|
Post by (>FSB<)MarsBar on Oct 2, 2006 14:18:54 GMT -5
Um, I prefer RTS.
|
|
|
Post by Some-Half-Forgotten-Stranger on Oct 2, 2006 14:21:29 GMT -5
Ok cool. I respect your opinion
|
|
|
Post by (>FSB<)Volxen on Oct 2, 2006 14:27:47 GMT -5
The only RTS I have ever seriously played and liked is Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns, because it is quite possibly the best RTS game ever made, due to the numerous things you could do in the game. Empire at War, wich was supposed to be a sequel to Galactic Battlegrounds RTS games, was a huge dissapointment because it does not even come close to comparing to GB, as you can only be two civilizations (rebels and imperials), and cannot do many of the fun things you could in GB, like making your own games with the scenario editor.
As for this game, Im surprised you would like the FPS version best of all. In fact, I thought all C & C games where RTS's.
|
|
|
Post by Some-Half-Forgotten-Stranger on Oct 2, 2006 14:32:04 GMT -5
I agree with the Star Wars thing. And no not all the C&C games are RTS. And yes C&C Renegade I find is the best C&C game (the only FPS)
|
|
|
Post by maverick666 on Oct 2, 2006 19:45:41 GMT -5
LOLOLOLOL
Ok, that was never supposed to sequal galactic battlegrounds.. it was supposed to sequal Star Wars: Force Campaigns
Galactic Battlegrounds was Age of Empires 2 with starwars pictures, it even says it on the box of gb.
Try C&C generals, best of all.
|
|
|
Post by (>FSB<)MarsBar on Oct 2, 2006 19:55:12 GMT -5
Well, back on topic. What about C&C:Renegade.
It looks like a tie now. PenguinSllayer, your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by (>FSB<)Volxen on Oct 2, 2006 20:25:22 GMT -5
Perhaps it was not ment to be a direct sequel to Galactic Battlegrounds since it did not have Galactic Battlegrounds in the title.
However, EAW falls under the category of RTS, and is also a Star Wars game, so naturally it is going to be compared to Galactic Battlegrounds, at least by people who played GB and where avid fans of it. And EAW simply does not even come close to holding a candle to GB, which is why it was nothing short of a huge dissapointment when it comes to being a quality RTS game.
As for AOE, I have never played any of those games, but I am well aware they are RTS games, just as the GB games are. I am also not doubting they are good games, but I have never liked games with the midieval theme, which is why I have never played any of the Ages of Empires games. In any case, I have heard they are about the same as GB, with the only difference being the setting (one medieval based and one star wars based), so it is somewhat surprising to see all of these AOE fans who do not like or have not even heard of Galactic Battlegrounds. Nor do I get why some of these AOE fans act like AOE is so superior to GB, when again, both games have the same concept but only different settings. Then again, for some reason World of Warcraft is still the most popular MMORPG, so there must be something appealing in the medieval setting, although I always find games with futuristic themes, such as star wars games, much more fun.
|
|
|
Post by maverick666 on Oct 3, 2006 17:06:55 GMT -5
Yep. GB was more of a flat out game when EAW was tactical based and stuff, but I never liked EAW.
|
|
|
Post by Some-Half-Forgotten-Stranger on Oct 4, 2006 6:25:51 GMT -5
Same thing with me "I like futuristic games"(Ryan) that's what I would say. But!!!!Remember Star Wars isn't in the future! Remember "A LONG time ago in a galaxy far far away,"(Star Wars)
But anyway back on topic. Does C&C Renegade look like something that is interesting enough to be a Test Division. I mean does it look like something that is going to happen in near future?
|
|