Who would like to see a Tom Clancy's Endwar 2?

The first one sucked. The only thing I liked about it was how it deployed units, because it looked neat. I would say that it failed even more than Halo Wars did, just because Halo Wars had some strategy and tactics to it. This game was just send infantry into cover around your point things after you captured them, use helicopters to kill the enemy artillery when they tried to kill your infantry as that is the only thing that could once they were in cover, then keep using the power that sent army troops in and use it on the enemy's starting place.

socom427 wrote:this is frickin pointless because only me and you are debating!

Someone's an impatient little noob. You only posted this up about 2 hours ago, give people some time.

I actually loved Endwar. The only reason I haven't finished it is because capturing the capital territories takes far too long. The storyline was simply amazing for a strategy, and the conquest-style gaming was flawless. The only real fault I had with the game was the simplicity of unit types... five squad types is not much, especially when half of them are only efficient against one other unit type.

I would love to see another endwar book never played the game.

LH Justin wrote:God that was a horrible game, why would you want a second?

Understatement of the century.

I loved it.

The voice-feature was really cool, but without that I think most would agree it's a pretty poor game - which imo is a pretty bad thing.

If it's creation launched a new wave of voice commands in games that would be great... but it didn't. So meh.

Overall I'd say its main flaw was its simplicity. Rock, paper, sizzors. (and i know most rts use this system, but that's ALL endwar had. Also WMDs pissed me off massively)

I didn't actually use the voice commands, was actually faster to use the controlled to switch between units and do stuff like that, since voice commands didn't usually work. (no, I don't have an accent, I'm Canadian, and my family came to Canada a few generations ago)

I like the game. I like it very much.

Cheese wrote:The voice-feature was really cool, but without that I think most would agree it's a pretty poor game - which imo is a pretty bad thing.

If it's creation launched a new wave of voice commands in games that would be great... but it didn't. So meh.

Overall I'd say its main flaw was its simplicity. Rock, paper, sizzors. (and i know most rts use this system, but that's ALL endwar had. Also WMDs pissed me off massively)

Exactly...

Yeah I hated that cause everytime you would start to win they'd launch their nuke at you and kill any group of units they could and sometimes it was your whole army... that pissed me off all the time.

If they remade the game they would have to redo it majorly or I doubt it would sell very well.

Also the online is waaay flawed cause you can make your stuff better then everyone elses by upgrades and I almost never won a match against someone because of that fact.

seems you boys never really liked it...oh well i fuking love it! fuck my Fan Fic im writing is based on it

The voice command thing was a cool idea....I just felt like a fag saying all that stuff like "Alpha whatever move to.....Cant remember". And it was damn near impossible to play without the bloody voice command thing.

I would like to see an Endwar 2 mainly because I think that the developers will fix all the bad shit with the first game (which I hated).

still not liking it

The rock paper scissors would have been better with two more thrown in.

[quote="JB"]Yeah I hated that cause everytime you would start to win they'd launch their nuke at you and kill any group of units they could and sometimes it was your whole army... that pissed me off all the time.

If they remade the game they would have to redo it majorly or I doubt it would sell very well.

Also the online is waaay flawed cause you can make your stuff better then everyone elses by upgrades and I almost never won a match against someone because of that fact.[/quote]

Obviously when you go into defcom dont group your units
you know the game has a little more in def strategy than some of you clame

Endwar was alright. I wouldnt say it was awful, but I wont say it was decent either. The voice commands were really the best part. The storyline was excellent, and the conquest style to the campaign was great. the real downside was the simplicity of the game, and sometimes it wont take your commands, which is fucking annoying when your trying to get your men out of a losing firefight.

I thought End War was pretty good. The voice commands were absolutely horrible, I say retreat, they advance. I say WMD Lima, they WMD Bravo, I say attack, they garrison. It made more sense to just get in a party with friends to coordinate, and control units manually.

I don't think End War was really a an RTS, it seemed more like Real Time Tactics. The Rock-Paper-Scissors was interesting, but more diversity needed to be added in, as has been said before.

The game was actually very tactical... most people focus too much on bumrushing though...

Ringleader wrote:Is that the one where you could talk to the game? No thanks, I beta tested that wreck

As did I. I wouldn't say it was wreck, but obviously it didn't hold up to the hype it was getting.

socom427 wrote:its much better than you think
well the final version is

I've played that as well, there wasn't much of a difference. Also, how can you tell someone, "its much better than you think" when they have already stated their opinion on the game?

LH Justin wrote:God that was a horrible game, why would you want a second?

I would say because it had some alright concepts and a good storyline. It didn't measure up to the hype, but IMO they are still in acceptable grounds for a sequel.

Gauz wrote:Horrible

It fails as a RTS in every way.

While I wouldn't say that, it was certainly lacking and below average.

Gauz wrote:No, I ment it. They tried to make a RTS, but they took away almost all components of the RTS.

No, they tried to revolutionize RTS. It was a failed attempt sure, but they were trying to make it different than every RTS before it, which they did successfully.

socom427 wrote:its a matter of how you play your games
i love the voice commands and being at eye level with my troops
plus the details are spectacular
beets the hell out of most RTS graphics forthe consoles

I like being at eye level with my troops, but that must be part of a zoom feature, since I need the birds eye view to grasp the fray. A little overhead minimap doesn't do it for me, I actually want to see the fighting from that perspective. It would have made the game far better.

Of course the graphics are better than every console RTS before it, but name them. C&C3, C&C Kanes wrath...

Those really are not the best looking games on the market, and neither is EndWar. The engine on EndWar is also not any more powerful, since unlike most RTSs it doesn't have a whole lot to render due to the soldier's view.

Zaki90 wrote:

socom427 wrote:lol
are you bad at english? lol

No...

You have say it calmly. I get really into rts games. I start yelling if something bad is about to happen.

its a matter of how you play your games
i love the voice commands and being at eye level with my troops
plus the details are spectacular
beets the hell out of most RTS graphics forthe consoles

Play Company of Heroes. That is the best RTS I have ever played.

Console rtses mostly suck or are too easy and simple. I am a RTS for the PC.

While I would have to say that Rome and Medieval 2 Total War are far better, I would also ask socom what PC RTSs has he actually played. I think if he tried some out he would find much better ones.

Gauz wrote:Voice command is a reason why it sucks.

I disagree. It sucked because it was far too simplistic and shallow. The controls (meaning voice command) added nothing to the game. While it didn't take anything away, there was so much emphasis on it the gameplay felt like an afterthought, just like Halo Wars.

socom427 wrote:this is frickin pointless because only me and you are debating!

Not anymore.

CivBase wrote:I actually loved Endwar. The only reason I haven't finished it is because capturing the capital territories takes far too long. The storyline was simply amazing for a strategy, and the conquest-style gaming was flawless. The only real fault I had with the game was the simplicity of unit types... five squad types is not much, especially when half of them are only efficient against one other unit type.

I would say there are many more flaws in the game than you seem to recognize. There were parts of the game that were decent, even fun. Everything else though seemed almost ignored by the makers.

Cheese wrote:The voice-feature was really cool, but without that I think most would agree it's a pretty poor game - which imo is a pretty bad thing.

If it's creation launched a new wave of voice commands in games that would be great... but it didn't. So meh.

Overall I'd say its main flaw was its simplicity. Rock, paper, sizzors. (and i know most rts use this system, but that's ALL endwar had. Also WMDs pissed me off massively)

I don't think the voice commands really added to the game. It would have played much better if they made the gameplay slightly more conventional.

Elabajaba wrote:I didn't actually use the voice commands, was actually faster to use the controlled to switch between units and do stuff like that, since voice commands didn't usually work. (no, I don't have an accent, I'm Canadian, and my family came to Canada a few generations ago)

Mine worked consistently to the point where the occasional error wasn't really a problem, but again I must say it didn't add much to the game and it would have been better with a birds eye view camera and normal controls.

dude, i play RTS on the comp too, and how can you say even halowars stands up to endwars graphics?

socom427 wrote:dude, i play RTS on the comp too

Like?

socom427 wrote:
how can you say even halowars stands up to endwars graphics?

Where did I say that?

I seem to recall stating that the only console RTSs on the market are some of the worst looking RTS games this generation. Basically, it isn't very impressive if something beats them.

My other point is that while the graphics are better, EndWar only has to render what the soldier sees, like an FPS. Other RTS games on the market have to render everything at the same time because of the bird'd eye view, which is why most are much less graphically impressive than an FPS. So technically speaking EndWar's graphics are pretty much on par with C&C3.

Like the Wii, Endwar shouldn't of focused on one gimmick and should had worked on the actual main product first.