So what is this new game Demigod?

[Humakty]

Oh my god, another Lord Of Unforsaking Doom Of Apocalypse, and guess what ?

He wants to destroy the world.

Hopefully, a gentle band of hobbits are here to stop the Unrelenting Fate Of The World, and kill the Lord Of Uncompromising Darkness, by tossing it's ring (in which he put the vital part of his soul...No, don't ask why) in a lava pit.

It seems like such an original plot can be a healthy base for 995847621.5 novels, and 85476219.54 games, with slight adaptations. (hobbits=children, Lord of=God of, Fate=Destiny)

It's also true strategy games often have some pain to issue universes not based on our own world.
I concur Warhammer background is a desolation, but it at least offers a lot of diversity, as it sums up all what was done in other productions. So it at least have the palm of completeness. And I think Skavens are theirs, at least, so all hope is possible for a bright future. ah ah.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Humantky

I was a big fan/player of Age of 'x' games until age of mythology, and I can swear there are less strategics and tactics involved in those games than in the average sim something production.

It's all about logistics (but maybe one can argue this is a part of strategic science) and shorcuts and nervous clickings all around the place (and loads more of those two).

Yeah, I liked them too, and can't play them anymore.
But I disagree that there was no strategy involved. For example you could focus on archers and cheap infantry and find a narrow spot where you could block the enemy's army of heavy infantry so that all your units could attack but most of his had to wait for the front row to die you could hold the line with a fraction of the investment.
My problem was that you could expand your economy to the point where losses didn't matter anymore and any complicated became unmanageable. I wouldn't even call that logistics it was just building.
If there were more limiting factors like you have only so much population that you can waste it would be more fun.

[Humakty]

I was maybe excessive, but anyway in most RTS there aren't that many viable strategies with a given faction. Sure there are some variations, from the tank spamming of C&C to the relatively diverse possibilities of an 'age of', but for an optimal gameplay you're most of the time narrowed into a specific strategy, which kills the pleasure when you discover 'iteration X' of the good old genre that'll have to do till developpers decide that shinny graphics aren't doing a great game all on their own.

It's sad to realize a domain as new as PC games is so reluctant to innovate. How many games on WW2 ? Come on, scenarists and creatives can't be that costly.

I recently played Dawn of War, but it was more to satisfy my teenage frustrations, of not being able to have the armies I dreamed of. It is a rather poor/too classical game, apart from that.

[Agema]

It's not just that the companies are unwilling to innovate, it's that the customers often don't like it either. There's a certain amount of "comfort" playing the same old thing which is what an awful lot of people want. Innovation often actually doesn't sell.

As an example, most experienced wargamers know what a Gettysburg, Austerlitz, Battle of the Bulge or WW2 game is about: they're all resonant names. Make them a Second Battle of Franklin, Battle of Wagram, German Invasion of Crete or Seven Years War game and people just wonder what the hell they're getting and why it matters to them.

[Humakty]

Mass consumption destroys creativity ?

Let us hope web developpers/editors will be able to endure,multiply and cover the world with their offspring.

[Illuminated One]

Originally Posted by Humantky

I was maybe excessive, but anyway in most RTS there aren't that many viable strategies with a given faction. Sure there are some variations, from the tank spamming of C&C to the relatively diverse possibilities of an 'age of', but for an optimal gameplay you're most of the time narrowed into a specific strategy, which kills the pleasure when you discover 'iteration X' of the good old genre that'll have to do till developpers decide that shinny graphics aren't doing a great game all on their own.

I agree with you I just don't think that's something tied to RTS.
The problem is imho that simple and uncreative works have the best return ratio.
A good idea might still fail in practice, costs more to develop and can't be marketed as easily. Everyone knows what WW2 or "with Role Playing Elements" means but if you make something creative and succeed it might still be that you'd never get enough attention to make it worthwhile.
Maybe not mass consumption destroys creativity but the excessive competition of today. Damn I get to political now where's me beer?

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Illuminated One

Maybe not mass consumption destroys creativity but the excessive competition of today. Damn I get to political now where's me beer?

But..... the right-wing capitalists all say that market competition spurs creativity. It can't be that they were wrong all along..... could it?

[Tolkien]

It reminds me of DotA and I have an irrational hatred of said map.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

But..... the right-wing capitalists all say that market competition spurs creativity. It can't be that they were wrong all along..... could it?

No, they're probably right. It's just that along with every creative genius there are dozens of people who know a quick buck can be made from a close enough copy of the creative genius, and a public that's often happy with the same thing repeated until it goes out of fashion.

[Gregstrom]

I thought right-wing capitalists said "there's a sucker born every minute"?

Or perhaps the computer strategy games market isn't that competitive?

I think it could be argued that market competition spurs creativity in advertising rather than products in many cases.