Top 5 on 5: Most Anticipated Games of 2011

Or top 5 on... 6, I suppose. I'll endeavor not to be late with this in the future as it kinda defeats the gimmick in the title. Anyhow!

For this month's top 5, I'll be listing the games that show the most interesting potential coming out this year. I'll try to avoid sequels unless they're a big change from the previous game. If my predictions hold, these are the games that would in theory compose my most impressive games of 2011 list next year. As such, these are games with interesting ideas that look like they have potential to shake things up at least a little as opposed to just being a really good example of their genre.

Honorable mentions for this year include Dead Space 2 and Killzone 3, which didn't make it due to the sequel clause, and Aliens: Colonial Marines, which didn't make it due to being vaporware, despite how amazing it sounds like it may be when it theoretically comes out.

#5--BRINK
 Brink is a first-person shooter with parkour movement controls coming out this May. Mirror's Edge was a previous first-person game with excellently done parkour movement, but it heavily de-emphasized the combat aspect. If Brink manages to blend the freerunning of Mirror's Edge with a solid shooter title successfully, it has the potential to be an absolute blast to play. If it sounds so awesome, why is it number 5, then? Because if it screws it up, it'll probably be terrible. For that reason, it's also the only game on this top 5 that I don't have preordered currently(of those available for preorder)--I'd like to see and hear more about the play experience before I decide to buy it. Especially with its inclusion of bots and online co-op, I'm very interested to pick it up... if it turns out to be good. Here's hoping for a demo before release.

#4--TALES OF GRACES F
This inclusion is kind of a personal indulgence for me--the Tales series is my favorite RPG series, and quite possibly my favorite game series period, of all time. The real-time battle system of the Tales series is really what sets it apart from other RPGs in my mind, and Tales of Graces F includes an especially updated version not previously seen on these shores(though I'm given to understand that a previous Japan-only remake of Tales of Destiny had a very similar if not quite identical system). In addition to the reworked battle system being a major improvement to an already great mechanic, from what I've seen of the game the plot and characters are just as top-notch as previous titles in the series. We here in the states are even getting the updated "F" version on the PS3 as opposed to the original Wii version, so we'll have all the extra content that we missed since we never got the PS3 version of Tales of Vesperia. The main reasons that this game only comes in at number 4 are that it's a very personal thing for me instead of a more universal appeal, and that I'm not positive it'll actually be out this year.

#3--DRAGON AGE 2
You might be thinking to yourself, "What about that sequel clause?". Dragon Age 2 isn't the same kind of sequel as Killzone 3 or Dead Space 2, however. It's got a completely new plot arc, new main character, and some largely new mechanics. It's more of another story that takes place in the same world than it is an actual sequel. If you've played Mass Effect and Dragon Age both, you'll understand what I mean when I say that Dragon Age 2 looks like the best of both worlds to me. You get a Mass Effect-like conversation wheel whose choices define your personality, along with a fully-voiced main character whose role in the story is the same despite your customizations. From Dragon Age we inherit the relationship system instead of a karma meter, along with a frankly excellent fantasy world chock-full of lore and backstory. The basic plot of Dragon Age 2 takes place over an ambitious 10 in-game years, telling the story of your character's rise from a simple refugee to the most powerful person in the Dragon Age world. It's looking like an epic and fulfilling undertaking, and BioWare has shown that they can deliver powerful RPGs in the past, so this should be no exception.

#2--BULLETSTORM
The demo for this game has almost completely halted my progress in playing through Dead Space 2, even though it only has one level that takes 4-5 minutes to play through. Why? Because its over-the-top, absurd approach to combining a Shooter with old-school High Score contests is so incredibly addictive. You want to get the highest score possible, and you do that by killing the hordes of enemy mooks thrown at you in as inventive and varied ways as you can think of, as quickly as you can. Your character is almost invincible(to the regular enemies anyways--bosses will probably be a different story), because the point isn't the challenge of facing the hordes of enemy soldiers, it's to challenge your ingenuity and accuracy in pulling off crazy 'skillshots' when killing them. Everything from kicking people into live electric wires, firing an exploding shell that carries them into the air, using your energy leash to pull the enemy into friendly fire, to even flipping a switch and bringing an elevator crashing down on them--the more crazy stunts you pull off, the better. It's an excellent combination of old- and new-school flavor and gameplay, and I can't wait to unbox the full game later this month.

#1--DEUS EX: HUMAN REVOLUTION
The original Deus Ex is another of my top 5 games of all time, and one of the longest-held spots on that list. Since it's been so long since there's been a (proper) Deus Ex game, it's no surprise that Human Revolution comes in high on my list of anticipations for this year. What makes it go to the top is the sheer level of polish that's being put into it. The dev team is trying hard to make it as close to the feel of the original as possible, but with new-age graphics, controls, and innovations. The original had a near-future but still sci-fi feel that made a great backdrop to the conspiracy-riddled story, and the fact that pretty much every situation in the game can be solved multiple ways--usually more than even two different ways--made a lot of variety and interesting choice in a single-player, story driven game. Human Revolution is a prequel to the original Deus Ex, so it does suffer the risk of pulling a Star Wars, what with having prequels that look far more advanced than the originals, but assuming Human Revolution can avoid that pitfall it looks well set to be an excellent gaming experience that no two people will play exactly alike.

That's it for this installment. Tune in soon for new articles and rants, and until then, game on!

Update: Busy, busy, busy

Sorry for the lack of updates recently. Been too busy gaming! Looking at the coming release schedule, I've got 4 games coming out in February and a big one in early March, so I'm changing how I'll be updating here. Instead of every Monday, I'll update when I can. I'll try to post at least 2 new articles a month(not counting Top 5 on 5), and rants will continue to go up when I feel like it.

I'd like to reach a point where I can update regularly every Monday(or some other day of the week), but with my schedule as hectic as it is(not just with gaming, mind you), that's not terribly feasible at the moment.

In the meantime, a mini-rant on what I've been playing lately: Civilization 5 and Dead Space 2! If you're at all a fan of 4X games, you should definitely check out Civ 5. They've made some improvements to the formula which seem odd in concept(like switching to hexes instead of square tiles, or not allowing military units to stack in one square anymore) but actually work out really well. Cultural victories are a blast. Dead Space 2 is everything I hoped it'd be--it's got everything the first one does but more and better. The first Dead Space occupies a spot on my top 5 games of all time, and this will almost certainly replace it, perhaps even move it up the list a spot or two. New weapons, new enemies, a fully voiced main character, more challenge, and more tension all add up to make this a fantastic game--not to mention the multiplayer, which is not mind-blowing, but still very fun.

More to come, I promise! But until then, game on!

--Nihzlet

Article: EPIC QUEST--A look back at Role-Playing Games

Epic battle in an epic story-based genre.

Image source: www.rpgdreamers.com

Ah, the Role-Playing Game(or RPG)--one of the most ubiquitous of all gaming genres. Having existed since long before video games in paper-and-pencil format(which it still coexists in to this day), the RPG genre has a proud tradition of entertaining gamers the world over. Role-playing Games are very much not for everyone, however, as they tend to be much, MUCH longer than any other game type on the market, and some players simply don't have the wherewithal to sit through that much gameplay. For those of us that enjoy the grand story involved in following a complete nobody through his journey to worldwide hero, however, read on!

ORIGIN STORY

As noted above, RPGs have a long history even outside of consoles. From the first consoles, attempts at Role-playing Games were being made. The first big successes that truly laid the foundations for the RPG genre as a whole(at least as far as video games are concerned) came on the NES--games such as the original Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior titles. The fundamentals of an RPG are simple--you control an adventurer or party of adventurers who gain 'experience points' after each fight, and when they reach certain totals, they 'level up'--increasing their stats and gaining new abilities. However, this simple framework isn't enough on its own--you have to have a world for them to adventure in and a plot for them to follow!

While the core of this genre is so deeply embedded that it can never change, it allows enough freedom around itself that many varieties of game have been made around the key principle. In some games you play a single character; in others, a party of maybe as many as eight. In some games you are free to explore as you want; others are more linear. Sometimes the exploration and combat all happen in real-time, other times, you enter a separate interface for combat(often turn-based). The Elder Scrolls, Final Fantasy, Tales Of, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Breath of Fire, Dragon Warrior--all RPG series, yet all play differently. It's easy to see why this genre is so popular despite its innate complexity compared to genres such as Shooters.

RPGs, amongst all genres, perhaps have the greatest tradition of long-running titles. While Final Fantasy and Wolfenstein may have been running for a similar amount of time, which one has more games? Final Fantasy is up to almost 14, not counting side games from the main series, not to mention each Final Fantasy game is much longer. RPGs have a tendency to inspire zealous brand loyalty in their fans, which keeps the name alive long after the first release--though it also stirs up tensions between RPG fans of different series, or even fans of the same series who disagree on which title is the best! Also, unfortunately, this makse it somewhat difficult for new IPs to break into the RPG market, as they're up against titans that have been releasing games for 20 years.

 GAINS IN VERISIMILITUDE or LEVEL UP


Role-playing games have benefited perhaps more than any genre from improved graphics and sound. The story of a good RPG is often alike an epic movie trilogy, and it needs a fittingly epic soundtrack. Likewise, it's much easier to identify with the characters if they have actual facial expressions and body language to convey their feelings. Perhaps most of all, voice acting truly brings these great stories to life. While there's so much dialogue in most RPGs that it often won't ALL be voiced, generally these days all major story scenes have voice acting, which combines with the other improved elements to truly draw you into the plot.

 Pretty graphics don't hurt in battles, either. Especially with all the female characters.

Image source: www.gamespot.com (duh)

Improved technology has improved Role-playing Games mechanically as well. Not only the simple change allowing the games to be longer due to more storage space, battle mechanics--often the most complex part of an RPG--can be much deeper and more diverse thanks to what today's game consoles can accomplish. Old Role-playing games such as the original Final Fantasy were limited to turn-based combat with both sides lining up on the screen mostly because it was what was possible at the time. Modern games show much more diversity and robustness, such as Tales of the Abyss' real-time, freerunning combat system with elemental fields placed by spells that modify attacks executed in them. Some older games broke the mold and tried some of these things early--for instance, the Tales of series has always had real-time combat--but it was not nearly as refined as it is today. Other mechanics besides battles have also improved, though they're often less noticeable, and vary much more widely from game to game--such as how leveling up works.

Modern Role-playing Games often have much more complex and enthralling stories than those of old, as well. Perhaps it was the desire for the games to appeal to a broader audience or less creative minds behind it, but many of the original RPGs have a fairly simple story, which can often be summed up as "you're a hero, beat the evil guys". From a modern RPG? Expect plot twists, tragedies, surprises, party members coming and going, and more.

OVERCOMPLICATION or STATUS DOWN

Older Role-playing Games had something new ones often lack, however--simplicity. While a grand, complex story and intricate battle mechanics are generally a good thing, they need to not be taken too far. When the story has so much Mind Screw that it's impossible to follow, it's gone too far. It almost seems sometimes as if RPG series are trying to outdo each other in who can have the most complicated, overwrought plotline. Of all RPGs, Japanese RPGs--noted for their higher degree of linearity and epic, complex stories--are particularly bad about this. As much as I like both series, Final Fantasy games usually have at least one sequence that makes NO SENSE AT ALL(*cough*Lifestream*cough*), and Tales of games can sometimes go overboard with symbolic discussions on human nature.

The same goes for battle mechanics. Sure, it's fun to play something more complicated than "stand in a line and when your turn comes up, either attack or cast a simple offensive or defensive spell". But when it gets to the point that the in-game help and instruction manual still leave you clueless as to how to do certain things in the system, there's an issue that needs work. I love the 'Fatal Strike' system in Tales of Vesperia, but it took me a while to figure out how to trigger one, and there's no way I can remember the nuances like which type of enemy is weak to which type of strike--someone less dedicated to that particular game would likely ignore the system entirely, making it a complete waste.

Want to be good with a sword? Ok, pick Destruction magic! ...wait, what?

Image source: www.ugo.com

 

Special mention goes to leveling mechanics, as well--and this one Western RPGs are if anything MORE guilty of screwing up. While improvements in leveling mechanics such as branching skill or reward trees can be simple but effective improvements to gameplay, messing up the leveling system in a game can utterly ruin it outright. The best example of this is the Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. The system seems simple at first--the more you use a skill, the more often it will skill up, even more often if it's one of your 10 'primary skills'. Once your primary skills have skilled up 10 times, you can level up and adjust your base stats, increasing them by a certain amount based on how much the skills related to that stat were used. The innate problem with this, however, is that you will inevitably have primary skills that you use all the time, causing you to level up faster, which in turn means your stat bonuses on leveling will not be as high as they can be, which makes you underpowered. The solution? Create your own class which has NOTHING that you actually want to use as a primary skill. It's completely counterintuitive and screws up the flow of the game immensely.

WRAP-UP or SAVE POINT

Role-playing games have definitely gained more than Shooters or Strategy games from gaming's evolution over the past 20+ years. Take Final Fantasy 1 and Final Fantasy 13 and compare them--the difference is staggeringly vast compared to, say, WarCraft 1 vs. StarCraft 2. From the genre that's most like a TV or movie series, being able to tell grander stories with greater immersion is a major plus. The key is that the most important element in an RPG is story--if the game has fantastic mechanics but bad story, nobody's going to play all the way through it. Likewise, if the game has a superb story, it makes up for many sins. I actually like the older Tales of the Abyss more than Tales of Vesperia, even though Vesperia has better battle mechanics, better graphics, and even a more interesting cast--because Abyss has a far superior story.

While RPGs becoming overcomplicated is a danger, it's this constant search for the perfect balance of complexity and playability that keeps RPG designers trying new things and making sure the genre stays fresh and interesting to play, along with a requirement for a new story every time. While a Shooter can get away with another war story on a foreign planet, two RPGs with identical stories would not go over well. Variety and innovation are hallmarks of this genre that really make it one of the best, and even RPGs with too much going on will still have dedicated fans that take the time and effort to learn their mechanics and figure out the nuances of their stories.

Among recent RPGs, there are many that I could recommend to you, but I'm going to stick with my own favorite series and mention Tales of Vesperia(image source: www.wikipedia.org). As the newest(American-released... damn you, Bamco) Tales game, it has the best graphics and most intricate and interesting battle mechanics, which are definitely worth taking the time to figure out. The story is good(even if not as good as that of Abyss), with little of the back-and-forth tedium that sometimes crops up. It always seems to make sense why you're going to the next place you're going to. Also, as mentioned before, the cast is quite interesting; I don't think there's a single character in the game I don't like to some degree, and some of them--like the recurring villain Zagi--are absolutely excellent.

That's all for now, before this article rivals the length of an RPG itself. Look for another new article next week, and until then, game on!

Top 5 on 5: Most Impressive Games of 2010

Welcome to a new kind of Article--the Top 5 on 5! On the 5th of every month, I'll post a top 5 list of something relevant to gaming. For this, the first top 5, I'm going to take a look back at the games I got in 2010 and list the ones that impressed me most. This isn't a list of necessarily the BEST games of 2010; just the ones that surprised me the most with how good they were. That's why you won't see Heavy Rain on this list, despite it being my second favorite game of all time--because I was EXPECTING Heavy Rain to be awesome.

#5--WORLD OF WARCRAFT: CATACLYSM
An odd case for two reasons. First, it's an expansion, not a full game. Second, like with Heavy Rain, I knew what to expect for Cataclysm. The reason it makes this list is because a lot of the small changes Cataclysm made that I hadn't given much thought ended up changing the game far more than I thought it would. New quest mechanics such as allowing quests to chain without going back to the questgiver, Archaeology as a new Secondary Skill, and revamped Profession mechanics allowing multiple skillups from a single crafting are all small changes that make this expansion much more worthwhile than it seems.

#4--MAG
A PS3-exclusive FPS released early in 2010, MAG is interesting in that it combines elements of MMOs and traditional FPS. While it's not a true MMO shooter a la Planetside, you do have a persistent character who levels up and gains new skills and equipment as you play. However, you jump into and out of matches and switch equipment loadouts on the fly much more like a standard shooter such as Call of Duty. Your games do contribute to something larger than yourself: winning matches helps your faction earn 'contracts', which in turn give you passive bonuses in future matches. The real key that gets this game on my list is the support it's received: the MAG team continually updates the game based on player feedback and has released two rather substantial gameplay updates including new modes and a revamp of the system in place for acquiring gear. If a game is only playable online, it needs good support, and MAG's is a shining example that was not guaranteed at launch, so I was impressed to see it followed through.

#3--BLUR
Allow me to sum up Blur for you in a single sentence: it's Mario Kart with real cars. That one statement is all it's taken for me to get almost all of my friends to try this game, and we all love playing it. The thing that made this game take the #3 spot on the list is simple--I had no expectations for it whatsoever. I picked it up completely on a whim some time after its release, and my initial single player experience was pretty mediocre--not bad, but not great. The moment we fired up the multiplayer, however, the game changed completely. A wide variety of tracks and a staggering number of cars over four speed classes, completely customizable options for powerups, laps, AI, handicap, et al, and a smooth presentation and easy-to-learn control scheme keep us all coming back to this game again and again when company is over.

#2--VANQUISH
Another game like Blur that I had no prior expectations for, Vanquish edges out the racer in this list by being something new, blending gametypes instead of being an incredibly well-done game following a previous trend. Vanquish takes high-octane, over-the-top action and combines it with a strategic cover-based shooter by giving your character a suit of powered armor with built-in jets. This leads to you speeding around the level on your kneepads screaming "WOOOOOOOO!!!!" as you gun down enemies in slow motion. When your jets are on cooldown, you hide behind cover and take potshots at enemies dumb enough to advance on you. Despite the schizophrenic nature of the gameplay, it somehow blends miraculously well and is a delight to play.

#1--ASSASSIN'S CREED: BROTHERHOOD
I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it until you all play this game: the multiplayer absolutely has to be seen(and tried) to be believed. One of the most innovative and downright thrilling games I've played in a long, long time. While it's not perfect--Alliance mode could use some work--it's so unique that it's a breath of fresh air from any other game you might be playing. The singleplayer mode is not to be scoffed at either--it continues the story of Ezio from Assassin's Creed 2 as he founds a Brotherhood of Assassins(bet you didn't see that coming!) to fight against his enemies. One of the coolest things they added with the whole 'brotherhood' bit is calling your assassin recruits to help you. Ezio lifts a hand and an assassin jumps out and kills your enemy. If you have enough recruits available, you can call an 'arrow storm', which kills every guard on screen in a hail of arrows. It's extremely fun to play and fun to watch. The singleplayer leaves the game open for Assassin's Creed 3, which will something to watch for in the future.

That's it for now, gamers. Hope you enjoyed my rundown of surprise excellent games from 2010, and look forward to more Top 5 on 5 articles in the coming months.

Until next time, game on!

Back for 2011!

Hey everyone! After an unintentional hiatus due to work- and health-related issues followed by the busy holiday season's conclusion, I'm back online! New article, a look at strategy games, is just below this post. Forthcoming posts: a special bonus article that's the first of a new kind coming this Wednesday and a rant on the first month of Cataclysm. Stay tuned, and game on!

--Nihzlet

Article: THE ART OF WAR--A look back at Real-Time Strategy

 The drums of war echo on the winds...

Image source: classic.battle.net

Strategy games are the flip side of a Shooter--instead of playing the soldier, you're the commander. Like Shooters, Strategy games in some form or another have been around for a long, long time--in fact, they long predate video games. Though modern Strategy games are much more technologically advanced than Chess or Shogi(though no less complex--Chess is incredibly hard to master), the basic idea of commanding a moderate to large number of units and forming a plan to take out the opponent is as old as human conflict. Strategy games come in a variety of types--one of the biggest distinctions being whether they are real-time or turn-based. There's enough of a dichotomy that this article will focus on the former category.

CALL TO ARMS

While the roots of real-time strategy can be traced rather far back, the first really notable example is Dune II, released in 1992. It was much alike a prototype for the modern RTS system. If Dune II is the prototype, the first model would have to be the ubiquitous WarCraft: Orcs and Humans. Between these two games, the baselines by which pretty much every RTS operates were laid down: top-down(or isometric) view, mouse control, resource gathering, base building, et cetera.

These elements are still what define the genre today. While every game has different flavor, different units, structures, and a different universe, you'll still find yourself more often than not telling your worker to build what equates to a Town Hall and then harvest what might as well be called Gold. These elements remain steadfast for a simple reason: because they work. While it's an abstraction from how the real military operates, it's an effective system that's easy to understand.

Despite having a long history like Shooters, Real-Time Strategy games are markedly less common and less played amongst the general populace. Why is that? I can think of two primary reasons. The first: a well-balanced RTS is considerably harder to design, because there are a lot more elements involved and it's much harder to make them all mesh with each other. The second? Strategy games require more skill. Now, don't pull out your flamethrowers and generic effigies yet--I'm not saying they require more skill to be GOOD at; I'm just saying that while the basic system is easy to understand, there's still a lot more to learn for any given RTS than there is for any Shooter. It's harder to pick up and play, you see. This tends to mean that it'll be appreciated(or at least TRIED) by a smaller percentage of the gamer populace, and as such is a less popular gametype for production.

STAGNATION or CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS

The primary issue with the basic RTS formula is that the genre really hasn't evolved much over the 15+ years since that formula was initially laid down. Since each new IP has to go out of its way to make a new world, new units, and everything else from the ground up, most developers seem not to have time to really tinker with the basic formula. Sure, your first military unit might be an Orc warrior or an American with an M16, but either way it's a basic-level grunt with low-average abilities on both offense and defense. Some developers who have an existing IP, not to mention time and resources aplenty(*cough*Blizzard*cough*) almost seem SCARED to monkey with things too much. Blizzard actually had people COMPLAINING early on that StarCraft 2 looked too much like StarCraft 1. It doesn't stop StarCraft 2 from being a good game, it just stops it from really revolutionizing the genre with any new innovations.

 Anyone who can't see the difference could use some glasses, but I'm sure they'd whine about that too.

Image Source: us.battle.net

There have been games that modified the elements somewhat--Total Annihilation's gain/loss resource system and Age of Empires' 'technology ages'(much alike Civilization) are two good examples. But nobody ever follows the leader on this kind of thing--the next RTS you see will still have you building your Command Center and training workers to harvest *insert basic resource here*. Part of the problem is that Real-Time Strategy is nigh-impossible to adapt to consoles, remaining almost entirely PC-exclusive. While there's nothing inherently wrong with such exclusivity, being as so many developers work only for consoles, you have that many fewer minds actually working on these types of games and thus, that many fewer thoughts turning into innovations being made.

Despite this hindering the progression of the genre, I don't think that RTS gaming will ever really work for consoles due to input limitations. Mouse and Keyboard works so well and has enough buttons and flexibility to accommodate any Strategy game; game console controllers don't have near enough. Some interesting attempts have been made--Stormrise, I'm looking at you here--but they have always ended up failing for one reason or another--Stormrise, I'm looking at you again with your complete lack of a tech tree. You can't let me build the most powerful units in the game right from square one. It's a balance nightmare and makes the learning curve unbelievably steep since there's no logical unit progression to follow. Moreso even than Shooters, I think Real-time Strategy should stay a PC exclusive genre because of this crippling limitation. Curious about my inclusion of Shooters as PC genre? While it's become prevalent enough that I've had to accept it for now, Dual-Stick Control always has and always WILL be inferior to Mouse and Keyboard. Man up and use a real boy controller, Halo-playing frat boys.

SLOW BUT STEADY GAINS or TECH UP TO TIER 3

Despite the overall mired progress of the genre, advances have been made. New ideas in hotkeys, group management, and unit interaction have given the genre the same solid structure with new variety to keep gameplay fresh. StarCraft 2 is a perfect example of this. While people whined during its development for its resemblance to its predecessor, play StarCraft 1 for a while and then play StarCraft 2. Units group together within a control group to give you access to spellcasting hotkeys even with a mixed group, there's a much wider variety in the types of spells and abilities your units have, and they've even added some fun new things to the maps, like 'high-yield' resource deposits and neutral observatories to help out in your scouting or watching for incoming attacks.

A small but noticeable sub-genre has also appeared and flourished to some degree in its own right: RTS games that involve no base building at all! Despite base building and the tech tree being a cornerstone of the genre, it turns out that in the singleplayer sections of these games, you will inevitably have at least a few levels where you get only a fixed force and have to make do, managing your units to the best tactical advantage to win the day. Picking up on this, somebody had the bright idea to make an ENTIRE GAME out of this, since those levels are always extremely fun to play. The best example of this subtype I can think of is the Myth series. Even in multiplayer, you get only a certain number of units(though if the host allows it you can trade out units for one another based on a 'point' system that rates how worthwhile they are to an army) and have to use what you've got to outmaneuver, out-think, and out-play your enemies. It removes a major element of the genre, but adds a whole new one that drastically changes how it's played.

 Hey guys? The fire is supposed to be in FRONT of the zombies. Y'know, to stop them from axing you.

Image source: www.gamespot.com

Another element carried over from singleplayer missions that has made its way into a few core systems is the idea of 'heroes'. Not ordinary units, heroes are superior in one form another. Most of the time this involves a vaguely RPG-like leveling system that allows your heroes to gain in power as the game goes on, so that they're not too powerful early on and not too strong late in the game. WarCraft 3 was the most notable game to practice this style, along with Lords of Everquest and a game that started as a popular WarCraft 3 gametype--Defense of the Ancients. Whether the latter can truly be called an RTS is a matter of some debate, however, as it's more like an RTS where you only control the hero, despite the large battle raging around you that you still need to think and contribute to tactically.

WRAP-UP or VICTORY CONDITIONS

Real-time strategy, despite having a storied history, has only made slow progress in its evolution. It's unlikely that it's going to speed up anytime soon, what with the difficulty of development and the limited number of developers. Despite this, RTS gaming has achieved a mind-blowing level of popularity--I don't think there are any Shooters or other gametypes that could be considered the national sport of an entire country, with professional players and TV stations equivalent to Baseball or Football in America. Each new game manages to make enough variety and small improvements to keep us all hooked. I can't really fault these developers for their business plan, at any rate. It'll keep us hooked for a long time.

Still, there are some attempts at new ideas that have been made that really shouldn't fall by the wayside. The aforementioned hero idea a la WarCraft 3 has been used in several games, but really should be integrated more; while it doesn't work for every game, it's an easy way to have a unit to focus your army around and change the dynamic of your play. Another element that bears further exploration is a different resource system, like what Total Annihilation has. For those who haven't played it, instead of accumulating resources and spending them in whole amounts, each gathering building you have adds a positive modifier to your number of resource points per 'tick' of game time, and building anything costing that type of resource takes the time it takes to build and the amount into account when creating a negative modifier. It's a more fluid, realistic system of constant inflow and outflow instead of having to build up massive totals and then spend them all at once.
 
Truly good Real-Time Strategy games are spaced out enough that if I had to recommend a modern RTS to you, my options would be rather limited. Instead, I'll go a bit further back into history and recommend something that's a little different, but one of the best Strategy games I've ever played: Myth 2: Soulblighter(Image source: www.wikipedia.org). As it's part of the iconic 'no base' strategy subtype I mentioned earlier, it forces you to play tactically and make the most of all your units. The units are all incredibly well balanced against each other and mesh well even when you're using a mixed force of good and evil units in a multiplayer game. There are also some surprisingly real elements in the game, such as flaming arrows and how they interact with different terrain types and the spread of the resulting fire. It's a bit older and thus might be harder to run on a modern system, but it's well worth the effort expended, and the game has a massive cult following to this day.

That brings this week's article to a close. Is it odd that I've been listening to an RPG soundtrack while writing this? Hmm... I wonder what that means. Game on, folks, and I'll see you soon!