wana buy an rts game and an fps game

PeakOutput

so rts clearly its either c+c3 or supreme commander......im leaning towards supreme commander any views on the subject????

as far as a new fps goes i have no idea i havnt been researching games or anything like that recently.......i need ground up advice here

thanks in advance

Azza

You have several options when it comes to RTS games.

Supreme Commander which I have.
In general I have found SupCom hard to get into. The single player does not really interest me with a rather uninspired story. It plays out in the usually way rts games do. Early missions lock the tech tree down quite abit and as you progress you unlock more of it. The game is very macro heavy as opposed to micro heavy. Lots of base management and little in the way of low level tactics when dealing with large numbers of units. Its like throwing numbers at your enemies and hoping for the best. Its not always the case but thats the general rule of thumb


The good:
Massive Scale, Huge Battles, Huge Maps, A big selection of units, Naval, Air and Ground warfare combined. No major issues with online gaming system.
Good looking game. Ability to view the whole map. Reviews so far have been very good.

The Bad:
Poor single player story/campaign. High system requirements (recommended specs which are quite stepp are only designed with up to 4 players on a medium map ). Balance issues. Currently the Aeon faction is overpowered compared to the Cybran and UEF factions. The AI seems pretty poor in skirmish mode.


Command and Conquer 3 which i will own later today.
I have not played this yet but from what i have heard so far it has received good reviews. The demo received a mixed verdict but I quite enjoyed the classic rts feel of the game. It looks good and runs well on most machines.(its frame rate if capped at 30fps). There is a nice suite of online features but the major bone of contention I heard so far is that online played is powered by gamespy and at least at first the online gaming system was buggy and prone to drops and crashes. Patch has been released that may of fixed some of those bugs. I know so far that some balance issues exist with multiplayer such as the Nod faction being the most powerful early game faction and the scrin being the most powerful late game faction leaving GDI particularly weak.
You can expect a good story backing up your single player experience.
The game looks like it brings nothing new to the table but looks like it could the classic element just right.


But for RTS I simply have to recommended Company of Heroes.

In terms of gameplay I think Company of Heroes is hard to beat. Its not so much about numbers and base building as it is about positioning your troops in the right away and using them in the correct way such as flanking, kiteing, cloaking, scouting, ambushing and so on. Physics play there role with certain area not accessible until you blow a hole throw a wall etc. This opens up new tactical options. The game looks and sounds superb. The factions unlike most RTS are not really copies of each other but play very differently. Axis have a classic tier system while allies have a more flexible system. This has lead to balance issues and the game still favors the allied faction even after 5 patches. But there is patches on way to fix and third party mods. The only real downside to this game is the online play system is not great. While it is at least stable there is exploits players can use and the ladder system is bugged. The online game needs more maps as well.

The good:
Best looking rts game with reasonable system requirements. Great story line running throw the campaign. Highest amount of tactics in any rts. Physics and destroyable environment. High amounts of micro required while low on macro.

The bad:
Online system has its bugs but greatly improved since released. Limited selection of multiplayer maps. Only 2 factions. Balance issues with Allies>Axis.
Poor AI in skirmish mode.


As for a fps. If your playing online then Battlefield 2, Counter Strike Source or Day of Defeat Source or UT2004 are good options.

If your looking for a decent single player FPS then games like of Prey, Half Life 2, Far Cry, FEAR and the Call of Duty series are good if slightly older choices.

I would recommended Stalker as well its very good...but it needs a few patches to iron out the bugs.

Maximilian

Personally, I loved Supreme Commander. The scale is huge, it has nukes. You need to have up-to-date PC though and its 50/50 as to people you like and dislike it.

As Azza said, Company of Heroes is simply superb. Its a safe bet & you cannot go wrong with it.

SeantheMan

RTS - The commander and conquer Demo is v.good, i really enjoyed it.
Managed to keep the old feel of the game, though infantry don't play much of a useful part in it...at least not in the demo.

Aint played Supremem Commader yet

I really enjoyed Warcraft 3

But as the lads said, company of heroes is absolutely excellent, where 1 little unit can make all the difference, and numbers arent neccessarily key to victory:eek: :rolleyes:

For FPS, well..i still play mohaa
But i'd have to say BF2 is my fave FPS out there by far, though its not purely FPS as theres tanks and Jets etc which may put you off (though there are lots of infantry only servers out there)

F.E.A.R is good..but i found it very repetitive and samey, good singleplayer though

UT2004 and Quake 4 are more geared to Multiplayer i find, as their Singleplayer Campaigns are crap

One that i dont think was mentioned...is Far Cry,.......excellent graphics and a brilliant FPS and its only like 10 quid nowadays

For a singleplayer campaign.you cant go wrong with the Call of Duty series, even the originals i feel still hold their own ....multiplayer is laced with cheats though

Wouldnt get STALKER

BF2 is the way

BopNiblets

Azza wrote:

But for RTS I simply have to recommended Company of Heroes.

Yep, went back to it after playing Supreme Commander for a while.

And can't go wrong with Half-Life 1, Opposing Force, HL2 and Episode 1!

extra-ordinary_

RTS - Company of Heroes??


Game of the year 2006 all over the place.

SuperSean11

Aint a warhammer fan but Dawn Of war is great and my personel favourite is homeworld

Nietzschean

Azza wrote:

Balance issues. Currently the Aeon faction is overpowered compared to the Cybran and UEF factions.

Ummmm wtf? I'm guessing ye don't play it much, since i can't recall aeon being overpowered ever.... UEF used to have semi-overpowered gunships but this was easily countered in multiplayer games

The AI seems pretty poor in skirmish mode.

I've yet to play an RTS where the AI isn't trivial to beat unless it has pre-made units(some games they are good at rushing, but thats about it)

In terms of gameplay I think Company of Heroes is hard to beat.

I would so disagree, trivially not watching a tank for 30seconds means its easily killed by a far weaker unit? its just a mad click-athon to try re-manevour your units about the place to face the right way....several other RTS have cloak/tatical unit positioning, this level of detail in which way units face though gets just plain silly imo
dawn of war was far superior a game imo...

BKtje

CoH is a great game online (and singleplayer) but as was said you really have to watch your tanks closely or they tend to die to some ****ty unit.


C&C3 is great fun singleplayer and online its pretty decent (as long as you cana void the major issues to do with crashing and disconnection in the online mode).
Ea have already released three seperate patches in a week and are slowly ironing out the issues but i'd wait a while with multiplayer.

Azza

Have to disagree with you there Nietzschean.

Ummmm wtf? I'm guessing ye don't play it much, since i can't recall aeon being overpowered ever.... UEF used to have semi-overpowered gunships but this was easily countered in multiplayer games

Your right I don't play the game much online but from various forums there is plenty of threads along the line that Aeon is overpowered if you want to play to win pick Aeon. If its a naval game Aeon's hover tanks make it an auto win for Aeon. I'm sure patches will address this in time.

I've yet to play an RTS where the AI isn't trivial to beat unless it has pre-made units(some games they are good at rushing, but thats about it)

Your statement that most RTS AI are bad is correct. But I found myself beating the enemy skirmish AI on its hardest difficulty level within about 2 games.

Dawn of War as a superior game. I don't think so. Dawn of War was a great game and the fore runner of COH. COH was a refinement of this style of RTS.
COH is so much more in depth than Dawn of War ever was.

I would so disagree, trivially not watching a tank for 30seconds means its easily killed by a far weaker unit? its just a mad click-athon to try re-manevour your units about the place to face the right way....several other RTS have cloak/tatical unit positioning, this level of detail in which way units face though gets just plain silly imo
dawn of war was far superior a game imo...

This is what distingishs COH from other games. Yes a tank can be destroyed by inferior units but only if you where asleep and your enemy had good micro.
It would be your own fault for such a situation occuring.
With features such as supression and set up positions its not enough to simply throw units at the enemy you have to make the best use of them.
This means a better player can outfight his enemy even if the enemy has superior units. Unlike SupCom which comes down to who's got more units or who's got a critical mass of high tech units. SupCom is a macro RTS where you need to build the right type of amount/type of units to win and then use them on mass to win. COH requires you to build the right amount/type as well but the difference is it requires you to use this units correctly much more than SupCom ever does.
CoH is more tactical and smaller scale, SupCom is huge scale and multiple fronts.

extra-ordinary_

SeantheMan wrote:

One that i dont think was mentioned...is Far Cry,.......excellent graphics and a brilliant FPS and its only like 10 quid nowadays

Have to agree, gorgeous to look at and challenging to boot!!









lol!

SeantheMan

Bought the Command and Conquer 3 yesterday
And in contrast to my precious post...in the early stages of the campaign..infantry are very useful and your shown how to use them properly

In the demo..your basically given 1 mission with every unit possible available to show you everything in the game etc..so instead of infantry you end up building 10 mammoth tanks :rolleyes:

However, since ive got the proper game im really enjoying infantry side of it...the "commando" unit is amazing...and APC+Grenade squad is cool:)

Get C&C3 for your RTS

I think it may have eclipsed Company of Heroes for me :cool: :eek:

Nietzschean

Azza wrote:

Have to disagree with you there Nietzschean.

Fair enough

Your right I don't play the game much online but from various forums there is plenty of threads along the line that Aeon is overpowered if you want to play to win pick Aeon. If its a naval game Aeon's hover tanks make it an auto win for Aeon. I'm sure patches will address this in time.

Check the top ranked players, you'll find they don't all play as aeon, infact these days i'd say cybran is probably the most popular. If its a close in naval game like high noon the aeon do have a large advantage at t1, you have to fall back from the edge mass points as defending that zone is a kinda lost cause. But it doesn't mean auto win, just makes it interesting

Your statement that most RTS AI are bad is correct. But I found myself beating the enemy skirmish AI on its hardest difficulty level within about 2 games.

Aye well I did annihlate him on first attempt, but the computation required to even try keep pace with a human player on those maps given its tatical aspect i wasn't expecting much else..... least there is a selection of AI's that follow different tatics... just play 5v1 or something

Dawn of War as a superior game. I don't think so. Dawn of War was a great game and the fore runner of COH. COH was a refinement of this style of RTS.
COH is so much more in depth than Dawn of War ever was.

COH just has more micromanagement. I'd consider it a massive step backwards, DoW had a nice mix, force people to move forward and take points for income, low unit limit, and simplified enough base building where defenses are ****e. Leads to tatical battles, which upgrades you have on your troops, getting behind them. But ye don't have to start manually pointing the exact direction of the predadtors.

This is what distingishs COH from other games. Yes a tank can be destroyed by inferior units but only if you where asleep and your enemy had good micro.

Exactly, micro, its not strategy, its who clicks more....

It would be your own fault for such a situation occuring.
With features such as supression and set up positions its not enough to simply throw units at the enemy you have to make the best use of them.
This means a better player can outfight his enemy even if the enemy has superior units.

It means whoever clicks the most wins imo, thats not outfighting. God help ye against the koreans given the cpm we've seen in the SC vids...

Unlike SupCom which comes down to who's got more units or who's got a critical mass of high tech units. SupCom is a macro RTS where you need to build the right type of amount/type of units to win and then use them on mass to win.

If you can reach this mythical critical mass in most games you'll win. SupCom is massively about heavy recon, and reacting to the other sides moves to counter them. You can easily wipe out superior forces with a better tuned army.

COH requires you to build the right amount/type as well but the difference is it requires you to use this units correctly much more than SupCom ever does.

Much more correctly? the formation moves in supcom,combined with suppression artiliary, shields and so on. In newbie games its not about that, but once you start playing decent people you have to ike out an advantage wherever possible. That requires using your units to their biggest advantage(i.e. t3 UEF bots can be used for hit and run on units due to their shields whereas cybran would need to be repaired... Getting t3 aeon bots to repair each other and so on....)

CoH is more tactical and smaller scale, SupCom is huge scale and multiple fronts.

CoH is like being a major or something, SupCom is like being a general imo.

Azza

No strategy game is balanced unless the sides are near mirrors of each other which is never a good thing.
In the beta for SupCom a favorite and difficult to beat strategy was mantis spam. From what I hear now with Aurora spam with the Aeon.

On gamereplays.org 70% of the replays submitted have Aeon in them which leads me to believe there is still a a gameplay bias to Aeon in the game with quite alot of Aeon V Aeon matches.

I'm not saying there's balance in COH either though.

But lets say I roughly agree on your first two points about and that if there is imbalance its not game crippling.

COH just has more micromanagement. I'd consider it a massive step backwards, DoW had a nice mix, force people to move forward and take points for income, low unit limit, and simplified enough base building where defenses are ****e. Leads to tatical battles, which upgrades you have on your troops, getting behind them. But ye don't have to start manually pointing the exact direction of the predadtors.[/QOUTE]

You don't have to point your tanks manually in COH but it helps. COH has a destructible environment which opens who tactically possibilitie not available in other games. The battles are infinitly more tactical than in dawn of war. You seem to think a bigger selection of tactics is a bad thing.

Exactly, micro, its not strategy, its who clicks more....

It means whoever clicks the most wins imo, thats not outfighting. God help ye against the koreans given the cpm we've seen in the SC vids...

As oppossed to the Macro management of SupCom.?
Its like saying I like going to war but I don't want to have the hassle of having to kill the enemy. I'll let my men do that. An approach you can take in COH but it won't get you very far.

Its not about clicks per min its about skill of where you click. its about being alert to things like gernades and getting your men out of the way in time. You have to use your weapons in the right way. Believe me is there is more tactical considerations in COH than SupCom. The games comes down to the players knowledge of the game and the units under his command as well as being alert to dangers. Its about knowing where to move. Do your troops have the advantage or not?

True enough you can do stuff like hit and runs,recon and artillery in SupCom (which you can do in COH as well and just as important) but when it comes down to it you don't have the options you do in COH. But once in battle in SupCom all you can really do is decide if your winning to proceed with the battle or if your loosing to pull your units back and reinforce or go attack so other place thats less well defended. In COH you can actually use the terrain and the environment and the units abilities to defeat superior forces.

I do agree with SupCom being like a general and COH a major. A general does not need to look after his units he need only tell them where to go. COH is more concerned with the how of meeting an objective.

And damn those game spamming koreans!!!

SeantheMan

Thread has gone slightly off topic

From "which RTS and FPS to buy" to a discussion about Supreme commander and COH and tactics employed in the games and how they compare

BKtje

Just regarding skirmishes.

The new cnc has a variety of ai difficulties (as to be expected) but also what type of ai (ie rusher, turtler, balanced etc etc)