Xero wrote on Jun 17, 2013, 15:33:
Yeah but you get all those interactions in the RTS of Warcraft 3, BUT you have to deal with microing your "expendable" units as well while you keep your base in production at the same time. Watching the elite players do all this while keeping a direct control on their hero (or 3 at a time for that matter), was mind boggling skill.

Controlling 1 hero and not having to worry about much else aside from your team work which in multi-player games in WC3 it was the same, just seems like a simplified version of Wc3.

Beamer wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 10:44:
Screw editor. It needed to be random. Enemy placement needed to be random and roving rather than 3 guys in the same places, sitting there until discovered, and occasionally teleporting in front of you. And it needed to stop showing that damn in-engine cinematic every single time you come across 3 new enemies. Every time. Every damn time!

Krovven wrote on Apr 24, 2013, 12:02:
You give an example in your previous post. When you come across a group of enemies, they would get to displace, even though it was your turn and not the Ai's turn, rendering your unit placement and tactics almost pointless. Regardless what you would do, most situations you couldn't get the drop on the enemy because of this.

It also seemed like it was predetermined at the start of a mission whether your units would miss the majority of their attacks, or hit the majority, regardless of percentages.

Having been playing a lot of Civ5 and Warlock lately, understanding those mechanics and outcomes being predictable based on what I did, I found XCOM very unpredictable regardless of my tactics.

eRe4s3r wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 00:07:
You know what I just randomly noticed because I am replaying it (don't laugh..). Torment may have a great story, but can it be that they ran out of time? Some of the characters you meet are severely under-developed. Pharod and Annah for example. Especially considering that there is even the remnant of a romance (Annah) in the game, but they never do anything with it.

El Pit wrote on Apr 6, 2013, 07:26:
storytelling IN WORDS instead of letting the player experience it. Sometimes it felt like reading a book instead of playing a game.

dj LiTh wrote on Apr 4, 2013, 06:31:
Well its not just him, i dont think its right thats Chris is on so many projects, especially when this is one of their kickstarter goals to add him to the team. They should say just how much of his schedule he'll even be able to attribute to the goal, because its certainly not like its full time.

Cyanotetyphas wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 17:28:
Enjoying HOTS but the update was pretty formal. Still see the same units, with the very notable exception of the terran spider mine.

I do like what they've added though. You still earn some points for your account on losses and the unranked means I can finally fuck around with Terran without pushing through the custom game format.

Still I wish it had been Frozen Throne level. 2 new units for each of 4 races, a crapload of new heroes and the shop and mercenaries mechanic. That was like a new game in mp.

Cutter wrote on Mar 23, 2013, 03:08:


You couldn't be any further off the mark. There are plenty of good companies out there.

Cutter wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 21:45:
There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that's why they chose this. Free my ass. Money is the one and only thing Actiblizz cares about.

Wallshadows wrote on Jan 23, 2013, 12:30:
"All new strategies" of rushing.

Ceribaen wrote on Dec 6, 2012, 10:09:
To me it's the fact it's 1/3 of a total game at a full game price.
I'll get SC2 when you have all three campaigns in a single purchase.

I really only played the single player campaign stories for SC, with the occasional MP games against friends I knew.

DG wrote on Nov 10, 2012, 06:36:
For a SP-only player, is SC2 worth buying? Never played SC, did enjoy some of the C&C games (the original, Red Alert & Generals).

Prez wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 18:54:
As for XCOM, in this X-COM fanatic's opinion the new one is well worthy of the name even if it is somewhat inferior to the original in some ways. It definitley warrants its apparent runaway success for sure. Too bad those turn-based games don't sell at all anymore...

***EDIT: on sales over the weekend.

Creston wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 14:21:
Everyone knew from day 1 that KotoR2 was going to come out for Christmas 2004. Every fan of the series knew it, every media outlet knew it, every retailer knew it, lucasarts knew it. So you can be fairly certain that Obsidian knew it too. They got too ambitious with a game that they only had 12-18 months to deliver, and a result it broke down horribly near the end.

Creston

Bhruic wrote on Oct 22, 2012, 01:18:

Acleacius wrote on Oct 21, 2012, 17:12:
The difference should be obvious, they are setting the time frame and budget for their own game, not a publisher. Every time, they've had to release a game early for a publisher and they've done an insane amount of work for a small budget.

We have straight from the horse's mouth that that's not true. Kotor 2 wasn't forced to be released early, they just underestimated the amount of time and effort it would take to release the game the way they envisioned it. It was Obsidian's screw-up. There's absolutely no reason to think that them setting their own schedule and budget ensures they won't have issues. Certainly they have more experience by this point, so I hope they won't have issues, but it's possible that a year and a half from now they might find they don't have enough money to fund development. And it won't be because of a publisher.