Battle-hardened soldiers march across war-torn combat zones. Machines of impossibly awesome, destructive capabilities scatter enemy units and turn the tide of conflict.
My attention darts back-and-forth in all directions -- the enemy assaults my resource collection through the backdoor, all the while heavy resistance stalls my efforts on the front lines! Scouts report that the enemy set up an expanded base of operations!
Whoever said real-time strategy is a dead genre hasn’t been paying attention. Supreme Commander 2 is out. Dawn of War 2’s first expansion, Chaos Rising, is on the way. And two other upcoming titles -- both continuations of RTS stalwarts -- are running betas to polish their gameplay: Starcraft 2 and Command & Conquer 4.
I’ve had some time with each, which has revealed that these games are walking down wildly different paths. My impressions are by no means a complete commentary on either game (since these are just betas at the moment), and Blizzard or EA LA could alter anything by the time of this writing.
Starcraft 2 is like returning home after a long journey. All the basics from the original Starcraft, like the mechanics of resource and unit management, are just as you remember them. Everything feels familiar, and you’re at ease in your first game. You don’t even necessarily feel compelled to study the tech-tree or unit charts yet.
Minerals and gas are back. Natural expansions and choke points are core components of gameplay. Many familiar, and iconic, units return: Marines, Zerglings, Zealots, Siege Tanks, and Mutalisks -- to name but a few.
Command & Conquer 4, on the other hand, feels alien. I’ll be honest -- I haven’t picked up a C&C game since Westwood's originals. The newest iteration does away with a lot of staples, like resources and base-building, and takes inspiration from more recent RTS games such as Universe at War, Dawn of War, and Company of Heroes.
The all-in-one base, seen in DOW2, is the center of this strategy game. All units, research, and upgrades are handled here. In another twist -- inspired by UAW’s Hierarchy walkers -- these bases are mobile, and directly influence the engagement at hand through various upgrades.
And like Relic’s RTS games (Company of Heroes and Dawn of War), C&C4 makes use of map control via capture points, tracks the flow of battle through victory points, and allows players to select between three different combat roles.
One more step away from the traditional model, though, breaks down the core part of an RTS -- the strategy. Command & Conquer 4 allocates progression by awarding experience points that level up the player. This means that as a low-level commander, you’ll only have first-tier units and upgrades available. As you play more battles and destroy more enemies, you’ll unlock more powerful and deadly armies.
Ultimately, this makes C&C4 feel like a slog through mud. I played plenty of games in which I was significantly outclassed simply because I had fewer experience points, and thus, fewer options to exercise.
Strategy boiled down to massing whatever best unit I could produce and joining up with my teammates to overwhelm the enemy. Since your base is a mobile factory, battles can drag on as each player continually pumps out replacement units.
This system, though, is going to put new players at a disadvantage. Seasoned veterans will have more tactical choices available, whether those are better and more varied units or additional upgrades. While I presume that auto-match is designed to place competitors with similar experience levels together, in practice the feature doesn’t always find a game. The only other option is to join a publicly posted bout at the risk of being severely outgunned.
I could be wrong, but I imagine that three or six months after release when the player base has settled, newcomers may find the multiplayer game impenetrable. Unless, of course, they’re willing put in enough time to gain the necessary experience to be competitive.
