Rts of the year?

Jammer

<div class="IPBDescription">Ns vs warcraft iii</div>I'm curious who will walk away with PCGamer's RTS of the year. Both games are not standard RTS fare, but are different. We can't make judgement until NS comes out, but I both games are close. Warcraft III has incredibly innovative single-player, but NS is equally innovative in Multiplayer. Decesions decesions!

MooMoo_the_SnowCow

Well I have to say that single player wc3 is nothing in compared to mulitplayer wc3 so both will probally come down to there multiplayer things.  (things = i cant think of a real word to use)

Longtooth

NS couldnt win RTS of the year because its a mod,  So the only category its capable of winning is mod of the year,  and I think it has that in the bag.

DexMachine

I havent played WC3.... anygood?

EDIT: Yay im a drone

Battousaix

well warcraft3 is a great game, but ns its not a pure rts game..... only 1 person on the server at a time can enjoy the rts feature...... so i think ns is more a fps than a rts...... ns its the perfect mix of the best things of both types of games.......

Legionnaired

NS is probably classified as a FPS, as thats what most people play as...

I would not be suprised at all, though if it got Mod of the year... I mean, FIrearms 2.4 got MOTY, and that was ugly as frick compared to NS screenies, so...

Yeah... MOTY all the way!

Longtooth

Yeah,  Natural Selection all the way!  Does PC gamer even know this mod exists?  Flayra should have them put it on one of thier monthly discs.

coil

You know... strictly speaking, what *is* an "RTS"?  Real-Time Strategy.  I think NS fits that description pretty perfectly.

Moleculor

PC Gamer has actually had a small piece on NS. Back when NS was in the mod expo.

I bet NS has a good chance of walking away with the MOTY award.

Longtooth

Fine coil ignore my question/comment,  I see how it is.

Battousaix

from the ns F.A.Q.

"The game is a real-time strategy game (RTS), with a first-person front end."

this ends the discussion <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->

Legionnaired

Oh...

Ok then <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->

YEah, MOTY most def, but I cant see it getting RTS of teh year, jsut because of WC3...

I mean, it probably has one hell of a chance, but I mean, it is a mod, you know?

Battousaix

w3 has the price on the bag since it was released..... there arent any other good rts games that got chances of beating w3... <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->

DexMachine

lol ok soo its good then <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->

coil

<!--QuoteBegin--Longtooth+Aug. 10 2002,00:43--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (Longtooth @ Aug. 10 2002,00:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Fine coil ignore my question/comment,  I see how it is.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ignore your question?  What, whether or not PC Gamer knows about NS?  How do I answer something I don't know?

CollateralDamage

What a question...

The jury is just as mainstream as the audience, so don't fall for the illusion that anything other than the overhyped Warcraft3 can win the award.

Longtooth

I did not find WC3 to be overhyped,  I think too many people came expecting a bad game,  and wouldn't allow thier mindset to be changed.  I came expecting a bad game but was pleasently suprised.

Guardasta

hmm.. if its in pc gamer i should have seen it, but then again i'm in Australia

Battousaix

i was expecting a really fun game..... but when the beta came to me i was amazed..... and the beta is so complete.... it even has got the campaign <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> i was an official beta tester anyways i never gave any good tips.... <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo--> but i found 1 bug <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo-->

coil

(I'm ignoring other RTS's like C&C - this is a blizzard timeline)

This is why I'm not *as* impressed as I could have been.

Warcraft I - genre defining.  Classic, good vs. evil, etc.  The two sides are graphically different, but otherwise the same.

Warcraft II - boats!  Fliers!  Fog of War is introduced.  *Beautiful* graphics (for the time).  The two sides, however, were still essentially equivalents.

Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness - This was the first I really saw Blizzard's storymaking side, but that might be the first time I *noticed* it.

Starcraft - I'd consider Starcraft pretty revolutionary.  *Three* races, each one unique in its units, tech tree, play styles, etc.  Maps with multiple height levels, which affected a unit's sight and accuracy.  More interesting map scenarios, and an *awesome* story.  Brood Wars held up its end beautifully.

Which brings us to Warcraft 3.
1) It's a true 3D engine.  <i>Wait, that's been done</i>.
2) It has heros. <i>So did all three preceding games.  Yes, now they level up.  But they also can be reincarnated, which takes away a great deal of the challenge.</i>
3) It has creeps.  <i>Yes... what's your point?  Creeps are a way to artificially slow down gameplay - which doesn't work, because people still rush - and make maps feel more full, which they are... full of creeps.</i>
4) It has *four* races. <i>The Batman movies have shown us that more is not always better.  And they originally planned 6; we never even found out what one of them was going to be.</i>
5) Another amazing Blizzard storyline. <i>Honestly, I felt closer to Starcraft's units... I think because the unit portraits were more lifelike.  The WC3 story and characters are solid, but not memorable.</i>

Yeah, WC3's a good game.  But when you consider the leap from Warcraft 2 to Starcraft... WC3 could have been *much* more than it ended up being.

CollateralDamage

<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Warcraft I - genre defining.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not at all! It was an almost 1:1 rip-off of Westwood's Dune 2. *That* was genre-defining. Blizzard is good at making pretty graphics and a smooth interface for gametypes other people have invented. And for that they get way too much praise IMHO.

Jammer

Mods can win 'Game' awards- I recall that FireArms (or maybe CS) won PCG's Action Game of the year and MotY.  As for the merits of Warcraft 3, the previous assesment of it was wrong. RPG's may have been 3d before, but haven't looked as good. Heroes and creeps add enormous depth to the multiplayer, and the game has finally been able to crack the RTS stigma of 'Lambs to the Slaughter' gaming (make units, throw them at enemy base, ignore result).

the_stalker

i dont see much compition, the only thing simular between these two are upgrades and commander mode and building other then that nothing is simular but just to say it, i love these both so im neutral but if i had no choice id have to go with ns, dang i hate it when ppl bring up these stupid whos better things

GobyWan

So WC3 is good, but not amazing?

Doesn't matter, I can't run it. Stupid old computer. <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->

Battousaix

but blizzard = best story games <!--emo&:)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':)'><!--endemo--> i love the stories of their games..... and starcraft story hasnt ended <!--emo&:p--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':p'><!--endemo-->

Vincent

war3= no good, Reasion:1,SHORT I BEAT THE SINGLE PLAYER IN 12 HOURS. and multyplayer games only last 10 min. 2,RUSHING or no tactaical choses other then rush or be rushed,I perfer long games that make you think. 3,no unit selection there are only like 6 units per race and most of them suck, theres a wider unit rage in redalert. war 3 gonna get the game o the year from all the maginzens and stuff but in my book you could tell me that i can have war3 for free or redalert for 40$ and i would take redalert!

Longtooth

Beat the single player in 12 hours eh?  That would means you spent less than 25 minutes on each mission,  You must be really good.  And Warcraft isn't only about gametime,  the single player is meant to convey a story but you probably ignored it.  Only 6 units for each race??  Try 3 heroes and 12 units for the humans, 3 heroes and 13 units for the orcs,  3 heroes and 12 units for the night elves, and 3 heroes and 12 units for the undead.  Seems like alot more than 6 to me.  I wonder who you play with,  my average game online in a 1v1 or 2v2 is always 30 mins+.  And good players don't allow themselves to be beaten by hero and unit rushes.  And any RTS player will tell that rushing is part of every RTS game.  The total number of units in wc3 is 61,  counting the 12 heroes,  for some reason I doubt that Red Alert has that many units.  That would be 30 units on each side and I know it dosen't have that.  Next time you are going to say something about Warcraft 3 bring solid proof ok?

Vincent

the 12 hours was an exageration and i did get the story line and i think it was a perfect set up for wrold of warcraft. and the 6 units perraces was also an exageration but really of the 61 how many are used not many given the 90 food limit and the avreage food use of 3 by the units and 5 by the heros and yes a good payer wont be killed by a hero and unit rush from a guy but he WILL die from a hero/unit rush from every oppnent! and i dont know who you play with but me and my 3 friends that also have it avrenge 10-15 min per game (we play on useast.) this game just dose not allow the felxabilty that other game like redalert, total anialaition in witch each of the 2 sides have more then 30 units each and more then 30 buliding rangeing from(for both units and buildings) long range altiray to flamthrowers. (best rts ive ever played),starcraft/broodwar (only 3 races and it has as many units, its only got 2 unit type like war 3 flying/ground but it has more air. and the units have more spec abilitys)command and concuer t-sun has more options in its units not as many but what they have do more.  there soild enuff for you longtooth

Jammer

Sigh- I didn't want this to turn into a Warcraft III debate, but oh well.

*Dons flame-retardent suit*

Vincent, you are clearly a Starcraft player who wanted Starcraft II instead of Warcraft III. Warcraft III is a radically different game than SC. SC was based on base management and resource collection, where as War3 is based upon unit control and expansion. Your complaint of unit numbers is not valid, as SC game ususally required using only a drone and 2 fighter types, fewer than War3. The food cap complaint is another giveaway, as Blizzard limits units for (A) Performance and (B) to stress the unit-based nature of the game.

*Removes suit*

You're a SC junkie who is trying to play War3 like it is SC, and it isn't fun. Play the game like it was meant to be played and you'll see.

And don't mess with me. I work for a a certain Warcraft fansite which is mentioned in my profile </plug>  <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.natural-selection.org/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo-->

Vincent

accutaly i dont play sc that much i did like the sc setup better as you said and all the thing you just seid (- the me being a sc junky) were reasion i didnt like the game  i do perfer recorse managment and accualy have to think about my later game stratagys.

Longtooth

Vincent what you don't realize is quality of the units over quantity of units,  Warcraft3 focuses on upgrades,  and if you notice in all the games you mentioned there are very few or no upgrades and most the units have no special abilities,  50% of warcraft3 units have special abilities,  and all of them have upgrades that augment thier performance.  On another note,  this isn't the same kind of RTS that the games you mentioned are,  those are modern or future war games based around macromanagement,  Warcraft3 on the other hand is a fantasy/magic based game focusing mainly on mircomanagement.  You are used to managing resources and buildings when in Warcraft3 your resources are mainly your units,  and the low 90 food cap forces you to focus on quality and strategy over quantity.  In all of my 40 or so games, about 20 those loses I have never lost from a hero rush/unit.  Sure it may slow me down but it also slows them down just as much.  If you want to win with 50 apocalypse tanks play Red Alert,  don't paste your idea of what a RTS should be onto Warcraft3 because it will not fit.