But an assault tank of BZ2 definitely didn’t weight more than the recycler of BZ1. I know I know, the information in the game said they were so heavy physics wouldn’t allow them to hover. I know it seems stupid but come on, in the 60's everything hovered, but in the 2000's we get slow, tracked vehicles. To me it seems like the graphics got better but the fictional technology got worse. Same with the tracked offensive units and the need to build adjacent to other buildings. To me, this seems backwards, like technology didn’t advance. You went from mobile, hovering production facilities to tracked and fixed facilities. On another note, the biggest strike for me personally against BZ2 was how the units seemed to "de-evolve". I also enjoy the unit balance better in BZ1, especially since 1.5 made it out. Recently, I have been really liking the "no barracks" option in BZ1 multiplayer because you really have to think and plan, and you have to protect everything because chances are once something is killed, you won’t get the pilot back. In BZ1 you can also still win if you recovered fewer resources but yet are a better strategist. I am no intellectual by any means but being limited on BZ1 in units and resources makes you think more and challenges you more. BZ2's race to the unlimited resources and the "how fast can you build ♥♥♥♥" was fun but required less thinking. For a lot of reasons Seqan listed, I like BZ1 better. I bought it the day it came out and played in at a computer woefully underpowered for it for a short time. This slanted my view of BZ2 somewhat from the beginning. The BZ1 single player story is MUCH better, and BZ2 did not build off of it. The game has a much higher strategic skill factor than most APM (actions per minute) based RTSes.Īlso. By the time you have 10 offensive units, you can bet your opponent does too. It's not a brute force RTS that you win by gathering the most resources the fastest then overwhelming your opponent with whatever you want. The limitations and slower nature of the game allow me to strategize how I want to. In my opinion, BZ1 is the better game for one huge reason. One person on the team does the base building and unit control, while the rest are "elite troops" for lack of a better description. In other words, you can have 2+ players for one recycler. Furthermore, and a lot of people like this, BZ2 has integrated co-op options. Etc.īZ2 also has a much more powerful game engine that allows it to do things like have morphing ships and teleportation. You can reprogram your constructions facilities to arm your vehicles differently. That being said, there are some other micro-management aspects BZ2 has that BZ1 does not. Not as much micro-strategy is necessary because BZ2 does not have the same limitations as BZ1. The trick is to get control of the places you can collect it as quickly as possible to build up your army as quickly as possible to overwhelm the enemy, and yes, overwhelm. Meanwhile, BZ 2 is more about getting as much of the infinite resources as you can as quickly as possible, hence my statement of a stronger RTS element. The scrap throughout each map is extremely limited and you have to fight for control of it if you want to get an edge. You are limited right out of the gate by a unit cap of 10 per category. BZ1 is substantially more true to the playstyle that was intended by Activision for Battlezone, while BZ2 has a much stronger RTS element to it that kind of swings the balance back towards games like SC2 and Age of Empires.īattlezone 1 is played and intended to be played with limits. That being said, I'll do my best to give you an objective answer.īoth BZ1 and 2 have their merits. This thread is going to get wildly out of control. You have just opened the BIGGEST can of worms in BZ history.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |