By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Please Log In to post.
Well, if the manage to pull it out it will be something to congratulate.
Blitzkrieg has now turned into Blitzgrief :(
God why do they do this?
pfs why they make build building and bay tanks!! they should stay like old one.
A game to gain the MMO characterization needs to have a huge open world and a large amount of players interacting in it. This is just a multiplayer game.
On another thing that bugs me, why do every beloved franchise needs to be turned into a watered down multiplayer game?! MS could have funded a great forth AoE instead she puts out a crappy F2P and the same goes for flight simulator with its awful successor MS Flight. Mechwarrior online is crap, silent hunter online is crap, anno online is crap, the old republic is crap, the new simcity is crap. Blitzgrieg 3 had no reason to be a multiplayer online only game.
And I can tell you, I fancy not the idea of a mmo pokemon, and I couldn't care less of the elder scrolls online even if it was good
@PETERAKO: You can play single campaigns only and never touch the MP mode.
So there are pay-to-boost options for the "free-to-play" (or rather, "free-to-grind") segment anyway. :\
I apologize for being an off topic d-bag, but is the only notification for comment replies via email? It seems like it would be better to have replies show up in my notifications on this website instead. Am I missing something? Any replies are appreciated.. if i can find them.
I love the genre and everything about it but this game looks like a phone game for me with this graphics and physics. AI is just like sitting there waiting to get owned. It doesn't strike me as a real PC RTS sorry.... its pay2win smartphone/tablet game.
@HuSSaR83: Is an alpha build. So graphics will probably be polished alot yet. And the AI at the moment probably consists of a line of code saying "if in range start shooting".
Not too convinced about the idea myself either, but there is no point in jugding anything from an alpha build
@HuSSaR83: << LINK REMOVED >>
While it is unfortunately a lot like Clash of Clans, e.g. the player has little to no control over defence when someone makes an attempt on his/her holdings, the dev has said that the only premium options are "free-to-grind" sh*t, not pay-to-win.
Pay to remove an artificial grind.
This is a hell of a lot more fast paced than 2, not so sure if I like what I see so far, will still follow it for the sake of the last 2 installments, but I am going to remain skeptical. Dang childhood games...
this makes me think of End of Nation and Command & Conquer: Generals 2 T~T the games that will never be...excuse me ...(leaves the room crying)
I'll stick with World in Conflict. Only RTS I've ever liked.TBH this doesn't seem like any more of an MMORTS than that was.
If it's a MMO, I might actually be interested in a RTS game for once.
What was so wrong with just having a normal RTS? Why do we all have to be treated like children that need to play with others in a playground?
Because single-player RTS gameplay is too niche to be profitable.
That statement is both cynical and rational: cynical because I scoff at any notions of choosing what games to develop based on cost-revenue considerations, and rational, because - please don't deny this - RTS gameplay is not exactly cheap to develop.
The problem with single player is the ai becomes too predictable and a lot of games have cheating ai. It's too bad because sometimes I hate depending on another human for fun in an rts... especially older ones that no one plays online anymore.
@shiel44: I, for one, have long discarded the notion that there can be a computer-controlled opponent which plays by the same rules and is actually good. There's no way to design scripts for such an opponent.
For any "challenge", the computer-controlled opponent has to play with different rules, i.e. "cheat".
@Gelugon_baat@fabs1: Well, I'm not going to buy something like this, and I'm sure I'm not alone, so let's see how profitable it will be finally.