10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
 |
| 10. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 22:13 |
Creston |
|
|
The act of being able to replace a unit has an incalcably negative impact on strategy. Most games are reduced to build quickly and after that rock papers scissors.
That's not strategy, that's build management. Ie, Command & Conquer. He Who Clicks The Fastest, Wins.
Strategy is having to figure out how you're going to attack an enemy base because a single force of tanks will not work. It's how you're going to wipe out a set of defenses and keep the enemy from rebuilding them while you're bringing in the next group to take out the next set of defenses.
It's thinking about sending a group of units to an enemy base for the sole purpose of destroying a part of his economy, just so that you can gain an economic edge which will allow you to slowly shift the war of attrition in your favor.
That's Supcom, and it is, imo, STRATEGY at its finest.
Figuring out where to place one unit in cover while another unit watches the flank etc, (ie, what DoW2 does) is tactics.
Creston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 21:29 |
Propagandhi |
|
|
It's more semantics than anything else, but 4 or 5 squads isn't really STRATEGY, is it? It's tactics.
I disagree completely. The most strategic, and by such a measure that I have a hard time using strategy to describe any other game, game in history is Myth/Myth 2.
This was a game where unit numbers ranged from ~3 to ~500, with the strategy found at the low end (especially in terms of units per player).
The act of being able to replace a unit has an incalcably negative impact on strategy. Most games are reduced to build quickly and after that rock papers scissors. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 14:44 |
Creston |
|
|
I like the idea of having 4 or 5 squads of troops that are highly versatile and having to manage them properly. It's a refreshing idea in a very stale RTS genre.
It's more semantics than anything else, but 4 or 5 squads isn't really STRATEGY, is it? It's tactics.
Anyways, I don't agree with the notion that RTS has gotten stale. Supreme Commander and COMPANY of Heroes both did some excellent new things, the original Dawn of War did some really cool new things. Granted, that's been over the past couple of years, but it's not like we just keep getting new versions of Dune 2.
Now, SC2 isn't going to do anything new, most likely. It will just be SC with a slightly prettier 3D engine, but mostly that's because that's what SC fans want (apparently.)
We shouldn't say an entire genre is stale because a few devs make old school games in that genre. (C&C is obviously another one which refuses to go with the times.)
Personally I hope there will be another Supreme Commander game, because THAT was awesome strategy.
Creston
This comment was edited on Apr 6, 2009, 14:59. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 7. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 14:41 |
Verno |
|
|
Yeah I'm not a huge fan of micro-management either and it's been heavily focused on by designers in the past 5 years. Game skill in an RTS should be determined by strategically judging a situation and reacting to it, not by being able to memorize build orders and outspam your opponent. It's frustrating when APM matters more than intellect.
PC gaming is dying. Mark Rein, cliffyb, and tons of other mouthbreathing devs have continuously told us so over the past year. That they were simply bleating bullshit to justify the reason they were jumping to consoles is irrelevant. PC gaming is dying because Mark Rein SAYS it's dying, dammit!
Traditional PC gaming as we remember it is dying. A whole new era of ports, indie games and digital distribution are taking over. Blockbuster PC game sales are limited to 5 games per year it seems and the lack of PC exclusive titles has been hard hitting. Things change, no big deal and no way to tell how it will all turn out.
This comment was edited on Apr 6, 2009, 14:44. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 6. |
Don't be foolish TechRadar UK |
Apr 6, 2009, 14:41 |
Creston |
|
|
PC gaming is dying. Mark Rein, cliffyb, and tons of other mouthbreathing devs have continuously told us so over the past year. That they were simply bleating bullshit to justify the reason they were jumping to consoles is irrelevant. PC gaming is dying because Mark Rein SAYS it's dying, dammit!
Creston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 14:11 |
RP |
|
|
Over the years, I've come to despise most RTS games. I cannot effectively manage build orders, resource management, base building, and squad micromanagement simultaneously in real time. Total War gets a pass because empire management is handled seperately from combat; World in Conflict and DoW II both ignore base building, freeing you to focus on troop management.
And to please the competitive community, SC won't have strategic zoom or other wonderful advances made in the last 10 years. Christ, remember how they pissed and moaned about multiple building selection?
This comment was edited on Apr 6, 2009, 14:13. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 4. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 12:38 |
Flatline |
|
|
I played SC as well as pretty much most of the high profile RTS games released since Dune2, and personally I think its the best competitive RTS ever made.
Perhaps. I'd actually give that title personally to Homeworld, but I got the 3d aspect of the game a lot better than most people.
If Dawn of War 2 would be patched and balanced, I'd say it would give a hard run for SC's money. I go from Company of Heroes or DoW2 to something like C&C or Starcraft and it drives me nuts. I'm not a fan of base building, or build orders, and having to crank out loads of units feels more like a sledgehammer than real strategy...
I like the idea of having 4 or 5 squads of troops that are highly versatile and having to manage them properly. It's a refreshing idea in a very stale RTS genre.
I personally haven't seen SC2 bring anything to the table that is actually "new" to RTS. It's prettier, and I'd like to see the story for Starcraft continue, but beyond that I don't have any real notion of how this will "advance" competitive RTS gaming. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 3. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 10:55 |
InBlack |
|
|
I played SC as well as pretty much most of the high profile RTS games released since Dune2, and personally I think its the best competitive RTS ever made.
It doesnt have C&C charm, gloss and atmosphere, but it does have gameplay, tons of it. Oh and the story while cliched is rather good. Much darker than anything else Blizzard have done (other than Diablo maybe)
Good article that from Techradar |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| I have a nifty blue line! |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 2. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 10:24 |
Ant |
|
|
Mead: I played it, but I am not a fan of Blizzard's RTS games. I prefer Westwood/EA's. Yes, their online service sucks compared to battle.net but I prefer C&C, RA, etc. games.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 1. |
Re: Op Ed |
Apr 6, 2009, 10:01 |
Mead |
|
|
| Anyone else here besides me never played Starcraft? Just curious. Thinking I may be the only heretic left. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
10 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
