so is this going to be a game worth buying?
#1
Posted 19 October 2008 - 10:52 AM
Is this the best RTS since Company of Heroes, or does it at least follow in the footsteps of ra2 in hilarious multiplayer-fun?
I like what I've seen as of yet, with all of these special abilities and hard counters. But I am a bit sceptical to the quality of the different factions. Soviet seems to be the only one with a proper design as of yet, the Empire seems very somewhat meh and tacked-on, and the allies looks very generic. But I guess it might not be as bad when you play it.
so for those who tried the beta, is this a worthy successor of ra2, or worth any rts-player his time?
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#2
Posted 19 October 2008 - 09:52 PM
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#3
Posted 20 October 2008 - 03:53 PM
But if you say it resembles ra2 in some fashion, then I guess it will be worth checking out. it seems that there might be a well-balanced game in there aswell so that is a plus.
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#4
Posted 20 October 2008 - 05:35 PM
figured I should ask those that have been paying attention.
Is this the best RTS since Company of Heroes, or does it at least follow in the footsteps of ra2 in hilarious multiplayer-fun?
I like what I've seen as of yet, with all of these special abilities and hard counters. But I am a bit sceptical to the quality of the different factions. Soviet seems to be the only one with a proper design as of yet, the Empire seems very somewhat meh and tacked-on, and the allies looks very generic. But I guess it might not be as bad when you play it.
so for those who tried the beta, is this a worthy successor of ra2, or worth any rts-player his time?
COH is whole different league than RA3 and as you mentioned allies looks very generic...they indeed are and they depend more on their special powers/abilities to make difference as allies don't have a power horse unit like Soviets (Apoc) or Empire (King Oni) does so must mix all their units and support by the powers.
Soviets are the most straight forward of the sides favoring usual brutal assault in tactics and according to beta, soviets can get base & production going faster than other sides. Yet like allies, must have good mix all times while more tolerant on mistakes since got armor to back it up.
Empire is tricky, they benefit from no build radius limitations due to their construction method which however makes empire most vulnerable in early game harassment.
While empire lacks an dedicated airfield, they hardly need one as whole transforming bit allows empire to almost instantly adapt to every situation be it air or land/naval raid while allies and soviets must mix their units to try deal with every battle scenario but often empire players make good use of transforming to effectively snipe off any loose units and should say AA support be lost from enemy army..empire can just take to air and dispose of remains or vice versa.
Personally i would have liked upgrading options in the field for allies possibly while soviets be more salvage type, as it is now they just have to try keep best mix force together and utilise powers well if face empire assuming empire player plays cards right, he can win with lesser units given the flexibility.
As for economy, it is extremely simplified as you make refinery, it releases 1 miner as usual but then there is no point making additional harvesters except replace that 1 lost and given how it works, you can just wall in the harvester along refinery and ore depot
then just repeat that for other map ore depots as holding one ore depot is certain doom.
When harvester numbers can't be so high, income isn't very fast flowing either.
As for unit designs as usual, they are EAish so very generic and things of interest is usually their special abilities mainly.
Best bit is probably the AI Commanders/Generals to help you in single player but then I heard that AI is very unit spammy to keep the heat on thus the need for "partner"
depends really what you prefer..single player or more online action as online is gonna be very competitive type with quick moves
Edited by Apollo, 20 October 2008 - 06:11 PM.
EAApoc wrote:
The only written law in a C&C game I ever saw is please Mr.Developer make it fun and give me a lot of **** to explode, o and don't you ever get another soul to play Kane but Joe Kucan. Aside from those two rules, all bets are off =) hehe
-APOC
#5
Posted 20 October 2008 - 06:35 PM
depends really what you prefer..single player or more online action as online is gonna be very competitive type with quick moves
You mean spamfests and cramp-infusing click-wars versus a painful and poorly implemented UI?
#6
Posted 20 October 2008 - 07:33 PM
Of course you probably would want to keep your left hand over by the other buttons, and I think I recall that in TW there were shortcuts for the different build menus around the QWERTY... meh, nothing is perfect I guess.
madHQ: nurfed the economy? i dunno how you can nerf the economy? does it just mean that you get so little cash that you can't get enough units quick to own a guy?
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#7
Posted 21 October 2008 - 04:42 AM
In short: as long as you can outproduce the other guy, you win, unless he is allowed to mass empire transforming units. A very well done return to the roots this is...
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#8
Posted 21 October 2008 - 05:03 AM
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#9
Posted 21 October 2008 - 10:42 AM
Actually, most of the counters in the game are pretty hard counters, and the game doesn't really ever reach a spammy phase in high level play. I'd recommend checking out the gameplay video on the website that was released showing Gavin Simon vs Jeremy Feasel, it's a pretty impressive match, and should show you what the game looks like when a couple of very good players are playing.
Yes when you use your MCV as a frontline unit and pile up all your units next to his about to go critical super reactor?
I more or less agree with Blodo and Apollo.. to me the game feels poorly balanced. In the beta most of the issues I had was Japan being too overpowered unless you do zomg rush as I kept doing as they can switch from air to sea to something else too easily and the other factions having to make solid units to counter their flexible ones, wearing the enemy down. The harvesters are too fragile as well, meaning that getting an economy up is just painful.. plus in the beta Japan had huge advantage with them spamming refineries via cubes giving them a lot of freedom to expand unlike the other sides. All the factions seem generic too, Japan seems the most thought about but suffers from no actual WW2/1950's units instead focusing on current pop trends to make a side that's basically just taken out from an anime lacking any seriousness and flavour. In RA2 all of the factions' units looked like they could be taken for granted, but in this it's just you can't. Allies are boring and generic having lost any good interesting looks, and the Soviets are too cartoony and rounded, unlike the gritty hard lined side they were in RA2. Basically to me, Allies= the combo underdog side, Soviets= the frontline spammy flexible side, Japan= the weak yet once they get over that hurdle they become the best side.
Edited by Elerium, 21 October 2008 - 10:51 AM.
#10
Posted 21 October 2008 - 06:24 PM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#11
Posted 21 October 2008 - 06:29 PM
Perfect pace.
No real spam I came across, at least no individual units only matches. It's also hard to have loads of land units when there isnt 100% land on the maps.
The secondary moves are really cool and add a lot to the game.
The powers are also nicely done, though I kinda didnt like it when they changed the Magnetic Satellite.
Co-op should be really fun.
The UI is fine... I like the smaller cameos.
Go buy it on release.
#12
Posted 22 October 2008 - 03:49 PM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#13
Posted 22 October 2008 - 10:00 PM
#14
Posted 23 October 2008 - 03:34 PM
also, veterancy in ra3, are there crazy upgrades there as there was in ra2?
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#15
Posted 23 October 2008 - 04:51 PM
There's nothing wrong with crushing stuff with your MCV, it's a valid tactic. It's got a mountain of hit points, and can crush tanks. Why not have a bit of a monster truck rally? As for the super reactor, yeah, he made a mistake there. Gavin is still a great player, he's just not perfect.Actually, most of the counters in the game are pretty hard counters, and the game doesn't really ever reach a spammy phase in high level play. I'd recommend checking out the gameplay video on the website that was released showing Gavin Simon vs Jeremy Feasel, it's a pretty impressive match, and should show you what the game looks like when a couple of very good players are playing.
Yes when you use your MCV as a frontline unit and pile up all your units next to his about to go critical super reactor?
Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.
#16
Posted 24 October 2008 - 12:21 AM
I doubt they will ever come out of this spammy streak, but we will see how the final game looks.
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
#17
Posted 24 October 2008 - 12:44 AM
The only game that can really get away with it is Total War, because there are like fifty+ men in a unit and they aren't about to die in the couple of seconds itll take me to press the button. As in, I have the time to come look and see what's happening. If I'm not fast enough in RA3, the units would be destroyed.
So it's bland vs spammy vs ubermicro. Yayness.
#18
Posted 24 October 2008 - 03:27 PM
"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange
#19
Posted 24 October 2008 - 04:41 PM
#20
Posted 24 October 2008 - 10:39 PM
ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users