1.) I haven't heard of it before, therefore it must be bad. Quality is based on a publisher's marketing budget, until the day after release.
2.) I don't like RTS games, probably because I have only ever played games with analog sticks (or maybe I suck) and feel the need to tell you about my personal genre taste.
3.) I'm willing to write lengthy posts discounting the game based only on it's obscurity, even though my favorite games of all time are probably all one-off hits.
Seriously people? Such shallow-mindedness from gamers, how surprising. Any game's notoriety is utterly irrelevant. Judge things on their own merits only.
There are two major flavors to RTS design. The first I'll call "Starcraft like." Limited resources quickly deplete, building units is fast, and economies are vulnerable. Any link in the chain broken for even a minute typically leaves the loser unable to catch up resulting in shorter games. Then you have you "C&C like" RTS games, where resources are either infinite or abundant, both reasource collection and unit production can easily be automated, and even besieged players can sometimes make comebacks. Bases are harder to destory, there are fewer "critical" structures, and games tend to run on much longer into battles of attrition.
Grey Goo is a major revival of the second variety; more like C&C than any other game, but parallels can be drawn with Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander. I played the first three single-player stages today. Here are my impressions:
1.) The game's single player has merit. Blizzard-quality cut-scenes include personable characters. The premise is somewhat cliche, but the plot is sure to please classic sci-fi fans. An experiment gone awry results in an invasion of mysterious origin, prompting an evacuation. Cutscenes are supported by video transmissions before each mission which help make the experience feels very cohesive.
2.) The single player game is challenging. I can't say for certain, but the Normal AI did seem to use scout-and-response routines; attacking in force as soon as I left my base undefended. Other people on the Steam Discussion pages and forum's official pages have noted the game is difficult.
3.) The races are very asymmetric. The Goo has no base, morphing units from the Mother Goo, which can sit on top of resource extraction points and work up more spooge with which to divide into goo-babies. The Betas are fairly standard, setting up multiple bases. The third race I only played against, but had some sort of mega-base thing going on where every building needed to be directly wired to a central node. Notably, none of the races required "builder units" - instead opting to allow the player to drop structures anywhere valid that they have sight through the fog of war.
4.) It seems like a (relatively) turtle-friendly game. The two not-Goo races have walls, which fall quickly but break up large forces. The Betas can mount units on their walls, at least one of which only functions offensively while mounted.
5.) Tech choices run up to 3:00 to unlock and are branching trade-offs. I think there is counterplay potential here, but didn't get to play against humans. You can also remove these and select a different branch mid-game. The tech only seemed to modify existing units. Effectively, every unit in the game past the first two was like building a Siege Tank in SCII. Factory to produce, attachment to determine what it can produce, upgrades on the attachment.
5.) It is a visually impressive game unquestionably on par with Starcraft II:HOTS. The animations are detailed and the shaders atmospheric.
Get it's whirlygigs in your eyeballs already if you love C&C, this may be a more deserving spiritual successor than previous titles. If you just like Starcraft II, but wouldn't mind a slower RTS with much less logistical micromanagement and more freedom to handle your units, this one's production qualities are on par. The UI and hotkeys are intuitive, and you should have no problem getting started.
Log in to comment