Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Of trailers and treasers oh my

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Of trailers and treasers oh my

    Hey just wondering, what does the community at large, think of 3d trailers and teasers in general.

    Just downloaded one for Codename Panzers from here

    http://www.panzers.de/english/index1.htm

    Fairly sizable file in hi res mode.

    To look at it, the first thing that goes through my mind is "yeah right".
    The video is quite amazing on the surface.
    Looking closely though, you see a few things that render 3d as only so thrilling though. I dislike watching a tank "merge" with terrain.

    The graphics are quite impressive all the same. The individual soldiers look quite good.

    Looking at the combat though, and you see that the combat does tend to look very hollywood ie lacks reality.

    But I will say, assuming this thing is genuine, it could be a contender for best looking 3d rts I have seen so far.

    Some how though, looking at this thing, makes me think along the same lines of "yes dear, I will tell you when I am close". Just looks a bit well to perfect.
    Life is change. Built models for decades.
    Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
    I didn't for a long time either.

  • #2
    Looks like 3D Sudden Strike.If you have to control each indiv soldier seperately good luck. I thought Sudden Strike looked great and watching the explosions was fun for awhile....

    Invariably I always seem to be looking the other way when something important is happening with RTS games. Then it gets either boring or frustrating. It's pretty though.

    Michael
    "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorius is to die daily" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

    Michael

    Comment


    • #3
      Les explains RTS military wargames using terms a parent can picture (I am a parent by the way).

      Take two grade 3 classrooms full of kids.

      Give them guns and tanks n things that go kaboom etc.

      Call one side attacker, and one side defender.

      Now you get to "control" one side, not always the same one eh.

      You get to tell your side, we gots to wipe out the other side.

      Now being grade 3 kids, they are ok to listen, but fail to pay attention long.
      So if you ain't watching them, god only knows what they will get up to eh.
      Darndest things actually.

      But they sure love to do what you say if it involves running around madly. If you tell em run over there and attack those guys, well yep they is happy to do it.
      Won't be totally brilliant about it though.
      But as long as you keep egging them on, some will do rather well eh.

      But just forget about the little johnnys that wander out of your vision.

      And there you have it. Next time someone "explains" to you how they like the "strategy" in real time strategy, just laugh at them like the way you would someone that's a bit dim

      And maybe if they want a real challenge, you could suggest teaching grade 3.

      No amount of cute graphics, will ever make the above conditions "entertaining" to me.
      Life is change. Built models for decades.
      Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
      I didn't for a long time either.

      Comment


      • #4
        Wow, what a mess.

        Comment


        • #5
          Horrible games

          And the worst part is these are apparently the only ones which would dare touch such 'forbidden' (ie economically unsound) topics as the Thirty Years War or Lace Wars or World War One...

          About your description it fits to a tee. The strategy part is just a misnomer, they should call it, real-time-build and then blow each other up attritionally (RTBATBEOUA) games but I guess that's longer and harder to remember than RTS :P

          T Richmond

          Comment


          • #6
            After a hard day at the office, coming home and playing a 'real-time build and blow each other up game' doesn't sound that bad.

            It's when my mind is more active that I would like a bit more depth to my games.
            "I'm all ears." - Dolph Lundgren

            Comment


            • #7
              While I agree with the sentiments expressed here about RTS games, please fellows don't view our new game "Highway to the Reich" in the same light. It's because of this prevalent attitude amongst wargamers that we prefer to refer to HTTR as a "pausable continuous time" (PCT) game. While HTTR is an event driven game ( like RTSs ) it is very much a serious simulation.

              There have been many great discussions on the benefits of PCT v turn based wargaimg on the forums, including this one I believe, our HTTR forum and the war.historical news group. As you will see from these I strongly believe that the future of wargaming lies in this direction.
              Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
              www.panthergames.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Arjuna, I would never consider "insulting" your game with such a lousy label as "RTS"

                Your game might be played in real time, but any discerning wargamer can tell your game is not some stupid RTS schlock stupidity.

                Now if I had a real income, I would like to buy a copy of it

                Oh well, I guess that is the way it goes with a number of things I want.

                Les the Sarge says you want to get HTTR, and you got that from a turn user fanatic
                Life is change. Built models for decades.
                Not sure anyone here actually knows the real me.
                I didn't for a long time either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Arjuna, My experience with Red Devils puts it head and shoulders aboove the "Sudden Strike" traditional RTS.


                  Armored Task Force same thing. Controlling 2d counters from a top down view on a quality map is infinitely easier then the Quasi 3D/2D land scapes of most RTS titles.

                  I know I'm kinda picking on Sudden Strike here and that is only because I personally get agitated playing it. Reason 1, I can't build more troops to throw into the meat grinder. Reason 2 the fog of war sucks. It seems like every enemy can see my units and start blasting them before I am anywhere near the point that I can spot them, no matter what kind of unit it is. Reason 3 trying to control a screen of hundreds of little men and vehicles that don't give you any info unless you hover the mouse over them, and it is an aweful lot like Les said, everyone wandering around dying.

                  To be fair there are some really fun scenarios, But for me those tend to be the stationary defend type scenarios. There is a really cool winter scenario where you as the russians have to hold a town, and there is another where you have hold a bunker complex and you get ROCKETS

                  But it is still my least favorite. I think Blizzards Starcraft on the other hand and Age of Empires from Microsoft were MUCH better traditional RTS titles. Very playable and not half the heartburn that Sudden Strike gives me.

                  I Like ATF, BCT, and HTTR's format of a pausable realtime were you can effectively order your units and coordinate your attacks. You still get the excitement of slinking along "When Suddenly" death is rained down on you, but it still gives you much more control. And finally when the fight really heats up I am not searching amongst the trees for stray units that get left behind.

                  Michael
                  Last edited by NORAD; 03 Feb 04, 20:15.
                  "Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorius is to die daily" - Napoleon Bonaparte.

                  Michael

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    RTS vs PCT

                    >Arjuna, I would never consider "insulting" your game with such a lousy label
                    > as "RTS"

                    >Your game might be played in real time, but any discerning wargamer can >tell your game is not some stupid RTS schlock stupidity.

                    Agree 100%

                    Since I got hooked on WNLB (Waterloo Napoleon's Last Battle) and now with the HTTR series in full swing, heck, hexes and turns just don't do it for me at all anymore. The only 'forgivable' hybrid w/c I greatly enjoy is the Combat Mission Series though more for its versatility, scenario builders and ease of use and because it's an entertaining simulation (ie its fun - my bro disagrees with me big time though!) If I want to play phased turn based battles I have a ton of board games I've not played in a long while. Unfortunately the RTS genre does appeal wildly, I think due to the success of such games as Red Alert (w/c got progressively dumber though I liked the alternative options in Red Alert 2 like being able to sand-bag fortify one's self and other things) and Age of Empires/Age of Kings (w/c I would still gladly play because of it's POWERFUL scenario editor w/c you can use to make complex adventures and easy to use but potentially complex triggers) particularly to the mass market. Thus we have games that ride on this but are no-where near a real 'strategy' game. They basically involve resource gathering massing the largest army the fastest and stomping out the enemy. Whenever I would play RA with my brother it ended up as a high-tech version of the Western Front 1917.

                    But on the other hand the whole turn based thing just doesn't work for me anymore. I hate to say it but... even though I cannot fault any of the Tiller games for ambition, scope and detail, the length of time it takes to play one and the ultimate anal retentive exercise of moving an army company by company... it's too time consuming. We only live so long and I want a satisfying game experience that is worth every second of play or modification, not to move the entire British 8th Army from the Wire to Tobruk company by company (or VEHICLE by VEHICLE!). One exception to this would be the Naval Campaigns Series w/c is also, whoop-de-do, a PCTgame and is, for it's abstractions and lack of detail as well as bells and whistles (for instance there's little I think that differentiates between ship classes of different nations - all British battleships are this or that or all German battleships are this or that, while realistically you CANNOT compare an early British dreadnought like Bellerophon or St Vincent with the Fast Battleships of the Queen Elizabeth class w/c could take a ton of hits and keep on trucking -instead there's a 'critical hit' percentage for each side that determines whether a single hit makes the magic bullet shot into the magazine.) nevertheless the best and most playable simulation of the massive naval battle of Jutland I've seen yet.

                    While bells and whistles are nice and can help aestheticisze a battle - you get the tactile sense of panzer pushing or deploying battalions of Matildas or redcoats or what have you - nothing beats good old realism I think, whatever game your playing, even if it's a fantasy game it should be 'real' in the conditions of the world created (like if in the world of X, Monster Bats should die on the third blow to the head it should be the third, no less and no more, and no AI cheating) and as such you guys are on the right track!

                    Best regards,
                    T.R.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Beware the quest for realism. The greatest strategy game (chess) is a little short on it. As long as realism adds to the fun then great. People go to a lot of trouble to model the movement and formation change rates in Napoleonic army rules, and this sort of realism can effectively add to the fun, but others forms of realism don't. A realtime realism enhancement where for a week while playing the game you don't bathe, eat cold canned food, don't sleep more than three hours at a stretch, and live in a hole in the ground could add to the fun, but when I tried it there was something lacking.

                      Turn based systems may not be as abstract as chess but they do have structure which allows problem solving within a tactical or strategic paradigm, as well as being a manageable multiplayer game. So while the turn based PBEM games will be around for some time, there are drawbacks for the real time games where an inactive player has no choice but to sit and wait for something to happen (well there WAS supposed to be an invasion today!). Of course this is realistic but not really fun (from personal experience anyway).

                      There are also logistics issues as well since tactical battle management has to take place at the same time (speed) as other tasks. Anyway Starcraft may be fun but I wouldn't want to be playing a realtime version of The Battle of Britain.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Relative realism

                        But chess IS realistic - in the world of chess all knights move in L shapes, all bishops diagonally, etc. It follows the 'rules' of its world and is therefore 'realistic'. What I mean by realism is relative realism. If it's a fantasy world it should accurately portray that fantasy. If it is a Russian front scenario it should not be the same as a simulation of Western Desert combat in every way, only in ways that it was historically similar. If it's GO it shouldn't play like Chess. If it's a submarine game it shouldn't feel like I'm conning a PT boat. The problem is that some games purport to reality but have too many abstractions or the wrong feel or heavy mechanics or are just plain innaccurate. That's what I meant by realism.

                        Best regards,
                        T.R.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          A waste of time?

                          But yeah realism balanced by the fun factor is right on. The problem is some games can take the fun factor too high and skimp on the realism.

                          I don't know, it's not that I hate turn based games (hey thats where we all start, be it chess or Avalon Hill) but with the power of computers nowadays, you'd think that they'd maximize it somewhat. Like moving a whole freakin battalion up a road one company at a time is stupid and boring and I believe a waste of time better spent. I like the system that games like ANGV and HTTR have where you give orders to HQs and let them execute it.

                          Of course you wouldn't want to play a game where you couldn't 'speed up time' - how dull would that be? While warfare is generally 90% boredom and 10% terror as a gamer most of us would rather forego the boredom parts. That time compression is a workable mechanism in mainstream gaming goes without saying.

                          Best regards,
                          T.R.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by NORAD
                            Arjuna, My experience with Red Devils puts it head and shoulders aboove the "Sudden Strike" traditional RTS.


                            Armored Task Force same thing. Controlling 2d counters from a top down view on a quality map is infinitely easier then the Quasi 3D/2D land scapes of most RTS titles.

                            I know I'm kinda picking on Sudden Strike here and that is only because I personally get agitated playing it. Reason 1, I can't build more troops to throw into the meat grinder. Reason 2 the fog of war sucks. It seems like every enemy can see my units and start blasting them before I am anywhere near the point that I can spot them, no matter what kind of unit it is. Reason 3 trying to control a screen of hundreds of little men and vehicles that don't give you any info unless you hover the mouse over them, and it is an aweful lot like Les said, everyone wandering around dying.

                            To be fair there are some really fun scenarios, But for me those tend to be the stationary defend type scenarios. There is a really cool winter scenario where you as the russians have to hold a town, and there is another where you have hold a bunker complex and you get ROCKETS

                            But it is still my least favorite. I think Blizzards Starcraft on the other hand and Age of Empires from Microsoft were MUCH better traditional RTS titles. Very playable and not half the heartburn that Sudden Strike gives me.

                            I Like ATF, BCT, and HTTR's format of a pausable realtime were you can effectively order your units and coordinate your attacks. You still get the excitement of slinking along "When Suddenly" death is rained down on you, but it still gives you much more control. And finally when the fight really heats up I am not searching amongst the trees for stray units that get left behind.

                            Michael
                            nice to see that someone is talking about sudden strike here
                            i'm in clan for 1,5 year now, the solo is ok but not more
                            once i started the multiplayer in a clan it was so good that i couldn't stop playing, still now i'm playing 1 game per day at the minimum. you can play until 6vs6 map ( it is quite rare for a rts game).
                            i agree with you when you are talking about the fog of war, this is why i advise you to get the aprm add on : hidden stroke because fog of war is now more realistic, now it is rare to be killed without having seen the ennemy but it still happens sometimes. the tanks are also more realistic, the range of fire is taken into account ( i don't know if it is historicaly accurate) as well as the armor ( three types: front, back and side) i'm convinced that if you try this version of the game you won't stop playing it
                            looking forward to the new version of toaw

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X