Support NeoGAF

[g23]

Medieval II: Total War & Rome: Total War.

Nuff' Said.

 

[CreatureX3]

No love for Bungie's Myth series? 'Myth II: Soulbligher' is a definite classic. Too bad MS couldn't buy the rights to the Myth series when they bought Bungie.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

You should supplement the OP with links to the individual posts that discuss the games in the list.

 

[Joei]

I really liked 7 Kingdoms. I wasn't too fond of the 7 Kingdoms 2 though. I rarely see it mentioned, and I think I might have liked it so much since I didn't have much experience with other RTS games to see if it was bare by comparision or whatnot. I really don't remember much about it to offer a detailed description, other than I really, really liked it.

 

[AdmiralViscen]

Where can I buy Rise of Nations? EB, BestBuy, and Amazon don't have it (new).

 

[fatty]

You should supplement the OP with links to the individual posts that discuss the games in the list.

Good idea. I'll try to update them tonight (I've been pretty busy the past few days).

Where can I buy Rise of Nations? EB, BestBuy, and Amazon don't have it (new).

I picked up my copy a couple of weeks ago at Gamestop. It's been on sale for $5, you might want to call around to see if some are still available. Did you check all of the EBgames in your area? You might get lucky. Good luck.

 

[MoxManiac]

Where can I buy Rise of Nations? EB, BestBuy, and Amazon don't have it (new).

Did you check CC? Like I said, the gold edition seems to have been rereleased in slightly different packaging.

I wouldn't get the gamestop one that fatty is suggesting; it doesn't have the expansion

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Not true. Relic regained the Homeworld IP from Vivendi in 2006.

looking forward to the next Homeworld

 

[LAMBO]

If I wasn't so lazy i would write one for Total Annihilation. I just started playing it again last week. It's still a great game even after playing some of the newer ones. People are still maing new units, maps, AI's, etc. for it.

 

[fatty]

You should supplement the OP with links to the individual posts that discuss the games in the list.

The original post has now been updated to include links.

If anyone else has any ideas or comments, let me know.

 

[Jaurenlo]

You gotta include Empire Earth.

If not ill get to a write up later...

Man... This thread brings back tons of memories.

 

[fatty]

Medieval II: Total War & Rome: Total War.

Nuff' Said.

When I viewed this at work, the pictures were blocked so I didn't see them. Those are some beautiful screenshots, esp. the second one. Is that a gameplay screen?

 

[g23]

When I viewed this at work, the pictures were blocked so I didn't see them. Those are some beautiful screenshots, esp. the second one. Is that a gameplay screen?

yep their gameplay shots without the hud

 

[A Black Falcon]

Hey, I actually have that game! Picked it up at EBGames for around $5 back in the day but unfortunately, like a lot of my PC games it has been collecting dust (I'm getting back into PC gaming, though). I'd love to read something about it, it might motivate me to install that sucker on my machine. Same thing goes with Total Annihilation as I never got around to playing that either, but on my shelf it sits.

Netstorm... the CD is of only limited use. Where you need to go is www.netstormhq.com. Technically the download there is abandonware, really, but since you own the actual game and that's the only way to play it online, that doesn't matter (the developer is out of business and the publisher shut down the official online service years ago and could not possibly care less)... because the game is only still playable online thanks to player dedication and support. The level of support for a game that was a total retail failure (so bad, in fact, that the developer went out of business in 1998, with Netstorm as their only game; I've always found it ironic that they were called "Titanic Entertainment" and went down on (well, after I guess) their first voyage... ) is amazing by many regards. How many games that came out in late 1997 still have working, supported, and used online networks? Not many! And in this case it's the fans that are 100% responsible for that... they run the servers, make the patches, do everything... why is this? Simple. Netstorm is unlike any other game ever made, and for people who came to love it, there are no alternatives.


Netstorm was one of the first games I played online regularly, way back in November or December 1997, and it's still one of the most unique games ever made. While there are many games that are unlike anything that came before them, how many games are there that are just as unique when compared to any game that came AFTER them? Netstorm is one such game... and in fact the only such game I know of. It not only was completely different and original when it came out, but there is no other game out there like it, period. Sure, it is an RTS, but it has some fundamental differences from the RTS norms that make it a completely different game. Back in 2001 I wrote a little review of the game for my stupid Geocities page... I edited it a few years later, but it's still applicable.

(link to my most recent version)

Netstorm:Islands At War

Game Information:
System: PC
Released in late 1997
Review written in Spring 2001, edited on 2/26/04.
Developed by Titanic Entertainment
Published by Activision


Game Overview: Netstorm: Islands At War, developed by Titanic (Netstorm was its only game) and published by Activison, is a Real-Time Strategy game released in late 1997. Its main focus was on its quite good internet play mode. While the game failed to sell, it is actually quite a good game, despite some problems. Netstorm is unique in that it is a RTS game where the only units that can move are the resource gathers-- military and support units are stationary towers with specific functions and attack areas. This adds to the strategy because placement of the towers is a major part of the game. There is a wide variety of units. They are not balanced all that well, but all players can get all of the units eventually so it works well enough. These units are placed in the sky on floating islands. A (multiplayer) map will have a few large base islands around the edges, scattered resource geysers floating out in the air, and a field of small floating islands in the center. To get to geysers or islands or to build units (towers) of an island, you must build bridges. This is the game's most unique element. It is most similar to Tetris, actually, as the pieces are in many different shapes that you have to link together as you try to expand around the map. Skill at quickly and efficiently laying bridges is vital to being able to win, for if you are blocked off by bridges you will probably eventually lose. This is a problem for new players because quick bridge building takes time to learn. As such, new players lose most all the time to a good or even mediocre player. It takes time before you become good enough to compete with better players in the game, and this definitely would turn some people off of the game. Since geysers are all over the map, being cut off is devastating. And since geysers don't have too much gas in them, and randomly appear around the map, the more territory you have the more money you will make, given enough workers. The key to victory, though, isn't annihilating your enemy's units. It is sacrificing their High Priest. A Priest can be captured when damaged enough, and once captured, brought to a Altar where the victor's High Priest will sacrifice it. Once a person's priest is dead (sacrificed), they lose the game. It is a very unique game. This is probably its greatest strength and greatest curse, as the game is unique and there is nothing like it, but so different that many people will not like how different it is from every other RTS they have played. New players are also slowed down a lot by the structure of the multiplayer system, where at the start you only have a couple of basic units and actually have to unlock the better units in the game by winning matches and sacrificing enemy priests -- this means your enemies, if they are better, will not just be better but will have better units too. Clearly the game is designed so it is best to play against people of a similar skill level and rank, and played in that way it is fun. 9 of 10.

Single Player: Because Netstorm was clearly designed for its internet play, the single player mode leaves a lot to be desired. With no in-mission saving, a fairly long and tedious campaign, and more boring gameplay because there are only large islands and geysers in single player, the single player mode is clearly in the game just so they have one. It will take a while to get through, if you really want to, but probably isn't worth the effort. The poor story doesn't really make you want to progress, either. There are some better campaigns made by fans available for download, however, and if you want a good single player experience you should get them. They have things the main campaign doesn't like branching missions as well. 6/10.

Multi Player: This is where Netstorm is at its best. It was an early online RTS, coming out in demo form in fall 1997, and was probably ahead of its time. With free internet play built into the game, it is very easy to play online. Even here the game is unique -- instead of the average online interface, chatroom, and list of games, it has a ''sky'' where your island -- a small representation of the island you actually have in the game -- flies around, to where your mouse clicks, and joins a game when you click on a spot on a battle ring. That spot is the point (of the 8 start locations around the edge) where you actually start the game. Here, games from one to eight players are played on a map with large islands around the outside and a field of small ones in the middle with the geysers. Though there some problems online because of the fact that almost all players are either very good or no good, because of the small (though steady and probably slowly growing now that it is more available) number of people that play, it is still fun and even now, three years after this poorly selling game released, people are usually playing online. There was even a fanmade patch released late 2003. It broke single player mode, in some ways, but as I have said that does not matter. It added some great features to multiplay like different colored islands and bridges on the minimap for each player. The only real problems with online play are how many people cheat. Because of how the game was designed, cheating is fairly easy and lots of people cheat. Even with this latest patch, cheating is too easy. When past the cheating, though, the game is a lot of fun. But like many other things about this game its uniqueness is a weakness as well. I like the level progression where you unlock more characters as you win more games, but it does hurt new players chances of completing against good ones even more, or even against not so good ones who have more units. However, just getting a file with all the units isn't a good solution because you will then be thrown into playing against people who are far better than you, so following the rank tree is needed if you want to get good. It adds to replay value, though, because unlike most online games it actually gives you a tangible award for winning games (which is something I like about this). I like that. 10/10.


Graphics: Netstorm's graphics are clearly out of date, even though they get the job done. They are old, though, and may make some people not really try the game. This area is, because of the game's age and the fact that the graphics were just OK then, at best, one of the weakest areas of the game. It will even still slow down on a fast computer if you have a huge number of moving units on the screen -- a game limitation, clearly. That doesn't hurt the gameplay much though because again, only resource gatherers, not military units, move. If you can ignore the graphics, there is a good game behind them. 7/10.

Sound/Music: The music and sound in Netstorm is ok. While it won't stand out, it is decent and doesn't seem to repeat too often. Each resource gatherer will make some sound when you click on them, and they are good. The battle sounds are good as well. Overall, a little above average in this category. Nothing special really, but appropriate for the game. 8/10.

Other Info (& Value): While not immediately apparent, Netstorm does have a map editor for single player levels. However, to make a map you must both place the units and islands in the in-game editor you can get and create a text file to go with that map that tells the game everything from what units are enabled in the level for what players start with (it must be listed), and what the alliances and computer player scripts are. This is more complex than it sounds because this file is a text file and figuring out the syntax takes some time. For most people it probably isn't worth it and it would just be better to download some of the good campaigns that other users made. A few are good. The result is few maps made and fewer that are actually good. It is good that it has it, though. And with the infinitely replayable multiplayer as the main focus of the game, any single player is just gravy... 10/10.

Overall, it is a great and unique RTS, but has some definite flaws and limitations and a relatively high learning curve that probably keeps many new players from fully appreciating the game. Still, it is a good game and there is still nothing like it out there. Until there is, it will still be worth playing. One of my favorite RTSes, but I recognize that it is not for everyone.

Score: Raw Scores:
Gameplay- 9/10
Sound- 8/10
Graphics- 7/10
Single- 6/10
Multi- 10/10
Other 10/10
Total- 50/60 or 83%
Final Score (not the total-- this is what I feel the game deserves): 88% , because despite some problems and limitations it is still a good game.

Some links. Netstorm HQ is the main community site. Since Activision took down the Netstorm servers several years ago, they've been distributing the game as abandonware (and are working on patches -- one done, one coming sometime this year).

Link:
Netstorm HQ - The top fan community site and forums

One thing I have to note that has changed since I wrote that is the patches. In the past couple of years, the fan dev team has made a series of patches to Netstorm that have added some fairly major interface improvements -- more resolution options, a button for configuring your display text (anyone who did the formatting commands stuff would know how great having it all on a visual display is...), interface improvements like different colors for different players' bridges, many more game options like different kinds of maps instead of just the one size of "field of small islands" design and to allow you to disable spells, some unit balance changes, a removal of the affect of rank. T he old way, giving you a 10% bonus each time you go up in rank, was something that the player base almost never actually used, so the actual impact on the game is mimimal... if anything it probably has encouraged more use of ranking up, since before almost all games ended in draws so that no one would have to level up. An option to handicap people with higher ranks was added to the ring setup options -- something that makes a lot of sense, since more ranks means more sacs which usually means more skill, so the original system of rewarding such people with higher damage was ... slightly flawed. Which was why it was ignored.

Also, the only way to play now is through the autopatcher. This is a great change because in the original game there was no way to force people to patch; there could be a message, but you couldn't make people switch to the patch. This fixes that. And the original CD can still be used for the CD soundtrack -- in fact, I highly recommend using the original CD when playing despite the fact that it's not needed. It's what I do... the game's soundtrack is fantastic and fits the "sky" theme of the game perfectly. The CG intro video, also only on the CD, is pretty cool too...

In conclusion, Netstorm is a great game, and one worth trying. It probably isn't for everyone, and does have poor graphics (even for its time) and some interface limitations and, despite the efforts of the patchers, is still lacking almost any polish, but its originality and unique thinking still shines through. While the learning curve is steep, it's worth it. From its floating islands to bridging to "all non-worker units are towers" to the online system with a persistent, unique account-based island and Serenisphere (lobby) / Pyrosphere (battle) system, Netstorm is original and, in my opinion, is just good now as it was when it came out. It certainly doesn't have any competition in its field.

Now all I need are some screenshots...

Yeah... as I said, not too impressive graphically, to say the least (though there are some nice animations). It's the gameplay that counts...

 

[Anno]

Bumping this thread for some questions.

I too am looking for a decent starter RTS. For whatever reason I'm just terrible at the entire genre. I'm not sure what it is, but I think it's that I'm just not quick enough at getting everything up and running, leading to me usually getting overrun before my army is up to par. Is there a game out there that doesn't rush quite so much? I'd love to have a good game that I can learn the micromanaging aspects of the genre on without being constantly spanked by the AI.

Also, are there any RTSs with a good single player campaign? I'd like to get plenty of experience before I try my hand online and get massacred all over again.

PC specs are pretty decent. Dual-core, 2gb of RAM, nVidia 7600. I'm not a total graphics whore but I enjoy the game running smoothly.

Thanks.

 

[Jaurenlo]

Begin the tomatos.

but I actually liked starcraft's and warcrafts single player.
Also AOE series and Rise of Nations...good single player.

 

[Anno]

Begin the tomatos.

but I actually liked starcraft's and warcrafts single player.
Also AOE series and Rise of Nations...good single player.

I enjoy Warcraft 3, I just consider is far different than almost all other RTSs out there with it's heavy emphasis on heroes and other RPG-lite elements.

Truthfully I'd love to have a reason to play SupCom, but I've heard that the single player sucks and that it's pretty hardcore.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Bumping this thread for some questions.

I too am looking for a decent starter RTS. For whatever reason I'm just terrible at the entire genre. I'm not sure what it is, but I think it's that I'm just not quick enough at getting everything up and running, leading to me usually getting overrun before my army is up to par. Is there a game out there that doesn't rush quite so much? I'd love to have a good game that I can learn the micromanaging aspects of the genre on without being constantly spanked by the AI.

Also, are there any RTSs with a good single player campaign? I'd like to get plenty of experience before I try my hand online and get massacred all over again.

PC specs are pretty decent. Dual-core, 2gb of RAM, nVidia 7600. I'm not a total graphics whore but I enjoy the game running smoothly.

Thanks.

Age of Mythology would be my pick for you.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Truthfully I'd love to have a reason to play SupCom, but I've heard that the single player sucks and that it's pretty hardcore.

The single player is horrible in Supreme Commander-I've played all three campaigns and it was just dreadful. The game is shamelessly hardcore in the place where it shines best-multiplayer-and I can't recommend it as an entry-level game.

 

[Anno]

The single player is horrible in Supreme Commander-I've played all three campaigns and it was just dreadful. The game is shamelessly hardcore in the place where it shines best-multiplayer-and I can't recommend it as an entry-level game.

Oh well. I have hopes that THQ might reform that with the upcoming "expansion". I'll try again then.

So Age of Mythology, then? I've played Age of Empires 3 briefly at my cousins' house, and AoE2 way back in the day. Does AoM compare favorably to either of them?

 

[Enron]

Holy wtf, how can this thread EXIST without the mention of this game

or its sequel

GAF TOTAL FAIL

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Holy wtf, how can this thread EXIST without the mention of this game

or its sequel

GAF TOTAL FAIL

why don't you do something about it rather than complain like a child?

 

[Enron]

why don't you do something about it rather than complain like a child?

Did someone wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? jeez

 

[Deku]

As far as I'm concerned the evolution of RTS went from Dune > StarCraft > Modern messy RTS. I stopped at StarCraft. None of the RTS titles since have really been that intuitive and usually devolved into messy micromanagement (WC3) or in the case of the C&C titles, become too unwieldy to command properly unless you're some kind of RTS prodigy.

The format though is the most accessible to the mass of action focused gamers and it's remained popular. I can only hope the genre will grow up or at the very least stop stagnating like it has.

 

[fatty]

IV. Warhammer 40,000 Dawn of War

I am sooo close to pulling the trigger on Dawn of War. GoGamer has the platinum edition on sale for $27.90 for the next nine hours. But just wanted to ask a few more questions. How is the story for the single player? As I try to get more into this genre, I find that I actually want a good single player campaign that keeps me interested. I'm trying to get into Rise of Nations but it's just not working for me and I think it's more because of the lack of a good story. To be fair I still need to give it more time but I just haven't been compelled to, yet I find myself going back and playing Brood War to find out how the story plays out. Anything else I should know before pulling the trigger or holding off?

For some reason that last screenshot posted for DoW looks like it came straight out of Bungie's PC game, Myth. (that reminds me, I need to go back and reinstall Myth II pretty soon, really fun game)

 

[Sinatar]

I am sooo close to pulling the trigger on Dawn of War. GoGamer has the platinum edition on sale for $27.90 for the next nine hours. But just wanted to ask a few more questions. How is the story for the single player? As I try to get more into this genre, I find that I actually want a good single player campaign that keeps me interested. I'm trying to get into Rise of Nations but it's just not working for me and I think it's more because of the lack of a good story. To be fair I still need to give it more time but I just haven't been compelled to, yet I find myself going back and playing Brood War to find out how the story plays out. Anything else I should know before pulling the trigger or holding off?

For some reason that last screenshot posted for DoW looks like it came straight out of Bungie's PC game, Myth. (that reminds me, I need to go back and reinstall Myth II pretty soon, really fun game)

The stories are decent, not anything spectacular but reasonable. It's pretty hard to come up with compelling reasons for all these different races to be in the same place at the same time and fighting each other, but Relic handles it well. Both DoW and Winter Assault have standard story heavy campaigns while the 3rd expansion Dark Crusade has an open ended board game style campaign with little snippets of story popping up here and there.

 

[TemplaerDude]

DAWN OF WAR IS AN AWESOME, AWESOME GAME AND YOU ARE COMMITTING A GRAND CRIME BY NOT OWNING IT.

 

[Sullen]

Yes, go buy Dawn of War, for yourself.. and for the Emperor!

What. Someone had to do it.

 

[TemplaerDude]

screw the emperor, do it for the waaaaaaaaaaaaagh!