Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
If you ignore the context surrounding the term 4X, sure, you can call most any RTS game and plenty of other games 4X provided there is some semblance of the 4X's in the game. But you shouldn't ignore the context and other factors that get wrapped into the 4X label.
Is the 4X label vague and confusing at times? Yes, but so are plenty of other labels. Fundamentally, 4X is a genre of games intending to provide a certain type of experience. That experience (strategic empire building, warfare, diplomacy, etc.) is much different from RTS games, which are far more focused on competition matches, twitch/APM, hard counters, and combat unit micromanagement.
There is of course a grey area and some games, Sins: Rebellion comes to mind, are equal parts of 4X and RTS and something a bit different as a result.
most of the reviews are really positive, not bad at all.
The gameplay is what I am interested in though. Bugs and crashes are so "personal". Like I have never had World of Magic crash once, but apparently lots of people do. Focusing on that kind of stuff deflect the really interesting discussions about the gameplay itself.
I am just not sure how such a large scale can be made into a game in the first place.
Frankly, if you are interested in the TA-lineage of games, my recommendation is to check out Zero-K, which a Spring RTS engine game that started out as a modern TA clone and grew into its own thing over time. Still very TA-ish and it is is free.
Link: Zero-K[zero-k.info]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=47&v=vkZaLLyhEgI
Also regarding Titans, it is probably worth noting as it is a expansion basically the majority of people that buy it could be fans, who didn't have technical problems in the original, or could live with them. This could skew the reviews for Titan to be more positive.
Titans is absolutely terrible and the developers have made it clear that only kickstarter backers will have their money and time respected. If you buy it on steam, they're going to nickel and dime you to oblivion (and not elder scrolls oblivion either).
Just to break it down for people who are honestly curious. Orbital units are terrible, the new omega battleship is a joke that costs over 10k metal but can barely kill more than 1 unit a second. It also gets shot down by spammable fighter jets. As a result interplanetary battles are just no fun, either you try to land en mass with orbital dropships, and manage to somehow slip past your opponents tank blobs and set up some factories... or you just decide the easier option is just to build some engines on a nearby moon and slam it into the enemy planet or you can just nuke them (it's not as riveting as it sounds).
Intraplanetary battles are boring, as the only viable unit is the tank. Most bot units cannot handle their tank counterparts and Air units have no role because AA is just so good and there are no Air units that can handle AA of any kind. The end result is that you win because your tank blob was better than the enemies tank blob.
This brings me to my biggest and unfortunately the deal breaker for this game. The unit variety sucks... badly. There's bots, vehicles, aircraft and orbital. The orbital units have no pathetic range despite being in space and thus get shot down by any anti-orbital unit. The only orbital unit worth producing is the avenger (a cheap anti-orbital fighter jet) and producing this one unit, invalidates all other orbital units (surely this is great design decision).
Air units are completely worthless against any opponent with half-decent AA (BTW 3 or 4 AA tanks is enough to handle squadrons of bombers). The new Air units consist of a siege bomber that is advertised as being resistant to AA, it is not and dies quickly and will not break enemy defenses because its too slow and dies too quickly even to basic AA. The new aircraft actually worth using is the solar drone, it flys and generates energy and can shoot laser beams at ground and air targets. This means you no longer have to build power generators anymore as now you have flying power generators that can defend themselves (they can even shoot down fighter jets). AA in this game have short range so you don't have to worry about losing your power source. The other Air units are either bombers (worthless if AA is present), one gunship type (which is worthless if AA is present) and scouts (worthless because radar does the same thing and there's no stealth or cloaking in the game).
Bots are also completely worthless against any opponent who is bothering to maintain a defensive line. Bots are only for raiding your opponent though I fail to understand why you would raid with bots when you could raid with bombers or gunships... but whatever. You have infantry bot which is worthless because it does too little damage and dies too quickly but at least its cheap. The grenadier which is an early artillery unit that's actually useful but you could just be using tanks because defences are weak in this game (they're static, low health and don't actually kill as much as they cost in most instances). Then there's the explosive drone... useless due to low damage and having suicide as an attack. I could go on and list all the bot units but know that all of them except the tier 2 infantry bot is worthless and lose to tanks. The new bots added in the expansion just plain sucks. Don't use them.
Vehicles are the only class of units really worth using and appear to be the most developed of the categories. There's the tank with cannon and tank with flamer. Flamer has more health but low range and so is useless (I've heard some people claim you should mix them into your tanks with cannons as damage sponges but I counter with the fact that you just reduced the overall fire power of your blob as now you have one less gun and that flame tank takes up precious space on your firing line). There's the AA tank and the expansion adds the heavier T2 AA tank... because clearly it took an expansion to come up with "AA unit with better fire power". The rest of the vehicle units suck but hey 4 units being useful is better than 2 units being useful that most of the categories have. The expansion was rather kind to Vehicles and gave them the most useful mobile nuke vehicle. It's just a mobile nuke.
Tl;DR I would love to say that Planetary Annhilation is a successful project that is fun to play and has great value for its price. I cannot say this because that would be a lie. Labeling titans as an expansion is a complete farce because you cannot buy the original game anyway. Titans is just a paylocked patch seeing as how none of the bugs in the game have been fixed, the unit rosters are still terrible and the galactic war singleplayer is still terrible too. They added 21 new units and charge 40 bucks for it (but they'll claim they're being nice by offering it for $13 for steam buyers... even the ones who paid $90 for the game to begin with). On the uber forums, they claim that the game is undersiege by hateful steam users who want the game for free ignoring the fact that the game shouldn't even be sold at all considering its still buggy and unfun. In other words, AVOID THIS TRAINWRECK. It's a cheap cashgrab that somehow took 2 million+ dollars to make and is demanding even more. I sincerely wish to know how they could take so much money and then produce basically nothing with it. Let me know if you really want to know more about how deep this trainwreck is. 21 new units and only about 5 of them are useful.
Oh and is this a 4x? NO. 4X means that you are constantly attempting or planning to expand. Either at the infrastructure level or at the territorial level. There's none of that here. At best you'll build some factories on an enemy planet... but you usually won't and there's no real infrastructure going on here.
I don't have any of the games I talk about because I play these games on the family steam account that's separate from this account. I don't see why it would matter anyway if someone owns the game or not on steam. People can have multiple accounts too so really if I wanted to lie I could come up with hundreds of different explanations as to how I can play the game without actually owning it on my personal account.
Simple reasion : Game is not Steamworks only? ;)
One of the problems I have seen in youtube vids is that the action is so far away. I had this same problem in Supreme Commander. The game has great GFX and all this cool stuff, but it is only really playable at a super zoomed out level where all you see is a ton of icons.
Like this: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=209812218
I find it really lame. You see it in a lot of games. Total War for example has all this amazing GFX, but you usually are always zoomed way way out. It isn't as bad there but it is kinda the same feeling.
Why not? We talk about plenty of strategy games on this site that have no relation to 4x games.
I mean there is a massive thread on X-Com 2! lol. Sure it is a "game", but not a "4x"
... so what is the difference?
It doesn't mater, I was just curious is all. I wasn't questioning your integrity or anything.
I know you weren't being a jerk. If you want to see jerks you should see the pro-uber people on the TItan's steam forum. When I said the developers set up a siege mentality to save their game... I meant it. Which makes it doubly hilarious when they say all the steam users are abusing the refund system and that steam forums are evil... while pretending anyone who doesn't own the game has never played it and while hypocritically being jerks on the steam forums.
If you feel like you should like this style of RTS game, you really really really should look at Zero-K. Like really. I was a diehard TA fan and for me Supreme Commander was a total flop (for me) because despite liking the big picture focus, it also wasn't personal enough (action too far away etc.). Zero-K hits the balance just right and performs so well and smooth that it's easy (and important) to zoom into the action. Unit diversity blows PA out of the water.
Here's another great overview video for Zero-K
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUcqY4GfRpI&index=1&list=PLE7fqeQkc17VvmrlMIV4zjd3mmnrMDRL6
Some recent tournament matches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVJ5hB0os6k
Economy overview video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqxdRT4t58
My only annoyance is that they don't seem to be updating or improving the AI. But what do you expect from a free project?
Fortunately for Spring + Zero-K there is a pretty vibrant multiplayer community going, which is remarkable given the open source nature of the whole scene.