Don't forget good old Sacrifice, one very origonal (IMHO) RTS game. I was kind of disappointed with Sins capital ships when I started playing the game due to the WC3 connection (not many other RTS games have heros like this, infact I can't think of any) When it said you could customize your capital ship I was expecting something where you could actually customize your capital ships All level 10 battle ships are the same after all. Still I don't feel like I'm playing WC3 when I play this game. I was never good at unit dancing and microing my Heros on that game and I never got around to creeping in time for it to be useful. I loved Starcraft but the whole hero thing in WC3 was to much for me to handle. IF anything SINS improves on that idea and makes it something I can handle, and for that I give it

If there was anything I wish would make it in down the road a bit, and regular readers know I’m not terribly demanding, having cap ships actually change appearance during an upgrade based on which major powers they have selected would be one of the things I wanted. Yes, every Level 10 cap is the same as every other of that model, but along the way they grow in different directions. Give me a few more emitters for my Sova as it takes the “boost strikecraft damage” power or slap a big ol’ cannon on the bottom when the Ion Cannon gets bolted on.

Yes, sadly, I know that requires four models per cap per race. That’s a lot of extra work, even though the changes are essentially based on core designs.

I probably shouldn’t mention I’d love it if all the affected ships changed appearance when a tech that affects them gets researched, huh?

You know, there are a couple of problems I see here:



First, let's talk about gaming conventions. The issues you bring up regarding the parallels you draw exist in almost every major RTS in some form or another. When it comes to originality, and creating a really original structural system for an RTS game, the issues that present themselves are far to risky for a developer to 'push the envelope' too far. Most RTS games run on a set of priciples that have been established. Not only does this make the structure of a game easier to learn for users upon release, but it functions in a manner that is known to work. Coming up with a totally original RTS system will likely prove fatal for a developer, especially a small one. There's no reason to push people through a system that likely won't work as well as the one already established. That being said, originality comes in the forms of game design (story, unit abilties, artwork, conceptual design, etc.) and other specifics such as individual unit abilities, balance, methods of control, and opportunities to use strategic methods to outsmart/outplay an opponent.

An example of this is Battle for Middle Earth II. The game is not totally original, and follows many already established norms of RTS gaming. With some balance issues aside, there were some remarkable moments during gameplay that really made me feel like I was 'outplaying' my opponent - and not simply by clicking faster. Those moments come about when the unique elements of a game (such as terrain usage, proper and efficient usage of units' special abilities, flanking, etc.) combine to produce an experience that allows you to really create strategies and use your units in a manner unique to that game. Some games do this well, others do it horribly.

The similarities you derived are conventions of many games, and but now to your reaction of the responses:



Unfortunately, if you really haven't played many other games, then obviously these conventions of RTS aren't apparent to you. It's too bad, but unfortunatly, making a post that feels like such an attack:



will leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Especially since these 'similarities' are present in nearly all RTS games.




I'm not sure what you mean by 'constructive' responses. Perhaps some clarification on the type of response you expected is needed. I'm not sure how this post could really generate good discussion, but perhaps I am wrong.



Once again, I'm not sure what you were expecting. This statement really conflicts with the end of your OP, which your wording implies you were expecting these kinds of rebuttals:



Luckily, you did state that you loved this game. That's a good thing, but perhaps you simply need to play some other games that aren't as well made, but use the same basic conventions. Then you'll see it's not those conventions that make a good game, but the individual flair a developer puts into it. The dynamics of a good game don't have much to do with the conventions of RTS games, but more with the unique ideas that make those conventions invisible, and give you a new experience of strategy and fun that SINS accomplishes.

ips in the forests. Oh yeah, I wanna play WC3 units in space too.[/quote]



Dune and CNC were made by the same devs (Westwood), and Dune was 2 years before Warcraft. Logically the former copied off of the latter. Just had to point this out.

I thought wc3 stole everything from battle realms, my opinion

I disagree. Awkward wording here and there might have invited flame (not the least of which is the literal invitation at the end ), but the post is by no means a flame in itself.
And notice that since the sarcasm problem has cleared up, the responses on this thread have become a lot more reasonable; it seems people still disagree with the OP, but are a lot more cogent and, more importantly, mature, in doing so.

(1) The problem with his evidence is that it can be applied to just about any RTS game ever made, and similar nebulous arguments can be made for X game in Y genre being like Z game in the same genre.

(2) I admit, I should have done this first, but having played WCIII for years, from my perspective the OP was utterly ridiculous. If it weren't for his very particular language, I would have thought this was yet another joke thread in the same vein as the Mario Kart threads.

From the perspective of those who have played WCIII for years (especially multiplayer), this comparison between Sins and WCIII represents an epic fail on the part of the OP to understand either WCIII, Sins, or both. To give a similar comparison, I could say that all living creatures are the same because they are made of cells or that all chemicals are the same because they are made of atoms. When you pick out an extremely small subset of details of a particular thing, you can always make some comparison between it and something else that, while otherwise completely unrelated, is in some esoteric academic way the same. The point is, it's far-fetched to say that a flower and a Tyranosaurus Rex are the same, although if you're really careful about it, you can demonstrate this point. However, the statement itself is DEVOID of information.

I could practically write an ENCYCLOPEDIA full of IMPORTANT differences between WCIII and Sins. There are about 20 things that spring to mind instantly without any hard thinking. I won't talk about the (finite) resource model, the worker model, the GTA-ATG-ATA model, the defensive structure models, the mere existence of levels of terrain and their myriad effects on strategies, the creep/creep denial, building placement/block/funnel strategies, map control/expansion strategies, tech levels etc. etc. etc. - I'll only focus on one detail - overall strategy.

In WCIII, there is virtually no macro. The only real macro present is microing your workers. Everything in macro is incredibly simplified to the point where training your macro past a certain 'bar' is pointless and gives no returns. The game is practically 100% micro. This is caused by an alarmingly high penalty for owning a certain number of units. This encourages players to build and move smaller armies with fewer units. And when I say few units, I'm talking about 5-20. There aren't 60 LRM's running around looking for caps. Since there are so few units, all the strategy is in correct unit mixes, meaning you build the correct number of X unit and the correct corresponding number of Y unit and so on. Even a slightly bad unit mixture will hurt any kind of push that you make.

Keeping these (literally) handful of units alive is KEY. This means microing battles, often single units simultaneously. This is practically the whole focus of the game. Micro your units better than your opponent and you will win. The only important macro aspect that ever comes into play in this one-unit-can-make-or-break-you game is the tech level. WCIII has a tech level system that is even more dramatic than Starcraft. This mainly involves units being more or less useful in certain 'tiers'. Moving up a Tier and researching the next 'level' of a unit type can double or triple their effectiveness in your army. This makes the micro even MORE intensive as the tech levels progress.

Now let's look at the general strategy in Sins. It's basically a macrofest by comparison. There is almost no micro in the game apart from retreating almost-dead units and using abilities. The whole of early game is about colonizing that first asteroid efficiently and scouting to see what to go for after that. Normally, it's LRMs. Note that, in this game, a 'rush' happens with 30-60 ships - even a rush in Starcraft (a game where large armies come into play) is 4-6 units. It really isn't the same meaning of 'rush' but it's the closest Sins will get to a rush.

In Sins, there is only one damage mechanism. Ranged ship-to-ship. The only time where movement micro can come into play is if you can get better concavity, but even that's not an issue because of 'intelligent' 3D movement. Most of the time your micro is spent retreating or advancing along a certain optimal path. This has little effect compared to macro-power. It basically comes down to your number of ships vs. their number of ships. Unit mixture does play a role, but very limited when compared to WCIII.

The goals of fighting aren't even the same. In Starcraft (and to a slightly lesser extent WCIII), if you have the choice between attacking a weak army and attacking a weak expansion (in Sins, this would be a planet), you'd attack the expansion every time. In Sins, just the opposite. Now this is getting slightly off the topic so I'll stop there.

(3) WCIII is very balanced, it's just a completely different game with a completely different kind of balance. I personally dislike the Heros and the micro-whoredom of WCIII when compared with the extremely diverse Starcraft.

(4) That's because the 'formula' in Sins is nothing like WCIII. It's more like Starcraft in that larger armies always come into play.

Hopefully that was the intelligent response some people were looking for. The sarcasm, in my view, was ineffectual when compared with the outlandish statements of the OP. I find it a little difficult to believe that people that have played WCIII AND Sins see anything other than a very small number of comparative details.

did anyone notice that the sound the gauss defence turret makes when you select it, is nearly identical to the sound a terran bunker makes when a unit enters it? ditto with terran dropship loading sounds.

a stretch would be to claim the numerous verbal were more than 'homages' made by several of the capital ships.

stuff like "Good day, commander"
and the numerous terran ghost quotes, i think there's a kerrigan and duke quote there too.

this is irrelevantly amplified if one does a google for "good day, commander" lolol

Podian, it might shock you to know that most sound effects are recycled, virtually endlessly.

Actually, I had the same thought when I started playing. Don't get me wrong, I really like Sins, but it does bear striking similarities to War3. Especially Heroes/Capital ships.

The rapid fanboy denial theses published in this this thread are funny in a facepalm kind of way. Like it's blasphemy to suggest games can be similar or something.

You can call them whatever you want. You can call them fanboy denial theses or fwoophuggle zoombopples, but giving something a name doesn't change its real characteristics. After playing RTS games competitively for years, I feel entitled make a healthy criticism of this thread. The OP did not even TRY to make a comparison with the units. In fact, he completely missed the boat when comparing Warcraft III units to THEMSELVES.

"Support: Priest, Banshee, Druid of the Talon/Fairie Dragon, Witch Doctor"

Honestly, this is a no-go comparison. Notice there are no Sins units here. I'd like this guy to go post this on the WCIII forums and see what people think about the claim that the Priest and the Banshee are both the same because they can be lumped into a unit type called 'support'. Yes, some units in WCIII don't do direct damage and fill other roles with their abilities, but giving them a name and lumping them in the same group kinda misses the point completely. I like how Sorceress is in Disable/Repair but Priest isn't. Shouldn't Druid of the Claw be in Support?

The point is, the OP doesn't even properly grok the diversity of the individual units in WCIII (which at a high level of play is the whole point of the game). So how could he make any kind of valid comparison between WCIII and Sins? Yes, he is academically right on some level, but so am I when I say that flowers and T-Rexs are the same thing.

We RTS 'fanboys' who have played games like Age of Empires II and III, Age of Mythology, Dune II, Total Annihilation, Empire Earth series, Homeworld series, Starcraft, World In Conflict, Warcraft series, Rise of Nations series, Command and Conquer series, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes etc. (those are the just the 'popular' ones, there are other really good ones like BattleRealms and Kohan) see the original poster as lacking a sense of history - a sense which is necessary when comparing two games. The OP acts as if the only games that ever existed in the RTS genre are WCIII and Sins. This is fairly obvious to those of us who have played RTS games throughout the years. Pick any game in the previous list, and I can rewrite the OP to suit them as well. And they'll be just as valid. I guess Dune II should stop copying WCIII.

I'd like to hear your contrary point of view.