AngelicPenguin wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 15:05:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:31:

Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.

I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.

I always thought the same thing about the NBA. I want my team to play methodical defense and push the shot clock to the limit, so I think they should ban fast breaks and teams that like to run.

xXBatmanXx wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 09:55:

Controversial God of War: Ascension trophy altered in upcoming patch.

Rated M game, where you decapitate people, gods, etc., and they fold to "Bros before Hos".

LAME!

Silicon Avatar wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:41:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:31:

Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.

I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

Right, but what if I want to enjoy the game I paid for? What if I'd like to go up the tech tree and not have the game end in 10 minutes? I can do this just fine in every other RTS that is MP. Blizzard titles? Hell you're lucky if you don't have shit in your base 2 and a half minutes in.

You'll have to play with friends and agree not to rush.

That's the case with a lot of RTS though.

You can go to Youtube and memorize a few build lists that help vs. most people, but at that point you might as well be an AI since you're just following a script anyhow. That's how a lot of people play though.

To me that gets boring, so I probably won't bother with the expansion.

Flatline wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:40:
So how many days do you think it'll be before Blizzard patches the game for balance reasons to the point that they entirely undo the "balancing" that they've been doing for the last 2 years?

I never understood that with Starcraft. Yeah we'll sit on the f*cking game for 2+ years "polishing" it and "balancing" it, and in the first month we'll get more real-world feedback on balance than in our entire development cycle, rendering that 2 year wait pointless.

I wonder if it's just meant to build up hype, or if the devs really don't give a shit about shipping product in a timely manner.

Fati wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 14:24:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:20:
There's a difference between sending a scout or 2, and sending 15 starter troops all aimed directly at your resource gatherers. Sure sometimes I micro quick enough to counter it, but every game is just about the same unless playing with friends. It's the mentality of SC players apparently that every game needs to hurry up and end. At least that's been my experience with SC2.

I don't think RTS is for you. You need to learn how to defend early pressure. Once you realize that the players who pressure early put themselves at a significant economic disadvantage, you'll see that all you need to do is successfully defend, counter-attack and it's gg.

MattyC wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 13:06:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:42:
No I have, and every mp game boils down to who can base rush quickest. Hardly what I would call fun for a strategy game.

Most people are going to give you a poke pretty early but calling that 'base rush' is silly. They are just just getting a look at what you are doing and making sure you aren't getting away with risky play. If they can break you there, sure, they will, but there is no reason the game can't continue to a long macro game.

Most of my games are around 30-40 'Blizzard minutes' (they really need to change that - terrible idea). What level were you playing at?

MattyC wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:30:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 12:13:

m00t wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:20:

Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!

Or pulling the camera out in multiplayer gives you a huge advantage, but hey why let balance get in the way of your bashing.

lol balance in a blizzard RTS where 99.9% of the games played are over in under 10 minutes. Balance is the last thing I'd worry about in their RTS'es.

Based on your comments I am pretty sure you never actually played SC2.

m00t wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:20:

Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Adjustable camera in an RTS? That's so 2004 on! How dare you expect Blizzard to innovate rather than rehash the same 10 year+ old starcraft with a new subtag line? Heresy!

Or pulling the camera out in multiplayer gives you a huge advantage, but hey why let balance get in the way of your bashing.

Sempai wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 11:03:
Sure wish they'd allow me to move that damned camera out a little..

Verno wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 10:48:

Creston wrote on Mar 12, 2013, 10:39:
Quick! RUSH to give Blizzard more of your money!

I feel like I had my fill of Starcraft with the sequel. It was alright, nothing special, I had fun for parts of the campaign and some ok times with the custom maps. I just don't feel like I need to go back any time soon, I'm not into the crazy meta game and spectator aspects of multiplayer.

I picked up Tomb Raider so I think I will give that a go instead while I finish up Ni No Kuni. Maybe I will grab this down the line when it's cheaper, I guess we'll see. At least it has an offline mode of sorts.

Creston wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 23:12:

ASeven wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 19:31:
RPS really nails this.

"What EA and Maxis have done with SimCity is attempt a year-long PR assault to suggest that the online-only nature of SimCity is designed to offer enhancements for gamers. This is simply not true. It’s utter rubbish. It’s a backward step for a format that seemed to be managing for years to offer single player and multiplayer options for games without the universe cracking in two. The idea that multiplayer-only is an enhancement is such an obvious piece of newspeak, such a ridiculous untruth, that we can only loudly and furiously react against it if we’re to not see it incredulously accepted as fact. I do worry it’s maybe already too late."

"To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity."

This last paragraph reminds me too much of some people here.

RPS are being giant, giant hypocrites here, though. They were sucking the Diablo3 cock just as hard as everyone else, then after it was a terrible failure at launch as well, they wrote an article in which they said something to the effect of "Well, it doesn't matter that we were all weak-willed assholes and swallowed Blizzard's DRM whole. We just need to stand really strong against the NEXT always-on DRM game that comes out! Protect our rights!"

Kind of hard to take that stance when you willingly bent over for Blizzard. Like I said back then, every publisher in the industry saw that, no matter how hard PC gamers complain, they will happily take whatever a publisher foists on them if the game is cool enough.

So yeah, great way to take a stance now, RPS. Too bad you're about 7 months late.

Creston

NegaDeath wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 14:28:
I can see why they wouldn't want to invest in an offline single player, it would probably take a sizable amount of time to move the server functions to the client and then bugtest it.

But you know what? Square botched FFXIV and are rebuilding it, Kerberos released Sword of the Stars 2 well before it was even finished and spent the next year patching it (the success of both measures is course debatable). EA has the resources to fix this, no excuses.

Tim Collins wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 07:23:
d3 was fail because of this, this game is a fail because of this. Watch the dlc flood in lol......

Redmask wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 23:45:
It'll probably be from a list of $5 EA games. I'd like to be less cynical but this is the company that said they would give refunds then did exactly the opposite. You can't trust them with anything anymore after this disaster.

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 22:43:

Flatline wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 19:28:

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 16:42:

Jerykk wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 15:31:

Cutter wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 13:12:
Environmental art isn't bad but could be grittier. Character art is horrenedous. What is this? A kids cartoon? Too much combat focus. Dialogue looks poor so far. Standard Bioware G/N/E responses. So yeah, at this point I'm really beginning to regret my investment.

You'll be hard-pressed to find any RPG that doesn't have a combat focus. Even PST has a lot of mandatory combat. That said, if you listened to the narration, you would have realized that there are non-combat opportunities in the demo. The street thug fight could have been avoided if the player had enough charisma and the interior fight could have likely been avoided if the player had a disguise.

It would be boring without combat but it's another thing when that's the main focus. And the dialogue seems to be very Bioware...so far. Limited G/N/E, one or two sentence conversations because god forbid anyone should have to read some real dialogue. So far I'm not impressed. The saving grace *may* be the editor. However, that all depends on how difficult it is to use and the amount of assets involved.

Wow. You're seriously judging an entire game based off of a 20 minute alpha clip of a side mission. Why aren't you playing the stock market with that kind of predictive skill?

Tell ya what. If you don't like the dialogue in the mission... write your own fucking mission. That's what the mission editor will be for. The damn thing is drag & drop. You can finally show us how the game *should* be.

Clearly you didn't watch the same clip I did. Nor have you obviously ever played a real (C)RPG.

Creston wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 12:14:

Redmask wrote on Mar 7, 2013, 22:54:
SimCity 1.3 Patchnotes:

- Added "Skip Tutorial" button.
- Removed Llama Speed. Llama Speed and Cheetah Speed now move at Turtle Speed.
- Disabled High Density Streets/High Density Streetcar Avenues.
- Large regions (>12 city zones) reduced to 4 city zones.
- Removed skyscrapers. Height is too taxing on servers.
- Removed positive Simoleon gain. Earning money is too taxing on servers.




Obviously not real. They could be real tomorrow at this rate.

The funny thing is, I didn't realize you were joking until I came to the skyscrapers line...

Creston

Verno wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 08:42:

Redmask wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 07:10:

Julio wrote on Mar 8, 2013, 06:49:
Add the features back in as microtransactions!

There will be a Big City Moving On Up expansion, just watch. They already admitted they kept bigger cities sizes held back as a feature.

Wait, they they're actually holding back city sizes on purpose? How is that not the headline? The more I hear about this game, the more it sounds like one big facepalm after another.

Edit: Read that interview link, that's ridiculous, almost every PC sold in the past three to five years is a dual core with 2GB of ram minimum. My fathers laptop could beat the piss out of that game.