RON could topple Civ - Page 3

tniem · January 30, 2003, 02:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeycheez
I would just like to point out that real wars don't happen in turns

And covert operations do not happen with one guy going in and killing everyone. WWII was not decided by one man escaping from prison killing all the guards and the monsters. Real criminals like ones that kill cops, run over pedestrians, and beat people with baseball bats go to jail and not hero status.

So are games true? No they are games.

That said - a game of all of civilization's history in an hour? Come on how true is that? But if it is fun, then I will enjoy it. Likewise I find TBS games to be fun and challenging. Same way with other games. Are they what really happens? No but then that is a point of a game.

St Leo · January 30, 2003, 10:28

rts sucks

Have you tried Warlords Battlecry II, Kohan, SimCity 2000, or Europa Universalis II?

Monkeycheez · January 30, 2003, 19:51

You Call Sim city 2000 a rts? It qualifies as an economic game in most reviews.

HuangShang · January 30, 2003, 20:54

the genre's name is "city-building", and sim4 is out and ur talking about sim2000?

tniem · January 31, 2003, 12:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Monkeycheez
You Call Sim city 2000 a rts? It qualifies as an economic game in most reviews.

Most sites list it as a strategy game. Go to Gamespot or Gamespy and it will be under the strategy section.

Now think about how it is played, is it real time or turn based.

Well then I would believe that it is a RTS. Not all RTS are war games.

Monkeycheez · January 31, 2003, 17:42

Amen Brother

Sava · February 3, 2003, 10:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Simcity 4 sucks IMO

oh come on, that's only because you suck at it

HuangShang · February 3, 2003, 15:41

ur out-voted sava

.... the last time i played sim3, i remember i destroyed my city to watch it burn (out of boredem of course)

February 8, 2003, 05:09

RON is a different kind of game than Civ3, so its hard to say that one is better than the other. One can like one game better than the other but you can not say that one IS better thanthe other, as far as game play goes. At least that is how I look at it.

Civ3 has it's disapointments, not so much as it is not fun to play or lacks certain abilities; but I was expecting so much more because of it's predecessors. To me Civ3 is more like Civ2.5

While I haven't played RON (and many haven't as well, but still are saying it's better than Civ3 already) I do suspect that it will be a great and fun game to play. I'm judgin it by a couple of things. First the fact the BR is behind it (nuff said). Second, the scope of the game as described by BR is extremely interesting and will make the game an instant hit if they can get what they wanted in the game to play correctly for the end user. Third, the screenshots are great. not so much the artwork (which is pretty good) but the kind of interactions that are shown between units (and other units) and buildings is awesome.

These are two different games in my opinion, each worthy in its own classification (even if I expected more from Civ3).

One_Dead_Villy · February 8, 2003, 11:38

yes well civ series is firmly in the TBS arena, while RoN is firmly in the RTS arena really so it is not really comparable. RoN tries to incorporate many TBS elements in the overall game, but you can play without experiencing any TBS trappings.

Jack_www · February 8, 2003, 22:53

I hope it beat out the civ games. I have tried many times to play Civ 3 mp, and I just cant do it. My favorite ages our Industrail and Modern, but with the pace of the game it takes days to get to those ages and is a big pain in the neck to do. With RON being able to advance in hour through all the ages is a plus. For single player i would take more time to play, but when you are play others you dont want a game that last days.

tniem · February 9, 2003, 21:02

Jack,

I think that is the important difference between RTS and TBS games. Obviously there is no way that RTS can have the depth as a TBS (or at least not in any that I have seen) but in terms of fun - RTS are so much better with MP games.

HuangShang · February 9, 2003, 22:27

lets have a vote: RTS vs TBS

Jack_www · February 9, 2003, 23:30

RTS for mp
TBS for sp

mrboo123 · February 10, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Simcity 4 sucks IMO

Can I have your game then?

mrboo123 · February 10, 2003, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack_www
RTS for mp
TBS for sp

Yup, that makes sense.

HuangShang · February 10, 2003, 20:48

yeah, im with u too, but i do like the RTS a slight bit more...

Jack_www · February 11, 2003, 00:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
Simcity 4 sucks IMO

I figured as much. It does not seem that much different from Sim City 3000. I guess the only time that you would want to get Sim City 4 is if you never played the games. I am gald I did not buy it.

minuzi · February 12, 2003, 12:07

I don't think that Rise of Nations and Civilization III can be compared. Rise of Nations is a real time strategy game with turn-based elements, while Civilization III is strictly a turn-based game. The perfect strategy game, in my opinion, would include empire management and diplomacy (Civ III style), city building (Pharaoh & Emperor:Rise of the Middle Kingdom style) and, of course, military resolution of international conflicts (Age of Kings & Age of Mythology). We are probably a long way away from this ever happening, so it's better to alternate and play games that excel in each of these respective areas depending on the type of mood we're in (builder vs. war monger, for example). What else can we do?