38 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 38. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 22, 2007, 21:11 |
Kedyn |
|
|
I loved Battlezone and Battlezone 2... I still got em here somewhere...
I'm surprised no one has mentioned World in Conflict. I guess it just hasn't been out long enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 37. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 18, 2007, 14:30 |
Yifes |
|
|
I find that people who complain that starcraft is simple are beginners or those who play cheap money maps exclusively. Starcraft multiplayer is a fast paced experience, and new players often are overwhelmed. They cannot keep up with unit production, and often limit themselves to one or two unit types and neglect the special units and spells.
The variety in Starcraft in terms of units and special abilities actually offers more strategic possibilities than games like homeworld or total war, but it takes a certain amount of proficiency and dexterity to pull off.
The depth that starcraft offers is what makes it the definitive multiplayer RTS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 36. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 22:28 |
Kxmode |
|
|
If you are waging war in real life, and your opponent is an idiot, it does not mean that there is no strategy in war.
The Total War games are certainly flawed, but outside of turn-based war-games, they are the closest to a simulation of real battle (of that era).
A bunch of dudes lining up in an open field then rushing each other seems pretty idiotic to me. 
-----
"Fundamental" is such a versatile word: Fund A Mental - Fun Da Mental - F U NDA mental! // Good times!
http://www.myspace.com/kxmode |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 35. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 21:52 |
BatAttack |
|
|
"There's no strategy in the Total War series anyway. I could just as easily say that I won a battle because my general had more stars and that the AI is pretty fucking retarded"
Then try playing multi-player against another human.
Good/bad AI has nothing to do with whether a game is strategic or not.
If you are waging war in real life, and your opponent is an idiot, it does not mean that there is no strategy in war.
The Total War games are certainly flawed, but outside of turn-based war-games, they are the closest to a simulation of real battle (of that era).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 34. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 20:57 |
Kxmode |
|
|
Have you actually PLAYED StarCraft 2?
Let's be real Blizzard is making StarCraft 2 for Koreans. They're not stupid either. They know exactly what Koreans want. StarCraft 1 with nicer graphics, couple new units, but basically the same FUNdamental gameplay.
-----
Ah ha! I caught you red handed Green cheating on Blue!
http://www.myspace.com/kxmode
"Lost Inner" HITMAN tribute track posted (9/8)
This comment was edited on Sep 17, 21:00. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 33. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 20:32 |
PHJF |
|
|
| My point? Mine and everyone elses is that Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft 2. It's Starcraft 3D. Starcraft was by-the-numbers all those years ago, and the effect is compounded dramatically with Starcraft 2. At least Warcraft 3 introduced hero play, even if it wasn't the first RTS to do so. At least it did *something* that Warcraft 2 didn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 32. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 14:03 |
shinchan0s |
|
|
There's no strategy in the Total War series anyway. I could just as easily say that I won a battle because my general had more stars and that the AI is pretty fucking retarded by not guarding against my (duh) flanking cavalry. Yeah, I can play the game of totally dumbing down the "strategy" of game X too!
Anyone who has played Starcraft knows the game isn't always about the numbers. You still have to account for all the other nuances and that's why the games still have to be played.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 31. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 12:31 |
Kxmode |
|
|
LOL, you call Homeworld and Myth and Total War one dimensional? Fuck you. If they were Civ then Starcraft is SimAnt. Starcraft is so popular *because* it's so shallow. It appeals to the mass of people that have a hard time enjoying RTS games, just like C&C. It's a niche genre.
We could also argue that all RTS games in general are total bullshit next to a real war directed by a real general. Win or loose that's a real time strategy game. I love the elitest bullshit of some gamers. Let's look at the term: real time strategy. Is it real time? yes. Does it involve strategic decisions? yup. So what the fuck is your point?
-----
Ah ha! I caught you red handed Green cheating on Blue!
http://www.myspace.com/kxmode
"Lost Inner" HITMAN tribute track posted (9/8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 30. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 11:03 |
Burrito of Peace |
|
|
I'm going to have to agree that if you think Homeworld or the Total War series were one dimensional, then you have no basic grasp of what strategy is about.
Strategy is not about collection resources or about countering X unit with Y unit. It's about doing the most, and winning, with what you have. Homeworld underscored that beautifully with its very limited amount of resources and the fact that you had to carry your fleet over from mission to mission. Total War series, if you've ever played it, showed that with good tactics, axemen and peasant archers could take out France's finest if you employed them better than your adversary employed his forces.
Go read up on Rommel, Wellington, Charlemagne, Washington and Cornwall. Learn their tactics and apply them to the situation you are presented. 10 to 1 says you kick the living crap out of the guy who's sole "strategy" is knowing X unit counters Y unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 29. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 09:26 |
PHJF |
|
|
LOL, you call Homeworld and Myth and Total War one dimensional? Fuck you. If they were Civ then Starcraft is SimAnt.
Starcraft is so popular *because* it's so shallow. It appeals to the mass of people that have a hard time enjoying RTS games, just like C&C. It's a niche genre. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 28. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 07:24 |
Xero |
|
|
"There are very few true Real Time Strategy games, here is a list:
Homeworld
Myth series
Sacrifice
Total War series
Battlezone series
There is no strategy involved in Starcraft (just as there is no strategy in paper, rock, scissors) or at least not enough to warrant the title of "strategy game". It could be the standard for "build a force faster than your opponent"... but who cares, those games have been trivial, derivative works since Red Alert."
Ok, then you haven't played a Blizzard RTS game competitively to know just how deep their games get and why they have such huge followings. The games you mentioned are 1 dimensional games with not enough strategy within them. Also they are forcing you to play them in a certain manner to try to be "innovative". That's where Blizzard games step out. It has the basic idea of gather resources, build, but when you get into countering and doing sooo many different tactics, they get very deep. Also if you think Starcraft is rocks, paper, sissors, you don't know what mixing up units means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Currently playing: Tomb Raider, Sleeping Dogs, Hitman Absolution, Far Cry 3, Starcraft 2 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 27. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 04:04 |
Charlie_Six |
|
|
Oh man, don't mention Battlezone. Such good memories. I loved Battlezone 2. If Blizzard teamed up with Pandemic to make a Battlezone-style Starcraft game..... *drool*
RTS games are so highly detailed these days that I keep wishing that, after they're done with the RTS game, they'd export all those finely detailed unit models and animations into an action game. Relic tried to do it with The Outfit and Company of Heroes. It didn't quite work out, but I think they were on the right track. Just needed a lot more polish (The Outfit, not COH :-P )
This comment was edited on Sep 17, 04:05. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: ... |
Sep 17, 2007, 03:15 |
bigspender |
|
|
it wasnt really a gameplay demo though, that pretencious narrator was just showing of the units really. Although I gotta say it basically looks like starcraft 1 in 3d heh - which is what a lot of people want.
I think it could be fun at lan's because of its quick nature.
I'm yet to find a better RTS than W40K - Dawn of War though, its just so damn good lol
_________________________________________________
NO COOP = NO PURCHASE
NO MULTICORE SUPPORT = NO BUY
NO NATIVE WIDESCREEN SUPPORT = NO CASH FOR YOU
CRITICAL PATCH released within 2 weeks = RETURN TO STORE
What ever happened to 64 bit?
__________ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________
Adults are just children that are allowed to make their own decisions. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 01:47 |
Virus |
|
|
Homeworld
Myth series
Sacrifice
Total War series
Battlezone series
Those games are all freakin' bomb... I have to admit 
Between those 5 games I think you can account for about 40% of my youth. Especially Myth, Battlezone, and Sacrifice.
This comment was edited on Sep 17, 01:49. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 01:46 |
Yifes |
|
|
Propagandhi,
I loved those games that you listed, but it seems to me that some of them are much more constrained by paper, rock, scissors mechanics (ie calvary vs pikemen vs swordsmen, etc) than starcraft. At least in starcraft you have 3 unique races each with a variety of spells and special abilities to use.
And if you think starcraft is about "build[ing] a force faster than your opponent" then you have never actually played the game. Use of support units and abilities, tactical maneuvering, and strategy are much more important than sheer numerical superiority. Not to mention that to produce more units than your opponent, you need more resources. And controlling territory and resources is hardly a simple matter, in real war or in a game.
This comment was edited on Sep 17, 03:21. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23. |
Re: No subject |
Sep 17, 2007, 00:56 |
Propagandhi |
|
|
You guys say SC2 isn't innovative, yet it's gonna be the next standard for RTS games when it comes out as Blizzard games always are.
There are very few true Real Time Strategy games, here is a list:
Homeworld
Myth series
Sacrifice
Total War series
Battlezone series
There is no strategy involved in Starcraft (just as there is no strategy in paper, rock, scissors) or at least not enough to warrant the title of "strategy game". It could be the standard for "build a force faster than your opponent"... but who cares, those games have been trivial, derivative works since Red Alert. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
Re: ... |
Sep 17, 2007, 00:55 |
Ventura |
|
|
Supreme Commander innovated the sense of scale in rts that you really did not have before
Except for maybe Total Annihilation.
The two are very different types of RTS's, neither is necessarily better than the other because of it. It's all down to taste, really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: ... |
Sep 16, 2007, 23:14 |
PHJF |
|
|
Wow, after finally watching that movie... this game...
looks...
incredibly boring.
Relic doesn't have anything to fear from this, but I'm sure Korea is quite happy about the whole affair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
Re: ... |
Sep 16, 2007, 22:46 |
BatAttack |
|
|
And regarding the Mech unit being ripped-off from BattleTech, don't forget all of BattleTech's initial designs were ripped off from Robotech, which was a chopped up and re-edited (and re-written) version of Macross and Genesis Climber Mospeda (and some other series too, I think).
So a rip-off of a rip-off of a re-working.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 19. |
Re: ... |
Sep 16, 2007, 22:42 |
BatAttack |
|
|
"Honestly if you are a rts fan why would you be impressed by anything that rehashes the same formula with absolutely no innovation."
Except, sometimes people want their old favourite, re-done in with modern stylings. Many people love StarCraft, and getting a new one with 3d and high-resolution is major happy-time.
That's basically what I want from my old favourite game, X-Com. I want a new one, pretty much like the old one (isometric & turn-based) but 3d and in high res, with modern production values and slickness.
And regarding the best RTS, surely that's Company of Heros? 
This comment was edited on Sep 16, 22:43. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
38 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
