are most RTS games generally the same??

I have CoH and Rome:Total War.  I really like both of them and I have played the demos of CnC3 and Supreme Commander, but yet I don't feel like they are worth purchasing.  To me almost all RTS games seem generally the same but with different building and unit models.  If you have one good RTS is there really a reason to get another one?  Rome:Total War is a bit different because it is the campaign map with settlement management and such and then you actually do battles when you attack armies, whereas CoH, DoW, CnC3, SupCom, you are building your structures and producing your units while you are fighting.  The thing with Total War games though is if you have one of them do you really have a reason to get another one.. unless you absolutely want a theme change?  Wasn't/isn't Medieval II: Total War generally the same thing as Rome except they are in different time periods?

So the question is.. if you have one good RTS is there really a good reason to buy another?  Aren't most RTS generally the same with the building structures and producing units and such? 

Yeah I guess you could look at it that way. For some reason though FPS/TPS and action games (I don't play racing games or any other genres really) just seem like they are different. For some reason RTS games just seem to be so similar that I cannot justify getting a new RTS game as I already have a good one. I guess what it is for me is that most RTS games play incredibly similar.. building base structures, building defenses, upgrading unit types that it just seems way too similar. It feels.. from my experiences w/ CoH, CnC3 and SupCom (Rome:Total War is a completely different type of gameplay and it is pretty fun) that RTS games play almost exactly the same way and the ONLY things that differ are the time periods/themes and the way the units look. In regard to action games for instance, if you have Ninja Gaiden then it wouldn't play near the same as Assassin's Creed would. Those two games aren't doing the exact same thing with just a differing time period/theme. Ninja Gaiden is an arcade style hack'em up fighter and Assassin's Creed is a sneak around, assassinate and evade/sword fight. I don't know it just seems that the gameplay in the RTS genre is almost identical in all of the RTS games I have played.

In fact a couple years ago when I started playing games I was sort of strict and organized about what games I had. I would have only one good hack em up action game, only one good sci-fi FPS, only one good western FPS/TPS (not really many good ones though are they) one really good WWII FPS, only one good modern FPS/TPS, only one good RTS, only one good racing game and so on. Part of the reason was probably that I had a console then and bought all my games as I didn't think renting was worth my money. Although now I play games on the PC and I have started to begin thinking the same way again. So for example, if I have DoD:S I wouldn't feel the need to get Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. Although I will probably get Quake Wars because it (AFAIK) feels so much different than DoD:S it isn't the same type of gameplay. I guess it all boils down to is the game you are considering a basic game of that genre or does it do something special and play in a certain way.

I have CoH and Rome:Total War.  I really like both of them and I have played the demos of CnC3 and Supreme Commander, but yet I don't feel like they are worth purchasing.  To me almost all RTS games seem generally the same but with different building and unit models.  If you have one good RTS is there really a reason to get another one?  Rome:Total War is a bit different because it is the campaign map with settlement management and such and then you actually do battles when you attack armies, whereas CoH, DoW, CnC3, SupCom, you are building your structures and producing your units while you are fighting.  The thing with Total War games though is if you have one of them do you really have a reason to get another one.. unless you absolutely want a theme change?  Wasn't/isn't Medieval II: Total War generally the same thing as Rome except they are in different time periods?

 

So the question is.. if you have one good RTS is there really a good reason to buy another?  Aren't most RTS generally the same with the building structures and producing units and such? 

wookieeassassin

If you define "RTS" narrowly enough, yes.  There are some pretty different RTS's out there, like Europa Universalis.  Some wouldn't consider it in the same genre as CnC or CoH, though.  Beyond that, there can be subtle differences between the games.  For example, CnC is very Rock/Paper/Scissors oriented, and the proper counters will kill a unit in seconds.  Supreme Commander takes a different approachs, where numbers matter and there are no exact counter units, though some units are limited in function.  Economies can be different as well.  Rise of Nations has you collect 5 different resources with non-combative units, while Dawn of War has you collect requisition by capturing points on the map with military units.

These may seem like subtle differences, but they can change the pace and pupose of the gameplay.

I have CoH and Rome:Total War. I really like both of them and I have played the demos of CnC3 and Supreme Commander, but yet I don't feel like they are worth purchasing. To me almost all RTS games seem generally the same but with different building and unit models. If you have one good RTS is there really a reason to get another one? Rome:Total War is a bit different because it is the campaign map with settlement management and such and then you actually do battles when you attack armies, whereas CoH, DoW, CnC3, SupCom, you are building your structures and producing your units while you are fighting. The thing with Total War games though is if you have one of them do you really have a reason to get another one.. unless you absolutely want a theme change? Wasn't/isn't Medieval II: Total War generally the same thing as Rome except they are in different time periods?

So the question is.. if you have one good RTS is there really a good reason to buy another? Aren't most RTS generally the same with the building structures and producing units and such?

wookieeassassin

Not all RTS are the same. Granted most RTS use the same formula of building up an economy, building factories to produce and upgrade units and finally use them to attack. This is the most popular RTS sub-genre.

Some RTS have a different approach, like the Total War series that are a mix of turn-based strategy and real-time combat. Some games nullify the economic and building process to only focus on ractics and combat like the Ground Control and Myth series. Some games add an entire new dimension pane like the Homeworld series.

yeah, most rts games are exactly the same - but that's true of most games - you can play stalker or crysis or half life or unreal tournament or doom, and it might use different spices, but you're still eating the same meal

pick up an andventure game and you solve puzzles and advance a story based around intrigue, try a roleplaying game and you'll be saving the world - ugh

sure, there'll be a different feel - a different flavour to each game, but the core fundamentals are - more or less - always the same... it's evolution, not revolution, with computer games... someone will take an existing idea, and make it a bit better, and someone else will build on that, and on that - all the while people are still releasing loads of games that aren't building on them too

as a genre as a whole, there's only subtle difference between everything - you can even compare medieval 2 with supreme commander in many ways... just like doom 1 is more or less the same as crysis - because that fundamental level, that ground zero, can't be changed without changing the genre - everything else is surface level, superficial - but in a world where there are so many of genre x, it's those subtle differences - that slightly different expression - that means everything... i choose dawn of war over company of heroes because i love warhammer 40k, i choose medieval 2 over rome because the medieval setting appeals - i am choosing to ignore c&c3 because it's exactly the same as all the other c&c games... with rts, the best thing to do is to find one you like - it becomes your mainstay - and you keep it for years and years, until it just becomes too outdated, then you get a new one - don't go and buy a couple every month, it's like buying a new chessmaster, nearly pointless in the short term

every now and then, someone comes along and does something incredible that changes the genre, or they take genre x and genre y and merge them and it's awesome, and something new as happened - but when you buy a new real time strategy game, it's like buying penne instead of farfalle - it's just a little bit different - but it's still pasta

Problem i have with RTS is theres no freedom you'll find the best way to do something and it'll be the only option. I find them very limited like C&C and COH, however i do like these games but i don't want to see them anymore as its boring.

 I want RTS where you build your nation and politics and everything then chose to go to war with someone whose another online player. IT wouldn't just last one session to it would be kool to be able to save the game and come back to it at a chosen date.

The way I see it is that you have to sub-genres to the RTS genre.

First, you have tradtional RTS games.  These consist of building some structures with a central builder (either a unit or a builder building), and then building an army.  You also need to collect some sort of resource to finance anything you build.  Games in this sub-genre include:
Command and Conquer series
Total Annihilation/Supreme Commaner
Homeworld series

Second, you have the "tactical" RTS games.  These games are different from traditional RTSs in that there are no resources to collect and nothing to build.  You have a set amount of units and you must use them carefully and intelligently in order to beat the opponent.  Games in this sub-genre include:
Ground Control/Ground Control 2
Force 21
(cant really think of too many more)

Lastly, you have the mixed RTSs.  Game in this category have some sort of resource gathering and base building element, but they also incorporate tactical elements.  Also, the logistics of some of these games might also take place in turn-based gameplay, while the combat itself is real time and a "tactical" ****  Games in this sub-genre include:
Total War series
Star Wars: Empire at War
Company of Heroes (I include this here because you really only spend 5% of your time building stuff)

Checkers and Chess are the same "type" of game. They are played on the EXACT same board with the same amount of pieces. However, the pieces do different things and that makes them different. I love chess, I can't stand checkers.

If you were to take a game like C and C generals, and have 2 copies of it installed. One with everything default. One with everything the same except the Humvees now get bazookas instead of machine guns, this one little difference can make the whole game very different to play. I used to do this in Red Alert. Me and a buddy used to play that game with the jeeps having bazookas instead of machine guns. It was so much more fun and really felt like a totally different game in ways.

My point is this, ya most RTSs are roughly the same "type" of game, but it's the "little" differences that make them all stand apart. Once you find the one you like, it's an instant classic that can be played for many years, if not indefinitely. Just like chess, you can have that game sitting around for your whole life and never get tired of it if you like chess. It's always fun cause every game is different, just like an RTS game.

So, imho, the answer to your question is: no. Once you find an RTS that you like, there really isn't any need to have another one, unless you NEED a great amount of variety in your RTS gaming. I think the main advantages to having new and different RTSs is simply updated graphics and variety of choice for people with different tastes.

Just my 3 cents worth. :)

Yes they are all the same. SupCom however, brings something new to the genre.BounceDK

[QUOTE="BounceDK"]Yes they are all the same. SupCom however, brings something new to the genre.1Lonehawk

[QUOTE="1Lonehawk"][QUOTE="BounceDK"]Yes they are all the same. SupCom however, brings something new to the genre.BounceDK