Slashdot Mirror
Total Annihilation's Spiritual/Actual Sequel Planned?
Thanks to IGN PC for its article discussing hints from Chris Taylor of Gas Powered Games regarding a possible follow-up to seminal RTS Total Annihilation. Apparently, at a recent gaming career day, Taylor, the original designer of TA, informally confirmed "...that Gas Powered Games was working on 'an RTS follow-up to Total Annihilation'", but IGN note "it's not exactly clear yet [from his brief comment] on whether or not the game will be a true sequel... or simply a new RTS in the vein of Total Annihilation." Although Gas Powered Games are currently working on a sequel to Dungeon Siege for Microsoft, their jobs page confirms they're also looking for RTS genre artists, and an earlier GameSpy interview discusses this long-under-wraps strategy title. Taylor also mentioned the publisher of this new title is "a big one... one that doesn't also publish operating systems [like Microsoft]" - it seems Atari own the rights to Total Annihilation 2, and previously asked Korean developers Phantagram to develop a sequel before that deal allegedly fell through, though Taylor's game could still be a sequel in concept only.
err, actually there were many many defensive structures available to both sides, making rushes only successful for noobs.
Now, Commander Rushing, that was a bit unbalanced. But it was extremely risky as well.
TA was the only RTS game i have EVER liked. I really hate RTS style games, but TA just totally rocked. i especially loved it after the core contengency pack and with 3rd party units from a group called TADD. It would be awesome if someone could come out with an RTS worth of the TA legacy.
Where are the real RTS players. TA barly was a blink in RTS's players minds. The only ones who remember it fondly are the non-RTS players.
If your definition of "real RTS players" is "group of people who read Blizzard marketing output like fiends", then you are correct.
There were a *lot* of fans of TA. I know not a single person who I have in person mentioned TA to and not recieved a positive "yeah, that was a great game". (Note that this does not apply to the much, much less good TA:Kingdoms.)
TA had no personality.
Not really any way I can argue with that, since that's a pretty contentless argument.
It didn't have Blizzard-style "heroes" if that is what you meant. It was closer to a traditional strategy game, with less focus on cinematics. The sort of people that like Close Combat are the sort of people that liked TA -- the ability to give overarching commands. Blizzard made micromanagement and the ability to micromanage large numbers of units the key skill in their RTSes (and designed an interface that deliberately made it difficult to do so). Tactics, other than straight rock-paper-scissors, were much more limited in Blizzard titles.
It was bland, the games were longs (3h battles due to the insane power of Defence).
If what you mean is that tank rushes didn't work very well in TA...yeah, you might have a point. I suspect that most players viewed that as a good thing.
Tell us TA 2 is coming and you'll get a collective "Meh" from all of us.
I see more fond memories of TA on Slashdot than I do of Starcraft, frankly. TA was significantly more evolved in terms of engine sophistication. Starcraft made height and cover matter very little (simply a straight set of probability modifiers to hit). TA modeled arcs of shots, and required intelligent deployment and construction of bases. The landscape played a more significant role in TA. Games never devolved into simple "I grabbed one more resource at the start than you have, so I've won" matches.
May we never see th
Two things:
* First, the original game featured characters that were mechanical. They had flat surfaces. They were easy to model well with few polygons. TA:Kingdoms did not, and *nobody* had a computer that could run it well at the time of release (I didn't even *remotely* come close and couldn't even try to play it.J)
* Secondly, nobody seemed to get excited about the game. It's hard to describe. TA matches had someone screaming and laughing at the same time "you *bastard*" as someone pulled off a slick tactical manuver. The people I watched playing TA:Kingdoms just kind of sat there and mechanically clicked away.
The vast unit count, as you pointed out, may have been an issue. The control of sizeable forces was a neat part of TA.
I don't think Starcraft's story was an issue. TA did well, and had little story. It didn't have fleshed out characters, and it didn't have Kerrigan's sultry voice or lots of character art. All the TA production resources went into gameplay-relevant things. The only potential exception was the fantastic John Williamsesque music that got much more frantic and rapid during battles -- but it had so much impact on the mood of players that I'd still call it significant to the in-game enjoyment.
May we never see th
I'll second this. I don't consider myself an "RTS player", I like to diversify, but I've played several throughout the years, from Total Annihilation to C&C: Red Alert to Starcraft (which is as good as TA in lots of ways) to the Warcraft 3 Beta a few years ago, when my friends and I would analyze the updates to unit strengths that came out every week just to see who got an unfair advantage (we would of course play as that side).
After all these, TA was and still is the most fun. People who bash it just can't seem to comprehend the depth of strategy that can go into matches. The grandparent talked about 3-hour-long games; those were the best! There are so many different ways to win and lose, on so many different kinds of maps, it makes for a different experience every time.
It wasn't without its drawbacks though; for one, you talk about the AI being good, and at the time it was; but as you scaled in units, the AI got progressively dumber so that it wouldn't make systems of the time grind to a halt. Some people also complain that the ARM and CORE units aren't different from each other; this is also true, but it's not so bad, since you can learn the other side's units very quickly.
The devil was in the details though, and TA nailed just about every gameplay aspect on the head. If TA2 does materialize, it'll be one of my most eager game purchases ever.
Great AI that can actually defend itself a bit. Meaning not stand there and get hammered by artitarrly or soldiers attacking tanks and thanks attacking soldiers.
Yeah, TA wasn't perfect here, though it compares well to what other computer RTSes can do.
True 3D terrain and the use of it. Make hills and valleys important
TA does this. Probably to an unrealistic extent (are future engagements even likely to use artillery?) but it really is more fun with a lot of emphasis placed on terrain.
Large maps. You know I can hardly think of any military engagements in wich it took the soldiers a few minutes to run from one end of the battle field to another.
True, true. TA does this. It'd be interesting to see what it'd be like with even *longer* range weapons. The ranges in TA are *much* larger than in most other RTSes (how many games have weapons that can shoot at things seven screens away?), but it's still, frankly, relative small-scale compared to what a real game would be like. And is there some reason that buildings need to be scaled down? From a gameplay standpoint, it seems like accurately-sized buildings are feasible.
Frontlines. Call me silly but it is usual practive to have rings of defence around the homebase. I want to be able to make a line on the map that troops will defend.
Agreed. I think TA came closest in terms of overarching orders, but I'd still like more. "Defend this area" "Ambush anyone coming through this area", "repair any damaged units in this group when not in combat", "attempt to fall back from any enemy units at 80% health", etc.
Proper artilary. Strange as it may sound artilarry does not target tanks. It targets an area. TA allowed this and it was devastating against the computer as it would constantly march its troops accross the same line and you could just pound any assault with a few guns.
Hmm. I agree, but while not realistic, it may be good for gameplay. Conventionally, it is pretty difficult to maintain the integrity fixed positions, if both sides have advanced weaponry. Buildings are pretty much sitting ducks. Tanks can chew buildings to shreds. TA let bases be *built* and construction occur, which is not realistic for the immediate vicinity of battle, but which is traditional for the RTS genre. Ensuring that buildings are a bit tougher to wipe out than in real life is pretty much necessary -- you wouldn't have your aircraft factory half a mile away from enemy ground units supported by aircraft in real life (or if you did, you wouldn't for long), but TA tries to allow you to do so.
Yeah, Close Combat is fun too. Man, I wish Blizzard had never started the whole micromanagement dumbed-down-gameplay kick. I'd like a slower-moving but more complicated game, closer to a traditional strategy game.
May we never see th