Z
| Developer: The Bitmap Brothers | Graphics: |
 | |
| Publisher: Virgin Interactive Entertainment | Sound: |
| |
| Year: 1996* | Difficulty: |
 | |
| Genre: Real time strategy | Lastability: |
 | |
| Number of players: 1** | Rating: |
6/10 | |
(*) A PlayStation adaptation was released in 1997.
(**) Multiplayer “skirmish” mode for up to 4 players.
Every time I review a real time strategy game, I carefully avoid multiplayer, fearing a thrashing. I thought I’d be safe against the computer, but Z remarkably simulates the humiliation felt against trained human players, right down to the vocal taunts…
Originally, this game was meant to release on Amiga (the computer on which the studio built its reputation), but as the market declined, they chose to “convert” to PC (this partly explains the extended development time of nearly five years). Still, former Amiga owners will easily recognise the Bitmap Brothers’ square and metallic style, and not just visually. The slowness of units and command response time gave me the impression of directing a Megazord!
This game was released shortly after Command and Conquer and resembles it. However, the two games don’t have much in common. I’d describe Z as a pure strategy game (or pure tactics?). That’s not to say it’ll tie your brain in knots, but there are no other components. No exploration, no base building, no resource gathering. Straight to the point, like an arcade game.
Two armies of humanoid robots face off, red versus blue (couldn’t help myself). You start with a fort and some initial troops. The map features strategic points to capture (particularly factories, which automatically generate additional troops). The game’s objective is to destroy the enemy fort, which requires accumulating sufficient soldiers and tanks, directly dependent on the size of territory under your control.
I wondered if Z was the first video game based on capturing and defending strategic points. My first experience came much later with Unreal Tournament (1999). Later (in 2005), I roamed World of Warcraft’s battlefields (Arathi Basin and Alterac Valley). Other later examples would include Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War (2004) or Company of Heroes (2006). Today, the concept would resemble a Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA), popularized by DotA in 2013.
I finally found my answer. The genre’s first representative was Herzog Zwei (Sega Genesis, 1989/1990), the sequel to Herzog (MSX2, 1988), which is considered the first real time strategy game. How I love anachronistic tangents…
Another thing I quite like is the zany humour in Z. The intro recalls Spaceballs, Commander Zod obviously reminds one of the drill instructor from Full Metal Jacket, and the CGI scenes typical of the era seem inspired by Worms (PC version, 1995).
Even during gameplay, there are little cartoon-like animations similar to Cannon Fodder: wild creatures, spectacular explosions that project pieces into the air, not forgetting the video transmission with your soldiers, who react to each of your actions. The “lip” synchronisation is particularly well done. And similarly to Command and Conquer, a female voice provides live information about the battle, with the difference that she openly mocks you when you lose!
All these references create a strong first impression. Unfortunately, the game barely evolves. The objectives remain the same, and one realises that the CGI scenes, very few in number, are chosen randomly and replayed to the point of nausea. They don’t convey the same sense of progression as the briefings of Westwood’s cousin, for example.
And the other problem, at least for me, is the relentless difficulty. Knowledge of the terrain and reaction speed are paramount. You must rush for the flags (which represent structures to capture) right from the start; expand your territory as quickly as possible without stretching your forces too thin. The first seconds of the mission determine which side will occupy the most sectors and produce the most units. From there, a micro-advantage quickly intensifies, and it becomes almost impossible for the disadvantaged side to reverse the course of battle. You’ll find yourself restarting the mission tirelessly (“Ctrl +R”).
This frustration is somewhat compensated by the brevity of missions (5 to 10 minutes). I felt quite proud when I completed level 1 on my fourth attempt… Nevertheless, I found it odd that the game prevents us from freely examining the terrain at the start in pause mode. It’s inevitable to lose at least once on each new map, while identifying points to capture. Not very strategic in my opinion, at least against the computer.
I also found it strange that the game doesn’t let us save between missions, or provide passwords. However, it’s possible to access the current mission (and previous ones) from the main menu (“replay level” option). You can also save during missions across multiple slots (a shameful solution, but without which I wouldn’t have harboured the slightest hope of progress).
As mentioned above, the control feels somewhat rigid. You order movements in a general direction and your grunts start marching at a snail’s pace. They take the initiative to shoot at nearby enemies, capture buildings or vehicles, pick up grenades (to blow up walls), when they’re not getting stuck in the scenery… Additionally, it’s your choice, by clicking on your factories, which type of unit to produce (heavy tanks are much more durable than infantry but require more time).
With experience, some finer points emerge. For example, apparently good players can take down a tank using a simple jeep by aiming at the driver when he pokes his head out. You can thus recover “abandoned” enemy vehicles and assign them to different types of infantry, altering their behaviour or statistics. Other common tactics involve using the appropriate unit to neutralise specific enemy garrisons; knowing when to retreat to preserve forces before launching a counter-attack; or creating diversions, setting ambushes for isolated enemy units, preferably the most expensive ones to rebuild (war of attrition).
In conclusion, I find the game successful in its style, although it’s not mine. I’m far too slow and hesitant, and thus more inclined towards more scripted and forgiving games that let us organise a base at our own pace. Nevertheless, its simple but well-tuned concept (and more technical than it appears) has aged better than Command and Conquer’s. It’s clearly a title designed to be played with friends. So, take my rating with a pinch of salt, as it’s based solely on the single-player mode.
Guiguitte’s anecdotes … er sorry, wrong website.
- Another reason why the game took nearly five years to release: the lead programmer, Steve Tall, was poached mid-development by rival studio Westwood to participate in creating Command and Conquer. Furthermore, I read that Virgin Interactive had insisted on incorporating 3D scenes to justify the CD format, which extended the production period by several months.
- On a more sinister note, Z reportedly encountered notable success in Russia. I wonder why, this backward dictatorship, with its unhealthy fetishism for the 26th letter of the alphabet and inclination for launching tank turrets into orbit… Oh, I see.
The “automatic” version from Abandonware-France works perfectly for me (in 2024, on Windows 11). There’s also a Windows 95 version, enhanced with additional maps and a level editor, as well as difficulty and game speed sliders, which I haven’t tested.
A remaster is available on Steam and GOG, but it hasn’t been well-received (no multiplayer, apparently). If you want to buy it anyway, know that it’s regularly discounted by 90% (less than one euro). There’s also an amateur remake, designed for multiplayer, which I haven’t tried either: Zod Engine.
Finally, there’s a 3D sequel, Z: Steel Soldiers (PC, 2001). It didn’t achieve the same success as the first one.
|
