Should have mentioned that *Shudders* mobile "game". They didn't just mutilate the body, they desecrated its goddam bones. At least there is some hope with the remaster, more than I can say for DOW or Supcom.
@@stormlordeternal7663 ironically enough, I've played the mobile game and, for mobile games, it was actually really good. far, far better then what I was expecting. of course, when your expectation is flying piece of flaming poo making it's yearly flight from the land of flaming poo games that is mobile land... expectations wasn't far from the ground to begin with. (for clarification: I mean specifically gameplay, graphics, sound, how it feels to play... what makes the game, a game. monetization wise? ya, like about every other mobile game)
@@stormlordeternal7663 aww c'mon, C&C Rivals was a perfectly serviceable game. And in terms of EA casual spin-offs dare I say an excellent one. Not the same ballpark as their Dungeon Keeper desecration. Had a fun summer with it on tablet. And the cinematic trailer song is still part of my workout soundtrack. Rivals is good enough as 'C&C's Heartstone' in my eyes. Also isn't the it's bad cuz it's mobile is a horribly outdated sentiment? Sure like 95% still is, but that doesn't mean gems on mobile didn't became reasonable prospect in recent years
@@stormlordeternal7663 , Cnc Rivals was pretty good actually and the devs really love the source material. It just a different CnC, a smaller one and there's nothing wrong with that.
@@Ryan3d plus, it’s not a mainline game nor is it canon. And it replaced a more classical mobile “Clash of Clans/Boom Beach” type of game that was originally pitched (and of which there is concept art of online). The leveling monetization aspect really hurt the game, though.
Fun fact regarding C&C4: During an interview with Joe Kucan (Kane) by some German(?) youtubers, even Joe himself joins in with the fact that C&C4 doesn't exist. Gotta love Joe.
Man it's kinda weird how there was no game at second place. Kinda odd to leave that space blank. I kept hearing words like command and conquer 4 or something. But CnC ended with kanes wrath. Nothing else came after that .
4 isn't a number. It's a bad dream combined with the c and c to create us a living nightmare that we should all be glad that it didn't happen. Let it stay a mere illusion bc kane's wrath is already a fitting end to our beloved franchise
It was really weird, initially I thought the problem was from my internet and it couldn't load the video but it seems like more people have this issue.
Wait, you guys had that happen too? Weird. Man, having a C&C 4 would be a sweet revival of the series, though it's been so long it probably won't happen.
"And I know that's like an illegal statement to make" Man Zade, that's some next level heresy. Wouldn't it be a shame if the Inquisition got a hold on this...
"The gameplay for C&C 4 wasn't as bad as people would have you believe" Yeah, its actually worse. you have to grind for your tech tree in multiplayer, that's beyond unacceptable.
There was also the fact that there was no balance system. You can be a level 1 and be thrown in against top level players and get immediately massacred
To this day it amazes me that such a system hit commercial release, ever, in the history of mankind. It is so inherently wrong, so flawed on the face of it, so easily explained to someone who doesn't even play videogames (Use Chess as your example, poof they get the problem.) that I genuinely can't understand why a money focused company wouldn't have recoiled in horror and changed it, or at least sprung for a beta test to put the idea to the question.
A shame, a complete shame. So many people censored trying to give constructive criticism, so many veteran DoW1 and 2 players trying to talk reason into Relic only to be shut down by jannies. Regardless of what Zade says in his retrospective, the game was fundamentally flawed from a mechanical standpoint as an RTS. Forward bases were meaningless, the maps were simplified to three lanes, there was only one game type for a while because Relic genuinely thought nobody would want to play good old annihilation, and infantry were almost entirely useless once tank spam was available. Just a garbage game through and through.
What I hate about video games is that if a developper makes a shitty sequel, either players don't buy it and the series dies (Dawn of War), or they buy it and the studio stop giving a shit about quality (Halo under 343 Industries). It's just a vicious circle.
Or they come back with "promises to return to our roots" (343i, EA, and many more) just to completely fuck it up even further. I honestly can't tell what is worse... Killing a franchise completely with a shit sequel? (CnC CENSORED, SupCom2, EA3) Killing a franchise/sequel with abandonment? (Halo Infinite is on track) Or beating a dead horse then parade it while pissing on its corpse? (EA making CnC Rivals 🤢) God I hate it here.
Reminds me of how chibi robo ended the series with an extremely mediocre 3ds by the numbers plataformer And nintendo was saying "if you want more chibi robo you better buy this" but like why? So it sells well and they just make shity generic plataformers?
@@zachman1394 this. Thing tho is that at least EE2 could compensate for what it lost when coming from EE and I definetly played and enjoyed EE2 more than EE, i think EE2 was solid. I tried EE3. Late game looked horribly besides the fact they took away so many things was disgusting. It didnt play like its predecessors. It didnt feel like that either. Heavily watered down, oversimplified mess. Side note : not necessarily and RTS, but i started playing Terra Invicta a few weeks ago and Im stuck on it, although I put it on a break now.... do you know what I noticed? Its that video game producers, or maybe publishers, think we are dumb, hence they make oversimplified games, that lack any good and challenging systems which would make video games fun / immersive again. Like in EE, if you understood the systems well, you could run around with tanks or robots while your opponent could still run around with cavemen. I understand that it doesnt feel balanced on the receiving end, but people could learn the ropes of the games. Many of todays games are a boring mess of crap, because of reduced or non-existent systems. And thats why I fell in love with Terra Invicta 🥲😎 finally a video game that is not afraid to be complex, and have many fun and engaging systems, that asks the player to learn its systems. Once you understand those systems and "exploit" it to your advantage and once those "skill upgrades" mature into solid understanding of games and their mechanics, pulling off things in a video game will be rewarding. In EE's case stomping the cavemen with robots and literally carpet bombing them is pretty much like the game telling you to learn its systems, then you will enjoy the game with crazy stunts like that. In EE the game rewarded you with stuff like that.
@@loneirregular1280 ah a fellow terra Invicta enjoyer, a game not afraid to kick your butt with it's difficulty and complexity, but also very rewarding when you finally bring down a mothership with the fleet financed by your massive North American Union that stretches from Canada to Panama. Truly gigachad.
Dawn of War 3 failure is kind of a hilarious story. The failure of it is complex and has a lot to do with lore of the setting, expectations and absurd mismanagement of the communications between creators and the fans. Start with expectations - Dawn of War was not a series with a lot of consistency to it. First game was a relatively standard RTS, all things considered - with base building and all that. With major differences being in that unis were for the most part in squads, a lot of the squads could be individually upgraded - so there was a lot of fun customisation going on. And with resource management being based on control points scattered across the map, rather than simple resource deposits like in Star-Craft or Warcraft for that matter. And let's not forget the iconic sync-kills - with units having brutal and awesome melee kill animations. The writing was hit or miss - original campaign was fine, but remaining expansions had both examples of great characters (Sturnn, Eliphas, Thule, Taldeer) and some so bad it verged on parody - Crull, Carron... And it had some lore inaccuracies - like Khornate sorcerers in Winter Assault. But it preserved 40k feel and had amazing gameplay. Dawn of War 2 had a rather negative reception at launch - the game was clearly HEAVILY neutered when compared to early promos. Scale was absolutely pitiful in comparison to original. Campaign was repetitive and had very limited selection of units and didn't reflect at all how the game played in multiplayer. Multiplayer was fine, but it felt like downgrade in plenty of areas. But, a lot of the minor flaws were fixed by Retribution expansion - and multiplayer, while still simplified in comparison to original offered a massive spectacle and had full on 40k feel. And the game eventually redeemed itself largely in eyes of fans. Dawn of War 3 had interesting development - initial information was that basebuilding was going to be back and that was one thing that all fans wanted - it sparked the idea the game would be what fans actually wanted - game with scale of Dawn of War 1, but spectacle and cover-system from Dawn of War 2 - it was a common wish and was well known among the community But soon enough the game started giving away red flags like candy. Early screenshots hardly looked like anything related to 40k. And first gameplay showcase didn't bring much in terms of any lore accuracy or feel. We had somersaulting Terminators - you know... space marines in super heavy suits of armour designed for operations under heavy fire... NOT known for their mobility - jumping like fucking clowns. We had Lascannons firing continuous beams that deals more damage per second the longer it is on target - basically, Protos Void Ray. Now... why it is wrong... It is just about as wrong as say... Star Wars blaster firing bullets, or light sabre not making its iconic noise while swinging. And we had Eldar... With energy shields. You know, a race known from defending itself through holographic projections and their inborn agility to NOT get hit in the first place... Tanking to the face with energy shields. It is the same level of wrong as say... Tiger tank keeping up with Formula 1 cars - it is just patently wrong. Later on, it was also revealed that - iconic sync kills would be gone - one of the most fondly remembered elements of the series. And that much liked cover and destructible environments from Dawn of War 2 would be gone and replaced with static cover in form of shield bubbles... And that most of the customisation, so loved in DoW 1 and 2 would also be gone with very few exceptions. And on release it turned out that most units except super strong "hero" units were basically fodder (so much for Space Marines being small and elite force, eh?), that gameplay was basically a pseudo-moba. and base building was shallow and done only so they could tick that box that they actually have it. So yeah... Even if Dawn of War 3 was a good game in its own right, and at best it was mediocre... It was a horrible miss when it comes to what comparison of what it was and what fans expected. Imagine going to a steak bar, ordering a steak, and getting icecream instead. You got something completely missing the expectations. And even if it is good icecream, that is nowhere near what you came for.
Many Dawn of War 1 fans don't like Dawn of War 2, but it's different and good enough to build its own group of fans. Dawn of War 3, on the other hand, tried to find a compromise between them, and failed in conception and execution
It truly is incredible how bad c&c 4 is. Even ignoring the series, even ignoring it's not much of an RTS. It's simply a horrible game. Of course, the cherry on top of that franchise was the mobile game that even some youtubers were shilling for at the time of release. So C&C4 killed it but that Rivals game made sure it was buried in an unmarked grave. On the other side of the spectrum, HOW does the Stronghold franchise just keep going? Like one of those horror movie franchises were only the first one was good, it keeps churning out trash after trash.
To this day I remember playing the C&C4 beta release and during an 8 player game I sent a chat out saying something like, does something just seem off about this game to anyone else? And without skipping a beat EVERYONE else in the game unanimously chimed in agreeing and started to just trash the game for the remainder of the match. I don't recall us even finishing the match but that one match was all it took for us all to be like, oh no this is really really bad.
I was watching at C&C 4 and thinking "he hasn't mentioned EE 3, the franchise is so forgotten is not even in this kind of videos anymore". As a hard fan of the franchise thank you so much.
Great list man. I remember getting hype for C&C4 and Warcraft 3 Reforged only to be crushed. I am glad I waited for reviews. I still have a free copy of warcraft 3 TFT I backed up. Reforged version I got it for free since I have original game. C&C lives active players and I enjoy red alert 3, C&C 3 and generals zero hour.
Dawn of War 3 was so boring and awful, I literally was playing games on my Phone while I waited for resources to collect and build up a force… ugh. And don’t get me started on cnc 4.
@snowdawn have you also tried mental omega (a mod for cnc red alert 2) yet on cncnet (cncs online multiplayer) ? Maybe not a revival to cnc franchise but still, the developers wanted to make a fitting game for old and new players with an interesting and impact full storyline and soundtrack.
I think this video showed something important about a sequel: it doesn't need to be objectively mechanically bad or atrociously glitchy. Rather, it could merely be disloyal to its predecessor, or perceived ideas about a series. A series carries ideas - about mechanics, artistic styles, genres, storytelling, and more. To make a sequel means being loyal to these, while also pushing the envelope - finding a balance where someone familiar with the predecessor game can reasonably predict what you'll deliver, while keeping the game unique enough to justify itself as a separate product. ...makes me wonder how many sequels there are, out there, that would have performed/been rated much better if they'd been stand-alone titles.
With all of the shit the RTS genre has gone through in the past decade+, the amount of RTS games, from both Indie and AAA, and remasters/definitive editions that have come out in the last few years makes me hopeful for the future of RTS games. I just my golden era back man. And if not that than at least a silver era or something.
What hurts me the most about that one is the total unplayability of it. I got a few dozen of hours on it and it was fun for what it did. But some of the game crashing bugs just made it a minefield to commit your time to. I just can't love a game that cannot be played.
Empire Earth is possibly my favourite RTS. I'd like to see someone take a crack at it again, but honestly, just a remaster of the first game is all I really want.
I am one of the guys who decided to wait to see how DoW 3 would turn out before buying it. I liked both the base-building of the first, and even the micro tactical aspect of the second. The reason I decided to hold on to buying was because I heard there would be only three factions compared to the original four. I took that as a warning sign. Then they said that they wanted to concile the elements of DoW I and II which was another red flag, since more often than not trying to "compromise" means ending with something so and so. And that was the feeling I got from the game. It had a serious identity crisis. It didn't try to be its own thing, but was instead a frankenstein monster with elements that didn't mish-mash well together. The animations also look utterly gutted. Even DoW1 melee fights back in 2004 felt like a deadly, brutal mess, partly thanks to correct animation (at the time) and sync kills. Seriously lacking points in DoW 3. Then came the story. At first, I thought that without chaos it would finally be a three-way conflict without a fourth hidden faction coming out of the shadow saying "all as planned" and making for the final boss. Oh boy, did I feel candid when I saw the cutscenes... I won't harp on the point people considered silly and out of place like "terminator hammerflip" or "MoBA bushes." They're more latent symptoms than anything. Ultimately, this feels like two halves of a game that combines badly and don't make for a full game. The worst part is that there's probably a lot of executive meddling to "thanks" for that. All the little details that made past titles felt missing (four factions at start, sync kills, etc...), and I think the devs themselves felt they were done trying to concile everything when they released this game, like someone who's finishing his project a friday at 8PM and decides "we'll see how it will do." And then the bad review and criticism rolled in. I'd agree that while it was a killing blow, the game was already crippled by its issues. There are other games that made comeback in spite of that (No Man's Sky, FO 76...), but nobody wanted to deal with that.
Great reply, I enjoyed reading it. Writing this because the mention of FO 76 as a recovered game surprised me - I checked steam and 8,000 player top in last 30 days! Maybe not such a recovery for that POS :)
@@isthianlyon1706 Steam isn't required to play FO76, you have all the other players who bought it beforehand. And checking steam charts, 8000 is the average, the peak is 15000.
I literaly sighed aloud on warcraft 3. Then I heard your gig and was amazed :D DoW3 problem was that it was called Dawn of War basically. If it was called something like "Warhammer 40,000: Spear of Khaine" that it would not get such big of a hammering. Sure people would still make fun about jumping in drednought armor or something along the lines, but the fanbase would not be angered beyond repair. In itself it's not that bad of a game, objectively, but it had big shoes to fill and it had awfully small feet to do that.
The only decent thing about EE3 was the intro video. Atleast with that game you realize very fast that it is bad. As for C&C4, that game made me play through it just so I could see the promised conclusion to the tiberium saga. That last climps of hope turned into disgust when I realised that I had suffered through the entire game just to be slapped into the face by the story team. Witnessing the last cutscene, I noticed that there was no turning point in what had been materializing over countless hours of agony.
Dude, I made an audible "sigh" sound when you mentioned Warcraft 3. Talking about breaking 4th wall. When I saw the Earth I knew the title for some reason, though I only played EE 3 and it was "meh"
Command and Conquer 4 has the distinction of being the first game that disappointed me so much that I legitimately considered returning it. It's also the game that made me look at reviews and gameplay before I buy games.
I'm looking forward to your DoW3 video. I know, everyone has his tastes, but I'm curious to see what redeeming qualities you would find in it (apart from better graphics). I'm still so royally pissed at the game and the devs that I still refuse to even try to look at it objectively, so seeing someone else's perspective would be interesting.
Here are some I can list as a genuine fan of the game: DOW 3 has: -most engaging gameplay of the RTS series (DOW 2 doesn't count since it's not RTS) -largest pop cap -largest scale battle of the series that run well (Ultimate Apocalypse can only do so much with a 19-year-old engine) -Titanic units that are hella fun to play (Ultimate Apocalypse tries its best but again 19-year-old engine can only do so much) -Heroes feel and play like heroes (the closest ones were Dark Crusade Necrons, Eldar, and maybe Tau commander) -More build variety and customization than DOW 1 ever had thanks to doctrines and amount of units (Not beating DOW 2 but again that's not an RTS) -Good counterplay for the abilities which made it hard to a-move unlike in DOW 1 -Decent graphics to run all of the above mentioned (DOW 2 is the best looking but again NOT an RTS) -Greater map interactivity -A whole lotta maps -Good balance between action and base building -Best/Most Fun Ork gameplay to date -Titans are pretty damn fun
Good list. Agree with most. For me, CnC4 will always be 'number 1' on this type of list. The story and the reworked gameplay were a huge disappointment, especially coming off of the great CnC3 games. Such a low point of the beloved franchise.
Developer interviews: We have some ideas we think players will like. Like removing resource collection, economy, and base building from our games, giving each player only a third of the tech tree so they have to play multiplayer at all times, making units take forever to die, implementing a pop cap, making the only game mode "hold the point," and making players play 40 or so games with each faction before they can actually use the whole 1/3 of the tech tree they're allowed, against players who've already unlocked everything and are throwing mammoth tanks and kodiak warships at their poor buggies. (I remember, I was in the beta, I followed all their content, and they were always talking about how they thought players would LOVE not building bases and stuff)
I'd have swapped 4 and 7 myself, but I have much more of a reason to be angry at what happened to 4. I was in that scene, man. Making maps and playing games all night long. What happened to it is a Game Crime.
Good video. One thing I would deesagree with is C&C4 being no as bad .. I feel it was. They dropped the harvesting of Tiberium. They dropped base building. They dropped big, diverse armies. What was left? You have one building that allowed you to build 12 units at most (if I remember corectly) and only if you built infantry. If you went with air units it allowed 7. Let's compare that to say Starcraft 2 where, while playing the Zerg, you can have 400 zerglings (2 occupy 1 command point). And what could you do with them (in C&C4)? Attack the enemy command center. Attacking enemy units was pointless, because they could replace them instantly forever. So could you. So, I just send wave after wave at the enemy center. That's it. That's the whole 'game'. I would say that it's the worst RTS that I ever played, but it doesn't really deserve to be called one.
You forgot the online unit unlock systemin C&C4 that actively made the game unfair at release and rapidly rendered it entirely unplayable after it crashed and the servers went offline, even in single player mode.
The C&C 4 experience: "Okay this is different. I wonder what it's like to have a totally mobile base. Once I get more units in the campaign, that is." "...what do you mean, my units aren't unlocked in skirmish/multiplayer modes yet? That's not how RTS games work." "...WHAT DO YOU MEAN, COMPLETING A CAMPAIGN ONLY UNLOCKS HALF THE UNITS OF THAT FACTION? I HAVE TO LOSE OVER A HUNDRED UNFAIR ONLINE BATTLES JUST TO GET EVERY UNIT!?" "...ah, Supreme Commander's campaign is still so satisfying."
C&C4 judging from the entire game itself is 30% cringe (by looking at the storyline), 50% bruh moment (also by looking at the storyline because I'm not gonna make an essay about it, yet) and 20% actually had a fun gameplay aspect if they didn't slap C&C franchise and made it something else but still within Tiberium universe. The units are super sick, at least on some Tier 3 units like Widow, Mastodon (a return from Tiberian Sun iirc) and their heavy armored airships (such as Kodiak and Leviathan)
I had completely forgotten about the dumpster fire of EE3 until the first few seconds of the entry where it hit me like a ton of bricks. Thanks for the reminder. Also what was the seventh entry? Every time I watch it something happens and I remember nothing. Like I go blind and deaf for a period of time..
I might catch flak for this, but the Generals 2 playtest was actually a lot of fun. The unlockable generals that seemed to be store purchases was worrying as fuck, but it played super well
Honourable shout out to Earth2160 for going backwards on its predecessor 2150, a really unique RTS game. And Swords of the Stars 2, an example of what happens when your lead developer has a gigantic ego but no talent left at the studio.
Zade, you are a man after my own taste. It is a delight to see something I can fully agree on, from time to time. By the way, what is your relationship with OTTD? While not an RTS, it is everything I could have asked from a strategy game being resurrected.
that is the irony that is CnC 4. As a lifelong fan of the CnC series, having played literally every game (even the cash grabs that are the mobile rivals game, and web based Tiberium alliance) and been playing them since the original, I can absolutely say Cnc 4: Tiberian Twilight, is simultaneously: 1: a decent game in its own right 2: an example of online-only DRM attempts being harmful to the quality of a game 3: and an absolutely terrible CnC sequel, to the point of outright betrayal to the fans of the series
If they had simply allowed players to play offline and named it something completely different such that nobody would even compare it to Command & Conquer, it would have been remembered fondly. Same goes for Supreme Commander 2 which just isn't Supreme Commander at all, forcing a square peg in to circle hole isn't going get you any respect from the fans.
WOW I really remember TA Kingdoms. I loved TA and I remember being so excited for Kingdoms. I then remember being so bored with it. It was one of my earliest experiences with being let down by a franchise.
TA Kingdoms is kind of fascinating in that the only reason we got TA as it was is that the developers couldn't make TA Kingdoms at the time, they couldn't make 'good enough' humanoid models. So they pivoted into making the classic we know and love. Then they came back with the ability to make their original dream game... and it died horribly before them. It's somewhat amazing that some of them stayed in the industry after that experience, really. It might sound silly, but the one thing TA Kingdoms has left me with is the story of the game. Garakius and his children, complete with The Iron Plague to finish the tale and the tragic warning he left behind for his children. That stays with me and I wish it would be rendered into another medium for others to enjoy blast it...
Both SupCom2 and DoW3 are not necessarily bad games (sure there is room for improvement, but hardly any game doesn't have that). They are bad successors, they are cursed by bearing the name of a beloved RTS franchise and were thus always compared to their predecessors and in that comparision, they could only lose. I think both games would have been less ill-received, if their respective developers didn't try to sell them as part of those franchises.
I personaly like Supreme Commander 2 but I get it when comparing it with Forged Alliance. The shere unit scale and complex economy which puts your multitasking to it's limits is why I find Forged Alliance more fun. But I like the research mehanics that Sup Com 2 brought to the table. It's basicly like a arm race between you and the oponent.
ah, Warcraft Refunded... when EA makes a better remaster of an old RTS game, you know you messed up big time. as for Dawn Of War, as a fan of the first one, I barely managed to force myself through the 2nd game. and I won't even try the 3d one for free.
While I haven't played it in...bloody hell, like 20 years, I remember enjoyed TA kingdoms. Pretty sure I have it on GoG, I'll have to fire it up sometime
It's outrageous how C&C4 differs from the previous games. No resource harvesting, no base building, interface in the bottom of the screen. GDI used to be good guys, Nod - at best, "end justifies the means" guys; here Kane is a good guy, while in GDI campaign you help a rogue commander to screw over the world over personal grudge. It's like they tried to ruin everything. It also sucks that that units are divided between three crawlers, Support is useless if you're playing alone. The game pushes co-op on you harder than Red Alert 3.
I just wanna add to the dumpster fire that is CNC4. I can't believe I'm acknowledging it exists but here we go. I have vague memories of having to level up to unlock units in a primarily multiplayer game. Another thing I remember was it was just far easier to get lucky with random games. Find someone who'd made a custom map. Play that match then boot up skirmish and just use that custom map. Normally just a flat space with mystical "red" tiberium to do something with technology. Then get to level 20. As a small child my brain didn't comprehend how bizarre it all was till years later.
As a long standing command and conquer fan, I will never forgive EA for what they did with number 4. A developer who really needed to learn the phrase 'if its not broke dont fix it'...and then they went and murder sim city shortly there after.
When you said CnC4 as second worst game, I already knew what the number 1 was. I almost spit my drink when you showed the EE3 opening and laugh. CnC4 was truly a heartbreaking game to end a franchise, which I considered not canon to. But EE3? I 100% agree with you take... They have so much potential to combine both of their predecessors as this new shiny beacon for Maddoc entertainment. It's like seeing them commiting Harakiri with their own franchise... :'(
I gotta disagree with your placement of the last two on this list. EE3 was at least a playable game, whereas C&C4 needed meta progression in online only matches to get better units, or you could grind years of your life away for scraps of exp in single player. I agree both of these games are deserving of the bottom two, I just disagree on the order you put them in. Thanks for the content
@@Zade_95 at least EE 3 was still an RTS..not a good one but an rts. Tiberium Twilight (it is not nor ever will be C&C4) is not remotely a rts game. It was a game showhormed into its position
2020: EA just announce C&C 5, YAY, Wait it's a mobile game, what the F did you just do EA. 2022: EA just broke as a company and choice to sell herself as a company. Based people: Karma.
A reason people hate DoW 3 so much is that asthetics are very important to fans of the Warhammer franchise, and you have to admit that it looks way too clean when compared with the first 2 games.
Growing up with C&C, C&C4 was the worst kick in the nuts for me. Yeah I agree the gameplay isn't the worst possible and some people may like it but it was such a 180 from what the franchise was before. For me, boring gameplay, boring story, boring atmosphere, boring music, annoying sound design, and I still found it overall infuriating. I tried... 4 times... to play it so I could just finish up the story... Each time I just couldn't go on. Finally I decided to watch the cutscenes on youtube... And they were so boring I just couldn't. This game is so boring... And I hate EA for it so much that I don't ever want to play another game from them. And I don't usually hold a grudge.
Multiwinia. Poor, poor Multiwinia. The franchise-killer, almost studio-killer, that's actually pretty good. There's no single-player "campaign", but there's 49 single player maps in six modes and near Worms / Smash Bros levels of experience customization (AI difficulty, weapon crates, etc). If only the devs had made it clear at launch time how cool the single-player mode was, maybe it wouldn't have failed so hard...
Darwinia, a name I never expected to hear. That was such a unique and charming indie RTS I remember playing on the Xbox 360. I never knew Multiwinia almost killed the studio, I thought it was just a nice expansion/bonus. Shame such a unique and fun RTS never blossomed into the cult-classic it deserved to be.
@@fuggles2k Well a multiplayer feature would have been welcome but creating a whole new game around was probably unwise since Darwinina is already a niche indie title. Hindsight is 20-20 tho. Instead, I wish they expanded on the base game focusing more on the Darwinians themselves. The best part other than the gameplay was the fantastic worldbuilding. The world the Darwinians lived in and the culture they had as well as the mysterious eldritch nature computer viruses had on the world and their unpredictable nature. I mean seeing darwinians gather around souls and bring out lanterns was amazing. Wish we got to see more of Darwinina as a world instead of a battlefield.
Both Command and Conquer 4 and Warcraft 3 reforged is RTS game wrecked by corporate greed Reforged make Classic Warcraft 3 only available pirated Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: *plays Empire Earth 3* worst RTS game ever
God I remember trying to get into the closed Alpha so bad, I was excited and had my dreams crushed. From what I understand the problems mainly stemmed from monetisation, but also map design along with balancing issues. All of the issues it had could be fixed and he'll if it didn't go free to play it could have had an actual campaign. It really did look pretty promising but alas it's dead now due to EA.
@@Ratich gen 2's first problem was the faction switch. Why the help have europe replace America as a faction. Lore wise they would be a Chinese puppet. Thenthe switch to online mmo killed it
I actually think DoW 3 is fine. The DoW series is one that never really had a set playstyle, so I can't get behind people saying that DoW 3 changed too much, as DoW 2 is completely different to DoW 1, and DoW 3 is completely different to DoW 2. That said, DoW 3 isn't installed on my computer, but DoW 1 is. Why settle with fine, when you have something great? C&C 4 does deserve all the hate it gets though! Tried to play it in co-op twice, and both times everyone involved ended up wanting to drop the game almost immediately because of how bored they were. When not even co-op can make a game at least a bit enjoyable, you know you've got a stinker on hand.
You kind of identified the dow problem better than relic, which lead to them seemingly making a game THEY thought would sell, but didn't actually check if a market was available. DoW2 was not especially loved at launch because it was so different, which you can see a bit in DoW2:R when they try to make it more like DoW1. At this point, I just want a 64b version of soulstorm so I can continue modding it, but should there be a dow4 they should make a game people want to buy, rather thank make people want to buy a game.
Man I personally loved the hell out of empire earth 3. One of the first AoE type strats I played and it makes me so so sad you can't even find a copy of empire earth 3 anymore
Damn. As I look at those I rage on the inside how much those had potential to be genuinely good games. DoW III especially. In a perfect world it would've been bigger than the 1st game (not as big as Ultimate Apocalypse but still big + with its macro-centric gameplay), with the best elements of DoW II (the graphics, physics and CoH mechanics) and more... INSTEAD WE GOT BACKFLIPPING TERMINATORS, SCII-TIER IDIOCY, MOBA PANDERING AND THE DEVS TAKING PAGES FROM A CERTAIN BLACK IRISH LEPER GNOME. Not to mention that the B Team didn't play any other RTS games aside of StarCraft II and were proud of it.
Empire Earth 3... Poor licence.. It didn't deserve that.. Honestly seeing the legacy of EE left to rot like this makes me want to learn 3D modelling and go make my own game. I already know programming so it's half of the work done ;p
I enjoyed C&C 4. It was a fun Free to Play game and if they kept it Free to Play like it was originally supposed to be, maybe the franchise would still be alive.
@@Zade_95 I was going to say dude. Gotta get your beauty sleep to keep that amazing content coming. Got family all over NZ so seeing it pop at 2am your time was like damn dude.. Absolutely love the sunsets over lake Taupo. Nothing like that near Sydney or Newcastle over the ditch mate.
I had completely blocked Stronghold 3 from my mind. I adored the first two games. The third I never touched because I heard about it first until, on a Steam Sale, I tried it and yikes. I can't tell what hurt more, C&C4 because of how attached I was to the storyline of Kane and the GDI, or Stronghold 3. I still haven't really touched a new Stronghold games sense because I've been too nervous about it. Curious if Warlords holds up but the setting wasn't really my interest. Curious what they'll do next now that Age of Empires 4 is out and about as competition (maybe not direct but still it's out). Very eager to see the Dawn of War 3 video soon! I had the same thoughts while playing it (and I love DoW2:R more than DoW1) but it's so hard to separate from both of it's previous titles.
Stronghold Warlords is a fine game on its own, but doesn't give you the vibes the older games do. It plays out alright, but it can feel shallow and boring. It tries to present its campaigns as history lessons, but you end up yawning due to only the Scribe and the protagonist speaking (remember the SH3 campaigns?). Moreover, they are easy except for a few Mongol missions and hard difficulty only makes matters barely even more challenging. Multiplayer was also unstable at launch. Do these make the game atrocious? No, just average at best. I think it's best to sometimes return to only because of the skirmish mode, where most units have a place in gameplay and the warlords (estates that generally send you goods or troops, or attack a target) can sometimes add an interesting layer to it.
Not bloody zero! It's the third time in your comment section alone I say that SupCom 2 is a better overall game than SupCom 1, so there's at least one!
@@Zade_95 Yes I do. SupCom 2 does away with unita becoming obsolete after you or your opponent tech to the next tier and actually runs properly out of the box. These things give it an edge. They shoulda kept the scale and the economy tho. And more specialized unit types. There are also things neither game does good, e.g teching.
I remember NerdCubed saying command and conquer 4 was his favorite and that he doesn't understand the hate. Love NerdCubed but the more you watch the more you learn Dan has lets just say unique tastes and opinions I feel were very close to a new RTS genre being formed. Imagine Factorio but you can built and amass armies like in command and conquer.
Man I remember being hyped as hell back when I was a kid about stronghold 3. I played the hell out of stronghold 1 and Stronghold Crusades/extreme back on Gametap (shoutout to anyone who knows that that was) and I was really looking forward to stronghold 3. I eagerly downloaded it one day after school, played it the next day due to terrible internet, and proceeded to be completely disappointed. Not only did the 3d look ugly, it ran like shit compared to the other games. I had never played stronghold 2, so this was a big shock to me. They should have kept they stylistic 2.5d they had going with the original games. What a disappointment man.
Hey, I love your content - been going through and putting your videos on at work lately and it's gotten me back into Age of Mythology and finally got me to try out Supreme Commander for the first time. I wanted to make a recommendation for an RTS game that you might find interesting? The game is called Achron, it was an RTS that had time travel as the central focus. It was like you send units back in waves and try to stop the enemy, which sounds like a nightmare and it probably is. There's multiplayer, LAN, etc, and it looks like a super unique concept but I can't tell you how it works because I while I do have a copy, I can't get anyone else online to get a game going. If you want a copy, Steam doesn't sell it any more but there are key sites out there with codes still good for use. For some reason redeeming the game gave me a gift copy, but it's only able to be redeemed in Turkey?
Thank you! Glad you got to try some new games :) Looks interesting! I'll have to try it out sometime. The list is very long haha... which might be a good or bad thing :P
My god Achron is an amazing thing. A game with a system so advanced few people can actually even play it well. (I am NOT among them.) A game engine development that could revolutionize nearly any genre with real time play, but because it's proprietary will likely be lost to the mists of time. A fascinating plotline all about time travel that actually makes some sense and has consistent rules for it, but few people will ever see.
SC2 might not be better than its source but it hardly murdered the Franchise, a departure at most, the naysayers are just as credible as doomsayers, they have no idea how good the game is because they haven't played it for long enough to see its true colours.
Other notable bad sequels: Dark Reign 2, Blitzkrieg 3, Perimeter 2: New Earth, Seven Kingdoms 3: Conquest, Sudden Strike 3, Codename Panzers: Cold War, American Conquest: Divided Nation, The Settlers V: Heritage of Kings, Act of Aggression.
I have definitely heard people say they prefer Supreme Commander 2 to the original, but they are FAR outnumbered by the people whose opinion is the same as yours (myself included). Those people usually site the game's superior pathfinding and performance, or simply prefer the more streamlined gameplay.
I started with SC2 and then tried the original SC with the FA expansion and i really hate the pathfinding of SC1 , at least they kinda fixed it in FA . I don't think SC2 is that bad , aside from the short campaign .....
SupComm 2 got a ton of well deserved flak early on - and a lot of it due to one flaw. Economy changes - SupComm 1 has this flowing, infinite economy - you have constant influx of resources on top of what you can store for a moment - and speed and output of what you can build is determined by how many resources flow to you per tick. So even with pitiful economy, you can still build, just very slowly. SupComm 2 originally had very standard RTS eco - only infinite - but you could only build what you could stockpile. You could only spend what you had in bank. That meant... you could not queue production - and for the game like this, with this kind of scale... that was a crippling flaw. It was relatively quickly patched in - and balanced so it approximates flowing economy of the original SupComm somewhat. Supreme Commander 2 is a fine game after this change - not a great Supreme Commander game, but it is fun non the less - it is arguably more fun when doing co-op comp-stomp - the AI is actually quite decent in this game. On the flipside, Forged Alliance is more fun in proper multiplayer, I'd argue.
To be fair C&C4 didn't murder the franchise
It went much much further than a simple murder.
Should have mentioned that *Shudders* mobile "game". They didn't just mutilate the body, they desecrated its goddam bones. At least there is some hope with the remaster, more than I can say for DOW or Supcom.
@@stormlordeternal7663 ironically enough, I've played the mobile game and, for mobile games, it was actually really good. far, far better then what I was expecting.
of course, when your expectation is flying piece of flaming poo making it's yearly flight from the land of flaming poo games that is mobile land... expectations wasn't far from the ground to begin with.
(for clarification: I mean specifically gameplay, graphics, sound, how it feels to play... what makes the game, a game. monetization wise? ya, like about every other mobile game)
@@stormlordeternal7663 aww c'mon, C&C Rivals was a perfectly serviceable game. And in terms of EA casual spin-offs dare I say an excellent one. Not the same ballpark as their Dungeon Keeper desecration.
Had a fun summer with it on tablet. And the cinematic trailer song is still part of my workout soundtrack.
Rivals is good enough as 'C&C's Heartstone' in my eyes.
Also isn't the it's bad cuz it's mobile is a horribly outdated sentiment?
Sure like 95% still is, but that doesn't mean gems on mobile didn't became reasonable prospect in recent years
@@stormlordeternal7663 , Cnc Rivals was pretty good actually and the devs really love the source material.
It just a different CnC, a smaller one and there's nothing wrong with that.
@@Ryan3d plus, it’s not a mainline game nor is it canon. And it replaced a more classical mobile “Clash of Clans/Boom Beach” type of game that was originally pitched (and of which there is concept art of online). The leveling monetization aspect really hurt the game, though.
Fun fact regarding C&C4: During an interview with Joe Kucan (Kane) by some German(?) youtubers, even Joe himself joins in with the fact that C&C4 doesn't exist. Gotta love Joe.
well, to be fair, it's so bad, even Kane in game decided to nope out of the entire universe.
holy based
@Eclipze MMG it does not.
@Eclipze MMG bruh you're delusional , that shit never exist
@Eclipze MMG why did you do that to yourself by finding it?
Man it's kinda weird how there was no game at second place.
Kinda odd to leave that space blank. I kept hearing words like command and conquer 4 or something. But CnC ended with kanes wrath.
Nothing else came after that .
4 isn't a number. It's a bad dream combined with the c and c to create us a living nightmare that we should all be glad that it didn't happen. Let it stay a mere illusion bc kane's wrath is already a fitting end to our beloved franchise
I know that was strange, its like the video just skipped a couple minutes.
I wonder when they'll make C&C 4? 🤔
C&C ended with RA2. Tere was never an expansion and no other C&C games.
It was really weird, initially I thought the problem was from my internet and it couldn't load the video but it seems like more people have this issue.
Wait, you guys had that happen too? Weird. Man, having a C&C 4 would be a sweet revival of the series, though it's been so long it probably won't happen.
"And I know that's like an illegal statement to make"
Man Zade, that's some next level heresy. Wouldn't it be a shame if the Inquisition got a hold on this...
😧😧
"The gameplay for C&C 4 wasn't as bad as people would have you believe"
Yeah, its actually worse. you have to grind for your tech tree in multiplayer, that's beyond unacceptable.
Or you need to grind it single to play in multiplayer
😂😂
The onky two things to come out of that game are Kodiak and matsadon. Put those in a nrw game
There was also the fact that there was no balance system. You can be a level 1 and be thrown in against top level players and get immediately massacred
To this day it amazes me that such a system hit commercial release, ever, in the history of mankind. It is so inherently wrong, so flawed on the face of it, so easily explained to someone who doesn't even play videogames (Use Chess as your example, poof they get the problem.) that I genuinely can't understand why a money focused company wouldn't have recoiled in horror and changed it, or at least sprung for a beta test to put the idea to the question.
Dawn of War 1 was a fantastic grand strategy game.
Dawn of War 2 was a top tier squad based tactical command game.
Dawn of War 3... was.
A shame, a complete shame. So many people censored trying to give constructive criticism, so many veteran DoW1 and 2 players trying to talk reason into Relic only to be shut down by jannies. Regardless of what Zade says in his retrospective, the game was fundamentally flawed from a mechanical standpoint as an RTS. Forward bases were meaningless, the maps were simplified to three lanes, there was only one game type for a while because Relic genuinely thought nobody would want to play good old annihilation, and infantry were almost entirely useless once tank spam was available.
Just a garbage game through and through.
What I hate about video games is that if a developper makes a shitty sequel, either players don't buy it and the series dies (Dawn of War), or they buy it and the studio stop giving a shit about quality (Halo under 343 Industries). It's just a vicious circle.
Or they come back with "promises to return to our roots" (343i, EA, and many more) just to completely fuck it up even further. I honestly can't tell what is worse...
Killing a franchise completely with a shit sequel? (CnC CENSORED, SupCom2, EA3)
Killing a franchise/sequel with abandonment? (Halo Infinite is on track)
Or beating a dead horse then parade it while pissing on its corpse? (EA making CnC Rivals 🤢)
God I hate it here.
That's why you either make a good sequel, or none whatsoever.
@@luciusdebeers6176 play only good ones,
don't buy bad ones.
@@dontshootmex5588 has a “get gud” feel but the dev version
Reminds me of how chibi robo ended the series with an extremely mediocre 3ds by the numbers plataformer
And nintendo was saying "if you want more chibi robo you better buy this" but like why? So it sells well and they just make shity generic plataformers?
Empire Earth 3 is such a sad and depressing death of the franchise ever.
so true and the fact that rebelion has the license now and has not used it its even more depressing
the worst part about EE is that it started at its highest point and spent its entire life backsliding
@@zachman1394 this.
Thing tho is that at least EE2 could compensate for what it lost when coming from EE and I definetly played and enjoyed EE2 more than EE, i think EE2 was solid.
I tried EE3. Late game looked horribly besides the fact they took away so many things was disgusting. It didnt play like its predecessors. It didnt feel like that either. Heavily watered down, oversimplified mess.
Side note : not necessarily and RTS, but i started playing Terra Invicta a few weeks ago and Im stuck on it, although I put it on a break now.... do you know what I noticed? Its that video game producers, or maybe publishers, think we are dumb, hence they make oversimplified games, that lack any good and challenging systems which would make video games fun / immersive again.
Like in EE, if you understood the systems well, you could run around with tanks or robots while your opponent could still run around with cavemen. I understand that it doesnt feel balanced on the receiving end, but people could learn the ropes of the games. Many of todays games are a boring mess of crap, because of reduced or non-existent systems. And thats why I fell in love with Terra Invicta 🥲😎 finally a video game that is not afraid to be complex, and have many fun and engaging systems, that asks the player to learn its systems.
Once you understand those systems and "exploit" it to your advantage and once those "skill upgrades" mature into solid understanding of games and their mechanics, pulling off things in a video game will be rewarding. In EE's case stomping the cavemen with robots and literally carpet bombing them is pretty much like the game telling you to learn its systems, then you will enjoy the game with crazy stunts like that. In EE the game rewarded you with stuff like that.
:(((
@@loneirregular1280 ah a fellow terra Invicta enjoyer, a game not afraid to kick your butt with it's difficulty and complexity, but also very rewarding when you finally bring down a mothership with the fleet financed by your massive North American Union that stretches from Canada to Panama. Truly gigachad.
Dawn of War 3 failure is kind of a hilarious story.
The failure of it is complex and has a lot to do with lore of the setting, expectations and absurd mismanagement of the communications between creators and the fans.
Start with expectations - Dawn of War was not a series with a lot of consistency to it. First game was a relatively standard RTS, all things considered - with base building and all that. With major differences being in that unis were for the most part in squads, a lot of the squads could be individually upgraded - so there was a lot of fun customisation going on. And with resource management being based on control points scattered across the map, rather than simple resource deposits like in Star-Craft or Warcraft for that matter.
And let's not forget the iconic sync-kills - with units having brutal and awesome melee kill animations.
The writing was hit or miss - original campaign was fine, but remaining expansions had both examples of great characters (Sturnn, Eliphas, Thule, Taldeer) and some so bad it verged on parody - Crull, Carron... And it had some lore inaccuracies - like Khornate sorcerers in Winter Assault.
But it preserved 40k feel and had amazing gameplay.
Dawn of War 2 had a rather negative reception at launch - the game was clearly HEAVILY neutered when compared to early promos. Scale was absolutely pitiful in comparison to original. Campaign was repetitive and had very limited selection of units and didn't reflect at all how the game played in multiplayer. Multiplayer was fine, but it felt like downgrade in plenty of areas. But, a lot of the minor flaws were fixed by Retribution expansion - and multiplayer, while still simplified in comparison to original offered a massive spectacle and had full on 40k feel. And the game eventually redeemed itself largely in eyes of fans.
Dawn of War 3 had interesting development - initial information was that basebuilding was going to be back and that was one thing that all fans wanted - it sparked the idea the game would be what fans actually wanted - game with scale of Dawn of War 1, but spectacle and cover-system from Dawn of War 2 - it was a common wish and was well known among the community
But soon enough the game started giving away red flags like candy.
Early screenshots hardly looked like anything related to 40k. And first gameplay showcase didn't bring much in terms of any lore accuracy or feel.
We had somersaulting Terminators - you know... space marines in super heavy suits of armour designed for operations under heavy fire... NOT known for their mobility - jumping like fucking clowns.
We had Lascannons firing continuous beams that deals more damage per second the longer it is on target - basically, Protos Void Ray. Now... why it is wrong... It is just about as wrong as say... Star Wars blaster firing bullets, or light sabre not making its iconic noise while swinging.
And we had Eldar... With energy shields. You know, a race known from defending itself through holographic projections and their inborn agility to NOT get hit in the first place... Tanking to the face with energy shields. It is the same level of wrong as say... Tiger tank keeping up with Formula 1 cars - it is just patently wrong.
Later on, it was also revealed that - iconic sync kills would be gone - one of the most fondly remembered elements of the series. And that much liked cover and destructible environments from Dawn of War 2 would be gone and replaced with static cover in form of shield bubbles... And that most of the customisation, so loved in DoW 1 and 2 would also be gone with very few exceptions.
And on release it turned out that most units except super strong "hero" units were basically fodder (so much for Space Marines being small and elite force, eh?), that gameplay was basically a pseudo-moba. and base building was shallow and done only so they could tick that box that they actually have it.
So yeah... Even if Dawn of War 3 was a good game in its own right, and at best it was mediocre... It was a horrible miss when it comes to what comparison of what it was and what fans expected.
Imagine going to a steak bar, ordering a steak, and getting icecream instead. You got something completely missing the expectations. And even if it is good icecream, that is nowhere near what you came for.
Empire Earth 3 was so effective at killing the franchise that I actually rediscovered its existence by watching this video.
Literally same.
Many Dawn of War 1 fans don't like Dawn of War 2, but it's different and good enough to build its own group of fans.
Dawn of War 3, on the other hand, tried to find a compromise between them, and failed in conception and execution
It truly is incredible how bad c&c 4 is. Even ignoring the series, even ignoring it's not much of an RTS. It's simply a horrible game. Of course, the cherry on top of that franchise was the mobile game that even some youtubers were shilling for at the time of release. So C&C4 killed it but that Rivals game made sure it was buried in an unmarked grave.
On the other side of the spectrum, HOW does the Stronghold franchise just keep going? Like one of those horror movie franchises were only the first one was good, it keeps churning out trash after trash.
It isn’t just the companies who mismanaged sequels, it’s that they don’t respect what makes their games great and improve on it
To this day I remember playing the C&C4 beta release and during an 8 player game I sent a chat out saying something like, does something just seem off about this game to anyone else? And without skipping a beat EVERYONE else in the game unanimously chimed in agreeing and started to just trash the game for the remainder of the match. I don't recall us even finishing the match but that one match was all it took for us all to be like, oh no this is really really bad.
I was watching at C&C 4 and thinking "he hasn't mentioned EE 3, the franchise is so forgotten is not even in this kind of videos anymore". As a hard fan of the franchise thank you so much.
Great list man. I remember getting hype for C&C4 and Warcraft 3 Reforged only to be crushed. I am glad I waited for reviews. I still have a free copy of warcraft 3 TFT I backed up. Reforged version I got it for free since I have original game. C&C lives active players and I enjoy red alert 3, C&C 3 and generals zero hour.
Good thing I did no buy dawn of war 3. Dow1 Dark Crusade and Dow2 Retribution is enough for me for 40k rts. Hopefully we get a better dawn of war 4.
Thank you boss
@@Zade_95 no problem man. I always enjoy your RTS / strategy games videos.
Dawn of War 3 was so boring and awful, I literally was playing games on my
Phone while I waited for resources to collect and build up a force… ugh. And don’t get me started on cnc 4.
@snowdawn have you also tried mental omega (a mod for cnc red alert 2) yet on cncnet (cncs online multiplayer) ? Maybe not a revival to cnc franchise but still, the developers wanted to make a fitting game for old and new players with an interesting and impact full storyline and soundtrack.
Agh, Empire Earth 3, how I loved 1 and 2 warts and all, how broken-hearted I was when it got offed.
I think this video showed something important about a sequel: it doesn't need to be objectively mechanically bad or atrociously glitchy. Rather, it could merely be disloyal to its predecessor, or perceived ideas about a series.
A series carries ideas - about mechanics, artistic styles, genres, storytelling, and more. To make a sequel means being loyal to these, while also pushing the envelope - finding a balance where someone familiar with the predecessor game can reasonably predict what you'll deliver, while keeping the game unique enough to justify itself as a separate product.
...makes me wonder how many sequels there are, out there, that would have performed/been rated much better if they'd been stand-alone titles.
With all of the shit the RTS genre has gone through in the past decade+, the amount of RTS games, from both Indie and AAA, and remasters/definitive editions that have come out in the last few years makes me hopeful for the future of RTS games. I just my golden era back man. And if not that than at least a silver era or something.
The most devastating for me was Sword of the Stars 2, not an rts but 4x so it doesnt cont for this list but it still hurts today...
What hurts me the most about that one is the total unplayability of it. I got a few dozen of hours on it and it was fun for what it did. But some of the game crashing bugs just made it a minefield to commit your time to.
I just can't love a game that cannot be played.
Empire Earth is possibly my favourite RTS. I'd like to see someone take a crack at it again, but honestly, just a remaster of the first game is all I really want.
A remaster of Empire Earth 1 would do. Improve AI, pathfinding, improved graphics.
I am one of the guys who decided to wait to see how DoW 3 would turn out before buying it. I liked both the base-building of the first, and even the micro tactical aspect of the second.
The reason I decided to hold on to buying was because I heard there would be only three factions compared to the original four. I took that as a warning sign. Then they said that they wanted to concile the elements of DoW I and II which was another red flag, since more often than not trying to "compromise" means ending with something so and so.
And that was the feeling I got from the game. It had a serious identity crisis. It didn't try to be its own thing, but was instead a frankenstein monster with elements that didn't mish-mash well together.
The animations also look utterly gutted. Even DoW1 melee fights back in 2004 felt like a deadly, brutal mess, partly thanks to correct animation (at the time) and sync kills. Seriously lacking points in DoW 3.
Then came the story. At first, I thought that without chaos it would finally be a three-way conflict without a fourth hidden faction coming out of the shadow saying "all as planned" and making for the final boss. Oh boy, did I feel candid when I saw the cutscenes...
I won't harp on the point people considered silly and out of place like "terminator hammerflip" or "MoBA bushes." They're more latent symptoms than anything.
Ultimately, this feels like two halves of a game that combines badly and don't make for a full game. The worst part is that there's probably a lot of executive meddling to "thanks" for that. All the little details that made past titles felt missing (four factions at start, sync kills, etc...), and I think the devs themselves felt they were done trying to concile everything when they released this game, like someone who's finishing his project a friday at 8PM and decides "we'll see how it will do."
And then the bad review and criticism rolled in. I'd agree that while it was a killing blow, the game was already crippled by its issues. There are other games that made comeback in spite of that (No Man's Sky, FO 76...), but nobody wanted to deal with that.
Just play unifaction
Great reply, I enjoyed reading it.
Writing this because the mention of FO 76 as a recovered game surprised me - I checked steam and 8,000 player top in last 30 days! Maybe not such a recovery for that POS :)
@@isthianlyon1706 Steam isn't required to play FO76, you have all the other players who bought it beforehand.
And checking steam charts, 8000 is the average, the peak is 15000.
Wow. So many words to say absolutely fucking nothing.
I literaly sighed aloud on warcraft 3. Then I heard your gig and was amazed :D
DoW3 problem was that it was called Dawn of War basically. If it was called something like "Warhammer 40,000: Spear of Khaine" that it would not get such big of a hammering. Sure people would still make fun about jumping in drednought armor or something along the lines, but the fanbase would not be angered beyond repair. In itself it's not that bad of a game, objectively, but it had big shoes to fill and it had awfully small feet to do that.
The only decent thing about EE3 was the intro video. Atleast with that game you realize very fast that it is bad. As for C&C4, that game made me play through it just so I could see the promised conclusion to the tiberium saga. That last climps of hope turned into disgust when I realised that I had suffered through the entire game just to be slapped into the face by the story team. Witnessing the last cutscene, I noticed that there was no turning point in what had been materializing over countless hours of agony.
Dude, I made an audible "sigh" sound when you mentioned Warcraft 3. Talking about breaking 4th wall.
When I saw the Earth I knew the title for some reason, though I only played EE 3 and it was "meh"
loooool i knew itd get someone
An honourable mention to Age of Empires 3, it almost did the job.
ALMOST
Command and Conquer 4 has the distinction of being the first game that disappointed me so much that I legitimately considered returning it. It's also the game that made me look at reviews and gameplay before I buy games.
Back when I was about to buy this game, I saw 3 seconds of gameplay footage and instantly decided that it was crap so I never even bothered with it
I'm looking forward to your DoW3 video. I know, everyone has his tastes, but I'm curious to see what redeeming qualities you would find in it (apart from better graphics). I'm still so royally pissed at the game and the devs that I still refuse to even try to look at it objectively, so seeing someone else's perspective would be interesting.
You didn’t miss anything, I wish I never purchased it. I understand they were chasing the moba genre and didn’t care what made the other games great.
Here are some I can list as a genuine fan of the game:
DOW 3 has:
-most engaging gameplay of the RTS series (DOW 2 doesn't count since it's not RTS)
-largest pop cap
-largest scale battle of the series that run well (Ultimate Apocalypse can only do so much with a 19-year-old engine)
-Titanic units that are hella fun to play (Ultimate Apocalypse tries its best but again 19-year-old engine can only do so much)
-Heroes feel and play like heroes (the closest ones were Dark Crusade Necrons, Eldar, and maybe Tau commander)
-More build variety and customization than DOW 1 ever had thanks to doctrines and amount of units (Not beating DOW 2 but again that's not an RTS)
-Good counterplay for the abilities which made it hard to a-move unlike in DOW 1
-Decent graphics to run all of the above mentioned (DOW 2 is the best looking but again NOT an RTS)
-Greater map interactivity
-A whole lotta maps
-Good balance between action and base building
-Best/Most Fun Ork gameplay to date
-Titans are pretty damn fun
Good list. Agree with most. For me, CnC4 will always be 'number 1' on this type of list. The story and the reworked gameplay were a huge disappointment, especially coming off of the great CnC3 games. Such a low point of the beloved franchise.
Developer interviews: We have some ideas we think players will like. Like removing resource collection, economy, and base building from our games, giving each player only a third of the tech tree so they have to play multiplayer at all times, making units take forever to die, implementing a pop cap, making the only game mode "hold the point," and making players play 40 or so games with each faction before they can actually use the whole 1/3 of the tech tree they're allowed, against players who've already unlocked everything and are throwing mammoth tanks and kodiak warships at their poor buggies.
(I remember, I was in the beta, I followed all their content, and they were always talking about how they thought players would LOVE not building bases and stuff)
I'd have swapped 4 and 7 myself, but I have much more of a reason to be angry at what happened to 4. I was in that scene, man. Making maps and playing games all night long. What happened to it is a Game Crime.
Good video. One thing I would deesagree with is C&C4 being no as bad .. I feel it was. They dropped the harvesting of Tiberium. They dropped base building. They dropped big, diverse armies. What was left? You have one building that allowed you to build 12 units at most (if I remember corectly) and only if you built infantry. If you went with air units it allowed 7. Let's compare that to say Starcraft 2 where, while playing the Zerg, you can have 400 zerglings (2 occupy 1 command point). And what could you do with them (in C&C4)? Attack the enemy command center. Attacking enemy units was pointless, because they could replace them instantly forever. So could you. So, I just send wave after wave at the enemy center. That's it. That's the whole 'game'. I would say that it's the worst RTS that I ever played, but it doesn't really deserve to be called one.
I literally tragic sigh-ed right before you called it out in the video...
Got a good chuckle out of it :D
Love your videos!
gottem
cant believe its been 5 years since dawn of war 3, what a disappointment
Feels like yesterday...
@@dontshootmex5588 hopefully company of heroes 3 is good
It seems that c&c4 has been 1984'd from the minds of everyone.
Wait... what was I talking about again?
You forgot the online unit unlock systemin C&C4 that actively made the game unfair at release and rapidly rendered it entirely unplayable after it crashed and the servers went offline, even in single player mode.
oh don't worry... ill never forget.....
The C&C 4 experience:
"Okay this is different. I wonder what it's like to have a totally mobile base. Once I get more units in the campaign, that is."
"...what do you mean, my units aren't unlocked in skirmish/multiplayer modes yet? That's not how RTS games work."
"...WHAT DO YOU MEAN, COMPLETING A CAMPAIGN ONLY UNLOCKS HALF THE UNITS OF THAT FACTION? I HAVE TO LOSE OVER A HUNDRED UNFAIR ONLINE BATTLES JUST TO GET EVERY UNIT!?"
"...ah, Supreme Commander's campaign is still so satisfying."
Operation area expanded
C&C4 judging from the entire game itself is 30% cringe (by looking at the storyline), 50% bruh moment (also by looking at the storyline because I'm not gonna make an essay about it, yet) and 20% actually had a fun gameplay aspect if they didn't slap C&C franchise and made it something else but still within Tiberium universe. The units are super sick, at least on some Tier 3 units like Widow, Mastodon (a return from Tiberian Sun iirc) and their heavy armored airships (such as Kodiak and Leviathan)
I had completely forgotten about the dumpster fire of EE3 until the first few seconds of the entry where it hit me like a ton of bricks. Thanks for the reminder. Also what was the seventh entry? Every time I watch it something happens and I remember nothing. Like I go blind and deaf for a period of time..
I might catch flak for this, but the Generals 2 playtest was actually a lot of fun. The unlockable generals that seemed to be store purchases was worrying as fuck, but it played super well
Honourable shout out to Earth2160 for going backwards on its predecessor 2150, a really unique RTS game.
And Swords of the Stars 2, an example of what happens when your lead developer has a gigantic ego but no talent left at the studio.
Oh wow, I'd managed to blot SotS 2 out of my memory (mostly, Loa are too cool to erase I guess.) and this brought it screaming back to me.
Zade, you are a man after my own taste. It is a delight to see something I can fully agree on, from time to time.
By the way, what is your relationship with OTTD? While not an RTS, it is everything I could have asked from a strategy game being resurrected.
Love to hear it! That's OpenTTD, the sim game? I've never played it actually, but it's probably up my alley if I tried it!
I remember when I actually got around to installing EE3. I only can recall having a weird experience with the game, there was a lot of lag.
that is the irony that is CnC 4. As a lifelong fan of the CnC series, having played literally every game (even the cash grabs that are the mobile rivals game, and web based Tiberium alliance) and been playing them since the original, I can absolutely say Cnc 4: Tiberian Twilight, is simultaneously:
1: a decent game in its own right
2: an example of online-only DRM attempts being harmful to the quality of a game
3: and an absolutely terrible CnC sequel, to the point of outright betrayal to the fans of the series
If they had simply allowed players to play offline and named it something completely different such that nobody would even compare it to Command & Conquer, it would have been remembered fondly.
Same goes for Supreme Commander 2 which just isn't Supreme Commander at all, forcing a square peg in to circle hole isn't going get you any respect from the fans.
It was not decent.
@@paulrasmussen8953 if you strip out the things that tie it to being a CNC game, and the drm stuff they added... It was a decent game.
@@banaman7746 no. Its online only and lvl up system is so broken
WOW I really remember TA Kingdoms. I loved TA and I remember being so excited for Kingdoms. I then remember being so bored with it. It was one of my earliest experiences with being let down by a franchise.
TA Kingdoms is kind of fascinating in that the only reason we got TA as it was is that the developers couldn't make TA Kingdoms at the time, they couldn't make 'good enough' humanoid models. So they pivoted into making the classic we know and love. Then they came back with the ability to make their original dream game... and it died horribly before them. It's somewhat amazing that some of them stayed in the industry after that experience, really. It might sound silly, but the one thing TA Kingdoms has left me with is the story of the game. Garakius and his children, complete with The Iron Plague to finish the tale and the tragic warning he left behind for his children. That stays with me and I wish it would be rendered into another medium for others to enjoy blast it...
C&C 4 I thought that was cancelled
Also I love supreme commander 2
Both SupCom2 and DoW3 are not necessarily bad games (sure there is room for improvement, but hardly any game doesn't have that). They are bad successors, they are cursed by bearing the name of a beloved RTS franchise and were thus always compared to their predecessors and in that comparision, they could only lose. I think both games would have been less ill-received, if their respective developers didn't try to sell them as part of those franchises.
"I've been looking forward to this"
A pretty common shared point here is that when people go "I want to do X franchise but change it to be more like Y" things go south.
yup, 100%
I personaly like Supreme Commander 2 but I get it when comparing it with Forged Alliance. The shere unit scale and complex economy which puts your multitasking to it's limits is why I find Forged Alliance more fun. But I like the research mehanics that Sup Com 2 brought to the table. It's basicly like a arm race between you and the oponent.
The ideal opening for a game should never be 3 research stations XD
ah, Warcraft Refunded... when EA makes a better remaster of an old RTS game, you know you messed up big time. as for Dawn Of War, as a fan of the first one, I barely managed to force myself through the 2nd game. and I won't even try the 3d one for free.
While I haven't played it in...bloody hell, like 20 years, I remember enjoyed TA kingdoms. Pretty sure I have it on GoG, I'll have to fire it up sometime
In a vacuum, you cant smell how s*** stinks - that said, towards your “in a vacuum analogy“.
Grew up with empire earth. Hurts to see it go like that
There is no Command and Conquer 4 what are you talking about? We haven't had an original release since Red Alert 3.
SupCom 2 was a good game. - That I've never played again. Forged Alliance Forever on the other hand, I'll see you tonight honey
It's outrageous how C&C4 differs from the previous games. No resource harvesting, no base building, interface in the bottom of the screen. GDI used to be good guys, Nod - at best, "end justifies the means" guys; here Kane is a good guy, while in GDI campaign you help a rogue commander to screw over the world over personal grudge. It's like they tried to ruin everything.
It also sucks that that units are divided between three crawlers, Support is useless if you're playing alone. The game pushes co-op on you harder than Red Alert 3.
I just wanna add to the dumpster fire that is CNC4. I can't believe I'm acknowledging it exists but here we go.
I have vague memories of having to level up to unlock units in a primarily multiplayer game.
Another thing I remember was it was just far easier to get lucky with random games. Find someone who'd made a custom map. Play that match then boot up skirmish and just use that custom map. Normally just a flat space with mystical "red" tiberium to do something with technology.
Then get to level 20. As a small child my brain didn't comprehend how bizarre it all was till years later.
@10:56 "don't do that, dont give me hope"
As a long standing command and conquer fan, I will never forgive EA for what they did with number 4. A developer who really needed to learn the phrase 'if its not broke dont fix it'...and then they went and murder sim city shortly there after.
When you said CnC4 as second worst game, I already knew what the number 1 was. I almost spit my drink when you showed the EE3 opening and laugh. CnC4 was truly a heartbreaking game to end a franchise, which I considered not canon to. But EE3? I 100% agree with you take... They have so much potential to combine both of their predecessors as this new shiny beacon for Maddoc entertainment. It's like seeing them commiting Harakiri with their own franchise... :'(
I gotta disagree with your placement of the last two on this list. EE3 was at least a playable game, whereas C&C4 needed meta progression in online only matches to get better units, or you could grind years of your life away for scraps of exp in single player. I agree both of these games are deserving of the bottom two, I just disagree on the order you put them in. Thanks for the content
Totally fair! They can definitely be interchangeable :P
@@Zade_95 at least EE 3 was still an RTS..not a good one but an rts. Tiberium Twilight (it is not nor ever will be C&C4) is not remotely a rts game. It was a game showhormed into its position
There was a weird blank spot between 8:21 and 9:45 in the video. Whatever ima go play Kane's Wrath.
I had a blast w TA Kingdoms - not that much with its expansion though.
I swear Iron plague had the best story, and the WORST mission design/balance.
Age of Empires 3 not being on the list was a big surprise for me.
2020:
EA just announce C&C 5, YAY, Wait it's a mobile game, what the F did you just do EA.
2022:
EA just broke as a company and choice to sell herself as a company.
Based people:
Karma.
good list! I agree with all the spots!
A reason people hate DoW 3 so much is that asthetics are very important to fans of the Warhammer franchise, and you have to admit that it looks way too clean when compared with the first 2 games.
I used to play Empire Earth when i was younger but I completely forgot about EE3 since I never played it nor heard of it
Growing up with C&C, C&C4 was the worst kick in the nuts for me. Yeah I agree the gameplay isn't the worst possible and some people may like it but it was such a 180 from what the franchise was before.
For me, boring gameplay, boring story, boring atmosphere, boring music, annoying sound design, and I still found it overall infuriating.
I tried... 4 times... to play it so I could just finish up the story... Each time I just couldn't go on. Finally I decided to watch the cutscenes on youtube... And they were so boring I just couldn't. This game is so boring... And I hate EA for it so much that I don't ever want to play another game from them. And I don't usually hold a grudge.
Multiwinia. Poor, poor Multiwinia. The franchise-killer, almost studio-killer, that's actually pretty good. There's no single-player "campaign", but there's 49 single player maps in six modes and near Worms / Smash Bros levels of experience customization (AI difficulty, weapon crates, etc). If only the devs had made it clear at launch time how cool the single-player mode was, maybe it wouldn't have failed so hard...
Darwinia, a name I never expected to hear. That was such a unique and charming indie RTS I remember playing on the Xbox 360. I never knew Multiwinia almost killed the studio, I thought it was just a nice expansion/bonus. Shame such a unique and fun RTS never blossomed into the cult-classic it deserved to be.
But this is another example of making a game no-one actually wanted. Darwinia is awesome, it does not need a multiplayer component.
@@fuggles2k Well a multiplayer feature would have been welcome but creating a whole new game around was probably unwise since Darwinina is already a niche indie title. Hindsight is 20-20 tho.
Instead, I wish they expanded on the base game focusing more on the Darwinians themselves. The best part other than the gameplay was the fantastic worldbuilding. The world the Darwinians lived in and the culture they had as well as the mysterious eldritch nature computer viruses had on the world and their unpredictable nature. I mean seeing darwinians gather around souls and bring out lanterns was amazing. Wish we got to see more of Darwinina as a world instead of a battlefield.
I agree with dawn of war 3 I really loved the game but dawn of war soulstorm stays the best
Wait, that's double illegal!
This video opened so many old wounds…..
i'm very sorry
Both Command and Conquer 4 and Warcraft 3 reforged is RTS game wrecked by corporate greed
Reforged make Classic Warcraft 3 only available pirated
Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons: *plays Empire Earth 3* worst RTS game ever
God I remember trying to get into the closed Alpha so bad, I was excited and had my dreams crushed. From what I understand the problems mainly stemmed from monetisation, but also map design along with balancing issues. All of the issues it had could be fixed and he'll if it didn't go free to play it could have had an actual campaign. It really did look pretty promising but alas it's dead now due to EA.
Are you talking about DOW 3? I love the animations and most of the character models. Wish there was an actual story to go with them.
@@Laneous14 Generals 2 actually
@@Ratich gen 2's first problem was the faction switch. Why the help have europe replace America as a faction. Lore wise they would be a Chinese puppet. Thenthe switch to online mmo killed it
I think it was a good list. I regret not going back and playing Warcraft 3 before reforged came out.
Thanks! hmm.... 🏴☠️🦜
Ooof yeah EE3. Got it for Christmas that year, installed it boxing day afternoon, uninstalled 1 hour later and traded it in to CeX the next day.
Never played the first supreme but I absolutely love supreme commander 2
The only game I would add would be Sword of the Stars 2, but that might be more of a Total War/ 4x type game
I actually think DoW 3 is fine. The DoW series is one that never really had a set playstyle, so I can't get behind people saying that DoW 3 changed too much, as DoW 2 is completely different to DoW 1, and DoW 3 is completely different to DoW 2. That said, DoW 3 isn't installed on my computer, but DoW 1 is. Why settle with fine, when you have something great?
C&C 4 does deserve all the hate it gets though! Tried to play it in co-op twice, and both times everyone involved ended up wanting to drop the game almost immediately because of how bored they were. When not even co-op can make a game at least a bit enjoyable, you know you've got a stinker on hand.
You kind of identified the dow problem better than relic, which lead to them seemingly making a game THEY thought would sell, but didn't actually check if a market was available. DoW2 was not especially loved at launch because it was so different, which you can see a bit in DoW2:R when they try to make it more like DoW1. At this point, I just want a 64b version of soulstorm so I can continue modding it, but should there be a dow4 they should make a game people want to buy, rather thank make people want to buy a game.
command and conquer 4? wait they made 4? when? i never heard of this.
Man I personally loved the hell out of empire earth 3. One of the first AoE type strats I played and it makes me so so sad you can't even find a copy of empire earth 3 anymore
Damn. As I look at those I rage on the inside how much those had potential to be genuinely good games. DoW III especially. In a perfect world it would've been bigger than the 1st game (not as big as Ultimate Apocalypse but still big + with its macro-centric gameplay), with the best elements of DoW II (the graphics, physics and CoH mechanics) and more...
INSTEAD WE GOT BACKFLIPPING TERMINATORS, SCII-TIER IDIOCY, MOBA PANDERING AND THE DEVS TAKING PAGES FROM A CERTAIN BLACK IRISH LEPER GNOME. Not to mention that the B Team didn't play any other RTS games aside of StarCraft II and were proud of it.
I can't believe Caesar 4 didnt make the list.
I have the same opinion you do of DoW3. Which funnily enough is the same experience I had with DoW2.
Empire Earth 3... Poor licence.. It didn't deserve that..
Honestly seeing the legacy of EE left to rot like this makes me want to learn 3D modelling and go make my own game. I already know programming so it's half of the work done ;p
I enjoyed C&C 4. It was a fun Free to Play game and if they kept it Free to Play like it was originally supposed to be, maybe the franchise would still be alive.
With all honesty and seriousness I never knew a C&C4 existed untill now
God damn it Zade.... isn't it like 2am for you.
All good, lunch time in UK :P
yeah i always launch vids at 2/3 am nzt :P usually i schedule them so i can go to bed before hand
usually
@@Zade_95 I was going to say dude. Gotta get your beauty sleep to keep that amazing content coming.
Got family all over NZ so seeing it pop at 2am your time was like damn dude.. Absolutely love the sunsets over lake Taupo. Nothing like that near Sydney or Newcastle over the ditch mate.
Oh lovely place! Haha I'm sure Sydney has its perks but yeah that's maybe not one of them.... 😅
I want to wake up from this dream rtsbros...
I had completely blocked Stronghold 3 from my mind. I adored the first two games. The third I never touched because I heard about it first until, on a Steam Sale, I tried it and yikes.
I can't tell what hurt more, C&C4 because of how attached I was to the storyline of Kane and the GDI, or Stronghold 3. I still haven't really touched a new Stronghold games sense because I've been too nervous about it. Curious if Warlords holds up but the setting wasn't really my interest. Curious what they'll do next now that Age of Empires 4 is out and about as competition (maybe not direct but still it's out).
Very eager to see the Dawn of War 3 video soon! I had the same thoughts while playing it (and I love DoW2:R more than DoW1) but it's so hard to separate from both of it's previous titles.
Stronghold Warlords is a fine game on its own, but doesn't give you the vibes the older games do. It plays out alright, but it can feel shallow and boring. It tries to present its campaigns as history lessons, but you end up yawning due to only the Scribe and the protagonist speaking (remember the SH3 campaigns?). Moreover, they are easy except for a few Mongol missions and hard difficulty only makes matters barely even more challenging. Multiplayer was also unstable at launch.
Do these make the game atrocious? No, just average at best. I think it's best to sometimes return to only because of the skirmish mode, where most units have a place in gameplay and the warlords (estates that generally send you goods or troops, or attack a target) can sometimes add an interesting layer to it.
Not bloody zero! It's the third time in your comment section alone I say that SupCom 2 is a better overall game than SupCom 1, so there's at least one!
HOLY
you exist!
@@Zade_95 Yes I do.
SupCom 2 does away with unita becoming obsolete after you or your opponent tech to the next tier and actually runs properly out of the box. These things give it an edge.
They shoulda kept the scale and the economy tho. And more specialized unit types.
There are also things neither game does good, e.g teching.
I remember NerdCubed saying command and conquer 4 was his favorite and that he doesn't understand the hate.
Love NerdCubed but the more you watch the more you learn Dan has lets just say unique tastes and opinions
I feel were very close to a new RTS genre being formed. Imagine Factorio but you can built and amass armies like in command and conquer.
Man I remember being hyped as hell back when I was a kid about stronghold 3. I played the hell out of stronghold 1 and Stronghold Crusades/extreme back on Gametap (shoutout to anyone who knows that that was) and I was really looking forward to stronghold 3. I eagerly downloaded it one day after school, played it the next day due to terrible internet, and proceeded to be completely disappointed. Not only did the 3d look ugly, it ran like shit compared to the other games. I had never played stronghold 2, so this was a big shock to me. They should have kept they stylistic 2.5d they had going with the original games. What a disappointment man.
Hey, I love your content - been going through and putting your videos on at work lately and it's gotten me back into Age of Mythology and finally got me to try out Supreme Commander for the first time. I wanted to make a recommendation for an RTS game that you might find interesting?
The game is called Achron, it was an RTS that had time travel as the central focus. It was like you send units back in waves and try to stop the enemy, which sounds like a nightmare and it probably is. There's multiplayer, LAN, etc, and it looks like a super unique concept but I can't tell you how it works because I while I do have a copy, I can't get anyone else online to get a game going. If you want a copy, Steam doesn't sell it any more but there are key sites out there with codes still good for use. For some reason redeeming the game gave me a gift copy, but it's only able to be redeemed in Turkey?
Thank you! Glad you got to try some new games :) Looks interesting! I'll have to try it out sometime. The list is very long haha... which might be a good or bad thing :P
My god Achron is an amazing thing. A game with a system so advanced few people can actually even play it well. (I am NOT among them.) A game engine development that could revolutionize nearly any genre with real time play, but because it's proprietary will likely be lost to the mists of time. A fascinating plotline all about time travel that actually makes some sense and has consistent rules for it, but few people will ever see.
I love total annihilation kingdoms, it is one of my favourite childhood games
Blizzard needs to look at how EA did a remaster (original CNC and RA) update graphics and cutscenes...and let it go.
SC2 might not be better than its source but it hardly murdered the Franchise, a departure at most, the naysayers are just as credible as doomsayers, they have no idea how good the game is because they haven't played it for long enough to see its true colours.
Starcraft 2 had a terrible storyline while 1 had pretty much the best. People remember Starcraft 2 fondly because of it's gameplay.
Other notable bad sequels:
Dark Reign 2, Blitzkrieg 3, Perimeter 2: New Earth, Seven Kingdoms 3: Conquest, Sudden Strike 3, Codename Panzers: Cold War,
American Conquest: Divided Nation, The Settlers V: Heritage of Kings, Act of Aggression.
I liked Dark Reign 2 as a kid :(
@@LordDarthViadro It wasn't terrible but was much worse than the original (similarly to SupCom 2 compared to 1).
DoW III really hurt.
Maybe it’s for the best we never got Battle for Middle Earth 3.
I have definitely heard people say they prefer Supreme Commander 2 to the original, but they are FAR outnumbered by the people whose opinion is the same as yours (myself included). Those people usually site the game's superior pathfinding and performance, or simply prefer the more streamlined gameplay.
Yeah I could never get my mates into 1, the basic fun macro gameplay of 2 is a good start for a new RTS player with all it's features.
I started with SC2 and then tried the original SC with the FA expansion and i really hate the pathfinding of SC1 , at least they kinda fixed it in FA . I don't think SC2 is that bad , aside from the short campaign .....
SupComm 2 got a ton of well deserved flak early on - and a lot of it due to one flaw.
Economy changes - SupComm 1 has this flowing, infinite economy - you have constant influx of resources on top of what you can store for a moment - and speed and output of what you can build is determined by how many resources flow to you per tick.
So even with pitiful economy, you can still build, just very slowly.
SupComm 2 originally had very standard RTS eco - only infinite - but you could only build what you could stockpile. You could only spend what you had in bank.
That meant... you could not queue production - and for the game like this, with this kind of scale... that was a crippling flaw.
It was relatively quickly patched in - and balanced so it approximates flowing economy of the original SupComm somewhat.
Supreme Commander 2 is a fine game after this change - not a great Supreme Commander game, but it is fun non the less - it is arguably more fun when doing co-op comp-stomp - the AI is actually quite decent in this game.
On the flipside, Forged Alliance is more fun in proper multiplayer, I'd argue.
@@hideshisface1886 agreed, the economy is also my main complaint with SC2. Though not as good as FA's, I don't mind the research system in 2.