Obviously it will be an epic win. Bioware.... nuff said?
Not necessarily. Bioware doesn't have much (if any?) experience making RTS games. They could very well be a studio that thinks duct taping a laundry list of gameplay mechanics into a game is good enough, and that what really matters is a good storyline. In fact, this being a game, the opposite is true. Story is secondary to gameplay, since it's gameplay that defines gaming as a medium. And I don't care how good a story is. Once you're done with it, you're done with it. It's over. At most, if we're REALLY lucky, we'll get 30 hours of gameplay due to the story/campaign. But if the gameplay is weak, that's all we'll get.
Meanwhile strong gameplay will result in THOUSANDS of hours of online entertainment, and enough re-playability that it makes even the best story/campaign look like a joke/waste of time in comparsion.
If Bioware is like "Huurrrrr durrr ecomony!!!!" instead of "well we want to design an economy that offers the right balance of harassment, hands-on management, scalability, expandability, and income rate", then the game will be shit no matter how good the story is.
As much as I hate to say it, I would have to say this is going to end in horrible failure, and gut wrenching heartache. I do however, hold to the faintest of hopes that they will recapture the glory of what was once Generals/Zero Hour. Once upon a time, I retired from online gameplay due to the fact that there were no RTS's that I liked. I really hope Bioware hits this one out of the park.
Obviously it will be an epic win. Bioware.... nuff said?
Star Wars? Dragon Age 2? Lately their games suck, despite their massive hype. I am really happy they're making a Generals 2, but man ... its 50/50 for me.
Unit control and combat is just better than base management and production.
you should burn for that statement!!! An RTS purest like myself considers that blatant blasphemy.
RTS should be equal parts unit control, base management and production/economy. In a perfect RTS you should be able to sacrifice any one and develop a feasible strategy. Its the rush boom camp dynamic.
I am not going to argue the implications on any one RTS game....but a true Generals fan understands that Generals was one of the very very best RTS at balancing unit control, economy management and base management. Starcraft 2 is as well one of the very best RTS at this.
Starcraft2 might not be perfect....but there is nothing that comes close to it right now.
I simply don't even think about playing games (I don't know what genre they are) like COH, or DOW, or WOC because they are mutant offspring off RTS that should be thrown off a cliff.
The release date is like 2013 right? Thats plenty of time for Bioware to work out something worth playing. I think the game will be pretty good. Im not preordering it though. I think Ill wait until I see some reviews here from people that played the first Generals before I go out and get. I will never preorder anything again after BF3.
I am not going to argue the implications on any one RTS game....but a true Generals fan understands that Generals was one of the very very best RTS at balancing unit control, economy management and base management. Starcraft 2 is as well one of the very best RTS at this.
I don't understand this. Generals 2 has almost no macro, but SIGNIFICANTLY more micro than SC2. SC2 is the opposite. If you say one is balanced, then logically the other cannot be, because of how different it is.
I invite you to watch Apollo's StarCraft 2 tutorials:
In one game, he attacks with roaches/lings and then literally abandons that view to go back to his base to do larvae injection. Quite literally his camera spends less than 1000ms over his units, because macromanaging is actually more important than optimizing cost-effectiveness of the units he already has. And if you watch the video, the time he spends engaged in combat and viewing units is a tiny fraction of the time he spends viewing his base performing various macro tasks.
This is not balanced, at all. SC2 is 90% macro, 10% micro. You can see it for yourself in those videos. By far, the most important aspect of SC2 gameplay, is macro (base building, resource production, larvae injection, spreading creep, researching upgrades, unit production etc).
Meanwhile in Generals, the opposite is true. Units have significant cost-effectiveness ranges such that if you A-move, the cost-effectiveness sucks. If you actually take the time to micro, you can quintuple the cost-effectiveness of units. Think about the level of micro involved in using an ambulance to run over scattered rocket infantry. It requires your full attention. If you divert your attention to macro, then you are eating into the cost-effectiveness potential of that unit.
Additionally, CCG has nothing like supply structures, (power plants aren't the same, since you only need one, maybe two), the tech trees are ultra-simple, and there are no macro-mechanics like chronoboost/larvae inject/mule calldowns, production maxes out at 2 factories (vs 10-15 warp gates), and economy saturates at no more than 6 workers per supply (vs ~30 per field/gas in SC2).
So I would say NEITHER are balanced, but CCG/ZH is more fun to play because the balance tips in favor of units and combat, rather than "SimCity" chores.
When you think about it, having to build a new overlord or supply depot every few seconds or so is the RTS equivalent of a chore. I'm not saying that the macro-mechanics don't have important strategic-level decision making, but they sure as fuck are attention whores that seem to distract the player from doing the very thing that those macro-mechanics were designed to let the player do in the first place: control the army the player has built.
I don't understand this. Generals 2 has almost no macro, but SIGNIFICANTLY more micro than SC2. SC2 is the opposite. If you say one is balanced, then logically the other cannot be, because of how different it is.
Lol pretty bold to say about a game that isn't out yet. Who knows it might be that mass tanks blobs are what will entail in top tier gameplay.
It's true in sc2 a lot of unit comps in general don't reward too much micro, but then again at least with korean terrans they manage to flip your 90/10% on it's head seeing how fast and efficiently they macro leaving them to do perfect marine splits, tank focus firing, multipronged drops etc. Kind of silly to compare that to Apollo deliberately playing slow at low level play. That doesn't show the game is all macro, but shows the power of just the very basic good decision making. If he were to face an actual opponent of the same skill level of course you would need to micro as well as them.
in regards to the unit/economy/base control balance I NEVER said SC2 and generals and equivalent. I said of all RTS they are both some of the most balanced in this respect.
Which is completely true.
Generals has supplies, tech structures, and supplement methods such as hackers, drop zones, markets, which all allow for you to continually improve and manage your economy throughout the game. Which is way more than most half assed dumb down RTS can say in this day and age.
BTW starcraft 2 is just as intensive in unit control and more intensive in other areas, and overall more intensive.
I have played 1500+ of both (check the avatar) how about u?
QUOTE
This is not balanced, at all. SC2 is 90% macro, 10% micro.
more like 50% 50%. Did he spend 9 seconds injecting larva and 1 second microing lings? Doubt it if he did is he bronze?
You have so many volatile battles in starcraft2 microing units is SOOO important! Ever play ZvZ? its so ridiculously volatile its not even funny. You have to be sooo attentive to your units, I usually find my macro taking second seat.
I think generals is overall a less intense game, but its focus is more or unit control. Regardless I think the balance in Generals as far as micro/macro is concerned is awesome!
The economy in generals is just FAR less tedious, but still allows for the same kind of large scale plans that Starcraft2 does, which is just as important as which is eating up more APM right? I can turtle, boom, or rush in generals, and I can turtle, boom, and rush in SC2, both because of sufficient prerequisites in all the fundamental areas of RTS.
Games that remove economy, or make it inseparable from tactical control (DOW,COH,BFME,WIC) completely diminish the rush,boom, camp dynamic. In generals and Starcraft2 it is pronounced.
This post has been edited by |elder|Ap0C: Mar 7 2012, 19:09 PM
From experience i can tell you |elder|Ap0C, that in CCG clanwars matches where macro was as intensive as micro, it got incredibly boring very fast.
From a spectator or a player perspective.?
My personal preferences as a player is that I love economy management. It is SOO important to fostering proper strategy, and not just low level tactics.
My personal preferences as a player is that I love economy management. It is SOO important to fostering proper strategy, and not just low level tactics.
But do you need a game where you have to build no less than 20 gatherers per resource line in order to have economy management? SC2's more interesting economy management comes from stuff unrelated to the physical mechanics of building that many gatherers.
Probe cutting to get fast 3 stalkers out happens before you have too many probes, so that decision doesn't require 20+ probes per mineral line.
Deciding whether to go two gas, or one gas, when you decide to cut gas are also decisions independent of having to build 20+ probes
Deciding when to expand once again is independent of building so many probes.
Most likely more fun to play than SC2
Posts: 3,062
Game: