PDA

View Full Version : Agm's review based on the demo


AgmLauncher
14-01-2005, 23:45
In this review I'm going to more speculation than anything else. I'm going to give a synopsis and opinion on the key aspects of the game based on what I've seen in the demo.

Graphics
Likes:
Amazing detail in the graphics. The units, buildings, shadows, and terrain all fits. It really draws you into the game. The unit voice response voices are also "normal". I use that word in comparison to those in Dawn of War, which were EXTREMELY obnoxious. Not much to say really, the graphics are stunning. Suprisingly the game runs very smoothly. I thought it was going to chew my system to pieces but it doesnt.
Dislikes:
-The water looks too opaque, not real enough. Could be a graphics card shader problem, rather than the game.
-The way planes drop bombs is a little odd. They fall horiztonally and it just looks fake and akward.

Interface
Likes:
The HUD is clean and easy to navigate.
Dislikes:
Lots of problems with the interface. To start with, there needs to be an option for Left click action, basically to reverse the action buttons. Left click to select, left click to move and attack. There also needs to be a way to deselect the units you have selected. It's extremely annoying to give the wrong set of units orders. In a Left-click interface, this should obviously be reserved for the right mouse button. In addition to the right mouse button deselecting the units, it should also be used to scroll on the map in a LINEAR direction system. In otherwords, when you right click, hold, and move the mouse to the right, the screen moves to the right. Dawn of War, for some stupid reason, was the opposite. When you moved your mouse in one direction, the camera would pan in the opposite direction, as if you were dragging the map rather than the camera. This is just not intuitive at all. The reason why rapid mouse scrolling is crucial is because it allows you to keep the cursor in the middle of the screen where it can easily access units after scrolling. If you move it to the edges of the screen, you waste a ton of time and your unit selections will be considerably slower, hurting micromanagement capability. If you use the arrow keys on the key board, then you have no way of quickly selecting or creating hotkeys for your units. On top of this, BOTH the current key scroll and mouse scroll are extremely slow. The maps are huge and it takes you forever to navigate unless you click directly on the map, losing valuable unit selecting and targeting time. Another thing I dislike is the camera height. Given the immense size of the buildings, the height differences in the terrain, the fact that planes fly so high, the camera really needs to be able to be zoomed out a tad bit more. Tooltip windows that pop up to give descriptions seem to be a bit too large as well. Im talking about the box that pops up on the right hand side of the screen (like when you move your mouse over the button used to select an air unit to follow). It's just too big, even when you mouse over it for a brief second it's very distracting. I would say that interface is the biggest negative of the game. It's very clumsy for an RTS game. The units move relatively quickly and it seems like the interface isnt streamlined enough to keep up and use them efficiently.

Gameplay
Likes:
This game features AgmLauncher approved gameplay. For anyone that knows me from CnCReplays, I'm EXTREMELY picky about how the game "feels". Not a single RTS game since CCG or CCG:ZH has managed to impress me or convince me that it would be worth dedicating my time to except this one.

For starters, the range scale is very well done. Units have acceptable ranges, not like in Ground Control II where they would engage something halfway across the map and you couldnt even see what was happening or which units were shooting at which. Secondly, the damage scale is very good. Unlike in Dawn of War where units would sit there for an hour and hardly do any damage. Units die relatively quickly in this game, almost too quickly, but I'll get to that in "dislikes section". There is actually just so much to list that I like. I like how you can add units to buggies to change their effectiveness, I like how you can make infantry crawl to become stealthed, I like how you can garrison just about anything, I like how you can make infantry units take cover and hide in a clump of trees for added damage. Really really good stuff that people who are into micromanagement (like myself) will enjoy using. There are no squads which is awesome, base building is very similar to Generals. The only difference is that you dont have any dedicated builder units. A drone BECOMES a building and to build another building you need another drone.

The economic system is really cool and based on what I've seen, will add quite a bit of strategy. Once you've got the close combat upgrade, only certain units can actually "create" PoWs. If you use Heavy Snipers as your only anti-infantry solution, you wont be able to get PoWs. You'll need to mix in normal infantry to prevent enemy units from being KIA instantly. In terms of micromanagement what this means is that if you have a mixture of normal infantry and snipers, you'll have to have your snipers hotkeyed so that you can run them away before you engage another set of infantry (or have them attack vehicles or somthing) so that they wont kill any potential PoWs. You'll have to be careful about how you play. Very cool IMO.
Dislikes:
-Hopefully online play wont start you off with so much money. That just leads to mindless spamming. There is SIGNIFICANT strategy involved in planning a balance between base production, unit production, and upgrade research. With enough starting cash to do whatever you want, it becomes so easy that a monkey can play.
-Getting back to what I said about damage scale, I noticed that Heavy Snipers rip up vehicles in virtually no time. That has the potential to seriously encourage spamming of Heavy Snipers and discourage proper unit mixing.
-If the multiplayer maps are as cluttered as this demo map, the game wont be much fun to play. The details are nice if you're trying to showcase your graphics engine, but the bottom line is gameplay. If you dont have ANY room to move units about and you can hardly see them because buildings are in the way, you take away too much potential micromanagement. I hope the multiplayer maps are more wide open. Obviously urban combat is a staple of this game, but there's too much of a good thing.
-Im not too impressed with TFT's reliance on aircraft bombardments. Im not going to speculate on whether it's overpowered or not because that will only be determined in a MP environment, but they seem to be too easy to use and dont offer enough controlability. This was a fear of several people. I thought they were going to be more special abilities that you had to earn through gameplay, but if you purchase them, you should have more control over them.
-The lack of a point system is kind of a let down. It's nice earning experience points in game that can contribute to access to more units/special abilities.

Replays
There had better be replays in this game. That's a standard for RTS games now. No replays = no strategy development/sharing = no serious community interaction = dead game. Take it from me. I administrate the most active multiplayer community site for C&C Generals: Zero Hour. Despite imbalances, cheaters, and bugs galore, that site has held the MP community together for this long almost single handedly. If there arent going to be any replays for AoW, the game will simply die off. Replays increase the overall skill level of the community. Sure there are a handful of talented people who come up with BOs on their own, but replays assist them in seeing where they went wrong and how they can improve, and they assist the rest of the community for playing by a certain standard. This makes the game more enjoyable for the whole community because you dont have extremely good players and extremely poor players getting trampled on. Good/experienced players dont get as bored, and bad/newer players dont get frustrated. They have a way to learn to get better.

This is absolutely crucial. I cant emphasize it enough. If Eugen has no plans on a replay feature, then they might as well not even bother releasing the game. The RTS MP community wont even consider the game, and that's a lot of potential customers that they'll miss out on.

Overall
This game is a great game despite it's main shortcomings. What's good about the shortcomings is that they're all minor polishing fixes. No major design overhauls need to be done to make the game fun to play, it's already great as it is. Now this was not a review of the demo itself, but of what the game is like based on the demo. In short I would say that the demo simply sucks. It needed a skirmish mode so that we could fully explore all of TFT's weaponry. It did NOT give a truely good depiction of this game's potential.

AgmLauncher
15-01-2005, 00:20
Oh and another problem, I didnt notice any warning system for when units come under attack. In ZH if something gets attacked, you can just hit spacebar and save it. AoW only tells you after you've lost a unit which isnt good.

Donkan
15-01-2005, 00:36
I fully agree to all the dislikes and likes in the article. I really hope that Eugen will fix these "problems" such as deselect. And ofcourse put in replay abillity.

Hope Eugen have people reading the web with all our dislikes and small "bugs"

Ghostmaker
15-01-2005, 01:03
@AgmLauncher:

From your posts I read you're a big fan and player of Generals. I even think I know some of your replays.

But in comparision to me you seem to like the game (AofW) and see potential for it.
I'd like to know why? Maybe I miss something.

You're dislike fact's in this posts are really long and I agree to almost all of them, but I do not agree to the most of the things you like.

Besides the interface problems, you've already posted, my main concern is the gameplay.
It seems for money you will have to greatly rely on prisoners (I still hope this will not be the case). This may be a good concept in theory, but in a "normal" RTS you can rely on a straight and constant source of income for you (the ressource depots). This makes planning possible.
You know as a good player how long your ressources will last and you will start looking for more is nessecary. But how should you plan in AoW, as you're main income is only theoraticly. You don't know if you really capture some enemies. They may just die in battle. There is no planning, no strategy, you have to rely on luck for ressources and this is bad.
Also the balancing is IMO far from good. I killed 5 or 6 tanks with only 3 snipers in a building, most of them didn't even fire back. As it look's know those snipers seem to be the ultimate solution for everything.
Also the units die way too quickly, you have no chance to rescue them most of the time.
I also like all those infantry-options, but I doubt they will have a large influence on the gameplay.

So what are the pro besides the really great graphics?

Greets
Ghostmaker

Auxarius
15-01-2005, 01:23
I really love damage system. I trully HATE when infantry is shooting for like 2 mins to kill other soldier, not to mention that when tank fires they loose 5% of hp. The fast killing is awesome, it makes game more realistic, and you have to watch on your soldiers, not just send them 'over there' and if they will get shot just fall back without too many casulties.. Snipers are slightly overpowered yes, but hey! they have Barretts! If there are only 2 infantry units for TFT side i think that they do just fine. About planning - you get steady money income by capturing pows.

AgmLauncher
15-01-2005, 01:32
Originally posted by Ghostmaker
It seems for money you will have to greatly rely on prisoners (I still hope this will not be the case). This may be a good concept in theory, but in a "normal" RTS you can rely on a straight and constant source of income for you (the ressource depots). This makes planning possible. You know as a good player how long your ressources will last and you will start looking for more is nessecary.

Those are good points tbh. A big part of RTS strategy is expansion strategy. Securing positions to capture resources and to do that you have to plan when and how you do it on top of base/unit/upgrade production. Knowing when you'll run out of money is helpful in that regard. In CCG you could visually see when your supply piles were running low. So I agree, a complete absence of a primary economic source is a bad thing. I do believe however that the game will have a primary economic source for steady income. The demo just doesnt show it.

But how should you plan in AoW, as you're main income is only theoraticly. You don't know if you really capture some enemies. They may just die in battle. There is no planning, no strategy, you have to rely on luck for ressources and this is bad.
It's very clear when you can capture an enemy unit though. They flash orange or whatever and are on their knees. You have to make sure you use units that wont kill them in one shot, like a sniper or running them over with a vehicle. As long as you're careful and your opponent makes units, this resource will be more consistent than you think. Of course a smart player will kill his own potential POWs if he thinks he's going to lose a fight.

Also the balancing is IMO far from good. I killed 5 or 6 tanks with only 3 snipers in a building, most of them didn't even fire back. As it look's know those snipers seem to be the ultimate solution for everything.
Im not going to even consider balancing discussion. To begin with, we dont know if the single player damages have been tweaked and will be different in MP. C&C ZH actually had seperate .ini files for your opponent's weapons in the challenge mode. GLA's rockets and AA stuff were EXTREMELY powerful, much more so than in the actual game. So what we could be seeing will be different from what the MP actually is. Secondly, we dont even see all the units. We have no idea what the Consortium has to counter snipers. Being infantry units, they'll be frail enough to be countered by something meaning you've got to use something else in their place. Heavy Snipers im sure will be less powerful in MP. It's simply not enough information to make a decision about balance one way or the other.

Also the units die way too quickly, you have no chance to rescue them most of the time.
I agree that the damage scale MIGHT be a bit too extreme. What's nice though is that rockets dont track. You can move your units to avoid getting hit (encourages micromanagement), and small arms units dont seem to do that much damage to vehicles. But infantry do really tear each other apart. That I'll agree with.

I also like all those infantry-options, but I doubt they will have a large influence on the gameplay.
The fact that when you crawl your units become stealthed is a HUGE advantage, especially considering how powerful the infantry are. You'll see that a lot. As far as hiding in trees to ambush and cause more damage, I would have to look at the damage bonus increase in whatever controller files come with the game, but I'm sure it's significant enough to take the time to setup good infantry positioning.

So what are the pro besides the really great graphics?
Simply how the game "feels". Go download the Panzers and Axis and Allies demos. You'll see what I mean by "feel". They are utterly HORRIBLE games.

TheHitman
15-01-2005, 01:55
I think there is a Skirmish mode in the game. Looking at the demo splash screen there was an option called Engagement which was described similar to skirmish mode.

AgmLauncher
15-01-2005, 01:59
There is, but the demo needs to allow us to use it to see how the game actually works. Btw, you CAN attach units to each other and they'll follow each other around as a loose squad so that's kind of cool. But you dont have to. I dont know if you get any bonuses for doing that though.

KingsRevenge
15-01-2005, 03:30
Originally posted by AgmLauncher
There is, but the demo needs to allow us to use it to see how the game actually works. Btw, you CAN attach units to each other and they'll follow each other around as a loose squad so that's kind of cool. But you dont have to. I dont know if you get any bonuses for doing that though.

Are you talking about grouping or some other feature??

BOMBLORD
15-01-2005, 18:29
it is just sucky that they didnd made it as it was in warhammer:dawn of war(the thing about the squades).this game is starting to look that it will be a classic......

STCAB
15-01-2005, 19:17
Dislikes:
Lots of problems with the interface. To start with, there needs to be an option for Left click action, basically to reverse the action buttons. Left click to select, left click to move and attack.

Ok, I don't think you have a say in this. You just wan't it the way you are used to, am I right?;)

By the way, I think it is switched to the right MB for a reason, I was looking into it a long while ago, but I can't remeber the reason.


Likes:
This game features AgmLauncher approved gameplay. For anyone that knows me from CnCReplays, I'm EXTREMELY picky about how the game "feels". Not a single RTS game since CCG or CCG:ZH has managed to impress me or convince me that it would be worth dedicating my time to except this one.

WAIT. CNC Generals was good? :lightbulb

The economic system is really cool and based on what I've seen, will add quite a bit of strategy. Once you've got the close combat upgrade, only certain units can actually "create" PoWs. If you use Heavy Snipers as your only anti-infantry solution, you wont be able to get PoWs. You'll need to mix in normal infantry to prevent enemy units from being KIA instantly. In terms of micromanagement what this means is that if you have a mixture of normal infantry and snipers, you'll have to have your snipers hotkeyed so that you can run them away before you engage another set of infantry (or have them attack vehicles or somthing) so that they wont kill any potential PoWs. You'll have to be careful about how you play. Very cool IMO.
Sure is :tup:



-If the multiplayer maps are as cluttered as this demo map, the game wont be much fun to play. The details are nice if you're trying to showcase your graphics engine, but the bottom line is gameplay. If you dont have ANY room to move units about and you can hardly see them because buildings are in the way, you take away too much potential micromanagement. I hope the multiplayer maps are more wide open. Obviously urban combat is a staple of this game, but there's too much of a good thing.

Ok, Maybe its just me that thinks a little fast but, in a situation with lots of buildings and other things that block my veiw, I would have:

A) Bombed the place to kingdom come.

B) Send in a heli to get a better veiw, and send infantry to cover the helis.

or C) Do step A followed by step B.

PS you can turn the camera angle.

And ermm:
This game features AgmLauncher approved gameplay.

What? =\

BOMBLORD
15-01-2005, 19:26
oh ya,and you can also use that drone that the task force comando can use (GUAD )or something like that.

L4Ndy
15-01-2005, 21:38
Hi @ all :p:

I would say that there is nearly nothing more to add! I agree with all of [AGM]Launcher's likes and dislikes!

Besides I really liked the way you (AGM) presented this whole thing, and also your opinion about this game, I think we share the same thoughts!

The only thing I'd like to add, is kind of connected to the "zoom problem". First of all, like most of you already said, it is important that we have the posibility to zoom out more. But this isn't enough, cause when I'm fighting in the streets between the buildings I have the problem that I must turn the camera way too often. So it would be very usefull if we could switch the view to a kind of "bird view", so you can see the thing from above, like in GTA2 ;) . This would be nice, cause that way you would'nt have to turn the camera all the time and you would have a better overview.

Ohh, and another minor "problem", there should be a Key to switch back to the standart camera settings (zoomed out as far as possible and with the right direction), cause it occured that I lost my orientation.

bomber666
15-01-2005, 22:00
I luv this game except for the deselecting problem and i wished i could zoom alittle farther out. The special abilities and experience points would have been kewl too. Other than that i luv it. Best RTS game i've ever played and this was only with 7 units availible.

AgmLauncher
16-01-2005, 00:03
Yeah, you need to be able to zoom out a little bit more. If you make it so you can zoom out too much you run into a couple different problems:

There is actually a considerable amount of strategy that a tight zoom angle adds to the game. It's something known as map awareness. If you could zoom out and see the entire map (assuming you have radar/ample fog of war reveals) you lose that aspect. Constantly checking your key positions for troop movements is vital and challenging.

The second problem is that you lose the ability to see which units are which. That was the problem in Ground Control II. In order to see what you were attackign, you had to zoom out, but then couldnt select the units you wanted without zooming back in.

As far as seeing units properly, the current camera height is fine. You can easily distinguish between different units. The problem is that buildings and everything else are so large in scale that you do need more of a birds eye view. What I propose is to have two modes. One is the normal camera mode a SLIGHTLY higher max height (10-20%) and then an "aircraft height" view where you can view the battlefield from the height of say a plane. The camera is already in the game because you can press a button to follow an aircraft in, so why not make it more flexible for use?

Ad-Aware
16-01-2005, 01:39
I must agree i really like it also..shaping upto be one of the best RTS ttiles of the year..if indeed not 2 years :)

Ghostmaker
16-01-2005, 14:16
Originally posted by AgmLauncher
Those are good points tbh. A big part of RTS strategy is expansion strategy. Securing positions to capture resources and to do that you have to plan when and how you do it on top of base/unit/upgrade production. Knowing when you'll run out of money is helpful in that regard. In CCG you could visually see when your supply piles were running low. So I agree, a complete absence of a primary economic source is a bad thing. I do believe however that the game will have a primary economic source for steady income. The demo just doesnt show it.


Let's hope so, then maybe the game has a chance but with only the pow's for money...

Originally posted by AgmLauncher
It's very clear when you can capture an enemy unit though. They flash orange or whatever and are on their knees. You have to make sure you use units that wont kill them in one shot, like a sniper or running them over with a vehicle. As long as you're careful and your opponent makes units, this resource will be more consistent than you think. Of course a smart player will kill his own potential POWs if he thinks he's going to lose a fight.


Yes, potential pow's are nearly all units, but most of the time they just die instead of becoming wounded, even if you use just Commandos. It depends on luck to create pows and that offers no strategy.

Originally posted by AgmLauncher
I agree that the damage scale MIGHT be a bit too extreme. What's nice though is that rockets dont track. You can move your units to avoid getting hit (encourages micromanagement), and small arms units dont seem to do that much damage to vehicles. But infantry do really tear each other apart. That I'll agree with.


For a try just position a few commandos in a building. They will tear apart tanks. Not very good.

Originally posted by AgmLauncher
Simply how the game "feels". Go download the Panzers and Axis and Allies demos. You'll see what I mean by "feel". They are utterly HORRIBLE games.

I've never tried Axis&Allies, but I own Panzers and it's a great game in my opinon. It's hard to compare to C&C or AoW, because it's totally different (no base, no ressources, etc). You have to survive with the units you start with. Every loss hurts. I really loved the athmosphere of it. If I would have to discide between Panzers and Act of War from the Demos it would be Panzers all the way.


Originally posted by STCAB
WAIT. CNC Generals was good?


Yup, or at least far better than AoW is right now. Sorry, just my 5 cents.


Greets Ghostmaker

L4Ndy
16-01-2005, 14:53
@AGM

I wasn't talking about the ability to look at the whole map from above.
I just thought:

1. It would be better, as you said, if we could zoom out 10-20% more!

2. If Eugen systems would intergrate a "bird view", so you could see the same things you see in your normal view mode but in "2D" from "above", so you would'nt have to turn the camera around to look into a street with many buildings on the side. This would be very usefull as the game mainly plays in cities.

sry for the bad language, but I don't really know how to explain what I mean!

I3ag_OF_I3ones
16-01-2005, 17:18
Well you mean that the camera should be looking 90 degrees down

L4Ndy
16-01-2005, 20:06
yes exactly! thx :p:

AgmLauncher
17-01-2005, 04:41
It would be kind of cool to be able to quickly tab between camera modes. Though I think the game has a feature where you can see units through buildings (they show up as an outline or something) so you dont have to turn the camera to see. Although it would make for some interesting tactics if part of your map awareness involved having to turn the camera about as you move through an urban area.

MetalPhoenix
17-01-2005, 13:03
Isn't there going to be oil as a resource as well?

Originally posted by AgmLauncher
Oh and another problem, I didnt notice any warning system for when units come under attack. In ZH if something gets attacked, you can just hit spacebar and save it. AoW only tells you after you've lost a unit which isnt good.
If you listen carefully, you can hear the units say when they are engaging the enemy (TF commandos will say "We are pinned down and exchanging fire!"), but you can't jump to the action which bites...:madred:

AgmLauncher
17-01-2005, 21:05
That sounds like something that can be patched in. I think Eugen is listening to its customers which is nice.

L4Ndy
18-01-2005, 18:11
I hope it will be :
patched in
I think Eugen is listening to its customers which is nice
They really are listening, as we can see there are people from ATARI answering to some of our posts! :biggringr

AgmLauncher
18-01-2005, 20:19
I even got a PM from an Atari rep on the US forums. A company that's actually intrested in what it's CUSTOMERS want???????????????? Blasphemy.

STCAB
18-01-2005, 20:38
*cough* blizzard? *cough*

AgmLauncher
18-01-2005, 22:02
It's too bad Blizzard decided to go for the orc niche. Despite their great support and balance, I would rather play an unbalanced game with tanks than a balanced game with orcs.

jmurphy
18-01-2005, 23:01
STCAB, you mentioned above that you can change the cam angle. How? It would really helpful with urban combat.

STCAB
18-01-2005, 23:30
Hold the middle mouse button and move the mouse around. That way you can look from different angles.

jmurphy
18-01-2005, 23:35
Thanks.

Tiberian
18-01-2005, 23:53
strange, holding my middlemouse button does not work.
I've cordless logitech mouse
In other games my middle moude button works well...

Masterblaster89
19-01-2005, 01:41
This is way off topic but how you stick a pic under your name?

MetalPhoenix
19-01-2005, 07:52
Go to your CP and edit your avatar.

STCAB
19-01-2005, 08:56
Tiberian. You have the same mouse as me:D

You have to tweak the settings to get it to work. Make sure that number "6" is "Middle mouse button."

Tiberian
19-01-2005, 10:57
Originally posted by STCAB
Tiberian. You have the same mouse as me:D

You have to tweak the settings to get it to work. Make sure that number "6" is "Middle mouse button."

WoW the same mouse :D hihi i've the laser type..
Thx for the tip but where can i fix that :confused:
I've looked in the setpoint software but can't find any setting to change te "number".

Aluka
19-01-2005, 13:53
Well, i have several thoughts after playing demo.
I like the gameplay, it looks realistic enough and exciting at the same time.
Graphics are nice, however some effects don't look good enough. (such as water effects, or plane engine exhaust) But actually it doesn't matter for me, since i don't think that graphical appearance is very importaint.
Controls also could be better. Personally i prefer left-select/order right-deselect/fast_camera system. And i haven't found the ability to adjust vertical angle of the camera. Having such ability would be cool, since you could view the battlefield from more "theatrical" point of view. And is there any button to return camera to default?
Game balanse is well calculated and promises much excitement. Oh, there's one exception. Those Barret Snipers really screw vehicles up! This should not be this way. Perhaps some grenade launchers... But anyway infantry unit, that ****s vehicles and other infantry provides some disbalanse.

rojar_parit
19-01-2005, 14:01
what do you want from a gun that fires .50 cal armor piercing rounds and has confirmed kills at out to 2 km...I would actually say range wise they are underpowered. But damage wise a little bit over done but only a little.

STCAB
19-01-2005, 14:14
In the software there shoudl be something called "buttons" or something. (I don't know exactly, because I have it in another language hehe)

Serg..ik
19-01-2005, 16:34
Finily game that can beat RA2 .Realy Great game and I'm saying it only after demo!!!!!
Graphics doesnt matter-gameplay,story and atmosphere this what I need and "Act Of War" has them all!!

P.S. Graphics 9/10 ;)

KingsRevenge
19-01-2005, 17:44
Originally posted by Aluka
Well, i have several thoughts after playing demo.
I like the gameplay, it looks realistic enough and exciting at the same time.
Graphics are nice, however some effects don't look good enough. (such as water effects, or plane engine exhaust) But actually it doesn't matter for me, since i don't think that graphical appearance is very importaint.
Controls also could be better. Personally i prefer left-select/order right-deselect/fast_camera system. And i haven't found the ability to adjust vertical angle of the camera. Having such ability would be cool, since you could view the battlefield from more "theatrical" point of view. And is there any button to return camera to default?
Game balanse is well calculated and promises much excitement. Oh, there's one exception. Those Barret Snipers really screw vehicles up! This should not be this way. Perhaps some grenade launchers... But anyway infantry unit, that ****s vehicles and other infantry provides some disbalanse.

Well in Wc3 Blizzard didnt let you adjust the verticle aspect of the camera :).

Aluka
19-01-2005, 18:04
It's not a reason to like game or not, but i hate Wc3 btw :rolleyes:.

optimistx
19-01-2005, 19:32
would be nice to have a 'atari battlenet'...dont see it happen though:cry:

Masterblaster89
19-01-2005, 20:59
Thanks Metal

Massalla
21-01-2005, 15:54
Great review [AGM].

I think you summed the feedback up very well.
I do know you from CNCR and I think your experience and passion on rts games makes you a great member of the community.
Therefore I hope the Atari team will carefully look at this review and realise that these are the wishes of most of the community and try to implement them as good as possible.

Darky
21-01-2005, 17:49
Hey guys, Darky here, i'm about to start playing the demo but I can see that AGM has already hit on some CRUCIAL points.

1) THERE MUST BE REPLAYS

2) There must be the left click control system, basically you must have the option of this or the right click type

These are the mega important things, AGM is one of the admin munky's at the sites I help run/own, namely cncreplays.com and bfme.org so we certainly know a thing or two about RTS ;), I can't wait to try the demo :)

Regards

Darky

Cymru
21-01-2005, 17:57
Originally posted by Darky
Hey guys, Darky here, i'm about to start playing the demo but I can see that AGM has already hit on some CRUCIAL points.

1) THERE MUST BE REPLAYS

2) There must be the left click control system, basically you must have the option of this or the right click type

These are the mega important things, AGM is one of the admin munky's at the sites I help run/own, namely cncreplays.com and bfme.org so we certainly know a thing or two about RTS ;), I can't wait to try the demo :)

Regards

Darky

Darky, I will be happy to be a GM on AoWReplays.com once you set it up :)

:p

Colonel Chaden
21-01-2005, 21:55
This game should be great. Lots of tactical moves. And it is funny that's nobody said it, but this game remind me a lot of CONFLICT ZONE. I wondered if some guys at EUGEN systems work at this game ?

Lazz
22-01-2005, 11:23
Interface
Dislikes:
There also needs to be a way to deselect the units you have selected. It's extremely annoying to give the wrong set of units orders. [/B]

*First Post, new here*

I agree with that statement fully. I am a fan of the C&C series, but I was a bit dissapointed with Zero Hour. This game caught my attention by chance but I fully agree that the mouse button selection can be annoying.

I remember selecting a unit and than wanting to deselect that unit, but pressing the right mouse button didn't work, so I had to click on a building to deselect that unit.

My main hope for this game lies in the Skirmish mode - personally, when I first brought Red Alert 2 (C&C), I played on Skirmish for 2 months before even considering doing the single player missions and tbh - the single player missions of this game don't particularly appeal to me as I would have more fun playing Skirmish and online battles.

The graphics are great. When I saw a screenshot on GameSpot, for half a second I actually thought it was a photo of the real place (Washington).

The HUD seems decent but will take a bit of getting used to. Could just be me but it seems to be more complicated than C&C HUD's.

I am also liking the idea of having so many units, I think that is great as it gives players so many opportunities, though of course with so many units, the big difficulty will be the balancing of the sides.

As for money collecting, I can imagine many people who play this game will have also played the Command and Conquer games and therefore I think it would be good to have a similar method of collecting money.

Ad-Aware
22-01-2005, 14:01
yep, just recently occured to me its very simlar to conflict zone...only good.
Good catch.
Conflict zone wasnt popular though..so maybe thats why no one spotted it..coz no one played.