If they wanted to save PC Gaming...

Someone should release some actually innovative games...

I just looked at all the upcoming games from now until Q1 2012 and like 90% of them are sequels.

Sorry if I'm not really interested in playing a watered down version of a game I've already beat a few times, with possibly better graphics and almost definitely worse storyline.

 

What you say also pretty much applies to console gaming and other forms of gaming as well. Look at Gameloft, a major game developer for iOS and Android. Pretty much all of their games are rip-offs of famous IPs like Halo, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, etc.

 

That's why I love indie games xD

 

So Skymrim and BF3 are just watered down sequels? News to me.

 

no but they are sequels that bring nothing new to the table, you can say that with bf3 it has more customization but its the same run,shoot,snipe,win game and skyrim is just an updated elder scroll.

the only game that isnt a sequel that ive enjoyed this year is brink and would be a whole lot better if they properly optimized it for pc

 

But if you're thinking about it like that, then all FPS-games are the same, and so are all RPG's. Do you (and/or OP) instead mean that you want to see new, innovative genres in gaming?

 

To me they are. I didn't care for morrowind, oblivion or BFBC2 (but I got my $5 worth of MP out of it).
Not interested in MW3, ME3, Diablo III(I was for so long, but I just don't care anymore), or Heroes of Might and Magic 6 either. Dungeon Seige III just came out and was a flop.

The only game that I've seen that looks semi-interesting is Warhammer 40k: Space Marine. I might pick up Skyrim eventually because I know it'll be a time suck.

It just usually seems like they're coming out with more games than I can afford/want to spend money on, however, for the upcoming year it looks like I'll be saving some $.

 

Too Many Sequels? Gamer MC

this article sums it up.

http://thegameprodigy.com/raising-the-bar-avoiding-a-failed-sequel-to-your-game/

this one too.

Edit: A counter argument why sequels may not be so bad

http://gamrfeed.vgchartz.com/story/86863/are-too-many-sequels-really-a-bad-thing/

 

I wouldn't mind seeing innovative genres, but I'm more looking for new/innovative games of the genres we already have, not sequels.

Here's an example of the games that were released around the same time line that I was deployed last time:

Fall out 3 (completely different from 1/2), Warhammer 40k: dawn of war 2 (completely different single player from the other dawn of war's), Last Remnant, Dragon age: origins, Left for dead, the witcher (EE edition anyways). resident evil 5 (not terribly innovative, but still fun), Prototype.

All these were relatively good games, and were fairly innovative even if they were sequels. BF3/MW3 are just going to be more modern shooters with pretty graphics and nothing really new. Skyrim, is going to be an updated oblivion. ME3 is probably going to be terrible based on how ME2 was compared to ME.

 

What about GW2?

 

im actually far more excited about this line up than any other winter line up since ive been gaming:

We got Diablo 3, Dota 2, Guild Wars 2, Counter Strike Global Offensive, and The Old republic, which are my top picks, not to mention ME3, which is a sequel to one of my favorite games of all time. It may not be innovative but games do not NEED to be innovative. id rather play call of duty than flower.

innovation is great, but as long as the games are enjoyable they will save pc gaming. the top 5 picks i listed are all either PC exclusives or PC is thier main platform. and they are all big enough to draw a crowd by thier own merits.

My last point: are you high? have you tried playing mass effect 1 lately? the gameplay is MISERABLE. it is honestly no fun to play anymore. Mass effect 2 is light years better than 1

I played ME1 when it first came out on PC, i loved the game. the story was excellent, and it was fun. when mass effect 2 came out i got it right away and played it on the PC as well. the gameplay was awesome (albiet slightly dumbed down) and the story was still great. (imo better). after beating it i wanted to play through the whole series in one shot as a interrigator or whatever (the one with the sniper) i couldnt play because the game play was aweful. i gave up in 20 minutes. the ME series is only improving and if it continues on the track it is ME3 will be game of the year.

 

In my opinion, Mass Effect tried too hard to be an RPG. Let's face it; the leveling system was unnecessarily tedious - spend skill points to either gain +2% weapon damage and 2% health at a time, or level up useless pistols so you can use shotguns, etc. And don't even get me started on the inventory/item system. I think half of my overall time in that game was spent turning extra weapons and armor into omni-gel. Combat wasn't great either; just spam your assault rifle until the reticle is full size, let it cool down, repeat, or spam biotics/tech powers if that's your thing.

Mass Effect 2 was more of what I think ME1 should have been all along - a third person cover shooter with RPG elements. Some people call it "dumbed down", but I really think it's just more streamlined. Each skill now has 4 significant ranks and can branch into two options at the highest rank, instead of 20-some arbitrary levels, only 3 of which are significant. Not having to level up weapon skills is also nice (really, who wants to waste skill points on handguns? ). And I like the new item system; fewer items with greater significant differences is a better system than hundreds of nearly identical weapons and armor.

 

I was trying to take the focus away from MMOs, and really how many MMOs to most people play at once? Generally 1 and sometimes 2, but what makes an MMO enjoyable is completely different than single player games (or games with merely a multiplayer option). I also have my doubts about the acceptance of CS:GO.

One of the few consoles series that I enjoy is Final Fantasy. I don't think every single one was a masterpiece, but at least they do something different every time. Since FF7 the equipment systems, combat system, ability system, and leveling system has been different in virtually every FF. It's fun to start a whole new story with new characters and not knowing exactly how to equip them or spend attribute/skill points.

I'm just not excited to play a sequel with the same characters and relatively same leveling system, or similar weapons (modernized FPS). I mean what are MW3/BF3 really going to bring? It's going to be the same weapons and combat style with slight variants to weapons and slightly new maps for missions, but still doing the same old thing. Maybe I'm just being too harsh on FPS, but I haven't felt any of them have been worth the money since the original Halo and CSS.

 

Can we get someone actually bringing up a truly innovative game that is releasing in 2012? Because I agree with the OP. All game ideas are getting repetitive and even though new games are coming out, I don't see any single game that hasn't already had something similar to them done. Remember back in the N64 days when games like iggy's wreckin balls and rocket: robot on wheels were releasing? Then to playstation where games like crash bandicoot and twisted metal were releasing. Then to gamecube where games like pikmin and extreme G were releasing. And so on...

It's like having systems that can run games with amazing graphics has crippled game developers into feeling like they HAVE to make a game with excellent, lifelike graphics, which in turn leaves them less time/resources to actually focus on gameplay innovation. And not to mention the tba fact that its the "safe" way to go making an un-original game with good graphics, than to actually come up with a unique game idea and hope it sells well no matter how good the graphics actually are. But look at minecraft. HORRIBLE graphics/well selling game.

And this is why indie games are so awesome. They don't require amazing graphics to be a great game. (super meat boy, limbo, splosion man, braid, Trials HD, marble blast ultra, etc etc) all of these games are great and don't have the best graphics although still asthetically pleasing.

These AAA game developers need to start being unique and take more risks with their game ideas.

Either they start being creative with new titles or give us virtual reality lol.

 

But some of them are really sequels to ignored games. How many of you played Crusader Kings?

 

Maybe there's a reason they were ignored.

 

Giant zaibatsu-style gaming companies cant afford to risk a serious flop because of the budgets associated with these games.

I can only imagine how much money was spent on BF3, for example. Other games which have a large scope and detailed graphics are also insanely expensive. They need to know it's going to sell in advance. Going the artistic route and making something new and unique can be really good, but it leads to uncertainty that is outside of the risk tolerance of the larger studios.

You can find indie games which explore new ideas, but they will be limited in scope because of the limit in budget.

This is true for all platforms and has little to do with the health of the platform. PC gaming is doing better than ever. Digital distribution has taken off in a big way and the PC is leading that type of innovation.

I think the consoles are actually on the way out. You have tablets, you have mobiles phones, you have laptops. People are buying these devices in groves, and they are becoming more and more capable of gaming. In a few years, when the next crop of consoles come out, who is going to put down $400 and $60/game when they could get more use out of a $500 laptop that can play games anyway, or a $500 tablet that can play games that they can use for general purpose stuff.

single purpose electronic devices are in a lot of trouble. it's starting with the nintendo 3ds, and that storm will soon carry over to the microsoft and sony consoles.

 

Sorry but I disagree with RE5. It is a copy of RE4. The only innovative part of RE5 (besides its bad story) is the coop play and the (very few) real cooperative sequences.

Also I read somewhere that Prototype was basically the game of Hulk with new skins (anyone can confirm it?).

Going back on topic: yes, it seems innovation has been stagnating for a while. Another game to look for the end of the year is LA Noire, which for all that Rockstar is, it is not a GTA re-skined in the 60s.

 

It's the same with hollywood. Same old same old. Just a big yawn.

 

That's true. That is why M$ and Sony have spent two E3 presentations focusing on telling people that their consoles can do more than playing games (especially M$, their past E3 presentations have focused heavily on the 'other apps' of the 360).

 

Learn a new language and try different genres of games might work, those who've played Recettear will know that you don't need fancy graphics or top of the line hardware to sink hours into games.

Admittedly some genres are so niche that most mainstream players will feel alienated, I for one have no issue with sequels etc. so long as they give me entertainment. If I'm really looking for innovation, doujin games and the western indie scene should fit the bill.

 

yeah, but microsoft or sony telling you a video game console is for more than playing games isn't enough to convince me that it's true. the very few other features of the current consoles hardly matter. By the time the next consoles come around, stream-box functionality will be built in to new TVs and available extremely cheap externally. That's really their only leg as it is now.

 

To me, the only innovative game which has come from a major dev recently is portal. They had no idea it would catch on so well, it was just supposed to be a tiny little side dish but now it's become a cult hit.

As for consoles doing things beyond gaming, they work as a media player and that's about it. Unless you installl linux on them (which is increasingly difficult) then it's pretty much useless, no matter how much microsoft or sony want it to be something with multiple uses.

 

EA did a study and found out that sequels sell better than new IP's. But before you say it's probably because they made a crap game, both Dead Space 1 and 2 which are excellent games sold poorly and they have other games like D.S. which which were good but had bad sales numbers.

 

PC gaming isn't dying; it always is brought up across the webs. Take my opinion for what it's worth. Not only is PC gaming not going to "die" but it is going to thrive MORE. However, give me a chance to qualify that statement. Though it will thrive, it will be at the cost of the consoles.

Consoles are more and more turning into PCs. High definition gaming is becoming a reality in every home, access to online gaming, and (to MS, Sony and Developers) Micro transactions are "no problem" for millions of console owners. Because of the change in console gaming ability due to internet access, we are seeing games rushed out and then "patched" and "installed" just like PC games were; which is an irony that console fan boi's would say "I Just put ma game in and play." That is no longer the case.

So developers have mostly jumped ship and:
1. Create
2. "Deploy"

Their game with the console in mind. They will then port over to the PC. So PC gamers are getting a lot of consolized games, which aren't that bad, but they aren't tailored to the PC at the same time. It's purely a marketing scam that EVERYONE is buying into. How many PC gamers have MW2, Black Ops, Crysis 2, Fallout, etc?

There WAS a time when Far Cry, Half Life/HL2, Doom3, FEAR (amongst others) came out FIRST for the PC, by the PC and consequently made gaming in 2004 amazing. The graphics were leap years ahead of what was on the Xbox and PS2. The games pushed the technological envelope. Those times I miss. The creativity, exclusivity and the technological advancements were some of the reasons I LOVED PC gaming then.

Now I get to love a slightly higher resolution, a few extra FPS, and maybe a bit of AA and soft shadows because the games are practically identical. The only reason you need "beast machines" to play is because the PC was never developed as the Key platform.

So it's a catch 22. PC gaming is surely going to thrive because developers can release console versions and PC versions simultaneously but they have become so bitten by the capitalist bug that they forgot their roots (cough Crytek, Cough Carmack et al).

To me, it's just like going to a Ford/Chrysler dealership. You NEED a halo car (Shelby Cobra, Viper etc) to sell the other cars. You NEED the mustang GT to sell the billions of automatic V6 mustangs. WE NEED the epitome of PC gaming so that we can sell to the consoles. I just wish they would put more money into the creativity and the loyalty PC gamers have for good technology so that I don't have to just enjoy MW2 at higher resolution. I want my games like Far Cry when I came out of that little cave and saw the world I was about to play in...well I cried and we are a Far Cry from having those days. Crysis 2 sure didn't give me that feeling. It was a great game, but nothing like my gaming years before.

Valve seems to have consolitis too, however they still seem to develop with the PC first and then port over like L4D/L4D 2. Most kids that ONLY played the console version said "These graphics suck." While still based on the source engine, the graphics are actually really good...on the PC. It's not only the higher resolution, it is the fact that the game looks and PLAYS much better because the PC was it's first platform/lead platform. Therefore, the maps cater to what a mouse and keyboard can do and are not gimped by creating simple maps for dual analog controllers.

To conclude, console gaming is not KILLING PC gaming; if anything it's amassing more sales. however, it is killing the spirit of PC gamers that have been around and remember the times when they actually upgraded their hardware for quality IP's and games that just took bleeding edge, drank it and then crapped out a product that was generations ahead of what else was out there. I am afraid those type of games are going to be very few and far between. Right now, we just wait for the new consoles to come out and then get ready for more port action...except that the m18x I am playing and typing this on right now won't even be able to load the screen because it will be so ancient

 

Hmm...I would have thought DS/DS2 sold well, but apparently you heard something I didn't. I never actually played either of these because they didn't appear as creepy as advertised.

I watched my friend's wife play them for a few hours and there were minimal actual scary parts, I'm finding Doom 3 to be much more frightening (even though it's so old, I'm currently playing it for the first time).

 

have you played FEAR (the first one)? Way scarier and a much better game IMO. I thought doom 3 was boring and more of a tech demo for the times than anything (lighting mainly). FEAR was much mroe innovative and that little girl was freaky. I was playing a horror movie...loved it.

 

Thats a very hard thing to do

especially since the games i want were in Japanese and Chinese

 

I'll have to checkout the original FEAR. I only discovered the series after the sequel was launched, and heard that it was very scary or long, and that deterred me from dropping $50 on FEAR2/3.

 

This really sums up the debate for me:

It's not like we're cribbing off ancient archetypes here (well, maybe the Zelda sequel...). But Mass Effect was a brand new game in a brand new universe not all that long ago. Same with Borderlands. Same with Killzone. But sometimes, creating a new world uses up a lot of R&D resources, which--on the limited budget of a game company that's trying to start something new--doesn't leave a ton for refinement of gameplay, etc. So you have sequels, which springboard off the good ideas of the first game, but improve the minute-to-minute gameplay dramatically. ME2 is the classic example of this.

The all-new games don't get the pre-release hype that sequels have because we don't yet know which will be good and which will be nearly unplayable for some reason. For example, Hawken might be awesome, but it might be awful. We'll have to wait and see. We all know, however, that ME3 will be awesome, so it gets more pre-release hype.

If Hawken is good, there will probably be a Hawken 2 in a couple years that irons out issues with Hawken 1, and people will grouse that it's just another sequel.

 

It just seems like sequels can only aspire to be "Good", and even if they are great games they lack the innovation and "wow factor" of the original.

I think the biggest letdown of my gaming life has been StarCraft 2. In all honesty it's an amazing game, but it just didn't have the same sentimental feeling that the original SC did (that I put 1000's of hours into), not to mention killing bnet and most of the community took away from some of the experience. I think I've got maybe 50 hours on SC2 and I paid more for it than SC and BW combined...

 

You could argue that Starcraft was really a sequel to Warcraft II, just with a different world or theme. Or that Brood War functioned as a sequel in that it really fleshed out and completed the original Starcraft the way sequels often do today. Either way, it's not like SC:BW was created out of nothingness with no precedent whatsoever. It was the result of years of refinement and several predecessors, just like any modern game with "II" or "III" in the title.

I liked the plot of SC1 better than SC2, and it's neat how it created this new universe, but I think the gameplay in SC2 is vastly superior (the process of over a decade's worth of refinement). I don't think that means SC2 is an inferior game at all. To the contrary, personally, I play it more than any other game right now.

 

I dont really feel it's fair to call SC a sequel to Warcraft II. If that's the case then every shooter set from the 1920-2010 time periods are copies/sequels of eachother (which might actually be true).

Some of those types of shooters were very innovative for their time, even the sequels, such as BF2 and COD4, however, I just don't see justification for releasing a new MW/BF game every 6-12 months with map pack dlc's every month because they're not bringing anything really new to the table, and the graphics really aren't that much better.

Another good example is the C&C series, there's a million of those games, and only a handful were actually good.

 

Um, you definitely could argue that.

Both are RTS games.

However, for the first time in a commercially successful game, Starcraft introduced factions that were very different in gameplay yet very well balanced.

In Warcraft 2, both factions had to build a hall, farms, barracks, etc. The humans had elven archers, the orcs had troll axe throwers. The humans had knights, the orcs had ogres. The humans had ballistas, the orcs had catapults. There were some differences in spell types, but other than different sounds and graphics that was about it.

Starcraft had the same resources, but even base building was different between the three factions. Units between factions were also played very differently (Zerg were weak yet prolific, Humans were balanced, Protoss were shielded but slower to produce).

Starcraft was, in my opinion, revolutionary compared to Warcraft 2 which, in turn, was evolutionary to Warcraft.

Warcraft 2 greatly refined the gameplay of Warcraft (if you don't believe me, try playing Warcraft now...the introduction of the right-click is a lot bigger than you would think), and introduced a few more complexities. I prefer Warcraft 2 simply for the improvements in gameplay.

Starcraft was revolutionary. War Wind 2 did the different factions first (and maybe another RTS that I never played preceded that one), but since nobody bought it (terrible AI pathfinding, and not too well balanced...no one wanted to be the human faction), Starcraft set the template for modern RTSs.

However, I still preferred Warcraft 2. I had spent more time with it, and the nuances were more familiar. And somewhere between Warcraft 2 and Starcraft, I got old and became terrible at competitive play.

I don't mind sequels. I don't even think a game (or a sequel) has to be innovative. It just has to be fun.

But then again, I read Tolkien about every three to four years. I own movies that I watch over and over (and speaking of which, I remember not wanting to see The Matrix when it came out...I had very limited time [Navy deployments], and I chose Star Wars: Episode I, a sequel of sorts...what a bad choice...the story in The Matrix wasn't necessarily innovative [different setting for any number of "What is reality?" themed movies], but the fight sequences and special effects were amazingly different...and Avatar may be a copy of Dances with Wolves, but I enjoyed the movie...the story could be absolute garbage, but for the first time, there wasn't a single frame in that movie where I said "That shot was completely inconsistent with the movie."). And I still listen to the same music that I listened to in high school. I probably could have endured U2 releasing Joshua Tree 2, 3, 4 and 5 instead of completely changing with Achtung Baby.

And Prototype could be considered a sequel to Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction. Same developer. Graphics, setting and story are different along with some of the superpowers and combos, but very similar gameplay. Of course, I loved Ultimate Destruction on the PS2, and I enjoyed Prototype on the PC.

 

You will be surprised but your life might not bring something new to your table after you hit 25 yrs old. Doing innovative games is expensive, just like taking different and longer road to get to your home from work. Whether or not it will be worth it for you and for publisher is a big question in both cases.

Also starcraft IS a warcraft in space. Dunno how you can argue that.
Adding more units, calling gold "crystals", wood "vespen" and different build order doesnt suddenly make it a different game.

it all depends on if you can find wow factor in small things and differences.
I am myself only playing online games. There i can find wow factor in my own newly founded skill.
Beating AI isnt innovative for a while now and some better games just feels like reading a book, which is entertaining and new in its own way but nothing special compared to a world of real books and your imagination.

 

That's true. But charging full priced $60 for a re-hashed sequel game shouldn't be condoned.

 

I feel that the only unwarranted sequels are these Military shooters. CoD releases the same title every 8 months to a year. BF, I feel, at least tries to be innovative, and releases are more than a year apart. Original series like the Elder Scrolls change every game, with vast improvements to the GUI, Gameplay, Graphics, skill trees, equipment, pretty much everything is revamped and tossed into a HUGE story with hundreds of quests, tons of characters. Mass Effect was designed to be a trilogy to begin with, so you can't blame them for making a third.

There are a lot of options out there, and if you can't find anything in the AAA big releases, go towards the indie developers, who are constantly releasing incredible games at incredible prices.

 

Sorry to derail the thread a bit, but your insight on resources was already acknowledged.

The resources and build order were NOT what made Starcraft so different. Zerglings were NOT the equivalent of marines. While this is standard these days, that was a new concept in RTS games at the time. If your units were essentially the same with just different graphics, then play balancing was easy. Starcraft took the higher road...they could have done the same with faction differences in the Warcraft universe, but Blizzard chose a sci-fi theme. The play balancing was so well done, that people still argue over which is the best faction.

In Warcraft 2, your only real reason for switching between the two sides was the campaign forced you to, and if you preferred "Zug zug" over "I'm going."

The factions in Starcraft actually required different strategies regardless of your initial starting position on the map.

Warcraft 3 (besides a very different graphics engine) incorporated the faction differences along with a better hero structure. It's my favorite of the Blizzard RTSs, but Starcraft preceded it.

Back to the thread...I don't mind the FPS military shooter sequels as much since they are story driven (which was what made the first Half-Life so amazing...set pieces and scripted events). I don't even notice if the "gun play" is better or worse since I'm not very good at the gun play anyway.

The sequels that annoy me the most are the sports and racing sequels. I haven't followed FIFA or NHL like I used to, but Madden has become tiring. I'm not sure I've really seen anything new that was worthwhile since the defensive hit stick. Other than that, graphic and animation updates along with roster updates. I never played the career mode though so maybe that's where all the improvement is going.

 

I can agree with this, but my problem is that I only have access, and a limited one at that, to single player games due to being deployed. I love the competition in online games, and would take player against players over a computer anyday. The fact that I can only see game releases on Amazon, as all other gaming websites seem to be blocked, probably skews the game releases a bit against me as well.
After watching totalBiscuit's preview of Space Marine I'm actually more excited than before about it. I just hope that, Skyrim, and the various older games I've got on my HDD will last me until I can get back to the civilized world and play some GW2/Tera.

 

Command and Conquer (1995) did that before Starcraft (1998). Not every single unit was unique for each side (riflemen and rocketmen were the same), but most were unique. SC was the better game, sure, but it didn't invent that concept. And I think Dune II (1993) did that as well, though I never played it.

Regardless, there's so much other back-and-forth between the SC and WC franchises that I really have to view them as one franchise with two different themes, not two separate-and-unrelated game franchises. In addition to the similarities in gameplay mechanics (unit caps, the manner of teching, etc), note how WC3 adopted protoss-style base-building for the undead and zerg-style base building for the night elves, and how certain powers seem remarkably similar (terran scans and the farseer's farsight, cyclone versus graviton beam, etc).

 

a couple aaa games are coming out, quit whining

 

Oh, definitely. For me both of them are gaming consoles and their 'other apps" are simply gimped versions of what a good low-range PC/laptop can do.

Yes, but there are limits. You mentioned Zelda, we can also mention Halo (10 iterations), Tomb Raider (more than 6), Call of Duty (so far 5 games based on the same style), and quite a few more. The issue with sequels is to develop something new/different from the previous one. That is where so many sequels fail.

Edit about other posts comments:
Personally FEAR only had 1 scary moment. The rest was more stylized, but nowhere scary as the first levels of Dead Space (play it with headphones in a dark room... it reeaaally works).

Starcraft a sequel to Warcraft 2? Yeah right, SC is so far one of the few games where 3 very different playstyle factions that can have balanced battles. Sorry, but that is totally wrong: the key difference is that the units ranks between the factions is not symmetrical at all, even the building style and their uses is different. Going a bit further with Warcraft 3: I think it incorporated quite less diversity than SC since each faction rank was symmetrical (std soldier, heavy soldier, siege unit, flying unit, 2 mages, 1 unique faction unit [dwarves for humans, dragons for undead, rhino for orcs, and I don't remember what for elves], and their respective heroes).

 

How much have you played WC3? Asserting that there's "one unique faction unit" for each race makes me scratch my head. There are certain categories (melee infantry, ranged infantry, flying units, seige units), but every unit is unique. But you could say the same about SC (each race has melee infantry, ranged infantry, mech, and air units). What you're describing reminds me more of Age of Empires games where each race has one or two unique units, but mostly shared units. That's not WC3.

 

Dota taking the "unique but balanced" factor to another level?

And what about FPSes? Counterstrike had to balance the two teams with different guns, bullets per second, accuracy, damage, cost, etc.

And God forbid, take a look at pokemon. Ever seen it played competitively? Looks pretty intense, a ton of thought put into it.

 

if i were to make a game in the future, this is what id make:

a birds eye view game like command and conquer (i always forget what those are called!) but with extreme graphics. (crysis 1,2, upcoming games)

it would be modern warfare, so current weapons, etc. but what i would change is EVERYTHING would be customizable, down to the weapons, silencers, how a soldier looks, what types of missiles will go on a jet, which type of sabot round to use in a tank, EVERYTHING customizable.

thats something i always wanted to do. (basically a modern world in conflict with customization). id probably add more things to as i hear peeps giving me their ideas.

that, OR same type of game, but in space, (kind of like sins of a solar empire), except instead of multiple ships, you just have your own ship,(again get to customize), and its a free world. so basically a mix of sins and EVE online, but you dont have to pay. <----- i havent thought as much about this one as i have the modern war one.

...just wanted to share this with everyone, lol.

 

Would this be turn-based strategy? With 50-100 units on the field, it couldn't possibly be real-time strategy, right? There's just no time to customize each soldier's rifle if you're managing dozens of units in real time.

 

Unless you customized everything before hand, and selected a few certain variants for each unit type before the game started. I couldn't imagine a turn based game with 100 units...that would make risk look like a short game.

 

to be honest... im not sure, maybe like the turn-based between missions type of customization. i guess kind of like starcraft where your reaserch points got you upgrades in the lab...

hmm... good point. but if it was story based/ vs the computer, i think i would make it real-time but, with a pause button in which one would be able to customize.

see, i prefer a style of gaming where one only has control of.. lets say a squad of 5, and each has a vital role (hence the customizations) rather than 50 units all at once.

 

Five units sounds to me like squad-based combat. With five infantrymen that'd be fine (it'd actually be just like customizing your squad in Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six, only with an aerial control view), but you had mentioned tanks and aircraft as well, which doesn't mesh with squad-based combat at all to me.

 

Axis and allies, as well as company of heroes did this.