[izit]sykoste Aug 25, 2013 @ 8:16am
Buy this game and send a message
When people play AND buy old RTS games over and over ( I own 4 copies of sup com and FA now - legal copies, discs and downloads) and they STOP buying the drivel that is coming out like C&C4 or DOW 12 unit squad rubish then ALL will take notice. Look at EA with regards to PA. They laughed at the 800k fund goal that was set and that someone was trying to make an RTS in this 'day and age'. The goal was thrashed by over 2.5 million dollars. That is a start up figure too - not what could be made from the sales. This was a kick in the nuts for those publishers that said RTS was dead.

This also changes the market somewhat and proves that the games industry is not only dominated by spotty teens with a penchant for consoles and short term memory. The games industry is now saturated with cash-rich older generations who can count on their left hand how many spectrum/c64/amiga/st games they finished, and have lost count of the over budgeted cinematic games that ooze out of the modern market. They all look pretty and are technical marvels but no one seems to be able to get the gameplay right or the challenge.

The difference between older cash rich folk is they are savvy and don't see games 'ownership' as a status thing. They only buy when the price is right and the product is of a high standard, and the more they get it wrong, the less likely they will jump in at 'new game prices'. EA new game prices are currently laughable. I WANTED BF3 but this time I waited and I bought BF3 when it was £9.99 and it was so buggy I would not even rate that price. I played it 4 times. I went back to BF2 and even 1942 to find that 'fun factor' that was lost. The likes of THQ and GPG (the latter is not bankrupt, but their move away from the awesome looking 'kings and castles' to the dire AOE online 'make a quick buck' fix was what put them in trouble, they blatently ignored their biggest paying fan base.)

There is too much emphasis on quick bucks drivel (pay to play, pay to win, with EA's pay then pay some more, then look - another DLC wow, have my wallet, hell have my mortgage) and less on longevity these days. If you want to see more games that become 'legendary' we need to quickly adapt our tactics. I have put way more money into indie and publisher-less productions this last few years than I have into big budget games, and of the big budget games I WAITED and got them in the sales. This is data and it is a growing trend. Do you really think the big wigs won't see this? They are starting to drop like flies because they have massive budget productions and miss the whole fact that they continue to make games without gameplay that no body buys

The reason the likes of EA said RTS was dead was because C&C4 didn't sell very well. They are too 'Awesome and untouchable' to notice that it was because the game was NOT C&C and they pi**ed off the fans whilst they tried to steal DOW fans by going squad based. Too much chasing and catch-up and not enough innovation. They game is naff - throw some more eye candy in. No one will notice.

I hope Uber do well with Planetary Annihilation (note the price tag for this does not reflect the 'release price tag', but the backers fees, Of which I was one and also one who requested a steam release at some point) and people start to take notice. Never underestimate your power as a buyer. It seems that unfortunately owning 'the latest' game has become more of a status symbol than it has about having a collection of games that you actually play and love.

A status symbol with a status symbol price tag to boot. Be careful PC gamers or we could actually lose the divide between console and PC games, if we keep buying console stuff for our PC's. Leave the DLC and pay to win to the tablets and mobiles, for the mums who play gem games and the kids who battle cards and throw birds at evil pigs. The world is full of people like me with fast machines, homes, real careers, lives, and families and still a deep set gaming history from the dawn of games like frogger - hungry for the real deal project that fills a void in recent titles lacking depth and thought.

I am 36 and so what if I like to play games for a bit of escapism. Some people jump off buildings for fun. Games are my entertainment and I demand a higher respect for my intelligence and I a bit more respect for my wallet.

Anyone out there wondering if this game is worth buying? Hell yes, get sup com and FA its better than 120% of the stuff out there and you will be adding to the massing data to send warning alarm bells around the failing gaming industry giants. We are not all joypad thumbing pirating teenagers now, we grew up with you games industry and you are starting to ignore us.
Last edited by [izit]sykoste; Aug 25, 2013 @ 10:42am
Showing 1-13 of 13 comments
< >
Streaming Phoenix Aug 28, 2013 @ 3:17am 
Why bring DoW into it? DoW2 was not a base builder, but it was more faithful to it's original content (being a WH40K game, where you do move units around a board to complete an objective).
[izit]sykoste Aug 29, 2013 @ 3:42am 
because DOW started as a COH clone where base building was integral, but then became a squad based game. This was in reference to the fact that C&C tried the same - and lost their fan base. I particlularly don't like games that change from multi units to a few squads. You feel like the lack of units is an insult to your computers power, especially when an older game handled more. The only logical reason is that the move is to facilitate ports to machines with less resources - like consoles. I don't mind squad based games if they stick to what they are. I having nothing against DOW's 'squadness' I just liked it better when it was like Company of Heros. I think C&C's move to copy this 'squadness' was very wrong given what was a tried and tested formula - especially with things like DOW doing that niche already.

Anyway - if DOW was more faithful to its 'original' content it would be turn based like Spacehulk. I'm just not a fan of heros/RPG/fantasy is all. In fact it is probably wrong to class DOW as an RTS, it's kind of its own thing - an RPS!

Supcom is still one of the very few RTS games out there that does still push the tech to the limits. This is what I would like to see more of, rather than more complex micro/rpg elements added to lesser units. I want huge battles and lots of explosions caused from something I built from nothing.

Even then we still had to wait for modders like Sorian to make the game not just good but great. I'm just callling out to the publishers to look at the stats on old games and look at the likes of PA to see if the market is dead or alive, rather than judge it on what is being bought out of the new stuff. So little quality RTS releases results in bad sales which for some bizarre reason leads the publishers to think that RTS is dead. It's not - we are just sick of paying for mediocre tosh when we fork out 2k a year on the equipment to play it. Push my rig to the limits big boys or bail and leave room for the up and coming indie teams.
Last edited by [izit]sykoste; Aug 29, 2013 @ 3:58am
Streaming Phoenix Aug 29, 2013 @ 4:08am 
The original concept for DoW was something more akin to Wargame. And it turned into a base builder akin to command and conquer, not CoH. The CoH system was only used for the DoW2 skirmish and multiplayer varients. Despite that, relic know how to make good rts games, and they shouldn't be penalised because the second game is nothing like the first.

I enjoyed the single player in DoW2, more than the sp in DoW, in DoW, it was more fun in skirmish, as most RTS's are. I have never completed the sp in SupCom, as it isn't that sort of game.

I can agree on command and conquer. After Generals, the series went downhill, pandering to a wider audience, and trying to win over the eastern countries. But that is part of EA's curse, they look at games to make money, they never treat the money as an additional benefit, and as a result the games suffer. The redux of NFS made it a popular game, but then EA started tearing out the features that people enjoyed, and leaving the gamers with cars with fixed statistics and dull mechanics.

You may not know this, but the publishers don't make games. The developers do, and people like uber are independant, they have no publisher. However, no publisher that has seen the stats of Total War would say the rts is dead. If that was the case, why would Sega have 2 RTS devs and a sports simulation dev under the sega umbrella? RTS sells, which is why publishers get devs to make them. The issues one arise when the developers skimp on features, or the publishers refuse to give time or money to the project.
[izit]sykoste Aug 29, 2013 @ 4:16am 
They said RTS it was dead, not me. I have no quarms with DOW2 filling a niche, its just not my niche. PA is a good example of the lengths independants have to go to to get RTS games (that are not viable franchises like TW) on the market. I hope they succeed as this is the way I will pay for games in future - pay for them to be made and have influence on the results.

Also COH/DOW were the same engine. I think you may be referring to warcraft, but it wasn't.

Apart from the graphics and style, COH was DOW to the letter. Flag capture, same way of delivering unit unique abilities and same campaign driven system. I am not penalising the DOW franchise, I am just saying what you have said yourself. Many games are made for a larger audience to garner more profit by publishers, so independants suffer as a consequence if the publishers ruin the game. The publishers are toning down games to make them suit larger audiences like consoles even with games that were born on the tech driven PC market like C&C. They are making a quick buck and kiiling off the competition at the same time.

It is time we stop buying drivel at hiked up prices and start thinking about what we want to play and investing in it like PA

Last edited by [izit]sykoste; Aug 29, 2013 @ 4:45am
[izit]sykoste Aug 29, 2013 @ 5:21am 
It's strange how the 'small squad' syndrome took over many good 'multi unit' RTS franchises, at the same time good RTS franchises were killed off by switching to console realease with less ram and video capabilites. DOW became DOW 2 cut down to suit a publishers wish to capture more sales in markets not well suited to RTS. You were all fooled into thinking that it was a new way forward, yet no one fell for that with supcom 2? So why did everyone fall for it with DOW? only because of it's heritage in fantasy board games.

I quote "The gameplay of Dawn of War II is markedly different from that of Dawn of War and its expansions. Jonny Ebbert, the game's lead designer, describes the feel of the game by saying that it "takes everything that was great about the original and combines it with the best that Company of Heroes had to offer". A month later it was on xbox.

You were fooled with DOW2 because you thought it was a move closer to the original table based game and franchise. So not too bad a thing for DOW fans, but this doesn't work for the likes of C&C. And we all know how much EA love copying gamesworkshop stuff...

look at the RTS teams who dumbed down, and look what suffered as a consequence of low sales - ENSEMBLE / GPG / RELIC / THQ / either went bust or got bought out and dissolved. Nothing much happens to the publishers. It all started badly for C&C in 98.

"In August 1998, Westwood was acquired by Electronic Arts for $122.5 million in cash. At the time, Westwood had 5% to 6% of the PC game market.[1] In response to EA's buyout, many long-time Westwood employees quit and left Westwood Studios. Because of this and EA's newly imposed demands, games being developed by Westwood Studios at the time were rushed and left unfinished upon their release, namely Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun.[3] All the subsequent games developed by Westwood were also heavily subjected to increased control by Electronic Arts, with some of them being cancelled"

The response is then always from the publishers - when they see sales drop, they DO NOT BLAME themselves or their decisions, they blame the public's lack of interest in the genre and the companies who make them. The companies that were bought out were worth the money to the publishers like EA or Microsoft at the height of their franchise sales because they had done well. It was then slowly one by one either killed off or dumbed down.

I am drawing a picture here and it always has the same conclusion. We as gamers suffer, not the publishers. Young people still buy the dumbed down versions - because they know nothing better - they have nothing else available. They know not of the gems out there like dune, generals, AOE, TA or supcom. I am only trying to highlight this.

If you had asked me 10 years ago what I would be enjoying now on PC, it would not be RTS games with 12 units, where I have to kill off my guys if I wanted to create new ones and make new tactics. It would be the likes of galactic war in PA. Even that would not have happened if it was not for inspiration like kickstarter.
Streaming Phoenix Aug 29, 2013 @ 6:28am 
I wasn't fooled by anything. It is a different game, but it isn't a worse game. It is a good game in it's own right. I enjoyed the squad based mechanics with the loot system, and allowed for a bit more storytelling in regards to the blood ravens. Dawn of War 2 was a good game, it changed the mechanics, but it kept the feel of the game proportional.

Unlike Supcom 2, which removed features and attempted to engineer supcom into a game that could be released on the consoles. We have seen time and time again that games where the originals were a pc title only, are never as good when moved to consoles then ported to pc. That is a major issue with some developers now, they believe that they can get away with a bad port. Crysis fell into the trap, a great first game that pushed the boundaries, then two games to follow that held back because the consoles couldn't handle the whole engine. DICE don't have that issue with BF3, so why did crytek? Probably because DICE know how to make a game that pc gamers will enjoy, and have no qualms with pushing the pc version that bit further. Yes, it's more work for them, but it gets a better product.

Ever played FM2007 on xbox 360? That is another good example of a pc game that has been moved to console without thinking about how it will play. What you get is a mess of menu's.

Games need to change, they have to keep pushing on. I didn't mind the change from DoW to DoW2. It is a fun game with 40k lore, and that is what i hoped it was. Did you ever buy Universe at War? I'm hoping you did as it's made by the original westwood team. Suffice to say, the game was a flop, so what sold the command and conquer games, the game, or the name?
PhoenixLord96 Sep 1, 2013 @ 5:10pm 
4 copies of FA? Between loosing discs and buying replacements, then finding the old discs, i have at least 8 legal copies of FA+vanilla.
[izit]sykoste Sep 2, 2013 @ 11:41am 
i did play UAW, but it was lacking something and no one else played it - so that also has a lot to do with it. Earth 2160 was good - but too ahead of its time and one step too complex with the unit construction.
Last edited by [izit]sykoste; Sep 2, 2013 @ 11:42am
TeacherNL Sep 8, 2013 @ 1:54pm 
I completly agree sykoste.

I began gaming when doom2 was in stores. And I developed a love for RTS. Played TA, C&C (no not 4), Supcom (bought 2 at a huge discount because I already expected that it would be rubbish) DOW and many more. Even Earth 2150 and 2160 (which where very good). Owh and Universe at War (bought it for the full price and was sorry after 10 minutes).

Maybe it is because we love the old games so much that we want the same feeling in the new games. SimCity, DOW 2 (although the co-op is great), Diablo 3 and Anno 2070 are just a couple of examples that were a disappointment to me because I really loved SC4, Diablo 2, Anno 1404 and DOW one (yes I am a 40k fan).

Perhaps these games are great for the younger gamers, but nowadays it's DLC, money and more money. Call of Duty is ruined, the first completed game of Diablo 3 is fun after that it's basicly grinding, SimCity is the biggest disaster ever and Dragon Age 2 gave me a rash. And don't get me started about Space Marine.

Where are the games like Age of Wonders Shadow Magic, BF2, SC4, Pharaoh (plus other citybuilder sims in this genre), C&C (red Alert and generals), Total Annihilation and so on?

Frankly, I don't think they are coming back. Because we know what it was like back then and we know what it is know.
T-Bone Biggins Sep 8, 2013 @ 2:52pm 
No offense, but in all my life I have never seen the gaming industry take a message from people buying games. The only time the industry takes a message is when people don't buy a game or if it's bootlegged excessively like Spore was over it's DRM. Not suggesting anyone do that, just saying that buying old games doesn't convey a particular message to anyone.

Now look at GOG, they have shown people are willing to pay for older games. This might be called a message, but it's more like publishers getting an opportunity to sell a product again with zero development cost, it's greed (from the publishers) that fuels GOG's success. I still bought more games from GOG the past year than from Steam though.
[izit]sykoste Sep 8, 2013 @ 3:26pm 
its more to convey the message to the easily swindled youth of today that there are good games - you have just probably never heard of them, and sup com is one of em. It would be daft of retailers (steam included) if they didn't take note of what is and isn't selling. The only people they can take a message from is those buying games. So buy the game - its still cheaper to buy sup com 2 - so steam already know this is selling more!

Never underestimate buying power. I paid for PA to be developed because it sounded like a game I wanted to play. I didn't mind paying over the odds to get it developed, providing they deliver what they sold at the begining. I think paying for what you want before its made will work well for those dev teams who stick to the original plans. Its like 3d printing to order, rather than mass production and blind marketing.

Look back at all the 'good' games or recent years and those that stick out are the ones that delivered, and then gave a little back, like modding dev and free content. The ones that were great but annoyed us a little are the ones that built on past promises but held back (like DLC and pay to play). These just don't work for me because teams are spinning things out. If we feel like we are being swizzed - its because in general we are. That cr*p works great on penny games (mobile devices etc.) but I don't think it has a future on main-stream gaming, unless we allow it to. That would be a sad day, when games are released unfinished and you have to pay another 4.99 to get the menu, or £2.99 for the guns, and £3.99 to play multiplayer etc. etc.

I have bought nothing this last 3 years at full price, and I have spent more on and enjoyed more indy games - like swapper, and the journey, fez. To the point now were my steam targeted marketing only tells me when something I 'may' like is half price or less. Someone is listening, even if its not human! I have not had any top chart game adverts fired at me for 9 months because I won't even contemplate buying at this price unless it blows me away.

PA blew me away, but then I backed it at kickstarter because they had no other way to deliver the game to us. I have not seen any other game that recently has even attempted to change the mold a bit and push the tech other than this.

Sure things are prettier, but thats just eye candy. Look at the latest battlefield - I still prefer BF1942 with the desert storm mod, and I still play it. The game play/balance was right back then, now its too linear, too buggy, too busy and the maps are not big enough for vehicles. Every week they ask for another 9.99 for some spak Ops shizzle, and I see people with more outfits than they have at home. It looks like a film, but like most hollywood films, I often leave feeling like I did not take part in anything. Thats not playing games, thats falling for marketing hook line and sinker and losing faith in franchises left right and centre. No more.

I have not had as much fun gaming as I have over the last few months playing games from a few years back that I remembered because nothing has really blown me away since then. The best bit is they are all generally a third of the price and 3 times better than some of the current drivel.


Last edited by [izit]sykoste; Sep 8, 2013 @ 3:29pm
T-Bone Biggins Sep 9, 2013 @ 2:14pm 
I just started a playthrough of the old XCom Enemy Unknown from 1994 a few nights ago. Yeah, it's got a list of bugs a few pages long and has tons of UI inconveniences, but the core gameplay is still there. Sometimes a formula just works, most game companies don't realize they can just add polish to said classics and modernize them for modern OS's and make tons of money on these winning formulas.
[izit]sykoste Sep 10, 2013 @ 2:24am 
very true. if only they would listen!
Showing 1-13 of 13 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Aug 25, 2013 @ 8:16am
Posts: 13