i guess putting both genres in one game is pretty hard to do. i think the rts half of it as it is now is prob more suited to ppl that come from an RPG background with very little rts background rather than a person with a full on rts background. this is based off what ive read in other posts. i havent got the game but I (coming from an RPG bg) think that the more easier it is to control a general without all the micro-management but control of what i do/where i place minions is good enough for me. As long as the characters are all well balanced, whether it be general or assassin im happy.

I just believe that generals shoould be able to do anything on their own. their skills shoudl be minion related .

Its not an rts. Its supposed to feel like general are have more of an rts element while assasins have more of a rpg element.

Yup, at the moment there are few rts elements in the game. The minions are largely automated following the demigod around, you can easily select all to attack a demigod if it appears, They are also too weak to survive on their own. Heroes with pets, excellent summary.

I never played Dungeon Seige but I played alot of diablo2.  It does feel like playing Diablo2 pvp.  Although I find the user interface in diablo2 easier to use, maybe I'm used to it.

For example, using torch b. reminds me alot about the sorc in d2.  The same blizzard spell, similar ice/fireball spell.

The demigods feels like they move alot slower than than the diablo2 chars.  I never had much of a camera issue with d2, I constantly have to move the camera around in demigod.  I can tell where I am and who are the enemies even when the whole screen is filled with monsters.   Demigod is harder to tell, maybe I'll get used to it after awhile. 

At the moment this game is not as complicated or as interesting as either an RPG or an RTS.

It has potential, but it's genre bending at the expense of being a bit bland.  You can't really call it an RTS due to lack of strategic depth and micro but you can't really call it an RPG because of shallow character building and no real storyline in gameplay (you don't do quests and there aren't any persistent characters with real personality etc). 

The game has potential, but it hasn't really successfully copied the powerful DotA formula and doesn't have much new stuff for the equation to make up for it.

I completely disagree.  True, WC3 is not a pure RTS, but it still has the feel of an RTS, as its interface allows for management of individual troops.  This is simply impossible with DG's interface

As others have rightfully stated, DG's gameplay is extremely RPG heavy right now.  Generals are merely Assasins with uncontrolable pets.  You cannot at all tactically position your troops; you just summon them and let them do their thing while they follow you.  All you do is control your own abilities and move around while your minions follow you in a random disorganized cloud.

Yes, you could command your entire disorganized pet cloud to move elsewhere on the map, but your minions are so weak compared to you that there is little reason have them attack anything without your direct support.

I understand completely that this is beta.  However, I and the other DG beta players are serious when we say that the interface must be changed to allow for a tactical RTS feel for generals.  Otherwise, the game is only half of what was promised and only half of what it can potentially be.  Please don't let this happen.

There is nothing RTT about this game, since there are no tactics involved with your minion units.  As I said, at most you can position your disorganized minion cloud independantly of your demigod on the map, but that's it.  There is no interaction with the environment, there are no battle formations, there is no degree of autonomy of your units, etc.

The only way it at all resmbles an RTT is that there is no base building and a relatively small number of units.  Aside from that, there is nothing "tactical" about this game in the RTT sense.

. or ., pick one

Minimal environment interaction, lack of formations, and passive units aside, this game far better fits in a "tactical" genre than a "strategy" genre, both from standpoint of previous games in the category and from military definitions of the words.  

There are larger strategic considerations involving team builds and plans as well as resource allocation but at a high enough skill level this game is decided on a tactical level, Demigod to Demigod, imo. 

This game doesn't resemble an RTS I believe it doesn't resemble anything. I would love it if it was more of an RTS because that is what sold me.

Now wait a second, you're all talking as if this is a bad thing. I, personally, think it's great. The fact that Demigod is really a whole new genre, it's amazing. It just bug bugs me about how they keep saying it's an RTS, which it's not.

Actually, what I really would like to see this topic turn into is not a discussion about which it is, but a discussion about what it is. Right now there are a lot of good games coming out, most of which I'll pick up at some time. From Dawn of War 2 to empire total war, to prospects of Bioshock 2 and Starcraft 2. I think they will all be great games, and I'll enjoy them, but they’re all the old genres, which isn’t bad. Still, why can't we have a new genre, cause come on, is that it, have we created the perfect genres, the perfect games. I, for one, think not. What I think is that Demigod should be the first of a new genre, one that we as Beta testers can create. I'm not sure on what we should call it, but I say, why don't we try, it's true Demigod is not what we excepted, but personally, I think it's turning out better than I had imagined, so why don’t we at least try creating a whole new genre of games?

Well I think it should have a new name, the genre, one that not only describes it, but one day opens the door to more games like it, so, I looked up things that sounded like things that would describe this game. The first thing I thought was heros, because that is how Warcraft 3 described them, not to mention if you go here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hero the definition of hero actually includes Demigod. So why don't we say it's something like a HBSG or a Hero Based Stratagy Game, because basically, thats what it is. It includes all the controls of the classic hero units (which it's also centered around those heroes) from games, includes the basic stratagy in how you play, and is of course, a game. But I wan't to here some ideas from you guys too.

No, I agree, games can get dangerously mixed if to many things are put in, and for the most part things will either go wrong, or they don't turn out as well as they should have. What I'm saying here is that the more I look at it the more it seems less and less like it should be in either of the genres. My point is, right now they aren't mixing. At first thats what it felt like. But now Demigod is something completely diffrent. The only game I can think of that even comes close to mirring it is DOTA from Warcraft 3. Even then there are many diffrences.

The Fact is, what I see is a new genre, not a mixed one, and maybe I'm alone in seeing more, but I think it would be cool, if Demigod isn't just a great game, but one that sets precedents for a whole new style of game, one that we've glimpsed before in DOTA, or Dungien Siege, but one that is only truley being outright defined for the first time here. And how much better would marketing be. It's true if you took off the RTS or RPG labels, in some cases it might not sell as well, but if you can label Demigod as the first of something brand new, I think you can pull in so many more, not only all the fans of computer games, but gamers who might be tired with the huge number of games coming out in the RTS or RPG genre. It's true new isn't always better, but from playing Demigod, in this case, it's amazing. And so I think it's only apropriet that this new game pushes on a new idea, a new genre.