Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Personally I like the C&C-series in general (except for C&C4 of course) but I also like the Age of Empires-series, Supreme Commander-series and the Warcraft RTS-games (note: Warcraft 1 & 2).
There are also more RTS-games like that and other forms of RTS-games but these ones are good series to start with IMO.
For ohther RTS games, try Original War, Warcraft 1&2 or World in Conflict.
There are also grand strategy games (Europa Universalis series, Crusader Kings, Stellaris, Hearts of Iron, etc.) if you prefer empire management instead.
is 1000 times better than fps, because its like playing 1000 FPS games at the same time in one game, with equally powering up the vitality OF playing.
sitting in one small doll is nothing.
sitting and saving thousands dolls is much better. its like level up in diablo 2 to do so.
sometimes you switch back doing the commando person ON the field while commanding,
so its somehow growing you at each other levels, RTS will not gripe without FPS, and FPS wont gripe without RTS.
C&C and AoE are very 'jesus-fair' rts games, just the beginner level, as is Counter strike & Co.
much yet much more valuable though, is to play to life the PIONEERS games, that are NOT that much popular yet, until jesus is giving them free aswell, is the highest goal of mine.
Become A PIONEER Gamer, difficulty -> Maximum and get the hardest punch back in motivation done. thats a gamer i look for and pay(jesus power pay it you will feel it): STRENGTH finally... poor only if you dont get your life situation done as a lesson learned from those games: enVITAL yourself with regional food (=1000 times more energy for price x1.5 but getting the knowlede alone is a milestone for the poor family), is the same as owning the economy in a RTS game or FPS game.
all of this bounds together. be a gamers day and nightmare sadly not all coounries provide cheap 'gamers food' aswell :( poor countries not doing so. already lost the game war.
-stronghold crusader
-Rise of Nations: Extended Edition
-Dungeon Keeper I and II
-Empire Earth I and II
-Starcraft II
And no, not everyone is into this type of games, specially younger dumber folk. Before perhaps... since these were all pretty much mainstream products and sold quite well, now I think this style is a bit of a niche.
Also if u want to nitpick even more... you clearly missed how i called dungeon keeper 1 and 2 an RTS and not a god game ;)
So this is actually a pretty interesting question that deserves thoughtful exploration.
First off, it is important to keep in mind that back in the early/mid-90's when the RTS genre was first establishing itself (mostly via Dune II, Warcraft, and the first Command and Conquer titles), they were marketed as mainstream titles and sold very well as a result. These were not made to be complicated, off-putting experiences and many on this very forum got their start with the original C&C titles when they were still kids. If a kid could figure these games out back in the 90's, there is absolutely no reason why someone can't in a age where the internet has made learning how to play games easier than it has ever been.
To put it perhaps a bit more bluntly. The RTS genre in itself (especially older titles like C&C, Age of Empires, etc) is not hard to learn. The hard part is when you start getting into the player-constructed competitive meta business and that is simply not required and shouldn't be seen as the only pathway for new players coming into the genre. If you strip away all the competitive meta business and just play the games, they are pretty basic and should't really take more than a hour to get the basic hang of. To be perhaps even a bit more controversial. There are not a lot of games out there that actually are truly "hard" to learn. There are many that take more time to learn but anyone (keeping in mind that some have very real developmental/learning disabilities) who is willing to put at least some real, meaningful effort into just working through a game shouldn't have any serious issues learning it.
To put this in another context. Think of Counter-Strike for a moment. I have heard people say that Counter-Strike is a very difficult game to learn. That it is very complicated and that new players will struggle to even grasp the basics. This isn't exactly true. If one were to grab ten players who have only really casually played shooters (like Call of Duty, Battlefield, etc) and put them on a private Counter-Strike server, they would have no trouble figuring out how to play, shoot, and even grasp how the objectives work. At its core, Counter-Strike is a very basic shooter with very simple rules and mechanics. The only way it becomes complicated is when you start adding in the player-constructed competitive elements that are essentially placed on top of the game and are not exactly hard-built into its basic foundation.
So to answer your question more directly. You shouldn't worry about how hard these games are to play. Any game can be learned as long as one actually wants to learn. In this case, the older RTS format of Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, and the like is not at all difficult to grasp and you should never, ever, ever feel like you shouldn't explore them and play them on your own terms.
However, what modern gamers often ignore in that aspect is that games in these days came with a manual, and that manual was fairly essential in understanding the core game mechanics. This game stems from an era when people still read those manuals (even if it was often just to have something to do during the lengthy CD installer
So, basically, this manual forms an essential part of the game's accessibility, and this is a detail that many modern gamers seem to ignore. Current gaming shifted focus to tutorials and in-game hints for absolutely everything, but these old games simply don't have that yet.
Now, the Remasters do have a (fairly limited) in-game hints system, but they do not actually come with manuals. They do have a useful gameplay overview page you get when you click the "Help" button on the main menu. This gives a brief overview of game functions, but it's not really the same thing as the full manual these games are supposed to have.
So I suggest you read through the original manuals. Some of the key bindings may be slightly different, and the sidebar is a bit redesigned, but 98% of the manual will still apply completely the same way to the remaster.
So, read them through. They'll give you a fairly good idea on how these games work.