Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Examining the Beginnings of the RTS Genre

Posted by Soulskill on from the more-vespene-gas dept.

Edge Magazine is running a story about the development of the real-time strategy genre. They credit Dune II: the Building of a Dynasty with establishing the basic concepts that led to more popular titles like Command & Conquer and the original Warcraft. "[Westwood Studios co-founder Brett] Sperry describes Dune II's core challenge as 'combining combat, exploration and production at a particular pace and rhythm to make it all exciting and almost out of control. That was a key part of what made it so addictive.' Indeed, the experience was quite unlike more staid turnbased strategies, where success or failure rolled in slowly rather than rushing over sand dunes at the speed of an action game. 'You had to think and respond fairly quickly, and in realtime, or else your base and forces would all be overrun. And as we developed the game further, it became clearer how the pacing and battle scenario design were all a delicate balance.'"

135 comments

  1. civilisation by oliverthered · · Score: -1

    civilisation started it all for me. I wrote a RTS that was basically civilisation in real time before Dune II came out. It was a logical step.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:civilisation by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a copy of the code if I can find it.

      I was called grass lands, I wrote it when I was 15 at school and I'm now 32, only got played by friends at school.
      Basically you build up a city and army and sent your army across to attack the opponents city. Which is exactly what a RTS is.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:civilisation by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Basically you build up a city and army and sent your army across to attack the opponents city. Which is exactly what a RTS is.

      No offense, I'm not singling you out, but that is exactly the kind of attitude that has made the RTS genre utterly stagnant for so many years. A game like Pikmin makes most other RTSes look creatively bankrupt. There is so much room for innovation in the genre, but nobody seems to have the vision or intestinal fortitude to break the mold and move forward in new and interesting ways. Most RTSes feel like Dune 2.5 next to Pikmin. Shigeru Miyamoto looked at everything that all RTSes have in common and determined that those were the features that needed the most change in order to create a truly new game experience. I wish more developers would adopt that sort of design mindset, a philosophy which in retrospect seems incredibly obvious. Yet year after year, across all genres, we only see tiny incremental refinements of preexisting games because most mainstream developers refuse to embrace risk.

      --
      +0 Meh
    4. Re:civilisation by Daengbo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Savage 2 always seemed very interesting and rather inventive, combining RTS with FPS, but I'm not much of a gamer and have never really gotten into the game. Can anyone here who has played it regularly comment? (It has a native Linux client.)

      --
      Put identity in the browser.
    5. Re:civilisation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never played much pikmin, but i think you fail to say it's an RTS.

      it's as much RTS as the three viking game.

    6. Re:civilisation by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yet year after year, across all genres, we only see tiny incremental refinements of preexisting games because most mainstream developers refuse to embrace risk.

      And because gamers don't want something different. We want the same game (roughly), not a "truly new game experience".

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    7. Re:civilisation by Hausenwulf · · Score: 1

      Pikmin sounds like it has more in common with Lemmings rather than any rts game.

      Also, it's almost impossible for games to break out of their genre mold these days. Companies would rather follow a proven formula that leads to a mediocre game than risk failure to produce something truly new.

    8. Re:civilisation by ThatGuyJon · · Score: 1

      It's a good game; from an FPS perspective.

      However, the one problem with the RTS side is that you are commanding real people. These real people will get frustrated with you if you're still learning, will go off and do their own thing if they don't have confidence in you, and are generally more difficult to control.

      On the other side, when it DOES all go amazingly to plan, your troops will love you forever.

      --
      I must be new here...
    9. Re:civilisation by tyroney · · Score: 1

      If the game has finally settled on a combat system, (it's been overhauled twice,) and if you can ignore some of the community or play with friends, Savage 2 is a very fun game.

    10. Re:civilisation by AlXtreme · · Score: 1

      I've been playing first Savage and now Savage 2 every now and then, great for a quick battle.

      You have to compare Savage 2 to the original Savage, and although the graphics have gotten much better the gameplay hasn't changed a lot. Which is good in a way, but the additions are evolutionary, not revolutionary.

      The original Savage however was truly original, as this combination of RTS and FPS hadn't been done before. It makes you think how the combination of game genres could lead to other original enjoyable games.

      --
      This sig is intentionally left blank
    11. Re:civilisation by Purity+Of+Essence · · Score: 1

      Impossible and chicken-shit are not the same thing. 80% of all commercial releases fail. Monumental risk is already there no matter what kind of game you make. Why not make something that distinguishes you from the crowd? Personally, I'd rather fail making something different, than fail where others have succeeded.

      And Pikmin is nothing like Lemmings (or Three Vikings mentioned elsewhere). It has far more in common with traditional RTSes like Age of Empires.

      --
      +0 Meh
    12. Re:civilisation by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Before savage was "Allegiance" a rts / space flight combat game with an enormous learning curve. I believe allegiance is also freeware and is worth taking a look at if you like that style of game.

    13. Re:civilisation by KermodeBear · · Score: 1

      Savage 2 looks interesting, but Wikipedia incorrectly notes it as "the first RTS/FPS game". Natural Selection 1.0, a modification for Half-Life, was released a year earlier, with betas released far before that. I would change the article, but likely some WikiNazi will come along and revert my "vandalism". do:

      --
      Love sees no species.
    14. Re:civilisation by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've found Pikmin to be quite boring. And I don't see it as a strategy game so much as a puzzle game along the lines of Lemmings.

      I fail to see where it provides such a dramatic level of innovation over other RTS games.

  2. Um, duh? by B5_geek · · Score: 1

    TFA sounds more like; "Yeah, there was this really cool game a long time ago that did it right. Most of you probably never heard of it, so we are more 'leet' the you. It rocked! We hope we can do the same thing now, but better."

    Yes Dune2 was kick-ass. (It still is too!) Most RTS now depend on who builds the most grunts the quickest, wins. That removes the whole 'S'trategy aspect of the game.

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Um, duh? by Hinhule · · Score: 1

      Very true.

      Personaly I think Company of heroes took RTS to the next level with squads and cover. That said, t still needs some more balancing, but overall it's pretty good.

    2. Re:Um, duh? by fitten · · Score: 1

      Most of you probably never heard of it, so we are more 'leet' the you. It rocked!

      I played the heck out of Dune2 in college. Woohoo! I'm finally 1337!

    3. Re:Um, duh? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1

      I played the heck out of Dune2 in college. Woohoo! I'm finally 1337!

      Finally? Don't you understand, grasshopper? You were 1337 all along!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    4. Re:Um, duh? by badasscat · · Score: 1

      TFA sounds more like; "Yeah, there was this really cool game a long time ago that did it right. Most of you probably never heard of it, so we are more 'leet' the you. It rocked! We hope we can do the same thing now, but better."

      I'm not sure who they're even "leeting", because if you check around, there are countless articles going back years talking about Dune II's influence on the RTS genre. This is more like a "hey, let's look at a Wikipedia page and ape it for some page views" article. There's never been any mystery about where the RTS genre came from.

      Yes Dune2 was kick-ass. (It still is too!) Most RTS now depend on who builds the most grunts the quickest, wins. That removes the whole 'S'trategy aspect of the game.

      Dune (1) was pretty kick-ass too, and it always gets forgotten in these discussions - it actually introduced most of the concepts credited to Dune II. It just wasn't real-time as I remember. But it had the resource-gathering and the army-building and whatnot. I used to love watching the progress of the battles, with a little arm-wrestling icon representing who was winning :)

      I agree about modern RTS's, which I can't even play online. I prefer playing them offline where I can play at my own pace.

    5. Re:Um, duh? by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree about modern RTS's, which I can't even play online. I prefer playing them offline where I can play at my own pace.

      That's why I love playing Spring -- you can pause a single-player game against AIs in midstream, spend several minutes scanning the map from all angles and queueing up orders, and then let it fly again.

      Not only does it slow the pace down, but it helps to negate some of the reaction speed advantage that the AI players have. You can stop at any point and analyze the situation in great detail. :-)

      Both Spring (and the game which inspired it, Total Annihilation) allow for enough automation and order queueing even in real-time to remove some of the micromanagement from the game. Makes the game a lot less hectic to run than most RTS games I've played -- it's nice to have units which already have orders to patrol a certain route, attack anything within range, and repair themselves automagically w/o my intervention, and they can be set up to do all of the above as part of a repeating build queue.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    6. Re:Um, duh? by JonathanBoyd · · Score: 1

      Company of Heroes wasn't the first RTS to use squads and cover. The Close Combat series was using it close to a decade ago, to great effect, along with limited supply of ammunition and a morale system.

    7. Re:Um, duh? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Most RTS now depend on who builds the most grunts the quickest, wins"
      That only works when everyione is trying to rush.

      A proper defence is the correct startegy to use when playing people like that.

      That's why I find it funny when people think a 'zerg rush' is the only strategy to use in Star Craft.
      I just giggle while I watch there resources get sucked up.

      It's natural to fall into that trap. My 10 year old son, and 8 year old daughter have just started playing and try that as well. They get a little frustrated when the game usese it against them and wins, but it doesn't work when they try it against me.

      I ahve coached them about preparing a defense strategy that lends itself to a good offense later.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Um, duh? by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      I'll have to check that out. I've not played any RTS since Dune II, mainly because I found the idea that my units would not be able to patrol a route, engage whatever they find, notify me about said engagement, and return home incredibly frustrating - like the stage of Civilization (the original one) just before your spaceship lands, when you spend all your time selling off city walls or some such. I gave up when I realized I couldn't possibly be everywhere at once, but the AI could.

    9. Re:Um, duh? by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's one part of the macro, obviously more troops = better. The other parts are when you get what troops since tanks aren't going to do you a whole lot of good when the enemy is going with helicopters, how you plan to develop your economy (invest a lot, possibly reaping huge growth but also being left defenseless if your enemy attacks before you got your econ going?), when you attack (try to off the enemy with an early attack but be pretty much fucked if he defends? Run a raid on one end of the map and while his forces move back go in and wreck the main?), etc. There's also the micro part that many weaker players revile so much because they want "more strategy, not a clickfest" but micro is what enables tactics which are the real reason the RT is in RTS. Encircle? Blow a hole into the enemy phalanx and rush to his heavy fire support in the back? Toss some special weapons in the right place to disable a lot of his firepower or try to deny him the ability to do so himself? Micro is what makes combat more than just numbers and rock-paper-scissors, it lets a skilled player use that skill even once the battle has started.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    10. Re:Um, duh? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Yeah but sometimes things need to be stripped out (like ammo and complex morale systems) to make it approachable again. When you see a later product take some of your ideas and become huge with them (while you didn't) perhaps you should have designed them better.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    11. Re:Um, duh? by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Does the game really rush or does it just play on a tight schedule and a player who's not doing the same ends up being overwhelmed by the enemy force while he's floating huge amounts of resources or has reached late tech tiers with no units to show for it? That's what I see with most players who scream "rush", they just don't do things fast enough and end up getting steamrolled by a regular attack because they are so behind on production and everything.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    12. Re:Um, duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been looking for a RTS that leaves out the building part. I'd rather a game where you have a fixed force (perhaps a chance for limited reinforcments later) to deal with the enemy.

      I remember a game based on the Battle of Gettysburg where you couldn't just rely on building more and more forces to replace your losses.

    13. Re:Um, duh? by somersault · · Score: 1

      I just realised The Settlers could be counted as an RTS, but it's the only one I've ever enjoyed. It did ultimately involve destroying your opponents as there wasn't much else to do after setting up your villages, but the game itself was just fun. I haven't ever really enjoyed any other RTSes. I prefer to be working on something directly rather than managing other entities. Having said that I enjoyed Operation Flashpoint where you basically worked up from a grunt to being a general with tanks and infantry squads at your command, but only because you still got to take part in the action.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    14. Re:Um, duh? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      This attitude really comes through about two seconds in:

      But going back to Dune II today is an eye-opening experience, as it becomes clear how very little the genre has moved forwards in the last 16 years â" like finding out Halo had really been released in 1982.

      It was released in 1993 -- as Doom. And Dune II wasn't 1982, it was 1992, only one year before Doom.

      Granted, there have been significant improvements in gameplay and visuals since then -- there's no equivalent to Halo's melee weapons, or melee use of a weapon -- but the fundamentals are the same.

      That's also true of Dune II, if I remember -- Starcraft is years ahead of it, if only for the ability to select multiple units at once and direct them at a target -- better AI helps, too.

      I don't think you can really say, though, that Starcraft 2 is that much farther ahead of Dune II than Halo 3 is ahead of Doom.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    15. Re:Um, duh? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      And how long does it take you to build that proper defense? If you aren't building as fast as you can click, are you actually prepared when they swarm in?

      No, Zerg Rush isn't the only strategy. However, raw speed of micromanaging is a necessary component -- until you have that, it's very difficult to win on strategy alone.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    16. Re:Um, duh? by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

      Dune (1) was pretty kick-ass too, and it always gets forgotten in these discussions - it actually introduced most of the concepts credited to Dune II. It just wasn't real-time as I remember. But it had the resource-gathering and the army-building and whatnot. I used to love watching the progress of the battles, with a little arm-wrestling icon representing who was winning :)

      Yeah, it's often forgotten, but many of the concepts were in place in the first game, albeit in the second half; the first half was more like an adventure game, strangely enough.

    17. Re:Um, duh? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I tried playing Dune II recently. I couldn't do it. I love old games, and I have a lot of patience for them. But I can't deal with Dune II. There's no queuing of units, and there's no selection of multiple units. That means all my time is spent clicking a single unit, and sending it to its target, and repeating over and over again. While I do that, my factories are sitting unused. When my factories are being used my units are being decimated.

      And then there's the problem with harvesters. If there's no field of spice immediately next to a processing facility, they just sit there doing nothing. Even if I assign them to gather spice from a distant field, they get one load, then they forget their orders and just sit there. WTF?

      It gives me no time to think about, or implement strategies. It's all I can do to keep my factories producing units. When it comes time to attack, I can't attack en masse, I can only send a slow trickle of units. While I'm clicking furiously to get my army in motion, my harvesters end up sitting idle, so when my army gets beaten, I have no spice to replace them with.

      Am I doing something wrong? I really want to like this game. It just seems like I'm spending *all* of my time micromanaging units, and none of it actually playing the game.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    18. Re:Um, duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Total Annihilation, 1997, presented the most widely used RTS functions available today (multiple unit selection, multiple groups, ability to select different unit types across the map, etc).

    19. Re:Um, duh? by mujadaddy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Micromanaging units" is playing the game.

      I remember when the first C&C came out... you could drag out a box to select multiple units!!! It was revolutionary.

      Unfortunately, it wasn't as fun as Dune II...

      --
      Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
      "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
    20. Re:Um, duh? by commanderfoxtrot · · Score: 1

      Spring looks really good. I haven't played any RTS (nor any games really) since Dune II or C&C II: Red Alert, as they became far too fiddly for a normal person to play.

      Seems that Spring has lots of "sub games" - I've looked over the website and there's no pointer to a basic, fun game. Should I download Complete Annihilation?

      --
      http://blog.grcm.net/
    21. Re:Um, duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That game was Sid Meier's Gettysburg.

      Also, while I've never actually played them, I think that Myth and Myth II had no base building, and were supposedly very good.

  3. The first RTS I saw was on Atari 800 in like 1983 by greggman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There was an RTS on the Atari 800

    (yes, REALTIME not turn based)

    http://www.atarimania.com/zoom_frame.php?TYPE_IMG=D7&ID=1143&MENU=8&NUM_IMAGE=1

  4. memory lane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    now expect a dozen comments here about how someone loved playing game X a long while ago.

  5. Laser Squad by DoChEx · · Score: 1

    enough said!

    1. Re:Laser Squad by iainl · · Score: 1

      1) Turn based, not realtime
      2) Merely a very nice follow-up to the Gollop Brothers' Rebelstar, surely?

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    2. Re:Laser Squad by Tei · · Score: 1

      Maybe Laser Squad is the father of XCOM, then?

      --

      -Woof woof woof!

    3. Re:Laser Squad by iainl · · Score: 1

      Absolutely it is, yes. There's a clear lineage from the original Rebelstar Raiders, through its sequels and Laser Squad to the XCOM games. That's why, when Julian parted ways from Microprose and lost the XCOM license, he just made Laser Squad Nemesis and Rebelstar Tactical Command without too many changes.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  6. Herzog Zwei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Stonkers, on the ZX Spectrum in 1984 was also RTS.

    However, the 'modern' RTS genre (where production as well as combat was critical) probably started with Herzog Zwei on the Megadrive. Even the graphics style was carried forward through to Command & Conquer et.al.

    1. Re:Herzog Zwei by malf-uk · · Score: 1

      I rather liked Stonkers but it was prone to crashing

      http://www.worldofspectrum.org/infoseekid.cgi?id=0004913

      --
      R Tape loading error, 0:1
    2. Re:Herzog Zwei by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Herzog Zwei is oft overlooked because it was on a console instead of a PC, but it's an amazing game even to this day. When my friends and I were in high school we would play HZ for hours on end, mocking one another as we captured a base. Ah, the memories...

    3. Re:Herzog Zwei by jmauro · · Score: 1

      If you read the article it covers this point. Herzog Zwei was the first "real-time", but in the current genre of RTS is pretty much defined by Dune II. Warcraft, StarCraft, and C&C are just pretty graphic versions of Dune II with different units.

    4. Re:Herzog Zwei by Zeio · · Score: 1

      Herzog was the first RTS I remember playing.

      It was also a really really good game for the Genesis (Megadrive).

      If you haven't played this game get an EMU and a ROM and do so immediately.

      Its historic and quite a fun game.

      --
      Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
  7. Was an OK game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to go ape-shit over. Turn-based is better. X-Com was far superior gaming experience.

    1. Re:Was an OK game by Mprx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      X-Com is much less fun once you've memorized all enemy routes and spawn points and know how to exploit the AI. Multiplayer is always better, and multiplayer is more fun when you don't have to wait for the other player to finish his turn.

    2. Re:Was an OK game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then rememorize it.

      http://xcomutil.scotttjones.com/

      Won't fix the AI, but it gives you more variety.

    3. Re:Was an OK game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      X-Com is much less fun once you've memorized all enemy routes and spawn points and know how to exploit the AI.

      I see. The approach I adopted was to not memorise all the enemy routes and spawn points - other than ruining the game for myself, why would I want to do such a thing? Don't know much about exploiting the AI either but I guess that's the sort of thing you might pick up without trying to.

    4. Re:Was an OK game by Larryish · · Score: 1

      ... multiplayer is more fun when you don't have to wait for the other player to finish his turn.

      True dat.

      Waiting on other players really kills Freeciv multiplayer :(

  8. C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The original C&C was huge though not just for gameplay, but because it was one of the first games to use full-screen video, you could play as the baddies or goodies (each with their own very distinct units), had an awesome soundtrack, and to this day had the best setup program ever!

    Oh, and for the NOD missions you could choose your ending.

    They don't make them like they used to!

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
    1. Re:C&C FTW! by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      It was also very much based on Dune II.

      --AC

    2. Re:C&C FTW! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Although C&C added some features that made it a massive improvement over Dune 2. For instance, you could hold your mouse button down to draw a rectangle on the screen to select a group of units. Units would also tend to fight back when shot at without explicit operator intervention. Dune 2 (was there ever a Dune 1?) had some great elements, but the interface was terrible really. That's why so few people remember it, it was a game that had the makings of a great game, but lacked the polish to be a superstar. Westwood didn't make a usable interface until C&C.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:C&C FTW! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I have to agree, C&C is my favourite RTS of all time. Nothing has ever really come close, I don't think you can pinpoint one thing that made that game stand out it was everything, from the effects of the napalming A10s and the obelisks of light to the pleasing explosions of grenadiers to awesomeness of getting your first mammoth tanks.

      I think it was immersive, more so than most games of it's era- the music and video as you saw managed to draw you into the rythm of the game really effectively, the missions were fun, the units were superb.

      It's just a shame no Command and Conquer series game since has come close bar the original Red Alert, which whilst not as good was still excellent. I suppose Generals deserves a worthy mention- it was pretty decent as an RTS, it just wasn't really in line with the rest of the C&C games storywise.

      I recently got Red Alert 3, what an utter dissapointment- how can a franchise created with much lower budgets, much older technology end up looking and playing so horrifically bad with units that are outright comical.

      From what I can see the C&C franchise has made one major mistake- they've gone too futuristic, C&C and Red Alert certainly had fantasy/futuristic units but they weren't the majority. I think it was the A10s, the M113s, the Abrams and so forth on C&C that made it, similarly with Red Alert, there was a lot of fairly real units in there. This is possibly also why Generals was the only modern C&C game to not be too bad.

      God only knows why in Red Alert 3 everything is make believe and looks so childish and cartoonish it seems better suited to a kids TV show like Jimbo and the Jet set for anyone that remembers that show in the UK. For those that don't, check here or on YouTube:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimbo_and_the_Jet_Set

      Outside of the C&C series, Warcraft games have always been good and I thought Warcraft 3's storyline at the time was pretty impressive. Blizzard at least know how to continue a franchise and keep it consistently good unlike EA/Westwood with C&C games.

    4. Re:C&C FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Full screen video is widely despised in games. Not something I would list under "reasons C&C was great."

    5. Re:C&C FTW! by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 1

      Dune 2 was a great game. There was a Dune I, but I believe it was more of an adventure type game (I never played it). I played and beat Dune 2. Yeah, the controls weren't the best, and the graphics were horrid. I was really glad when Westwood re-released Dune 2 as Dune 2000. It was basically Dune 2 with the C&C/Red Alert engine. It really made the game a lot easier. But I can tell you this, there wouldn't be a C&C without Dune 2.

    6. Re:C&C FTW! by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      Dune was an awesome adventure/strategy game. Combat was strategic rather than tactical however, and turn based. It also had the best MIDI game music ever produced... sounding by far the best on a Soundblaster.

    7. Re:C&C FTW! by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Red Alert 2 was pretty good too. But EA for the most part screwed over the franchise. Even Generals was mediocre compared to the Westwood games. Red Alert 3, I have no idea - not even worth my time playing the demo.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    8. Re:C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, to be brutally honest with you, the only other game that knocked me nearly as flat as the first glorious C&C sessions has been Generals Zero Hour (which perfected the vanilla generals).

      Generals ZH was all about battle gameplay though; it had really well thought-out units that were few enough that complete n00bs could get into a LAN game without too much confusion, and again each side was distinct, but this time that the generals had different strategy emphasis which added lot's to the game-play style. My only problem would be the super-weapons general had a massive massive advantage if the limit super-weapons was not set.
      C&C3 & RA3 in my opinion are prettier versions that just don't add anything to the Generals new take on the C&C direction.

      But anyway, back to the original; no game has since topped that first experience all-round C&C experience; I'll never forget my first human on human battle using the serial ports and one huge cable I bought specifically for it...having all the tech at once was worth it alone.

      And how could I forget.....the surprise crates (money bonus/see all map/tiberian monster/etc)! Ah man, what a game; no other RTS has inspired so much joy and happy memories as this one, and for so many reasons.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    9. Re:C&C FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close on the first game to use Full Screen Video. That'd been around for years, heck if you include Dragons Lair, it'd been around since 1983.

    10. Re:C&C FTW! by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      Actually I rather disliked generals - I thought the 'income' mechanic didn't really work very well, in a game where tech and superweapons scale so rapidly.

      Red Alert 3 was something of a disappointment, but for me primarily just because it didn't have enough depth to it. Game was finished in a weekend or so, which really is unsatisfying.

    11. Re:C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      In the days when the next best thing most people were playing was QBASIC monkey.bas, full screen video was a big deal.

      Now far less so, but still, it definitely added to the immersive nature of the game at the time.

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    12. Re:C&C FTW! by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      Personally, besides the points you mentioned, I think Generals really stands out for the skirmish mode. On most other C&C titles the skirmish mode was pretty bad, with a particularly nasty AI even at the easiest levels. With Generals you could tone it down until you got used to it and then start cranking it up to get a real challenge. Having a real difference between the way you had to play with each faction also helped quite a bit (and the expansion made good use of this with the inclusion of the choice of Generals for specialization).

      I never really got into Warcraft 3, despite loving the previous games in the series. I never really got the hang of the changes they made to the system, though I may give it another try since I don't have a system that can really handle more recent PC games. I watched some videos of matches from BlizzCon (initially I went to the website to watch the Starcraft 2 matches, but ended up watching a few other videos as well) and liked the way the game flowed, though obviously those are much better players than most.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    13. Re:C&C FTW! by raynet · · Score: 1

      I recall that in Dune II it was only the Harkonnen forces did fight back when shot, it was one of their specialities.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    14. Re:C&C FTW! by Surreal+Puppet · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can choose the GDI ending too. If you destroy everything in the last GDI mission but the Temple of NOD and then raze it with an ion cannon strike, you get the secret "canonical" ending. Otherwise you get the boring ending.

    15. Re:C&C FTW! by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 1

      True! Wow, I can't think of a single game that's had incorporated so much greatness!

      --
      throw new NoSignatureException();
    16. Re:C&C FTW! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      That's why so few people remember it, it was a game that had the makings of a great game, but lacked the polish to be a superstar.

      Dune II was one of the few games back in the day that I actually had the interest to finish. I have to say that and Star Control 2 are two of the most memorable games from that era. Yes, C&C did improve on things in a number of areas but they were more of an evolution on Dune II's elements.

      And I thought that so few remembered it because they weren't born yet. And with that, my lawn is now fair game for kids to trample...

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    17. Re:C&C FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, all units of all houses would fire back in the (default) Guard mode. That's how e.g. Siege tanks could support the Rocket Turrets with defending your base.

    18. Re:C&C FTW! by raynet · · Score: 1

      But I think the Harkonnen forces did something more agressive, was it perhaps shooting at worms on sight or something.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    19. Re:C&C FTW! by Haeleth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      C&C also had the best exploit ever -- the AI didn't know how to destroy sandbags, so you could just build a line of sandbags to the enemy base, extend it to a wall around said base, and then get on with building your Mighty Army of Doom while the enemy sat around wondering how it was ever going to get a harvester out with all those sandbags in the way.

      Of course, those of us who played it that way also had big problems on the baseless missions, where we were forced to play fair and generally got slaughtered in consequence. :)

    20. Re:C&C FTW! by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Full screen video is only despised because it was used to create some of the worst games of all time -- the so-called "interactive movies", that weren't remotely interactive and sucked as movies too.

      Where it was used appropriately -- such as for briefings in games like C&C and the Thief series -- it was actually pretty good, and remained a powerful tool for many years, until in-engine cutscenes got good enough to take over.

    21. Re:C&C FTW! by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Wing Commander 3+4. They are as close to being true "interactive movies" (in a positive way) as nothing else. Well, perhaps with the exception of Metal Gear Solid, but WC3 did it in '94 and you can blow up a whole planet instead of fighting oversized Aibos. =)

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    22. Re:C&C FTW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despised mostly due to its eventual wild overuse and lack of appropriate interactivity, but there were plenty of great games that knew how to correctly implement FMV, and did so.

    23. Re:C&C FTW! by Xest · · Score: 1

      I have to admit I actually fell into that category, I too discovered the sandbag thing and when I had them would just sacrifice orca after orca to take their base down on the later missions ;)

      I played C&C through again about a year or two back when that "C&C: The Last Decade" pack came out, the game was much easier and shorter this time round- I did NOD and GDI in a weekend without needing the sandbag tactic!

      It's funny how much a game can change without changing at all, but it didn't change in one area at least- it still utterly rocked and I must have taken a different path to when I used to play as I came across a couple of missions I didn't even recall which was a bonus! The following weekend I did RA but I tried RA2 and C&C2 again and just couldn't get into them. Played Generals some more and I have to admit I've played through C&C3 twice now with each race- once on the PC originally, and once on the XBox 360 when I picked it up for £5 in a bargain bin earlier in the year.

      I'm going to try and get into Red Alert 3 again this weekend but from what I've played so far I'm not holding up too much hope.

    24. Re:C&C FTW! by jandrese · · Score: 1

      My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but I think the way it worked is that your units would shoot back, but they would not move to intercept. If your opponent had longer range, they would just sit there and let themselves get pounded to death instead of walking an inch over to start shooting back. Since you couldn't mass select, the game often came down to you rushing over and individually clicking units to tell them to move into range of the enemy before they finished pounding your guys into scrap.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
  9. Herzog Zwei anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    That is the granddaddy

    1. Re:Herzog Zwei anyone? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I played this one. I think what the article is going at though is the beginnings of the modern "base building, exploration, military conquest" RTS genre, played from a god like perspective which is what allot of people think of when they think RTS. Herzog Zwei really only had the military conquest part of this although it did do this very well for the period. Plus the interface was radically different then the target sub genre of RTS' the article is getting at where in Herzog Zwei you interacted with the world through a single unit which issued orders to everything else. Kind of a cool way to have the game play run but sadly I don't think it had any lasting influence.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    2. Re:Herzog Zwei anyone? by j33pn · · Score: 1

      I still have a functioning copy Herzog. My 6 year-old was playing with my old Genesis over the summer, so I've actually played it in the last year. That game has intense PvP.

      It's definitely an RTS, even if you control the main unit on the board directly. I'd say it's more similar to the C&C style games than it is different. Most of the differences are b/c it's a console game instead of PC. You get money by taking over mini-bases, make and command units, and win by destroying the enemies base.

      Dune 2 was an awesome game. Every time I play a modern C&C game, I always lament the absence of the Dune-style transports. It was so rewarding to watch them fly your harvesters around the board.

      --
      You people and your slight differences disgust me! - Prof. Farnsworth
    3. Re:Herzog Zwei anyone? by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I have my original copy I played long ago. It had supply trucks to restock ammo and some good AI to govern how they pathed around to supply low turrets and such. Dune2/C&C harvesters exhibited a simpler version of the AI, looking for their appropriate fields and returning.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:Herzog Zwei anyone? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Please mod up.

      A co-worker Game Designer showed me gem a few years back. Definitely one of the first RTSs.

    5. Re:Herzog Zwei anyone? by skam240 · · Score: 1

      I think the difference in interface is huge and creates a big difference in game play between Herzog and Dune 2. Dune 2 has a much greater resemblance to the most successful war/base building RTS games of today then Herzog has to Dune 2.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  10. Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by aapold · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I had played Dune II on the Amiga, I think the biggest difference between that and later games is you had to click over on the actions buttons ("attack", "move", etc) instead of it being context-based on what you clicked on next (e.g., enemy = attack, ground = move to).

    But in terms of influence the second I played C&C I felt that their whole concept of the Tiberium resource was taken directly from the Spice in Dune II. It almost even looked similar...

    --
    "Waste not one watt!" - CZ
    1. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Dune II was awesome until you got clobbered by those goddam ornithopters. Never did work out the right tactics for that one scenario.

    2. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by eniacfoa · · Score: 1

      yeah man, ill never forget playing dune II for the 1st time on my amiga 500...i think it was the 1st time i stayed up all nite till dawn playing video games... and yeah, c&c was a ripoff no doubt...

    3. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 1

      But in terms of influence the second I played C&C I felt that their whole concept of the Tiberium resource was taken directly from the Spice in Dune II. It almost even looked similar...

      Yeah, that happens quite a bit when the same people are involved in making the games, especially when they turn around from Dune II and make C&C right after it.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
    4. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If it wasn't for a spelling mistake in the original data files, you could have built ornithopters (or "ornithipters") yourself from advanced tech or starport buildings.

      I think that's why a lot of people grew up to be grammar Nazis.

    5. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by F�an�ro · · Score: 1

      The bigest difference was that you could only select one unit at a time.

      I remember the physical pain caused by ordering a larger group of tanks to attack

      "You (click on top of screen) go (click on left of screen) there (click on botton of screen)" x 20 for each move

    6. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      With one improvement: You could let Tiberium mutate trees so that those mutant trees would become an infinite source of Tiberium. Other than the pre-created spice blows, there was no way to mine more spice, so I often waited until the enemy ran out of money.

    7. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      and yeah, c&c was a ripoff [of Dune II] no doubt...

      How could C&C possibly be a ripoff when Westwood created both games? Dune II was their first effort. C&C perfected their entry into the genre. If anything, Warcraft was the rip-off.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    8. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by mobets · · Score: 1

      At least the computer in Warcraft didn't cheat.

      In every C&C I can remember:
      Computer: Missile launch detected.
      Me: But he hasn't even found me yet.
      *Power generators destroyed*

      --

      It was me, I did it, I moved your cheese
    9. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, same developer.

    10. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you could build Ornithopters yourself - it just wasn't really useful instead of random exploration, as they were shot down almost instantly, even by enemy tanks.

    11. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by LordSkippy · · Score: 1

      I was at a LAN party back when C&C Tiberium was just released. At the time, I was use to the Blizzard RTS games and found it a little confusing to start. By the time it clicked that it was just like Dune II, which I had played a lot on the Amiga as well, it was too late and I was out. My friends asked if I wanted to play something else, since I was defeated so quickly. My response was: "No, lets play this one again." They didn't want to play a third game, after finding out how good I got at Dune II.

      --
      My karma is in a nose dive
    12. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      You kidding? Every Warcraft to date had maphack, they went straight to your base, or expansions, and mysteriously they went for expansions with no defense either. So frustrating to fight sometimes. IIRC there was slashdot article about game AI, developers admitted AI was bad and they just use maphack or accelerated build times to make "harder" AI.

    13. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by eniacfoa · · Score: 1

      the game was a craload alike dune II...that is the point. what I meant to write was it FELT like a rip off. like one guy here said - the tiberium looks like spice.

    14. Re:Dune II Spice vs C&C Tiberium... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well there is a huge argument over MBS (Multiple building select) for starcraft 2. Many are claiming that its cheating.... Guess they need to get Hard and use that 200 actions per minute in Dune II!

  11. Thank goodness for Dune 2 by dtolman · · Score: 1

    If I hadn't played that game, and hated the gameplay style when it first came out - I would have wasted hours and hours playing all its game-play clones.

    The only RTSes that I've ever liked, were the ones that took cues for Dune 2's predecessor - Crescent Hawk Revenge... those being Mechcommander and Mechcommander 2. Real time play with no resources to worry about. Just units. And salvaged units between missions.

    Actually scratch that - I did like Sins of a Solar Empire. But that one is dune 2 crossed with civ... and requires actual strategy... so does that count?

    1. Re:Thank goodness for Dune 2 by Reapman · · Score: 1

      I just had to respond since I've never met anyone else that's ever played Crescent Hawks Revenge... that was an amazing game, especially for it's time. Although a part of me actually wished it was more Turn Based style :p

    2. Re:Thank goodness for Dune 2 by dtolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the benefits of PC gaming is that, assuming you keep your mitts on all your bits, you can whip out old games and replay them years later. I did a full replay of CH:R about 10 years ago, and did a partial replay 2 years ago. I'm actually working my way though mechcomander 1/expansion/2 right now... great games. Always loved the whole idea of battlefield salvage as your primary resource, not to mention the fun in mixing-matching-and customizing mechs.

      Also - you're right that its a shame about the real time. To this date the ONLY turn based AAA battletech title ever released was the Crescent Hawks Inception - a fantastic RPG/tactical wargame hybrid - one that I replay much more often than its sequel.

    3. Re:Thank goodness for Dune 2 by Reapman · · Score: 1

      Damn you, now I'm going to have to fire both of those up and replay them! :p

  12. Additive by Mutant321 · · Score: 1

    Dune II was probably the first game I was truly addicted too... first I pulled all nighters playing anyway.

    There may have been previous real-time strategy games, but this was certainly the one that got the genre started. Not long after that, Blizzard released what was essentially a fantasy clone of Dune II with Warcraft. And once C&C and Warcraft II kicked in with online multi-player, the genre was huge.

  13. Nether Earth by azgard · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit. There was a game Nether Earth on ZX Spectrum, which was real-time strategy game, and had all the concepts as Dune 2, and even more.

    In the game, you could build your own robots, you needed to capture factories to get parts for the robots, and you could even send robots to a mission and they worked by themselves depending on the orders you gave them. All this in 48kB of memory in 1985.

  14. Herzog Twei by Zwets · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Herzog Zwei came before Dune II.

    --
    One of the lessons of history is that nothing is often a good thing to do and always a clever thing to say. - Will Duran
    1. Re:Herzog Twei by GerardAtJob · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonkers came before Herzog Zwei ;) but... yurk!!

      --
      I can't call that English ;-)
    2. Re:Herzog Twei by dtolman · · Score: 1

      Utopia came out long before that on the Intellivision console. And Ancient Art of War (plus its sequels) came out soon afterwards on the PC.

    3. Re:Herzog Twei by Madsy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Herzog Zwei rocks, and I still occasionally play it. It's kind of strange that no one has taken the concept further. To play as a unit instead of using a mouse is ingenious. And would fit perfectly on today's TV consoles as well. Sounds like a nice little XNA project to me.

  15. Empires mod RTS/FPS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to plug one of my favorite mods, it's called Empires and it's a mod for Half Life 2
    It's a RTS/FPS and it's a lot of fun.
    In some ways it has more depth to it than the old Battlefield series, but it feels a bit unfinished ATM.
    Seriously check it out and the new version should be coming out soon.

  16. See also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Team Yankee (1990)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Yankee_(video_game)

    and

    Powermonger (1990)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powermonger

    though the former is really real-time first-person squad combat a la Space Hulk.

  17. Re:The first RTS I saw was on Atari 800 in like 19 by Quantus347 · · Score: 1

    It definitely seems like a strategy game in real-time. But Im not sure it has any of the other characteristics typically associated with an RTS, notably any sort of production to pace the game.

    --
    Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
  18. Re:The first RTS I saw was on Atari 800 in like 19 by amadeusb4 · · Score: 1

    1988 saw the release of Modem Wars for the C64 and DOS. Most of the elements of RTS were there as well as network play.

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem_Wars

  19. C&C 1 is free by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 3, Informative

    I just thought this was a good time to remind people that for the 12th aniversary, Westwood started giving away C&C I gold edition free. I can't find the download on their website any more, but gamespot has it mirrored.

    1. Re:C&C 1 is free by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I can't seem to get into old games. I think it's neat until I start to play it and then realise that I can get the same experience with better graphics in a modern game. Perhaps I'm just not very nostalgic.

    2. Re:C&C 1 is free by sunami · · Score: 1

      It really, really helps me if I've played the old game, or else I feel the same way.

  20. Herzog Zwei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A quick Googling shows that it came out 2 years before Dune 2. It is also the game most listed in the gaming world as the founder of RTS.

    Well, time to Google Edge Magazine and see if in their history of heavier than air flight they list the DC 3 as the plane that started it all.

  21. Battletech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge (1989) by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    In 1989, Westwood released a little-known game called "Battletech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge." This game developed a lot of the ideas that would later be polished in Dune 2 and, in my opinion, deserves more credit for really kicking off the genre than Dune 2 does: Dune 2 really just took the same ideas and refined them into a more successful game.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BattleTech:_The_Crescent_Hawk's_Revenge

    1. Re:Battletech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge (1989) by Absimiliard · · Score: 1

      And a damn fun game it was as well.

      That said I found it incredibly difficult. Some of the scenarios I had to play like 5 times to get through.

      But for a Battletech fan that game just rocked.

    2. Re:Battletech: The Crescent Hawk's Revenge (1989) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in a way. It's more of the first RTT game (Real Time Tactical). It also featured awesome things like dynamic missions (Didn't kill that mech in the first mission? It comes back in the 3rd, etc.)

      It's gameplay is almost exactly like Mechcommander, just on a grid. And fugly. Yes, I love this game with a passion, but it's fugly as hell.

  22. xbattle by emj · · Score: 1

    Unix has, XBattle RTS released in 1991 networking by using X11.

  23. Re:The first RTS I saw was on Atari 800 in like 19 by mzs · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yes and my wife and I both played Cytron Masters an even earlier game on an Atari. I looked it up in Wikipedia and it is listed as RTS. Someone below mentions Modem Wars and that was definitely RTS. It is so often that these origins types of articles completely miss the earlier examples.

  24. Battletech RTS by jollyreaper · · Score: 1

    In the early 90's Infocom released the Crescent Hawk's Revenge. It was an RTS, no resource harvesting or manufacturing but it played out in real-time as you moved your units around and shot at stuff. Extremely primitive by today's standards but fun back in the day. That game royally kicked my ass.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  25. Pikmin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is shear genius how the man can "cloak" an established genre so well that it becomes unrecognizable [as an RTS]. (No that's not sarcasm)

    Not to mention the genius of making it work with a gamepad as controller!

  26. Gardening by Gertlex · · Score: 1

    Actually I'm pretty sure that Miyamoto was growing a lot of hallucinogenic cacti and other wacky flora in his garden prior to coming up with the concept for Pikmin.

  27. Z and Z:Steel Soldiers (Bitmap Brothers) by ZERO1ZERO · · Score: 1
    I never really got into the whole RTS thing, I tried to play C+C back in the day but the whole thing just seemed so... boring. Drawn out. Anyway the one game that did get me paying was Z. This game was so much more immediate, a round would last maybe up to an hour. The way the resources were auto managed depending on which zones were captured meant you could concentrate on micro managing the troops to win the level.

    Excellent multiplayer action with network play was really addictive as well. These games could last a lot longer as a human was always a better opponent.

    The second version out in around 200 or so added 3D graphics and was good to play as well, but it suffered from a lot of AI bugs and things IIRC, and to be honest I never actually completed that game.

    Another RTS game I am reminded of was Total Annihilation. Never really got into that either but my friend would play it constantly and it was a good game to spectate.

  28. Powermonger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Food, wood, troops, upgrades to village tech. 1990.

  29. I wonder of TFA is informative... by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Didn't RTFA for some reason... I think I got caught up in the comments here. I had to put this together from what I learned from the comments:

    More information on RTS history at WP.

    1. Re:I wonder of TFA is informative... by evanh · · Score: 1

      Populous from 1989 is Powermonger's predecessor.

  30. you mean RTT by NuShrike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RTS means you send units out to some location and let them sort it out while one plans the bigger picture of the war -- not the individual battles.

    RTT is where you send units out to some location and micromanage each battle out. Most of the "RTS" games are really only RTT.

    Also, Herzog Zwei predates Dune II and better qualifies as one of the first RTT games.

  31. Warrior of Rome II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . .was a great game.

  32. Re:The first RTS I saw was on Atari 800 in like 19 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

    As if a genre is defined by production units, sorry you are mislead.
    Problem is nowadays that if a game has 100 clones it becomes a genre. But it still is not in my opinion it simply is 100 clones or copies of a game.
    This goes for shooters almost 10 - 15 years the entire so called genre simply was a copy of castle wolfenstein 3ds game mechanics!
    So basically it simply was 100 copies of castle wolfenstein 3d and that was not even the first shooter :-)

  33. THOSE POOR CHILDREN by mujadaddy · · Score: 1

    I bet you like burning ants with a magnifying glass, too! ;)

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  34. Two games to define a genre by slashdotjunker · · Score: 1

    I usually think of a game genre as defined by two influential games rather than just one. The first one is the game that made all the game developers sit up and realize that the genre was going to be huge. The second one is the game that made the consumers take notice.

    RTS: Dune 2 for developers, C&C for players
    FPS: Wolfenstein for developers, Doom for players
    MMO: UO for developers, EverQuest for players

    By looking at the differences between the first game and the second game you can figure out what matters most to the consumer in each genre. For example, developers went gaga over Wolfenstein but consumers didn't get on board until Doom. Clearly it was the graphics that made the difference.

  35. Nether Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about Nether Earth on the Sinclair Spectrum, released in 1987?

    Real-time strategy and was even in isometric 3D, although units only moved in 2D. You could even design your own vehicles from a range of parts.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nether_Earth_(game)