StarCraft2 is going to dominate the RTS genre for next several years. But not because it's perfect or anything. It's not much of a strategy game, even. I'd call it Arcade/Tactics game with elements of Strategy. Arcade element is really strong in Starcraft and Warcraft3, you can't play these games without fast reflexes ! Ironically, Diablo2 remains the slowest Blizzard game. There's only so much clicking you can do at a time in D2. Starcraft and Warcraft3, on the other hand, give big edge to the player who can click faster, manage several units individually at the same time etc. In Diablo2, you have only 1 unit to manage.
Starcraft2 is going to dominate because it faces no serious competition. That's a bit sad.
The most immediate competition you could think about is C&C games, formerly by Westwood, now EA. C&C serries degenerated quite a bit. EA was never known for long time support, or any support actually. Every single of their RTS games has some fatal flaws, usually bad,
unpatched multiplayer balance.
C&C 3 in particular is a classic example of what PC gamers call a dumbed down console game. The game is primitive to the point where top players have average match duration of 5 minutes. It ends inevitably with tank spamming. Note that 5 minutes is average, this means some matches can actually last less.
For me, top C&C games were (for different reasons): the first one, RA2, Tiberian Sun, Generals.
Supreme Commander is a worthy successor to Total Annihilation, and it's a game with big strategic depth. The problem is the same as with TA. It lacks character. It has lots of blocky vehicles, no infantry, rather bland terrain. Storyline and sides of conflict are very cliche (The empire, rebels, and religious fanatics). It doesn't help that the sides are fairly similar to each other.
These flaws mean that the game can be enjoyed only by people who can look past graphics and unattractive visual design. People appreciate gameplay and depth over all. There are fewer of them than you think.
Truth is, the word
innovative is very rarely used to describe a game made by EA or Blizzard. Relic does innovate quite a lot. It's the company who made Homeworld1,2 , Warhammer : Dawn of War, Winter Assautl, Dark Crusade, (each expansion introducing significant gameplay changes and innovation), and finally, Company of Heroes. I only played Homeworld2, but I heard each of these games feels distinctive in terms of both character and gameplay. Each game uses good parts of previous one, improves on its flaws, and has something new to show. It really puzzles me why Relic's games aren't as successful as Blizzard's. Could it be unsufficient marketing ?
I think that if anyone can topple Starcraft dominance in RTS field, it is a new game by Relic.
____________________________
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml
[Last edited by b0rsuk at 05-20-2007 11:33 AM]