, then the thousands of players participating in battlefield combat should be able to assist one another, participate in local battles, and change the tide of war one small step at a time. In many ways, this mirrors the idea of Warhammer Online’s Realm vs. Realm PvP scenario, but at a less granular level.

If there’s a clear disadvantage for one player to effectively handle a large army, compared to many players handling less units at a more focused level, then new aspects in RTS titles emerge: buildings alliances, strategies, and resource flows become important. And ultimately, the complexity of individual units can grow, because with less units, players have the ability to use more unit abilities in order to create battlefield synergy, whereas in purely single-player games, players must first be concerned with amassing large armies and rushing the enemy head-on.

Adopting certain key aspects of social and multiplayer games can be a good thing for the RTS genre, as long as it’s done right and with the intent to grow the genre “up,” rather than “out.” That is to say, adopting the wrong aspects of social games will result in a watered-down RTS experience that may be more accessible to non-gamers, but at the expense of the RTS faithful. Maintaining the complexity of strategy and risk-taking, however, and adding on top of this formula a perpetual battlefront that all players share, will only satiate RTS gamers more.

Similar Posts:

• I spent my weekend killing Nazis. – Strategy games based on World War II are a dime a dozen, which says something about the purchasing p…
• Review: Warzone 2100. – Until now, real-time strategy games have become rather bland. Not that they’re not fun anymore, but …
• Free Realms like Harry Potter – attracting adults? – We raise an eyebrow as commentary on Free Realms continues. Not because Free Realms is a poor idea, …

Strategy games based on World War II are a dime a dozen, which says something about the purchasing power of what one would think is a relatively niche market. It seems like there are numerous small, independent developers that pop these kinds of games out like China pops out babies. To the passive video game audience, these titles are nothing more than noise with the occasional hidden gem obfuscated by static, as was the case with Panzer General, which was perhaps simplified, but nonetheless a solid strategy game in its own right.

It wasn’t long before these games entered the real-time strategy genre, following in the success of Command & Conquer and the many clones. Some, like Sudden Strike, would briefly flash on the radar before fading away in a sea of antiquity.

Recently, however, THQ’s Company of Heroes was revealed to me, and it occupied a good chunk of my weekend. The game is based on the Havoc engine used by Warhammer 40k, which I didn’t play but nonetheless heard lots of good things about. What sets Company of Heroes apart from other RTS games is that the strategy component is maximized, where players use such things as cover and concealment to better their odds at winning.

For missions where actual building is done, players obtain resources by holding objectives, not by mining or lumbering or farming. This is WW2 after all, and the resources we’re interested in are manpower, munitions, and fuel.

Holding key points on a map gives players one of the aforementioned three resources. The maps themselves are carved into territories (each one usually holding one resource type), and in order to generate the respective resource, the territory must be connected to one’s base of operations directly, or through adjacent territories. In other words, losing a territory can cut one’s supply line off, meaning that one needs to build adequate defenses when expanding one’s territory.

I’ve only played the single player campaign at the moment (where you follow the success of the American’s Able Company), but I can already see how team-based multiplayer would positively wrock. My only real complaint at the moment is the small resolution I’ve been playing the game at, and the fact that the enormous UI doesn’t help free up and screen real-estate.

Nonetheless, Company of Heroes is a solid RTS, and I daresay the best of of the WW2 genre. Heck, I’d say it’s the best RTS I’ve played yet, period. If you’re a WW2 fan, you ought to pick this baby up, especially if the normal crop of RTS games is too “omf zerg” for you, and you crave deeper strategy.

Similar Posts:

• Real-time strategy to become more social, complex? – Electronic Arts (EA) is already preparing the Command & Conquer (C&C) franchise for the future vehic…
• World of Starcraft won’t be. – Over the past week, much speculation has hit the web concerning an announcement Blizzard is soon to …
• Review: Warzone 2100. – Until now, real-time strategy games have become rather bland. Not that they’re not fun anymore, but …

Until now, real-time strategy games have become rather bland. Not that they’re not fun anymore, but the same things have been tried again and again, and its rare that a company releases a game that actually adds to the genre, rather than imitate it. When Red Alert came out, it blew C&C fans away, but it didn’t really add that much to the genre. When StarCraft hit the shelves, gamers flocked to it, though an objective analysis of the game will bring about the same conclusion: though the game was a good one, it didn’t really improve on the games that came before it all that much. In fact, in nearly every game in the genre, the same pitfalls keep coming back. Eidos Interactive, however, known for their Tomb Raider series, has stepped into a new light with Warzone’s release. Courtesy of Pumpkin Studios, the game’s designer, the best bits from many of Warzone’s predecessors were borrowed, while a whole array of new toys has been added to the arsenal.

It was almost a week between when I first saw Warzone being played and when I actually held a copy in my hands. My first impressions of the game were somewhat mixed. Though the game looked gorgeous, a couple concerns popped into my head. First off, the whole 3D idea was great, but in the past, I’ve found that moving the camera to see around chasms, trees, etc, was quite annoying, especially on a keyboard interface. This was a major turn off for me in Myth, which I might have otherwise enjoyed wholeheartedly. Secondly, the game looked pretty complex, and since I wasn’t able to play the game when I first saw it, the only explanations as to how gameplay worked came from discussing it with one of the players engrossed in a multiplayer skirmish. Even these concerns, however, weren’t enough to keep me from buying the game. After some consideration, I bought Warzone hoping for the best, and after a littleplay, found myself happily content.

The installation of the game was without note, and the introduction of the game wasn’t overly spectacular either. Of course, to me that doesn’t mean all that much. Though a more developed storyline might have hyped me up more for the single player campaign, I was content with what was given. After all, it wasn’t the storyline that attracted me to the game; it was the potential of the interface that intrigued me.

Unlike other games in the genre, Warzone has a nice tutorial built into the game, consisting of a walkthrough on building, and a very easy hunt’n destroy mission. I was very thankful for these, since they eased me into the game quite nicely, and addressed my first concern almost immediately. I found that the manipulation of the 3D landscape was much easier than I expected, and though keyboard controls for the camera exist, rotating the camera or changing its angle was just a matter of right-clicking the landscape and moving the mouse. Occasionally you adjust the camera view and find that your cursor is against one of the monitor walls, and though it slows things down a tad, it’s really no big deal.

My second concern wasn’t fully explored in Warzone until I played the game some more. The single player campaign seemed pretty straightforward in regards to what could be built, and only in the multiplayer game was the full depth of the game’s possibilities realized. When I played Total Annihilation after it came out, I was turned off by two things: the game’s atmosphere, and the complexity of the game. Neither of these things came back to haunt me in Warzone, and despite the fact that what you can build is based off of hierarchcal branches (X must exist to create Y), the order was pretty logical. Even so, a reference card included with the game would have been nice, perhaps having a tree of things that can be built on one side, and keyboard shortcuts on another. Without it, I found myself leafing through the booklet to find the keyboard section more than once.

My original concerns addressed, I found Warzone to be a very enjoyable experience, both in the single player campaigns, and in the multiplayers games. The interface was overall pretty simple, as all building commands, reference notes, etc. are accessible via icons on the bottom left of the screen. It’s what these icons let you do, however, that take Warzone beyond other games in the genre. As if the 3D view weren’t enough, Pumpkin Studio’s decided to let the player designate not only what units could be built, but what they were built of. Instead of having pre-configured units available for creation, the player has to design each unit they want built themselves. Though it may sound tough, the process is really quite simple. In the single-player campaign, destroying enemy installations or finding artifacts strewn about the landscape allows you to research new technologies, while in the multiplayer games, players can begin researching anything they want to, starting from the top of the hierarchy tree. Once items have been researched, they become available to you, as you will then be able to build new structures. Additionally, you will be able to design new units, and depending on what technologies you have researched, you’ll be able to choose from different types of unit bodies, transportation methods, and turrets. The latter can consist of both weapons and tools, and when all the categories are at your disposal, you can create a wide range of unit types. And, perhaps most beautiful of all, you can name the unit designs as you wish, or accept the generic vehicle description as the unit type.

All of this, added to the strengths that Warzone has pulled from other games, makes the game an enjoyable addition to one’s gaming collection. An infinite amount of units can be grouped (the lack of which was a huge annoyance in StarCraft), and actual strategy needs to be employed when attacking. Huge tank rushes don’t pay off, and depending on the construction of a unit, it will be stronger in some areas than others. Aerial units can also be created, and though Warzone doesn’t have any focus on sea-based units, hovercrafts can be built that allow one to travel both on land, and on water. Among the non-weapon turrets one will find repair modules, scanners, and command arrays, all of which add to Warzone’s rich depth. The latter actually allow units to be assigned to commanders, so that strategical strikes can be made and fire can be directed on specific units, structures, etc. Without them, Warzone’s powerful AI comes into play, which is perhaps the best AI yet seen in a real-time strategy game. Not only do units make room for units trying to get through narrow passages, but repair units will automatically seek out damaged units, and your vehicles are capable of retreating while still firing backwards at their enemies, making real use of the capability of turrets, the way it ought to be. What’s more, if you’re sending units in for an attack, and some members of the group aren’t in reach of the target, they won’t just sit there, but target another nearby enemy, making full use of your army’s capabilities.

Perhaps one of the coolest things that Warzone offers is something that’s annoyed me for quite some time with games in the real-time strategy line. After building up a powerful base to your liking, and after building up an army of great magnitude, you find yourself obliterating the enemy and then having to start from stratch in the next mission. The boys over at Pumpkin Studio’s have changed this repetitive pattern, however, and have made the single player campiagn in such a way that you maintain your original base throughout the game. With as much to research in the game as there is, you find your army growing more and more technological in every mission, and when away from base, you can call in transports to pick up units from your production factories. This means that you never have to worry about rebuilding your main base, and despite building defensive structures and secondary bases of operation, you don’t need to start from scratch over and over again. It’s like a real, simulated war, where your legion doesn’t disappear whenever you receive a new assignment.

The only major problems I found with the game were in the multiplayer mode. Despite downloading the 1.03 patch from the Net, I ran into a couple of multiplayer problems. For one, despite saying so in the manual, one can’t enter a skirmish game without having a computer player. There are two other modes of play for multiplay, campaign and team, though only skirmish allows one to have up to 8 players, instead of a meager four. Also, campaign multiplay doesn’t work as it’s supposed to either, or at least, how it seems it should. While the description for camplaign play says that you have to find artifacts before you can research new technologies (just like in the single play game), everything is still open for research. Hopefully, these will be fixed with the upcoming 1.04 patch. Though not detrimental, these variances in gameplay sure would be nice, and despite the need-at-least-one-computer-player flaw, it seems almost pointless to play anything other than a skirmish game.

Also annoying was the fact that your only options were to have either alliances on or off during multiplay. Whenever we wanted to play a team game againts a number of unallied computer opponents, the computer opponents ended allying. Some way to restrict computer players from doing so might be nice to have.

Another minor problem we encountered was that users who did not have the IPX protocol installed couldn’t access the IPX menu. Sure, it makes sense, but you’d expect that pressing the IPX label would at least do something. Even just an error box would pop up, so you know that you forgot to reinstall the IPX protocol when you reformatted last. In the fast-paced world of compter gaming, you can’t expect gamers to remember everything.

The most annoying flaw I’ve found, though, was the fact that we couldn’t seem to get skirmish games working over IPX at all. Whenever we tried, some people were booted from the game, and an error sometimes popped up claiming that people were using different files, when in fact everyone was playing from a clean install with the same patch version. The errors went so far as to claim some people were cheating, and the only way to get get around this problem was to play via TCP/IP.

Pumpkin Studio’s hasn’t fallen off the map just yet, and they seem pretty dedicated to fixing the bugs out there. Next week, the version 1.04 patch will hit the web, and hopefully fix some of the problems mentioned. Even without the patch, though, Warzone is a major contender for the best real-time strategy out thus far. If you’re looking for a spectacular storyline with developed characters like in C&C, Warzone may not make your cut, but if that’s only secondary to gameplay, Warzone may just be your bag, baby. It’s certainly gotten me hooked, and I can’t wait to get another screamin’ multiplay session in. 3D freak or not, Warzone 2100′s got a bigger bag of tricks than the next game in the genre, and I’ll certainly be measuring future real-time strategy games up to this one.

Wild, Wild Rumpus Rating: 8.2 outta 10

Similar Posts:

• I spent my weekend killing Nazis. – Strategy games based on World War II are a dime a dozen, which says something about the purchasing p…
• Real-time strategy to become more social, complex? – Electronic Arts (EA) is already preparing the Command & Conquer (C&C) franchise for the future vehic…
• World of Starcraft won’t be. – Over the past week, much speculation has hit the web concerning an announcement Blizzard is soon to …