Thanks for all the recommendations guys. I'll try Sins of a Solar Empire because apparently, I've already played every other RTS in the last decade.
Spacetrucking's forum posts
Have you played World in Conflict? It's all about solid command of the units/support abilities at your disposal. It also looks amazing, even four years later.Yeah, I played that one at launch. I might just reinstall it or Warcraft III, since I can't find anything new.
Halo Wars... Yeah, go out and buy that.After my last RROD, I don't have an Xbox 360 anymore. I tried Brutal Legend on PS3 and it was an infuriating experience. Console RTS are probably not for me.
Hello Bombers, I'm looking for a new RTS to dive into, preferably one that's fast paced and has a good single player campaign. I was hoping you guys could help me find one, because I'm coming up blank. I've already exhausted the following (somewhat recent) options:
- Retribution & Chaos Rising
- Sup Com 2
- Total War: Shogun 2 (I only tried the demo and didn't like it. Sadly, I haven't liked a Total War game since Empire)
- Men of War
I do enjoy RTS single player campaigns, especially something like Relic's DOW or Company of Heroes games. But I can't seem to find anything similar to that. Is the genre really as dry as it seems at the moment?
Boy, that certainly put a smile on my face after a monstrous Monday. Thanks for the starlet feature, though I feel more like a troublemaker than an actual contributor around here! (ZP probably still hates me for making him change the spotlight format and locking him into a weekly obligation)
Anyway, here's something constructive (or maybe destructive: I nominate BiffMcBlumpkin for a starlet spot. No offense to other GB users but he has made me laugh more than anyone else on the site. His forum history reads like a standup routine. Or if you're looking for someone more articulate: DanKempster - I swear, he is one of the best writers on the site but just doesn't get the readership he deserves. Maybe he should just start including hot button words like "anime, japan, voyeuristic fanart" in his blog titles.
Ha! I'm not sure how I became the list guy around here - I've only made 7 of them over nearly 3 years. And I could only aspire to your clever wordplays; seriously Chie Satonaka= "Oh, A Steak? Can I?" kills me every time.
" Killjoi definitely deserves the coveted Starlet spot this week. I consider him my list rival, though from his perspective it's probably closer to this sort of scenario. For the time being I shall simply be thankful for the blog mention, and bide my time. "
" @Killjoi: It's not my call, but I'd say the thing that qualifies "game" pages to be "game" pages is being an actual game. Requiring another game to play it disqualifies it from being a "game." But again, I don't make the calls, it's up to one of the staff. "That's an odd stance to take when there are "games" like Cataclysm that require not one, not two but three prior games to play (Original WoW, Burning Crusade and Wrath of the Lich King). Trying to fit all that information on a single page would be quite the task.
Even Wikipedia, a database infamous for its stringent rules against superfluous pages, lists Undead Nightmare, Awakening and Shivering Isles separately. Why exactly are you so zealous about deleting these pages on GB, when they clearly serve a purpose ?
Expansions are no longer released "solely" in physical form. Everything is downloadable now. Shivering Isles was the first of many. DLC packs are rarely standalone either.
" @Killjoi: The rule is regarding downloadable content that has been released on a disc. Since there is a "DLC Add-Ons" section on game pages specifically for that. Expansion packs that were solely released in physical form are fine. As are DLC packs that are released as standalone physical discs. "
These retail releases are always big enough updates that they require their own page. Titles like Undead Nightmare or Awakening can be listed under DLC Addons section as well but deleting them for fear of redundancy is a myopic view of how the industry works these days.
Expansions are rarely standalone but that doesn't disqualify them for a page. They are all retail products and make significant updates to the original game to require their own page. Trying to fit all that information in a single page is unwieldy. If you're deleting pages based on the standalone criteria alone, you should delete all the World of Warcraft, Guild Wars & Everquest expansions, Frozen Throne, Brood War, Neverwinter Nights and NWN 2 expansions, Throne of Bhaal, Age of Empire expansions and so on and so forth.
These are all major titles that sold more than a million copies by themselves. Yeah, let's not have a page for them. Good going!
General rule of the thumb should be: As long as a game/expansion has a retail release, it qualifies for its own page; irrespective of its dependencies. It's pretty much how wikipedia and mobygames work.
This Forbes article certainly suggests so. Zynga's valuation is between $4-6 billion (that's almost approaching Electronic Arts- ERTS), Valve's is between $2-4 billion and Gabe owns more than half the shares. Unless I missed someone, these two are probably going to be the first billionaires through video games. It is kind of ironic now how their products (Steam, Farmville) were largely dismissed by players on launch.
@Kyreo: Yeah, that's why we need an absolute definition - if possible. As as I said earlier, it's definitely a headache. If limiting it to most blatant cases like Postal makes it easier to define, then I'm all for it. At least, it would be a good start.
@extremeradical: Yeah, it could be. But doesn't ESRB do half the work by aggressively labeling games under Blood & Gore (with even more detailed sub-categories for ultra violent games) ?
Disclaimer: I'm in no way affiliated with the California gov., Arnie or Morazzini. Nor may I collecting evidence against violent video games. Just wanted to make that clear :p