I just discovered Starcraft, and it's pwn.

[Ancient Oldie]

True, but however you look at it, Starcraft was visually pretty mediocre. Etc., etc.,

I have to disagree with you on that one. Starcraft definitely had better graphics than Dark Reign, and although TA was more graphically advanced, I still think Starcraft had the upper hand in aesthetic appeal and character because of the artistic quality of the units, buildings, and terrain. It's kind of like comparing the brand new, 3D Transformers with the Akira anime (not that I care much for anime) or even some of the older Merrie Melodies cartoons. Although the newer cartoons might be more technologically impressive, the older ones have a nicer artistic quality and also have more character. Either ways, we're splitting hairs on the graphics topic, since its obvious we have different tastes.

Orc Balls!!!

No thanks.

Dark Omen had ugly graphics because it utilized a 3D engine at time when 3D graphics on PC was still in its humble beginnings. But even though everything was pixelated and looked like shit, 3D terrain was awesome, allowing features such as line of sight, using relief to gain strategic advantage, setting up ambushes in forrests and other cool things Starcraft didn't have.

True, but the topic was which one looked nicer, and DO's 3D graphics still looked like shit, regardless of its in-game advantages.

Whether or not Dark Omen was inferior to Shadow of the Horned Rat is irrelevant, because it rocked nonetheless. I'm also awaiting a comment on Close Combat, an RTS clearly superior to any other of its era. Even with a 2D engine, brilliant developers of Close Combat managed to simulate elevation and slope, thus allowing implementation of angle and line of sight. Clearly, TA, Close Combat and Dark Omen belonged to a new, more advanced generation of real time strategies, in which strategic approach was more rewarding than mindless tank rush, unlike Starcraft (and later Tiberian Sun, another overrated RTS), a representative of the "old" generation where terrain was basically a flat chessboard and game is won by the player who manages to build his base, get hold of most resources and amass most units in least time, and then use his newly acquired army to crush the opponent with one of few unbeatable tactics.

I haven't played Close Combat yet, but if it's at the Underdogs, I'll give it a spin. If it is better then Starcraft, I guess I'll have to eat my words. As for Dark Omen, I forgot to mention in my first post that I thought Starcraft was better than Horned Rat, so you can easily arrive to my opinion on Dark Omen through that. I personal thought Dark Omen was a huge disappointment. Instead of fixing Horned Rats problems (crap controls, crap ai), it chose the easy route by giving more treasure and making it more linear just so that it could be easier for most gamers.

As for the old vs new comment, other than the use of terrain, you really haven't cited any innovative breakthrough in the genre. I personally find that RTS games that implement bases and resource management are still fun if executed correctly. As for Starcraft, many of the missions in the game didn't have anything to do with the build and destroy tactics mentioned earlier. There were many squad-based infiltration missions, defense missions, etc. Plus, your aforementioned tactic of rushing the enemy would have failed miserably in many of the conquer your enemy missions, even with the Zerg, whose primary strength was through their vast numbers. Different tactics such as the use of specialized units were necessary for you to succeed in these missions. I think you have mentally tied all resource/base RTS games with the earlier Warcraft and C&C games, which would make your observation correct.

 

[alec]

Age of Empires 2 is da best!

I do agree with 2D pwning 3D. Last week I reinstalled Unreal for some brainless fun and the graphics just didn't feel right anymore. Ive never really had that with 2D games, at least not with the ones I play. I think games like Age of Empires 2, Pharaoh and Commandos 2 (which has some 3D features, I know) are in a sense more "finished" than most 3D games that hit the shelves nowadays.

My 2 cents.

 

[MadHype]

Starcraft on Battle.net is worthless as far as strategy goes. If you don't play a rush tactic, you lose. Brainless. Just build the cheapest unit over and over and over and constantly feed them into the battlefield. Boring.

If you name your games "n00bs only, no rush" the that will not happen. But I agree, that the battle.net is a little stupid, because all the games (that are named "no rush") end to a best-air-units attack (for example, Protoss: 24 scouts and 12 Carriers). But if you play it with friends, that shouldn't happen. Or if you make a "ground forces only"-game.