Universe at War: Earth Assault

Figured some of you might have played this because:
A) It's most similar to StarCraft (3 asymmetrical races).
B) Has a fantastic soundtrack.

First off, the interface is atrocious, and really makes me value what Blizzard has done with the SC2 engine. However, the story was semi-decent. My thoughts [Spoilers]:

1) Orlok getting betrayed was a nice twist. You don't see this kind of stuff in Blizzard's games anymore, and while I suspected he would fail, I still thought it was awesome. Orlok was basically the Fenix of this game, he's likeable and lives in a cybernetic exoskeleton.
2) Kamal getting sent to heaven inside of his own head was kind of a crap ending, but still unique enough to not be cliche.
3) Speaking of cliches, the entire story was almost nothing but sci-fi tropes & cliches.
4) Humans being portrayed as the insignificant worms that they are, not even powerful enough to be their own faction, got a thumbs up from me.
5) The Novus are some sort of twisted Japanese offspring between Protoss and Gundams. However, the Founder was a badass, and so was the idea of using the last genetics of his creator race to make a clone. And then putting that clone in the most powerful exoskeleton they have.
6) Nufai deserved a better death than randomly getting killed by the player. Someone should have at least said something. One line of dialog.
7) The battles in this game take five minutes because everything moves so damn slow and has so much HP. Christ, that was an annoying RTS experience. At least I got the chance to macro though. Masari is probably the macro race, everyone else has a bunch of useless abilities that you have to memorize.
8) The Novus warp conduit thingy was actually pretty sweet. I can see the protoss having a mechanic like this in SC, though I imagine it would be OP.
9) Overall I rate the story (6/10), higher than SC2's trilogy so far (4/10). It's definitely minimalistic and barebones, which is my favorite.

I remember this one (not that it was that long ago).

I kept getting frustrated with the very tight and restricted camera angle and the sticky Command&Conquer-like controls.

As for the universe itself, I loved the Hierarchy and Novus. The game universe would've been complete with just those two alone. They were each very unique (I lliked the concept of the Novus the most) and one could tell they put some serious thought into them. The Masari on the other hand... well, there's only so much you can do with "ancient humans using magitech". They were the last race to be revealed (translation: the last to be developed) which shows in their more "traditional" gameplay and comparatively less compelling nature/background/characters.

While actual humans are supposedly portrayed in the universe as being weak (that opening cinematic is hella cool), it kinda gets undermined by the fact that they are tied somehow to the Masari, who seem to be our benefactors and "gods" in ancient past. There's an implication that humans maybe related to the Vasari - they look human because we look like them not the other way around.

As for the lame ending, I believe the creators were envisioning/hoping for a trilogy or something.

Nufai deserved a better death than randomly getting killed by the player. Someone should have at least said something. One line of dialog.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

As for the universe itself, I loved the Hierarchy and Novus. The game universe would've been complete with just those two alone. They were each very unique (I lliked the concept of the Novus the most) and one could tell they put some serious thought into them.

---

Agreed, they were awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

The Masari on the other hand... well, there's only so much you can do with "ancient humans using magitech". They were the last race to be revealed (translation: the last to be developed) which shows in their more "traditional" gameplay and comparatively less compelling nature/background/characters.

---

This showed in the campaign as well, with their global play mode that only appeared at the end. Just seemed like a lazy way to give us filler missions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turalyon

As for the lame ending, I believe the creators were envisioning/hoping for a trilogy or something.

---

It's a shame, I'd have bought it. Too bad it didn't sell too well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Nufai deserved a better death than randomly getting killed by the player. Someone should have at least said something. One line of dialog.

---

I believe this was left ambiguous. You can "kill him" during the mission, but you do that countless times to the other "heroes" you face in missions as well without longlasting effect. There wasn't a cinematic death scene for him, so it's quite possible he managed to sneak away to fight another day.

If there was a sequel, the Hierarchy would be an interesting mix of brute force (which was all they realy were in the first installment - which was a good thing in itself mind you) and sneaky/underhandedness if Nufai got away and ended up taking over (promotion by default) as underseer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gradius

Just seemed like a lazy way to give us filler missions.

---

Yeah, it kind of also robbed us of chance of looking at the Masari heroes in any great deal. Charos looked like a pretty boss character with potential but there was hardly anything on him. Instead we get all the focus on this weeny Zessus guy.

I have it installed, just like almost every other strategy game known to man, but I keep getting into others RTS (Age of Empires, Sins of a Solar Empire, Dawn of War, etc. etc.) instead of trying this.

Although, again, I have not played this campaign, one thing I have learned from playing about 30 RTS campaigns since SC2's release is that, as problematic and disappointing as the series is for us long-time fans, it's still a gem in terms of usual RTS stories which are almost always atrocious. Although they may be more tolerable given their minimalistic, out-of-the-way approach.

^ You're not missing out much in terms of "story". The concepts/design behind the 3 sides and how they are presented in the game is way more compelling than what the characters actually say or do throughout the story itself.

I also found this out to be true for a game called Battle Realms. I loved how each and every unit had an explanation for being there, the history leading up to the current conflict between the clans and how it played (I remember how difficult it was, too). The main story within the game wasn't too bad it retrospect but in paled in comparison to the fluff that built up the universe.

That just about sums of my experience with a lot of RTS. A lot of effort is put into creating an interesting blurb for the back of the box and preview trailers, but then the implementation of the story is mediocre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

That just about sums of my experience with a lot of RTS. A lot of effort is put into creating an interesting blurb for the back of the box and preview trailers, but then the implementation of the story is mediocre.

---

The story for UAW was meant to be simple and cliché-filled, even more coming from the Westwood folks whom got laid off by EA when it bought the company. But one I agree is that it's twice better than what Blizzard laid out so far, with the overbloated cheesy dialogue, cliché-typical scenes and forgettable connections that stained what Brood War shined at years ago.

Starcraft II's only shine, so far, was that because it was meant to be an eSport, and nothing more. If it were up to Blizzard, they'd never had set up a story, but peer pressure would crank down on them for concerning only with multiplayer and nothing else.

Quote:

---

But one I agree is that it's twice better than what Blizzard laid out so far

---

I HIGHLY doubt that. $10,000 says when I finally play this campaign, I see you're full of shit and letting emotions and expectations cloud your judgment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheEconomist

That just about sums of my experience with a lot of RTS. A lot of effort is put into creating an interesting blurb for the back of the box and preview trailers, but then the implementation of the story is mediocre.

---

Yeah, it's usually the implementation of the story in the game itself that's at fault - the implementation of the actual backstories and universe leading into the game (god how I miss manuals) are usually pretty solid.

I find that RTS games with good "stories" are often not strongly plot driven at all and/or a little unconventional from the usual RTS stories we come across (some good but old examples include Homeworld, Sacrifice, Earth 2150 and World in Conflict).

The one thing that UAW has over Sc2 in terms of story is that UAW is more consistent in it's tone and never seeks to be anything more than a cliche-filled sci-fi yarn with cool stuff happening. In other words, the stuff in UAW seems to be more appropriate and what you'd expect from the game, whereas Sc2 wants you to take it seriously but it never gives us any reason to do so.