Well, it's been a while since we've had much of anything to review...games
of Quake 3 and Cue Club have been the things keeping us alive
during this drought of games (in Topher's case, beer has been
keeping him alive). But today we come right back with a review
of the 2nd Star Trek RTS to be released this year. The hits and
misses of the ST license over the years has disappointed many
seeing as the misses have been so much larger in number by general
consensus. So, it pains me to admit that this game by my calculations
falls in the category of those ST titles that should be disregarded
as failed attempts. And there are several reasons for this...
might see a lot of similar things to Force Commander in
this game, and Dark Reign 2 and Dogs of War...and well...every
other sub-par 3D RTS clone out there."
Yeah, i was one of those who thought Armada was coooool. But you
couldn't use 3D a lot in it the way the 2D interface was arranged.
Still solid though. But now you got a game where the entire thing
is 3D and i am still stuck saying that you can't use 3D a lot
in it- this time because the camera is just soooo bad. There are
way too many buttons to use for the camera and they were the wrong
ones-that is the first thing i noticed about this game and that's
a bad first impression to make i think. Keep it simple. But the
story is this, you play either as the Klingons, Federation or
Romulans in a single player campaign. The campaign revolves around
the initial movie in the game that shows an experiment gone wrong
on the part of the Romulans in the neutral zone that spawns a
whole series of new planets-new worlds! wow... All 3 factions
race to get the new resources that the planets provide. It's as
simple as that.
enough, you might see a lot of similar things to Force Commander
in this game...and Dark Reign 2 and Dogs of War...and well...every
other sub-par 3D RTS clone out there. It's sad, but RTSs have
been killed this year to large extent with the 3d revolution coming
about in the genre. But where 3D helped some of the earlier RTSs
that attempted it, it doesn't help the new uninspired games like
this one. Now, some of you may say 'Hey, Dark Reign 2 was good'
or 'Dogs of War was good'-and that's your opinion-but you can't
say that they have done anything new, flawless or outstanding
in any way.
i have to agree. This game was a lot like those you mentioned
and the graphics were pretty borderline as well. I mean, from
a distance, they look ok, but, the way the units travel and all
looks pretty bad. The control of the camera, again should be so
important to a game like this and with the controls being what
they were, it was disappointing. Also, the units and structures
representing each side just didn't seem 'star trek' enough. They
were OK, but not exactly what you saw when you did get those shots
of planetary life on say Romulus or Vulcan on the shows. And with
those silly limiting platforms you are forced to build on, you
aren't given much ability to let your base grow.
Also, there are little options in the game save those used for
changing the resolution (no details, lighting or other controls)
and volume. Plus, i couldn't find a skirmish mode could you? Only
online multiplay and the single player campaigns didn't even appear
to support save game functions of any sort. But the camera, my
god, you thought the camera is DR 2 and Force Commander was bad:
The New Worlds cam needs 19 keys (mouse buttons included in this
number) that we just found playing through the tutorial alone...a
tad insane. Makes me thankful now for cameras like Dark Reign
2...their camera was FAR from perfect, but New Worlds has topped
it big time. Didn't think that was possible.
thought the camera in DR2 and Fo. Comm. was bad: The New
Worlds cam needs 19 keys that we found just through the
Oh i know...the camera was bad. All those ridiculous modes, 'sky
view', '1st person view' etc. Who needs that? I know you've said
this in one of your other reviews (if i'm wrong, i know you've
said it to me personally) that a game like Earth 2150 and Homeworld
gave the player the best camera control with like, 2 buttons in
Earth 2150. As i said before, keep it simple. One thing i did
like about the game though was the soundtrack-it keeps with the
star trek theme and it is just great to chill to. The graphics
for the game were below standards though..they were OK Not terrible,
but, this game is essentially what Force Commander was to the
Star Wars game series. I can't say much more to make my point.
Hey, yeah the soundtrack was awesome-that i'll admit, but it's
true...the graphics aren't what they should have been. The lighting
effects again are nice, as seen in so many new RTSs, but that's
about all the beauty you get besides the environments which have
been made very nicely though as well. I was impressed with those.
The units and structures simply didn't match the quality of a
lot of the terrain though. Another inevitable Dark Reign 2 comparison-although
Dark Reign 2 didn't totally 'wow' me with it's structure graphics,
they were far more pleasing to the eye than those found
here in New Worlds which says something.
Yeah, it says New Worlds is really just an OK looking game at
very best if i am not mistaken...hehe. But here is the key point...where
a game like Submarine Titans was a solid RTS right down to its
elements, New Worlds is nowhere like that. That is the real problem...and
it's a problem that will rear its spooky head again when Red Alert
2 is released and probably schools a few of these RTSs on what
it means to have a complete RTS from head to toe with or without
the 3D. And plus...Kari Wurher...mmm...*drool* sorry. Anyway,
umm...yeah! One more positive though if i may, the cut scenes
still have that great quality to them though and at least that
didn't disappoint me. The movie sequence at the beginning is probably
the most graphically intensive part of the game, and very well
cut scenes still have that great quality to them though...at
least that didn't disappoint..."
Well to really sum it up, to be able to play either as the different
factions didn't make much of a difference when it comes to gameplay.
The whole experience was just disappointing in general and the
game could hold its own a lot better if it even had a better camera
system. But besides that, this game offers nothing new whatsoever.
Nothing. There are so many recent RTS games that are superior
to this so i can't recommend this game in the least. And i mean,
in the LEAST. Ups and downs aside...ultimately, the gameplay just
feels boring. Funny thing is, a lot of these 3D RTSs like New
Worlds would have probably come up stronger had they been released
as little as a half a year earlier, but with the very strong entrance
of some of the other RTS players in the market, the niche for
games of this calibre has passed in my eyes. Same goes for Dogs
of War etc. etc.
I kinda disagree on how harsh you're being despite it being a
low-end game. I still kinda found it an interesting take on the
Star Trek Universe. Well thought out in how the game proceeds,
with changes in the storyline, but it just leaves something to
be desired in the graphics area and camera control. Won't give
it a smidgen more than 60 percent.
Well, i feel i have to mark it lower than a game like Ground Control
or DR2 because it is certainly worse, but its playability feels
a tad better than a game like Dogs of War...and yet, the camera...ugh...hmmm
tough decision. But i've said this before, if sub-par games like
this (and indeed it is sub-par) keep becoming accepted as the
norm, no one will learn, so i have to give the industry some tough
love tonight once again. The RTS genre has become a problem to
grade as of this year...the toughest genre to grade without a