comparable to old school C&C

Simple question: how does the gameplay and interface compare to old school command and conquer?

I have not played RTS in a long time and when i did it was all C&C. Basicly everything in CnC:TFD and RA3. I haven't picked up a copy or followed all the twitch fieeds since I wasn't sure if I would like it since it was based off of total annihlation. Would there be a steep learning curve for me?

my background has alot of older C&C titles in it as well, i'd say (from what i've seen and can speculate on) that it would translate nicely. resources are obviously significantly different, and C&C is more focused on critical territory control which i would say PA is not, but it is generally more of a macromanaged game (at least the older titles were).

Steep learning curve? Just play skirmish, screw around, and beat the AI for awhile.

best way to learn is to go straight online and get your *** kicked a few times, watch what they did and then start winning

Not if you are unfamiliar with TA-like economy. You should at least play a couple of games against AI and see how the eco works.

I started playing RTS with Dune 2, then C&C, then TA. Total Annihilation always seemed to me a good progression of the ideas in C&C, whereas stuff like StarCraft didn't seem to be a real progression, more a silly diversion.

I'd recommend you get a copy of TA and play around with that.

The problem there is considering StarCraft to be an RTS game to begin with. It's more of a tactics / economy / action game. I love StarCraft and it has plenty of merit, I just don't compare them because despite interface and gameplay mechanic similarities, they aren't even in the same genre.

Loving the genre bias in the forums here.

Might as well be a discussion between battlefield and call of duty players.

What bias? I was just saying the two games are entirely different and should be treated as such. I pretty much enjoy them equally (StarCraft & TA). Or were you referring to the post I replied to?

Also, I don't play Battlefield or CoD, but they look the same to me :lol:

Ign, its like apples and bananas, both are fruit sure, both are plants, both grow on trees, both are carbon based, but thats were the similarities end.

nice baiting.... awaiting fanbois....

Banana fanboy signing in. I think you'll find that banana 'trees' are actually massive herbs and not trees at all.

Your argument is invalid, my bendy fruit-like plant is superior.

Starcraft is definitely still in the RTS genre though. I don't see how you can count out Starcraft but not the majority of the C&C franchise. There is so many RTSs that are not like TA(and a selection of early classics) in many ways. Would you count out age of empires or homeworld 1 & 2 as RTSs because they are different TA? Perhaps you could make sub genres within RTS, but really, we should stick to just calling one game different to another without being elitist about it. I should note here that your comment wasn't bad in the elitist/pretentious factor, but I do disagree with it no being in the same genre, which you based of logic I frequently see from people who do display those factors.

Bias the other guy was referring to is this tendency of some members of these forums to deploy some twisted superiority complex/elitism and passive-aggressive disregard for specifically starcraft and starcraft players as not a real RTS/RTS fans and hence not part of the cool club. As not just an avid starcraft(2) player, but player of a broad spectrum RTSs and other genres, this has been my one gripe so far with these forums. Other than the many duplicate bug posts from the PA alpha or the feature requests/bitching, when they are obviously simply not implemented yet, being a freaking ALPHA.

Hell, my very first post on these forums was because I was doing my usual lurking last September when I encountered a post (HOLY **** it was the guy you originally quoted, HAH) that specifically used starcraft 1 as an example on how not to do several game design choices, while praising other games with design choices that were equally terrible. That is when I first activated my forum account and made my first post.

Though, granted, when people come on here arguing there needs to be more micro like starcraft, they should be informed that this game is, in fact, not starcraft. I understand that.

Perhaps you're right. RTS as an umbrella term with sub-genres in that. Buuuut the point is they're very different

Yea, definitely. No denying that.

Another comparison is not calling a modern FPS game such as COD titles or battlefield an FPS, because the earlier classic games like doom or duke nukem 3D had health points rather than regenerating your health magically. I must admit though I do kinda miss health being a non regenerating value, but I just play duke nukem 3D when I want that. Also get bonus super nostalgia . I seriously have probably played through this game over 100 times.

Speaking of which, what ever happened to epic final bosses, gosh :lol:

It's time to kick *** and kick ***, and I'm all out of kick ***.

Thats makes no sense xD.

The real quote: "its time to kickass and chew bubble gum im all out of gum"

Nope.

Proof:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8muROWvFSmg

That vid is a fake. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSUdVmJto6U

Also here: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Duke_Nukem ... an_Project

*face-desk*

It's a joke, people.