Recently I've played 2 real-time strategy games. Though both were good, neither was without its faults.

Warcraft 3 is one of the big games in recent time, receiving a lot of hype and good press. And not without reason. The graphics are great, the move to a 3D engine went off without a hitch, and the different races seem quite balanced. Some people call it "StarCraft with Orcs", though of course they're forgetting that StarCraft was originally known as "Orcs in space". The single-player campaign was great, with a very involved storyline that not only made sense, it let you experience all four races in a logical progression. Though the majority of cut scenes used the standard game engine, there were a handful of beautiful pre-rendered cinematics that Blizzard has become known for. My only problem with WC3 is the extreme focus on Heroes in multiplayer games. Proper management of heroes is the deciding factor in MP games, and the problem is exacerbated when you play against the computer. Warcraft 3 lets you pick any AI difficulty setting.... as long as it's Impossible. While you've managed to get your hero to level 4, here comes the computer army, led by its two level 8 heroes, and you don't stand a chance. Building the game around the hero in my mind diminishes the rest of the game. I'm hoping that in the future they release a patch that: makes a "no hero" option when starting a game; gives an adjustable computer difficulty.

Emperor: Battle for Dune was the other RTS I recently finished. Not as good as Warcraft 3, it's still a fairly well game. It just has a number of what I consider to be game design flaws. Too many bulky and slow-turning units often turn fleet management into an exercise in frustration. Individual unit AI is pretty poor... for example, a unit on guard mode is supposed to attack enemies that come within a particular distance. However, enemies that attack it from beyond that distance with long-range weapons will simply be ignored. Move and attack orders are often "approximated" by a unit if it can't reach the exact spot you wanted, and the locations chosen often aren't the nearest alternatives. There's no way to order a unit to move to a spot, but attack any enemies encountered along the way. So when you have an army on the go, you have to babysit it the whole way, lest they come under attack as they move and never respond. This even goes for the many units that can attack in different directions than they're facing.

A long time ago, Westwood and Blizzard were the major competitors in the field of RTS games. In my opinion, Westwood used to be the clear winner. But over the years, lack of innovation and helpful in-game functionality led to Westwood's slipping from the top. Blizzard was more than happy to take the title as King of the RTS. Maybe with C&C Generals, Westwood will prove it still have what it takes to advance the RTS genre that it pretty much created. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.