PDA

View Full Version : IG disappoints as RTS.



gunner54
30th Jun 2005, 17:04
Since its release IG has come in for some heavy criticism, particularly in regard to the combat element. The following are a fairly representative selection:

•Battles feel like skirmishes, not full scale engagements.
•Too few troops on the battlefield.
•Battles are so short and rapid, there is little opportunity for extended tactics.
•Units are difficult to manoeuvre.
•The morale element is very poorly implemented.
•The naval battle element feels underdeveloped.
•No commanders on the field.
•Inability to pause and issue orders.

There are a number of others, but these seem to be the most irritating. Hopefully, the much looked for patch will address some of these concerns. However, it is doubtful that it will radically alter the overall structure of the game.

It is my contention that the main reason for the chorus of disappointment is less due to the programmers and more the responsibility of the marketing department!

In previews, in advertising and marketing (particularly the trailers and demo) IG has been touted as first and foremost a RTS game. It’s not, the battle are too short and rudimentary. The combat plays like a superior extended version of Risk (nothing wrong with that, I like Risk, but it is not RTS).

It’s a classic case of misaligned expectations. In the context of the game as a whole, short sharp battles work very well (even better, hopefully, after the patch). If every battle were to be a full two hour epic, one game would take months to complete!

Don’t get me wrong, I like and enjoy playing IG, its one of my favourite games. It hasn’t been off my pc since I got it (when it first came out), and I only ever have a maximum of two games installed at any one time. But, in my opinion, it’s never going to live up to the publicity. The overall game is great, and I will continue to play it for a considerable time, but the combat element on its own is, at best, a ‘lunch break’ battle.

There has been much talk about alternative, purely, battle RTS games. SM’s Gettysburg and FoG have been mentioned. However, there is a game currently out that tops the lot, ‘Bull Run: Take Command 1861.’ The team behind it are two American guys (yes just two!). It's terrific, a pleasure to play, a work of genius. And the AI is awsome! Its, unfortunately, only available direct from the States, but my copy only cost me £14 inc. p&p! Check out the website www.madminutegames.com (http://) (they have a demo!).

Queeg
30th Jun 2005, 18:04
Great post!

I've been struggling to figure out why a game I enjoy so much is drawing the wrath of so many others, and I think you've hit on the answer. IG is a very good game, flaws and all, but it clearly doesn't meet the expectations of many folks.

And, I agree, Bull Run is the best tactical musket era game there is - period. It does an amazing job of capturing the feel of the 19th century battlefield. But you wouldn't want every battle in IG to take that long to fight.

gunner54
30th Jun 2005, 18:08
No thats right. One turn with battles generated by allied enemies might last a week! lol. Glad to see someone else has discovered TCBR!

Nahirean
2nd Jul 2005, 05:35
Since its release IG has come in for some heavy criticism, particularly in regard to the combat element. The following are a fairly representative selection:

•Battles feel like skirmishes, not full scale engagements.
•Too few troops on the battlefield.
•Battles are so short and rapid, there is little opportunity for extended tactics.
•Units are difficult to manoeuvre.
•The morale element is very poorly implemented.
•The naval battle element feels underdeveloped.
•No commanders on the field.
•Inability to pause and issue orders.

There are a number of others, but these seem to be the most irritating. Hopefully, the much looked for patch will address some of these concerns. However, it is doubtful that it will radically alter the overall structure of the game.

It is my contention that the main reason for the chorus of disappointment is less due to the programmers and more the responsibility of the marketing department!

In previews, in advertising and marketing (particularly the trailers and demo) IG has been touted as first and foremost a RTS game. It’s not, the battle are too short and rudimentary. The combat plays like a superior extended version of Risk (nothing wrong with that, I like Risk, but it is not RTS).

It’s a classic case of misaligned expectations. In the context of the game as a whole, short sharp battles work very well (even better, hopefully, after the patch). If every battle were to be a full two hour epic, one game would take months to complete!

Don’t get me wrong, I like and enjoy playing IG, its one of my favourite games. It hasn’t been off my pc since I got it (when it first came out), and I only ever have a maximum of two games installed at any one time. But, in my opinion, it’s never going to live up to the publicity. The overall game is great, and I will continue to play it for a considerable time, but the combat element on its own is, at best, a ‘lunch break’ battle.

There has been much talk about alternative, purely, battle RTS games. SM’s Gettysburg and FoG have been mentioned. However, there is a game currently out that tops the lot, ‘Bull Run: Take Command 1861.’ The team behind it are two American guys (yes just two!). It's terrific, a pleasure to play, a work of genius. And the AI is awsome! Its, unfortunately, only available direct from the States, but my copy only cost me £14 inc. p&p! Check out the website www.madminutegames.com (http://) (they have a demo!).

Yep. I agree. Until they let us mod stats like R:TW this game will be crap. I am sorely disappointed in this and consider it a waste of money.

gunner54
2nd Jul 2005, 06:40
I beleive IG is a very enjoyable game, and when the patch comes out possibly a great one. I was pointing out that the marketers shot the game in the foot by presenting it as something it wasn't. I was also trying to flag up the fact that Bull Run was the best 'musket era' RTS yet.

Inferior Being
2nd Jul 2005, 14:54
Too much bayonet-fighting. DON'T FORGET!!!

GenMoore
2nd Jul 2005, 15:44
I have to admit that there are short comeings at the mo, And RTS it is not.

But all in all the game is great to pass an hour or two, and knock the stuffing out of them, will hope to see more nations takeing part and larger armies of course. :)

Element-UK
5th Jul 2005, 12:30
Just been playing the demo of Bull Run and its awesome. Tried to buy it online and there either out of stock or dont post outside of the US. I WANT IT NOW ! lol

Wiltshire Tony
5th Jul 2005, 13:40
I must be a bit strange cos I love this game, in fact I can't wait to finish work and get home to continue my campaign from last night.

Difference may be that I have never played RTW so don't have a benchmark.
Sure patches may improve aspects of the gameplay but personally speaking, if it stayed exactly as it is now my enthusiasm for playing it would not wane.

gunner54
5th Jul 2005, 13:51
Element UK


You should be able to order from the USA with NWL. Try


http://store.yahoo.com/yhst-12000246778232/index.html




Enjoy. Leave a post on here about your impressions of the game,etc.