PDA

View Full Version : Ruse and Endwar



Winbyone
03-25-2009, 11:37 PM
Endwar, in my opinon is a true real time strategy. No resources, just open conflict and commanders using their brain to best each other in heated battle. I understand these are different studios and different games. However I know the studios are linked (though I don't know to what degree). I am wondering if what was done well with Endwar, i.e. intense combat, voice commands, truly tactical warfare, persistent battalions/units, and theater of war will be implemented in this game or is it just another RTS with a twist? I feel like, with the bugs removed, and the game polished, Endwar would have been the last RTS ever needed, is RUSE planning on implementing any of what made Endwar great?

P.S.- To any Devs reading please consider this; Endwar's single player was enjoyable but what keeps the people coming back is the war. The persistent online makes a good game with some great (voice) technology and cool ideas into a game I can't get out of my XboX.

Winbyone
03-25-2009, 11:37 PM
Endwar, in my opinon is a true real time strategy. No resources, just open conflict and commanders using their brain to best each other in heated battle. I understand these are different studios and different games. However I know the studios are linked (though I don't know to what degree). I am wondering if what was done well with Endwar, i.e. intense combat, voice commands, truly tactical warfare, persistent battalions/units, and theater of war will be implemented in this game or is it just another RTS with a twist? I feel like, with the bugs removed, and the game polished, Endwar would have been the last RTS ever needed, is RUSE planning on implementing any of what made Endwar great?

P.S.- To any Devs reading please consider this; Endwar's single player was enjoyable but what keeps the people coming back is the war. The persistent online makes a good game with some great (voice) technology and cool ideas into a game I can't get out of my XboX.

KZarr
03-26-2009, 12:58 AM
I don't think this will be anything like EW. The developers said the would be a new type of RTS.

Account_Deleted
03-26-2009, 06:00 AM
this will just be like a new EW;
because endwar introduced the voce commaned. ruse has bluffing

Winbyone
03-26-2009, 10:58 AM
It would be a mistake to let the lessons learned from Endwar to slip away. Endwar did a lot of things right and frankly this game will be nothing special without persistent online play. That's the trend with gaming if nobody has noticed. Why is Call of Duty such a big hit? Yes it has great multi and single player but its rank system and persistent stats are what keeps it at the top. Endwar lost popularity fast due to an unpolished game and uncorrected bugs. If this game, RUSE, can come off polished, with its idea for an RTS while still implementing persistent online play it will be truly ground breaking for console as well as PC.

ice_man2005
03-26-2009, 07:22 PM
I dont understand why everyone keeps comparing End War to RUSE. (I actually enjoy endwar) However, this game is being developed by Eugen Systems, (makers of Act of War). Eugen DID NOT develop End War, UbiSoft Shanghai did.

Due to this, I believe the games will be very different actually.

And on side note, I am tired (already, i know only been 1 day) of people comparing this game to End War, when the only similarity is the producer, who doesn't make any major decision on how the game is made.

p.k.c.
03-26-2009, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel like, with the bugs removed, and the game polished, Endwar would have been the last RTS ever needed, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hahahahahahahahahahha.

Inquisitor_Zeal
03-26-2009, 09:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ice_man2005:
I dont understand why everyone keeps comparing End War to RUSE. (I actually enjoy endwar) However, this game is being developed by Eugen Systems, (makers of Act of War). Eugen DID NOT develop End War, UbiSoft Shanghai did.

Due to this, I believe the games will be very different actually.

And on side note, I am tired (already, i know only been 1 day) of people comparing this game to End War, when the only similarity is the producer, who doesn't make any major decision on how the game is made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Were making the connection between the 2 because a few of us(who are constantly relating them) spent a hell of a lot of time over on the EW boards before it came out... Also if you have noticed, Ubi has been doing all the talking so far about this game, not Eugen, and im sure Ubi has some say in what is getting done.

Winbyone
03-26-2009, 11:10 PM
Yeah!What Zeal said! No but for reals, im comparing the two because they are both attempting to break ground with RTS and I think that one can learn from the other. I was making no connections between the studios as earlier noted (actually i said i didn't know how related they were eluding the the fact that it is irrelevant). So please keep comments on this thread along those lines, what could or should RUSE learn from the trail blazed by Endwar?

ice_man2005
03-27-2009, 07:39 PM
Game Producer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_producer)
Developer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_developer)

By doing the talking Ubi IS doing its job, marketing. True, they probaly have some say, however its like a book. The author does all the work for it, and publisher gets it out.

And comparing the two is like (to quote my flight instructor) "comparing apples to oranges." The two things are very different. They might fall into the same category but are very different things. It would be like comparing halo to ArmA. Due to this, there is very little RUSE can learn from end war (going by current game play information.) We do know that ruse has a economy and base building. The introduction of these things to the game GREATLY changes it, and would make the things in End War out of place. Except possibly the dynamic online campaign which could fit in nicely.

Winbyone
03-27-2009, 09:02 PM
Thats kinda were Ive been going Ice Man, the online play. I think the cover and voice systems experimented with in Endwar would fit nicely but I really think an online war could shine.

p.k.c.
03-30-2009, 07:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Winbyone:
Endwar, in my opinon is a true real time strategy. No resources, just open conflict and commanders using their brain to best each other in heated battle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would also like to point out that games without resources aren't strategy games, they're tactical games. so tis not a "true" RTS at all.

plus, endwar was about as deep as a puddle. if this game is anything like endwar it will suck.

Pieman13
03-30-2009, 09:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Winbyone
03-30-2009, 09:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p.k.c.:


i would also like to point out that games without resources aren't strategy games, they're tactical games. so tis not a "true" RTS at all.

plus, endwar was about as deep as a puddle. if this game is anything like endwar it will suck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, Tactics is the word I intended to use.

Plus, tactics are much deeper than puddles. Tactics force players to make decisive choices and adapt quickly to a rapidly unraveling situation. Strategy is to Tactics as I.Q. is to Common Sense. Its going to take a great deal, albeit balanced deal, of both to make a game of the scale work well.

Also what Endwar lacked in strategy it made up for intensity and brutality which is probably why you don't like it. (Few too many units get merced perhaps?) Its a good game and unless you gave it a fair try you should leave it alone, and if you did give it a fair try I think you are still just mourning your dead. (As I am as well, I lost 1 legendary, 2 elites, and 2 veterans in one match a couple hours ago. Starts to grind I understand.)

p.k.c.
03-30-2009, 09:52 PM
i play supreme commander. most other RTS' feel like puddles in comparison.

Winbyone
03-30-2009, 09:55 PM
Endwar isn't an RTS remember?

obliviondoll
03-31-2009, 07:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Winbyone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p.k.c.:


i would also like to point out that games without resources aren't strategy games, they're tactical games. so tis not a "true" RTS at all.

plus, endwar was about as deep as a puddle. if this game is anything like endwar it will suck. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, Tactics is the word I intended to use. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to say, but this is wrong. Tactics is small-scale unit control. Micro-management comes under tactics. Strategy is "big picture" unit control. Any medium- to large-scale military actions are strategy.

LOGISTICS is resource management and building whatever you have to build (regardless of whether you're creating the factories or just running them).

Endwar actually has logistics. A very light element, to be sure. But the fact that even when your battalion runs out of a unit type, you can call them in, means that you effectively have access to creating units in-game.

It isn't a tactical game, it's a strategy game, but it isn't a strategy AND LOGISTICS game like a typical RTS. And it's a comparatively small-scale strategy game at that. You don't order and directly manage the actions of the units on an individual basis though, so it is more strategy than tactics.

Most party-based RPGs are more like tactical games than Endwar. You're giving orders to a small squad on a one-to-one basis, not giving orders to a squad and watching them do your bidding.

Endwar = Strategy = telling a unit to hide in a building and they place themselves in various places around the building.

Police Quest: SWAT 2 = Tactics = placing each individual in an appropriate place in the building, and ensuring they're equipped with the best weapon for the job.

lolu12
03-31-2009, 08:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by obliviondoll:
Sorry to say, but this is wrong. Tactics is small-scale unit control. Micro-management comes under tactics. Strategy is "big picture" unit control. Any medium- to large-scale military actions are strategy.

LOGISTICS is resource management and building whatever you have to build (regardless of whether you're creating the factories or just running them).

Endwar actually has logistics. A very light element, to be sure. But the fact that even when your battalion runs out of a unit type, you can call them in, means that you effectively have access to creating units in-game.

It isn't a tactical game, it's a strategy game, but it isn't a strategy AND LOGISTICS game like a typical RTS. And it's a comparatively small-scale strategy game at that. You don't order and directly manage the actions of the units on an individual basis though, so it is more strategy than tactics.

Most party-based RPGs are more like tactical games than Endwar. You're giving orders to a small squad on a one-to-one basis, not giving orders to a squad and watching them do your bidding.

Endwar = Strategy = telling a unit to hide in a building and they place themselves in various places around the building.

Police Quest: SWAT 2 = Tactics = placing each individual in an appropriate place in the building, and ensuring they're equipped with the best weapon for the job. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


nah, sorry but you are wrong http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tactics can be individual unit control up to military divisions and above in a battle.

Strategy is end point planning and planning which battles you are going to fight in order to reach your goal (which would be winning the war).

RTS games are called RTS games cos they represent, in general, an entire war (fictional or not) in which you take control of individual battles.

In military terms think : Battle Tactics. War Strategy.

Tactics doesn't have to involve micro-management though.


I never played endwar though so I cant comment on that individual game - the voice command sounds good though.

Demps34
04-01-2009, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ice_man2005:
I dont understand why everyone keeps comparing End War to RUSE. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

go back and take a look at some early videos, particularly the video with the animated general giving orders on a table top

I think it is likely ubisoft wanted to break into the RTS/RTT with RUSE but it was too far off so they had the new office (Shanghi) "wet" the appetite of the consumers and start establishing a base of players by quickly developing Endwar.

Ubi announced Endwar failed, but I don't know if they really intended it to succeed. i mean why release when they did, have minimal advertising, and have it run from shanghai which was always away during the weekend when the servers inexplicably blew up (xbox, anyways)

obviously, there are some major differences between the two...world war II, deceptions, unit creation, doesn't appear to be a leveling system, yadda yadda ...but i think the idea was the same, this is what ubi wanted and envisioned for an RTS/RTT.

I'm going to keep and eye on it, and I'm sure I'll end up getting it, cause it looks fun and reminds me of Endwar (which as much as it aggravates me, I can not stop playing the stupid thing)

Gen._Big_John
04-02-2009, 04:53 PM
A game doesn't need resources in order to be a strategy game. If you want an example think of the game chess; no base building, no mining, and only six different types of pieces (units). Yet, by many, it's considered to be the greatest strategy game ever.

p.k.c.
04-02-2009, 08:17 PM
last time i checked chess wasn't a warfare computer game.

Mig-29
04-02-2009, 09:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p.k.c.:
last time i checked chess wasn't a warfare computer game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Gen._Big_John
04-03-2009, 11:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p.k.c.:
last time i checked chess wasn't a warfare computer game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When was the last time you checked, in 1950?

Skipper10
04-03-2009, 12:12 PM
Don't get me wrong here, EW is a fun game, but we don't know anything about RUSE except that it a new... IRISZOOM Engine? and lieing to defeat your opponent. Well- EW innovated by perfecting the voice command system, but RUSE has... binoculars?? Until we know more about RUSE, I think i'll rent it before i buy it.
(oh and by the way,i think that Gen._Big_John won that argument)

Nicorius
04-03-2009, 01:33 PM
I think ruse will be simialer to endwar in some respects.

But there will probably not be superweapons like in endwar.

If you had the Command vehicle in endwar I think ruse will be simialer to that where you get a top veiw of the map.


Since its coming out for ps3 and 360 I also beleive the controls will be very simialer.

joker562008
05-11-2009, 11:00 PM
i would also like to point out that games without resources aren't strategy games, they're tactical games. so tis not a "true" RTS at all.

plus, endwar was about as deep as a puddle. if this game is anything like endwar it will suck.[/QUOTE] p.k.c I had to log just to reply you are so right!!!! plus that last comment about endwar is so correct your awsome.