Since When Were You First?

[AHadley]

"Nuclear Dawn is the first game to offer a full FPS and RTS experience without crippling or diluting either side of the game."

Pfft. Nuclear Dawn has been in development for what, six years? That's peanuts.

Merging FPS and RTS is nothing new. In fact, one of the most groundbreaking games ever to have done this was Battlezone, released in 1998 - that's six years before Nuclear Dawn even began development!

So, yeah. Nothing new here.


Not that it doesn't look good, that is. I might get this when it comes out, depending on the price.

[FlyingMongoose]

"Without crippling either" is a key point, most games in the past have a good report with one side or the other...

[AHadley]

It didnt cripple either, thats my point :P

Where are all the other BZ players on Steam when you need them?

[EnterHavoc]

It didnt cripple either, thats my point :P

Where are all the other BZ players on Steam when you need them?


It depends on what your definition of crippling is.

Battlezone was different though; you did everything yourself, the RTS aspect and the FPS, and it was all in a FPS view. You can't have the fully fledged RTS if you also have to concentrate on keeping your tank alive at the same time. In that regard then, it was crippled as it wasn't the full RTS experience.


For the record though, I just made a massive nostalgia mess all over myself going over some old videos of it.

[FlyingMongoose]

The only limitation in that regard is that I believe, like many others is the fact that only one player gets the "true" RTS experience in Nuclear Dawn...though there may be some sort of expansion upon things along the lines of limited building and emplacement systems for the individual, though I'm not certain,
example: a squad leader may be able set up sand-bags or something
or possibly some sniper might be able to set up a roost or a tree-hide or something you know?


Again it's uncertain if there will be any individual building emplacement/maintenance, however it has been repeatedly emphasized that the commander role will provide a fully immersed RTS experience, except your units can be jackasses to you instead of willfully fulfilling your every whim despite the fact that it will send them to their doom...of course they might do that anyway, I guess it depends on how you play, but it seems to get a full immersive experience true teamwork will be necessary from all individuals, squads, and commanders, though that lone gunman should periodically be able find his niche, they always do, and sometimes, the commander will see that and commend him with some sort of support... (sort of like when you play commander in BF2 and there's that one squad who's doing awesome so you keep dropping them supply crates)

They have pointed out things along the lines of expansions/upgrades/etc. and updates plus game modes, and the inclusion of multiple game modes.

[Silverfell]

AHadley, it's hard to claim any kind of 'first' in the world of gaming. After all, especially if your stick to general definitions, it's hard to do anything new, anywhere, in any field.

That said, we're sticking to our guns on this one: I'm a Battlezone and BZ2 fan, so I know the exact kind of game you're talking about, and I'm still saying that we're trying to do something new.

Nuclear Dawn does not have base-building cleverly incorporated into an FPS which, with the exception of the ancient and spectacular Dungeon Keeper, is 99% of what most games do. We actually have an RTS, a strategic element of resource management, troup organization, and manufacturing victorious strategies together with your soldiers.

For the commander, the game actually does play like a Command and Conquer (or I suppose we should say Dune II) where your soldiers think and act for themselves and, as you would in a real battlefield, react to suggestions based on their trust in you, ability and mood. It really is, just to get back to that boasting thing I mentioned earlier, something no other game we can think of did.

[Warfreak94c]

For the commander, the game actually does play like a Command and Conquer (or I suppose we should say Dune II) where your soldiers think and act for themselves and, as you would in a real battlefield, react to suggestions based on their trust in you, ability and mood.

So all in all the game presents both genres under one title instead of being a true hybrid.
In that case yes, you are the first. While the concept sounds interesting and actually just might work better than the true hybrids commercially, is there a way to switch between commanding and killing? I say this as it can get a bit boring playing from a god-view while everyone else is down there in the middle of it all.

[Silverfell]

So all in all the game presents both genres under one title instead of being a true hybrid.
In that case yes, you are the first. While the concept sounds interesting and actually just might work better than the true hybrids commercially, is there a way to switch between commanding and killing? I say this as it can get a bit boring playing from a god-view while everyone else is down there in the middle of it all.

Yes, you can sate both your bloodlust and your megalomania at the same time! The Commander controls the battlefield from his Bunker - which incidentally is the enemy's primary objective in most game modes.

At any time during gameplay, he (or she) can enter or exit the bunker, switching from top-down RTS mode to FPS mode at will.

[Orange Ninja]

.. At any time during gameplay, he (or she) can enter or exit the bunker, switching from top-down RTS mode to FPS mode at will.

Sounds great! I'm guessing that the commander is still the commander though, and thus only he can enter the bunker still, right? And after the round ends the commanders change through a team vote?

[Roboto]

Once the CMD leaves the bunker, can he still strategically command the armies and control his forces effectively? If so, you will quickly find that the team that uses the bunker less will be winning more :P

As we say in BZ2, a team with a commander in the bunker is a team one man short.

[Silverfell]

As we say in BZ2, a team with a commander in the bunker is a team one man short.

That axiom worked well, for years, in BZ2 - but the commander in ND has ways of making his presence felt on the battlefield that I can't discuss at length just yet.

Let's just say that staying in the bunker and commanding your forces, or getting out there and giving the enemy what for, are going to be equivalent tactical choices, rather than a forced situation.

@Orange Ninja - well guesssed. Again, it's early days and every system has to go through severe stress testing before being confirmed and announced, but you won't be stuck with a lame commander for long, and you won't be commanding unless you really, really want to!

[AHadley]

I go away for a day and the thread explodes in my face. Typical.

Anyhow, I didnt quite realise how the game plays. Having heard a little more (from the man himself) I now understand. It is certainly something new.

Also, I seem to have brought the wrath of the BZ communities down on you. Sorry about that :/

[FlyingMongoose]

Being critical about things is often important feedback from the community in a game development situation, listening to the community is something that a lot of gaming communities claim the developers don't do, but InterWave was founded BY a gaming community...so...we'll see how that pans out ;).

[Roboto]

I go away for a day and the thread explodes in my face. Typical.

Anyhow, I didnt quite realise how the game plays. Having heard a little more (from the man himself) I now understand. It is certainly something new.

Also, I seem to have brought the wrath of the BZ communities down on you. Sorry about that :/

Yah, we can't really help it though.

We want a BZ3 so badly that this has to be it! Hehe.

[EnterHavoc]

Yah, we can't really help it though.

We want a BZ3 so badly that this has to be it! Hehe.

Certainly won't get it from Activision.

[blin]

Wondering why nobody talks about NS and NS2 (which is currently under development).

[FlyingMongoose]

NS and NS2 doesn't pull it off quite the same, they are SIMILAR but (and this is my own personal opinion) they feel like FPS games with rts slapped on top while this feels like rts with fps players. Also this has been discussed, repeately. search old threads please.

[nsf]

Wondering why nobody talks about NS and NS2 (which is currently under development).
And nobody even remembers a game called Savage.

[Torgul]

Battlezone

omgosh Battlezone :) one of my favorite games of all time. The multiplayer was a blast. That and MW4 :)

[MaGicBush]

And nobody even remembers a game called Savage.

This, and I don't agree with flyingmongoose. NS was built around RTS, with limitations from the HL engine. NS2 uses a completely ground-up engine designed for the game and once finished will be much better than NS1(already is other than FPS issues getting fixed in the next build hopefully).

Also UWE communicates in a thread-by-thread basis as well(seems more so from what I have seen on here or the main forums actually).

With that said I want to give ND a try, but the marketing lie(unfortunately way to much of this anymore) is making it hard for me to buy it so I will wait a while for reviews.