llbbl
11-10-2002, 07:46 AM
I wrote a reply to a thread on the WarCraft 3 forums. I recently bought the game and think its great!!
Here is what I wrote...
I just wanted to respond to a couple of things that were said.
I don't think that Wc3 is a new type of RTS because it has added the hero element. We have certainly seen types of RTS that are more focused on hero building (Warlords, Heroes of M&M) and less focused on winning the map you are playing. It certainly is a new flavor of RTS for Blizzard, bringing in elements of their RTS/RPG series, Diablo, and then trying to get it to work with with Warcraft.
I haven't played Tactics yet, but from what has been said it sounds like something I should try. Now only if I could afford to buy a PS2 to play it.
I would like to tell you about a Space RTS that came out before WC3 and probably not too many people know about. The game is called Conquest Frontier Wars(CFW), published by UBI. I thought of the game when I was on the first page of posts and started thinking how the two game compared. They are suprisingly similar in nature, which leads me to believe that either WC3 has more strategic elements than we realize or my conception of strategic elements is flawed. I thought that CFW had alot of strategy in the game back when I was playing it more often. Now I would like to expand more on the comparison of the two games so that I might support my statement that Blizzard might or might not have borrowed alot of the elements seen in CFW.
Both games have heroes that are used in about the same manner. I think that the heroes add to the strategy of both games. In CFW the heroes gave bounuses to the group of ships under thier command. They did not however gain levels. The focus was more on using a combination of generals controlling a certain group of ships in the most effective manner. I think that is certainly more strategic than focusing on hero worship (lvl building). There was a greater selection of hero's in CFW, but I think this was to compensate for the lack of expirence. Also an important difference was that once you placed a group of ships and sent them into battle under a hero than the hero was able to control the group of ships until you interviened. You could tell the hero how aggressive you wanted him to act and also control the ships individually, but usually it was easier just to give the hero orders and let him decide what to do. When you compare hero's in the two games I think that in CFW they added more to the strategy of the game than in WC3.
One of the reasons that the heroes are so different in the two games is because the type of strategy of the two games is different. I think that the roots of WC3 can be drawn more from a game like Total Annihliation. I forget what came out first, Command and Conquer or Warcraft 1. In this game the type of strategy is more centered around unit building. In CFW the focus was more on expanding your base. This was because their where multiple maps each connected by a wormhole or more. They key to winning was not how many guys you can produce, but holding the maps to secure resources and prevent quick attacks on your central base.
I don't remember who wrote earlier about the difference between Warlords , Heroes of M&M, Tactics and games that are similar to WC3, but I think he had a valid point there. It's like the genre of RTS has branched in two or more different directions. One path has come from RPG where the focus is more on the hero building. This would include some of the new MMPOG that we will soon see. Worlds of Warcraft is one (??) that will be interesting to watch. The other path that the genre has branched out to comes from pure strategy games without any RPG elements. Maybe we should come up with some new acronyms for these two different types! Does anyone have any ideas?
I think that problem that sephiroth400 seems to be having is that he is a definate RPG gamer that is somehow dissapointed with the game because it doesn't implement all the features that he finds to be valueable. He seems to have expected or wanted more of an RPG game mixed with elements of RTS rather than the reverse. A solution to his problem is to sell the game on Amazon and be done with it.
In the end, I think WC3 is an interesting mix of these two different types of RTS that we are seeing now. I think it has alot more playability than other RTS games that focus more on hero leveling. I also think that it is a worthy addition to the Warcraft series, which has up until this point, been only about unit building.
Here is the thread.
http://forums.warcraftiii.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=150634#post150634
Here is what I wrote...
I just wanted to respond to a couple of things that were said.
I don't think that Wc3 is a new type of RTS because it has added the hero element. We have certainly seen types of RTS that are more focused on hero building (Warlords, Heroes of M&M) and less focused on winning the map you are playing. It certainly is a new flavor of RTS for Blizzard, bringing in elements of their RTS/RPG series, Diablo, and then trying to get it to work with with Warcraft.
I haven't played Tactics yet, but from what has been said it sounds like something I should try. Now only if I could afford to buy a PS2 to play it.
I would like to tell you about a Space RTS that came out before WC3 and probably not too many people know about. The game is called Conquest Frontier Wars(CFW), published by UBI. I thought of the game when I was on the first page of posts and started thinking how the two game compared. They are suprisingly similar in nature, which leads me to believe that either WC3 has more strategic elements than we realize or my conception of strategic elements is flawed. I thought that CFW had alot of strategy in the game back when I was playing it more often. Now I would like to expand more on the comparison of the two games so that I might support my statement that Blizzard might or might not have borrowed alot of the elements seen in CFW.
Both games have heroes that are used in about the same manner. I think that the heroes add to the strategy of both games. In CFW the heroes gave bounuses to the group of ships under thier command. They did not however gain levels. The focus was more on using a combination of generals controlling a certain group of ships in the most effective manner. I think that is certainly more strategic than focusing on hero worship (lvl building). There was a greater selection of hero's in CFW, but I think this was to compensate for the lack of expirence. Also an important difference was that once you placed a group of ships and sent them into battle under a hero than the hero was able to control the group of ships until you interviened. You could tell the hero how aggressive you wanted him to act and also control the ships individually, but usually it was easier just to give the hero orders and let him decide what to do. When you compare hero's in the two games I think that in CFW they added more to the strategy of the game than in WC3.
One of the reasons that the heroes are so different in the two games is because the type of strategy of the two games is different. I think that the roots of WC3 can be drawn more from a game like Total Annihliation. I forget what came out first, Command and Conquer or Warcraft 1. In this game the type of strategy is more centered around unit building. In CFW the focus was more on expanding your base. This was because their where multiple maps each connected by a wormhole or more. They key to winning was not how many guys you can produce, but holding the maps to secure resources and prevent quick attacks on your central base.
I don't remember who wrote earlier about the difference between Warlords , Heroes of M&M, Tactics and games that are similar to WC3, but I think he had a valid point there. It's like the genre of RTS has branched in two or more different directions. One path has come from RPG where the focus is more on the hero building. This would include some of the new MMPOG that we will soon see. Worlds of Warcraft is one (??) that will be interesting to watch. The other path that the genre has branched out to comes from pure strategy games without any RPG elements. Maybe we should come up with some new acronyms for these two different types! Does anyone have any ideas?
I think that problem that sephiroth400 seems to be having is that he is a definate RPG gamer that is somehow dissapointed with the game because it doesn't implement all the features that he finds to be valueable. He seems to have expected or wanted more of an RPG game mixed with elements of RTS rather than the reverse. A solution to his problem is to sell the game on Amazon and be done with it.
In the end, I think WC3 is an interesting mix of these two different types of RTS that we are seeing now. I think it has alot more playability than other RTS games that focus more on hero leveling. I also think that it is a worthy addition to the Warcraft series, which has up until this point, been only about unit building.
Here is the thread.
http://forums.warcraftiii.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=150634#post150634