Quote:
|
BTW, actually Steel Fury and Kharkov 43 (and T-72 sim) are from the different development team (i heard they're making a T-62 sim now), and games from MoW series were developed by various other teams. For example, there is MoW: Vietnam on the way (by the team that made Red Tide).
|
Different development team, Ok. Not really sure how all of that works. Different teams working for the same company on different projects/series of games? Do the teams interact at all? They must. I know that TOW and MOW have very distinctive looks and completely different gameplay styles. But there are similarities as well. I suppose there would have to be, both of them being RTS games centered on conventional ground warfare, mostly in the WWII era.
I am looking forward to the T-64 vs. The M-60 game. I liked Steel Fury very much until the limitations of the AI and the impenetrability of the Mission Editor caused me to lose interest in the game. I hope they can get the infantry sorted out. There were lots of problems with Steel Fury. Anti-tank guns were usually buried in the ground, unable to fire, or cocked at ridiculous angles. Infantry modelling was too crude, and the AI, though deadly accurate, was very mechanical and predictable.
The Mission Editor needs to be simplified, or at least it needs a detailed manual--in English as well as Russian!--explaining how to use it. The longevity of a game is essentially and directly dependent upon its modability by users, both in terms of the campaigns and missions available to play, and also the available units and some of their attributes, such as infantry weapons, ammo load-outs, etc. New expansions and sequels to games will always be in demand because of major improvements to a game that modders are generally not capable of. They will be more in demand, if the games are known to be mod-friendly.