Universe at War: Earth Assault - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 17th Feb 2008, 08:01

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/...arth_assault/1

Sierra started things with World in Conflict and Sega has now upped the ante with Universe at War. Conflict is a growth industry it seems. Is Sega's new RTS any good though, or has the ball been officially dropped? Let's find out...

Amon · 17th Feb 2008, 09:36

The review makes it seem okay. But, I'm not one for 'special abilities' as a quick ticket out of perseverance, and the whole everyone's-a-Protoss-esque-alien-race theme is unoriginal and difficult to wrap around my mind as far a believability is concerned.

But that "iPod" alien race sounds pretty cool

mikeuk2004 · 17th Feb 2008, 11:12

I dont agree with Joe's 7, should be alot higher than that. I didnt have any problem with the graphics, it looked amazing all the way through, and didnt notice any slow down and im running it on a AMD 3700 1GB ram and a ATI 1600Pro.

Im loving this game right now, well worth the money. The human race seems abit too weak and you start of with them until you meet one of the alien races who help you, then you take over from them.

It reminds me of the TA days because if your commander dies its over. Great game

lewchenko · 17th Feb 2008, 19:41

Hmmm.... This game has some really shocking problems.. These are the absolute deal breakers..

1. The zoom.

Its barely operational. I know the map sizes are a fraction of Supreme Commander's, but I think that SupCom (in Feb 07!) raised the bar as to what kind of zoom options an RTS should have. To release a game in 2008 without decent zoom out (so you can actually see what the terrain is 100 metres away) is a must have. Once you have played SupCom.. and go to this game.. you will wish for it like no other...

2. You need to use MS LIVE for PC to play ranked games. Thats a paid for version of LIVE as well. Custom games (multiplayer skirmish) are free, but to have to use MS LIVE GOLD accounts to rank yourself against other players is a JOKE.

3. Ive read on the petroglyph dev forums that the unit count is a max of 99 ! Is this for real ? Maybe Ive definitely been spoiled by SupCom... but C&C3 had more than that.

The points above mean that me and my other RTS buddies wont buy this game. (We are too into SupCom at the moment anyway... and this game falls WAY WAY short of delivering anything that could change our minds).

try harder next time petroglyph / sega.

mrb_no1 · 17th Feb 2008, 23:24

only scanned the artical, but from the pics it reeks of supcom, not impressed by the move to take the best rts imo (supcom / FA) and hash some graphical atrocity that is lacking in every way. hmmm, maybe the artical will reveal more but i just had to comment straight away,

peace

Bauul · 18th Feb 2008, 09:12

7 seems a little harsh when reading the article, you saying it's closer to 5/10 than 10/10? I was imagining an 8. Although then again the score may be accurate and the text is misleading, oh what to believe?

17th Feb 2008, 08:01	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	Universe at War: Earth Assault http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2008/...arth_assault/1 Sierra started things with World in Conflict and Sega has now upped the ante with Universe at War. Conflict is a growth industry it seems. Is Sega's new RTS any good though, or has the ball been officially dropped? Let's find out... __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

17th Feb 2008, 09:36	#2
Amon inch-perfect Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: cannoning into the reds, Toronto, Canada Posts: 2,456	The review makes it seem okay. But, I'm not one for 'special abilities' as a quick ticket out of perseverance, and the whole everyone's-a-Protoss-esque-alien-race theme is unoriginal and difficult to wrap around my mind as far a believability is concerned. But that "iPod" alien race sounds pretty cool __________________ Defunct Socket 939 San Diego 4000+::2GB PC3200::Radeon 9600 SE 128MB::200GB HDD::24" Dell 2407WFP-HC::WinXP x64/x86 dual boot Dell Vostro 1500 laptop::Socket P Merom T7100::2GB PC5400::Go 8600m GT 256MB::660GB HDD::15.4" WXGA+, 24" Dell 2407WFP-HC::WinXP::Fanatec 911 Wheel+Pedals

17th Feb 2008, 11:12	#3
mikeuk2004 What you Looking at Fool! Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sheffield, UK Posts: 3,049	I dont agree with Joe's 7, should be alot higher than that. I didnt have any problem with the graphics, it looked amazing all the way through, and didnt notice any slow down and im running it on a AMD 3700 1GB ram and a ATI 1600Pro. Im loving this game right now, well worth the money. The human race seems abit too weak and you start of with them until you meet one of the alien races who help you, then you take over from them. It reminds me of the TA days because if your commander dies its over. Great game __________________ -\|- Xfire - Mikeuk2005 -\|- Xbox Live - Mike UK 2006 -\|- Playstation Network - Mikeuk2004 -\|- Last edited by mikeuk2004; 17th Feb 2008 at 11:18.

17th Feb 2008, 23:24	#5
mrb_no1 Pie Eater Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Pyrford, England Posts: 365	only scanned the artical, but from the pics it reeks of supcom, not impressed by the move to take the best rts imo (supcom / FA) and hash some graphical atrocity that is lacking in every way. hmmm, maybe the artical will reveal more but i just had to comment straight away, peace __________________ Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3600Mhz ¦ Asus Maximus II Formula ¦ ATI Radeon 4890 (1000Mhz Core + 1200Mhz Mem OC) ¦ 2x2G Corsair Dom. PC 8500 @ 1080Mhz ¦ Aquacomputer WC ¦ Creative X-Fi Fatal1ty ¦ 150G Raptor, 2x1500 + 1x750 + 2x500 Seagate (SATA2) ¦ Pioneer DVD burner ¦ Lian Li - PC 73SL Aluminium Silent Server Case ¦ Dell 2007WFP 20" Widescreen ¦ Logitech Z-5500 5.1 Speakers ¦ Sennheiser HD270

18th Feb 2008, 09:12	#6
Bauul Sir Bongaminge Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Godalming, near Guildford Posts: 1,553	7 seems a little harsh when reading the article, you saying it's closer to 5/10 than 10/10? I was imagining an 8. Although then again the score may be accurate and the text is misleading, oh what to believe? __________________ Pentium 4 CPU 3.4 Ghz \| 1Gb + 2x512Mb Corsair DDR2 667 Mhz Sapphire Radeon HD 4770 512Mb\| WD Raptor 36Gb, Seagate 300Gb \| Asus P5LD2 SE Ibanez RG 470 Japanese Edition \| 1991 Japanese Lo-TRS Tremolo \| V7 S1 Custom V8 HSH Pickups

17th Feb 2008, 19:41	#4
lewchenko Supermodder Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 322	Hmmm.... This game has some really shocking problems.. These are the absolute deal breakers.. 1. The zoom. Its barely operational. I know the map sizes are a fraction of Supreme Commander's, but I think that SupCom (in Feb 07!) raised the bar as to what kind of zoom options an RTS should have. To release a game in 2008 without decent zoom out (so you can actually see what the terrain is 100 metres away) is a must have. Once you have played SupCom.. and go to this game.. you will wish for it like no other... 2. You need to use MS LIVE for PC to play ranked games. Thats a paid for version of LIVE as well. Custom games (multiplayer skirmish) are free, but to have to use MS LIVE GOLD accounts to rank yourself against other players is a JOKE. 3. Ive read on the petroglyph dev forums that the unit count is a max of 99 ! Is this for real ? Maybe Ive definitely been spoiled by SupCom... but C&C3 had more than that. The points above mean that me and my other RTS buddies wont buy this game. (We are too into SupCom at the moment anyway... and this game falls WAY WAY short of delivering anything that could change our minds). try harder next time petroglyph / sega.