curious
liberty or license
was for me. uninteresting graphic design. focus on massive amount of units versus smaller squads that gain veterancy or even stats. made by gas powered games. non intuitive map system. (never a fan of tactical maps in any strategy game unless its a complete seperate element) zoom levels horrid for up close which showed lack of detail to environments to basically just terrain. maybe all those are enjoyable to some rts fans but not to me. its one of the 5 worst rts i've played, though i did only play the demo. and i have played dozens of straight rts games not including all of the hybrids. it may be a good game, but it brought nothing remotely interesting to the table besides it being sci-fi for me and based on gas powered games story telling abilities...well you can see why $7 for a decent lunch is still a better choice
some other reference stinkers for me were the 'battle for middle earth' games. again a focus on huge disposable squads--massive scale. being that i'm a base builder type and defensive style player who strives for a zero causality rate these games just have no interest to me. empire earth 2 also was horrible compared to the near perfect original. the expansion was a bit better but still non-noteworthy. didn't even bother with EE3. age of empires 3, another game i'm sure that got great reviews but while it had some interesting elements which lured me into buying it, i've never played past the first campaign level and i bought the original and the first expansion.
there's a number of 10 year old rts games i'd rather play any day than these but i guess we have different rts types. from what i've gathered, neither of you are the city builder type either. correct?
some other reference stinkers for me were the 'battle for middle earth' games. again a focus on huge disposable squads--massive scale. being that i'm a base builder type and defensive style player who strives for a zero causality rate these games just have no interest to me. empire earth 2 also was horrible compared to the near perfect original. the expansion was a bit better but still non-noteworthy. didn't even bother with EE3. age of empires 3, another game i'm sure that got great reviews but while it had some interesting elements which lured me into buying it, i've never played past the first campaign level and i bought the original and the first expansion.
there's a number of 10 year old rts games i'd rather play any day than these but i guess we have different rts types. from what i've gathered, neither of you are the city builder type either. correct?