xyphonic

xyphonic

Joined Member # 3012160
0 Posts 1 Replies 2,048 Reputation

[quote who="EdWood110" reply="37" id="3774507"] People crave RTS games, yet when they come out they are not super successful. Grey Goo, the Act of Aggression which had a C&C Generals kind of gameplay, those were supposedly all games players wanted. Act of Aggression even listened to their player base and released a second version of the game after a lot of work, for nothing. FAF is going strong, yes, because Supreme Commander is the best RTS there is but

40 Replies 379,551 Views

[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="3" id="3729258"] It is vastly inferior to Sins:Rebellion. [e digicons]:P[/e] I agree though, there was no better RTS game lately, at least i am not aware about anything. In past few years i bought Homeworld Remastered, Deserts of Kharak, Act of Aggression, Grey Goo, Cossacks 3 and Empires Apart...HW, while awesome, was the same old game, so no point to compare, Cossacks 3 was pretty much the same, C1 in new graphics, Desert

12 Replies 122,014 Views

I think what you've said is true (especially the delayed gratification bit) and I think there is two more big reasons: First, RTS only works on PC while FPS can be played on all platforms. Given how many people don't have gaming computers (but do have PS/Xbox) that reaches a smaller market. As an example, Minecraft is one of the top selling video games of all time and only 20-30% of its sales came on PC. I don't know when GTA 5 came out on PC, but it only make sup 2.1% o

2 Replies 69,692 Views

1) I agree. I think the issue is less total control and more that army AI needs to be improved. That's something I expect to keep improving though. 2) You can have massive armies with the right map setup, but it's not common. I believe there were hardware restrictions that caused them to have to tone that down a bit (could be wrong). The idea of slowing down battles is interesting, I like that actually . Would also allow you to do more

2 Replies 3,726 Views

1) Dreadnoughts. Like many here, I disagree that they need a buff. They're not very effective in ranked multiplayer because the maps are smaller. And that makes sense to me. How I like to evaluate the strategy of Ashes is: "Can I implement this real life strategy in Ashes?" So harassing, pincers, feints, brute force, air superiority, encirclement, etc. are all real life strategies that I've been able to use successfully. I love that.

11 Replies 8,864 Views

I think the issue RTS games are having, which Frogboy has alluded to, is that they're really hard to evolve. A well balanced RTS can be played for a long time which isn't true for most other game types. And 4x games have been able to expand the scope of the product. Starcraft is certainly one big exception, although it's riding off success in the RTS golden age and delivers both a strong campaign/story and strong multiplayer (in part thanks to a large bu

33 Replies 211,598 Views

The devs have made pretty clear the investment in the engine was necessary to take Ashes (and future games) to the next level. A contrast is Paradox which has under-invested and has Stellaris which really could use a better engine (and more content). Personally, Ashes is the most strategic game I've ever played on PC. A good contrast is Starcraft which is far more polished, has a better narrative and is more complex. But Ashes forces strategic thinking on a level

33 Replies 211,598 Views

1) I'm not going to get upset about $20 vs $10. That's silly and I'm wasting my time if so. Stardock dialogues with its players (which doesn't mean they do what we say). Their DLC is fairly priced and isn't from pulled features (hello Total War). 2) If you bought the original Ashes for $40 (or $X) then you were happy to pay that price at the time. I bought a pair of headphones for a $120, three weeks later they were $100. &nbs

74 Replies 268,701 Views