|
On October 22 2012 08:15 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:17 YaShock wrote:On October 22 2012 07:09 DigiGnar wrote:
Did a ctrl + f for planetary and for annihilation.
If you don't know about Total Annihilation, get it. Five bucks from gog, or free for torrents!
Then, look for Planetary Annihilation.
You should be relieved once you see P.A.. That game is going to be SO SEXY. Wow I'm checking these out atm, so excited, thank you :D don't get your hopes up, they're aiming for "awesome" not for competitive
I think the direct quote was that they were aiming for awesome rather than realistic.
I'm not sure there's any reason so far to suspect that it will be a really simple game. These people are the same ones who loved to play Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander (from watching the video). I'm sure they'll want to create a game just like that...if anything they're going further than Supreme Commander went. I expect it will be both awesome and amazingly challenging. Managing warfare on multiple planets? That dwarfs SC2. (Of course you don't have to play on such a scale, they also have smaller sized maps).
I'm hoping that the graphics improve a bit more as it looks somewhat cartoonish so far, but even so graphics don't determine how fun a game can be. Also amazing how they received $2,229,344 dollars for it. It doubled their request of $900,000 and then some...there's going to be *so much content*. Because of the overwhelming amount of money they received they added water worlds, gas giants, metal planets, galactic warfare...my hopes are very very high  . Kickstarter is the future, there are so many great games and ideas coming down the pipes because of this amazing company.
|
On October 22 2012 09:50 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 08:15 Endymion wrote:On October 22 2012 07:17 YaShock wrote:On October 22 2012 07:09 DigiGnar wrote:
Did a ctrl + f for planetary and for annihilation.
If you don't know about Total Annihilation, get it. Five bucks from gog, or free for torrents!
Then, look for Planetary Annihilation.
You should be relieved once you see P.A.. That game is going to be SO SEXY. Wow I'm checking these out atm, so excited, thank you :D don't get your hopes up, they're aiming for "awesome" not for competitive I think the direct quote was that they were aiming for awesome rather than realistic. I'm not sure there's any reason so far to suspect that it will be a really simple game. These people are the same ones who loved to play Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander (from watching the video). I'm sure they'll want to create a game just like that...if anything they're going further than Supreme Commander went. I expect it will be both awesome and amazingly challenging. Managing warfare on multiple planets? That dwarfs SC2. (Of course you don't have to play on such a scale, they also have smaller sized maps). I'm hoping that the graphics improve a bit more as it looks somewhat cartoonish so far, but even so graphics don't determine how fun a game can be. Also amazing how they received $2,229,344 dollars for it. It doubled their request of $900,000 and then some...there's going to be *so much content*. Because of the overwhelming amount of money they received they added water worlds, gas giants, metal planets, galactic warfare...my hopes are very very high . Kickstarter is the future, there are so many great games and ideas coming down the pipes because of this amazing company.
i'm optimistic about it as well, but i don't see it being a competitive replacement for BW. you're right about kickstarter though, if we're going to get an rts that'll compete with BW it'll have to be through kickstarter. it's a great medium for providing "art" instead of what the masses want!
|
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
|
On October 22 2012 08:15 Endymion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 07:17 YaShock wrote:On October 22 2012 07:09 DigiGnar wrote:
Did a ctrl + f for planetary and for annihilation.
If you don't know about Total Annihilation, get it. Five bucks from gog, or free for torrents!
Then, look for Planetary Annihilation.
You should be relieved once you see P.A.. That game is going to be SO SEXY. Wow I'm checking these out atm, so excited, thank you :D don't get your hopes up, they're aiming for "awesome" not for competitive
Yup, sadly realised that
|
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote:
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
Okay, first of all I don't think you need to school me about competitive RTS, I have played a lot of BW and SC2. I was excited, before I actually saw what that game looks like, now I know that's not the kind of RTS I have been waiting for. If that kind of RTS was enough for me, I wouldn't speak about how small the skill cap for sc2, right? And I don't think I'm an average gamer.
|
the problem with making RTS games is that ~90% of the people that buy them are more interested in watching units attack each other than actually playing a game.
I'm a game designer and would love to start a kickstarter to make a new competitive hardcore RTS, I think it's the only way we can get a true BW-esque RTS that isn't messed up by publisher demands. A game by the fans for the fans (that is, fans of hardcore, competitive RTSs).
edit - I'm not saying that blizzard doesn't care about making a good competitive RTS that will please hardcore progaming fans, but they are making the game that they want to make. I don't think activision is forcing them to do anything they don't want to. It's just not the game that a lot of us BW-fans want to play. To win over the displeased RTS crowd blizzard needs to make major changes to entire game (essentially re-designing), something they are unwilling to do. Blizzard is determined to fix all of the problems (that is, the few problems that they acknowledge) with minor unit changes. Blizzard would never do something drastic (yet needed) like remove forcefield or warp-in because it would require the entire game to be re-balanced.
What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
|
|
|
Bisutopia19316 Posts
I've always blindly loved Blizzard becaue of SC1 and now I clearly hate blizzard because of SC2 (and a lil bit of D3 too lol). I never imagined that I would someday have to shift loyalty to a new rts game. The starcraft universe is so perfect and I'm so familiar with the units that it would be really different switching to a new RTS. Switching between LOL and Dota isn't huge because there is no story that we lover backing it all up. If there is a new RTS to be made that will replace BW it must be loved from the bottom up. But I don't know what can be cooler then space marines, an evolving alien race, and a a power beautiful energy alien race. Maybe a WC3 type game with out heroes. I can get into that I think. I would just miss siege tanks and zealots too much.
|
Hell fucking yes, I want a new RTS.
SC2 is a lost cause, there is no potential there. I don't care about LotV and 4 years of pushing the game's boundaries. The units are fucking boring, the engine is fucking trash. They would have to remake the entire damn game from scratch for me to have any hope.
Brood War is amazing, but it will never get big again because it's old and has big pixels.
Also, it is actually possible to make a game even better than Brood War. Brood War is the only game of its kind. A marriage between large scale management, economy management, strategy, like in other strategy games, real time or not, and control and micro like in fighting games, space shooters, side scrolling action games, and musical instruments like guitars and keyboards and drums. Even WarCraft III, which is based on micro, doesn't have the kind of volatile micro that StarCraft, fighting games, side scrolling games, and space shooters have. The spacial calculations. The thin line that you have to walk on with great balance. The split second prediction. The fast decision making. Even within a micro scenario, there is decision making. The infinite skill ceiling of just a PvP battle in which both sides have 12 dragoons, 2 reavers, and a shutte, is amazing.
And with that type of micro, comes the strategy surrounding it. A basic example is that you can do multiple simultaneous attacks. That way he won't be able to micro all of them. Or you can set something up that will require good micro to deal with. He might fail the challenge. But even if he doesn't, it will take apm away from other tasks.
It was the first, and to this day, only game like that. And it's fucking amazing. However, we CAN take what we learned from Brood War, and improve on it. We could make a new game that has everything that makes Brood War amazing, and MORE
It happened in fighting games, because there was competition, and new games coming out. Compare Street Fighter to Guilty Gear. Guilty Gear is clearly an evolution of fighting games. It took good things from fighting games that existed (From SNK and Capcom) and added to it.
So yes, I want a new RTS, if it actually improves upon Brood War. Otherwise, fuck that shit, I'm sticking with the best RTS ever made (For now, and possibly forever, considering the quality and quantity of RTS games coming out).
|
There's already this really great RTS game out there, it's called StarCraft: BroodWar. It even had a very robust competitive scene for awhile. Although it's a bit dated, it's worth checking out and there are still tons of people playing online!
|
StarCraft is like going to the mall - so many options, so little money.
Hahaha, what a great quote.
To me it's like going to a good café. Everything is so delicious! Which option shall I choose?! I'll just have to come back here again to try the other ones!
Edit: Actually, it's more like deciding what to cook, because it takes some work and practice to be able to pull it off.
Second edit: Now I realize you were probably referring to apm and which actions to do. I meant which strategy to go for.
|
On October 25 2012 01:41 Ideas wrote:
What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
I think for start it's quite enough, the main point is to make good BW-esh game with good multiplayer strategies, and depth. I would support that project for sure
|
Canada11450 Posts
On October 25 2012 01:41 Ideas wrote:
What's needed is a fresh start. a game with a low-budget (I'm thinking hi-res 2D graphics), community-driven development.
I'm quite certain hi-res 2D graphics could easily work. For one recently all sorts of game have popped up recently with retro graphics.
But more importantly, I'm not convinced hyper-realistic 3D graphics is inherently superior for competitive gaming for either players or spectators. I really think that a strong graphic style, probably even isometric is probably better simply in terms of clarity. If you can tie good aesthetics and clarity together, it's a winning combo no matter whether it's 3D or 2D or realistic or 'cartoony.'
At some point hyper-realism creates too much information imo and it makes it hard to focus on what's important versus what's just background. (A big problem with the graphics style 'jump' from AoE 2 to AoE 3 for me at least.) People often pull the wrong conclusions from success. Disney for instance saw the success of Pixar's animation and felt traditional animation was dead. Pixar's animation was newer and the way of the future. But Pixar doesn't believe that at all. They believe traditional animation is just as relevant now, you just need to do it well and tell a good story.
It needs to look good, but clarity is really, really important.
|
On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote:
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try.
1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either.
2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either
1: Never gave the game a chance
or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy.
You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm.
You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it.
I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating.
The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
|
On October 25 2012 06:53 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote:
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try. 1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either. 2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either 1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy. You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it. I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating. The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander.
After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO.
|
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:09 MattBarry wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 06:53 vOdToasT wrote:On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote:
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try. 1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either. 2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either 1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy. You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it. I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating. The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander. After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO.
Then you weren't playing it right, which, to be fair, was the case for most people playing BW. However, surely you must have appreciated how deep and nuanced the strategies being deployed in the pro-scene were.
|
On October 25 2012 21:42 Telcontar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2012 09:09 MattBarry wrote:On October 25 2012 06:53 vOdToasT wrote:On October 22 2012 15:37 BurnedRice wrote:
The reason you are not getting a new RTS is because the average gamer like yourself has shown that you are not willing to learn anything complex enough to make the game both deep and balanced. You have shown this by disregarding and misunderstanding, Supreme Commander Forged Alliance. The most difficult RTS games you play, SCBW and SC2 derive their complexity from micro. You, the average RTS gamer, are way too happy to replace your brain with your hands, and then pretend you have a big head.
You probably don't get it, but I had to try. 1: I play SC2 because I like working with my hands and not my head`? What the fuck are you smoking? The mechanics in StarCraft 2 are ridicilously easy. I never won because I had better mechanics than my opponent. I always kept my money low. I always did what I had to do mechanically. I don't think I've ever beaten a good player in SC2 because of superior mechanics. Having said that, it's not strategically interesting either. 2: StarCraft: Brood War is extremely complex. STRATEGICALLY. It makes you think. Just because it also has mechanics and skill doesn't mean it doesn't have extremely deep strategy. If you had any understanding of Brood War, you would know that it has extremely deep strategy. I've played RTS games most of my life, and out of all of them, I have found Brood War to be the most strategically interesting and deep. I can just think about Brood War for hours. I think you're just a fucking scrub who either 1: Never gave the game a chance or 2: Tried to play it, got your ass handed to you because you were too slow, and decided that the game has less strategy than Supreme Commander, since you couldn't get past the mechanics and get to the strategy. You also clearly don't understand that the requirement of apm adds strategy. Apm is a resource that you must spend wisely. And just like you can destroy workers to manipulate how an opponent can use his minerals, you can manipulate how someone can use his apm. Some things take more apm to deal with than to perform, like defiler drops. Therefor, an added bonus to defiler dropping is that it gives you an advantage in the resource of apm. You have to spend your apm wisely, since you have a limited amount of it. I've played many RTS games. StarCraft is far from my first, but out of all the games I have played, StarCraft is by far the most strategically magnificent. That's why I play it. Good mechanics can be cool, but the main reason I like StarCraft is the strategy. And I've tried Supreme Commander. Mechanics aside, I still like StarCraft more. It's more intellectually stimulating. The problems it makes you solve are more interesting. The multitude of ways that you can solve those problems in are more interesting. It allows for more creativity and self expression. One major reason for this is that the races are not only more different from each other, but also more interesting and complex, than the races in Supreme Commander. After playing BW for 10 years I still have no idea what is so deeply compelling about it strategically. It's pretty average IMO. Then you weren't playing it right, which, to be fair, was the case for most people playing BW. However, surely you must have appreciated how deep and nuanced the strategies being deployed in the pro-scene were.
Yes I did. Korean BW was awesome and I miss it. However, I think you're confusing 15 years of meta game development with complexity of the game. Chess is a simple game, but hundreds of years of meta game developments have made it incredibly complex. It's hard for any other rts to even compete with BW because it had people working half the day every day for years to perfect it.
Personally I like rts of grand scale like supreme commander a lot but they aren't spectator friendly like Sc is.
|
Canada11450 Posts
I don't know about SupCom 1, but for SupCom2 there is frankly not much to do with your army. The complexity of the strategies in BW are contingent on all the different tactical skills you could master for small groups of units.
Altogether these created a great arsenal of options for your overall strategy of not just where and with what to attack, but HOW to attack. It's more than just 15 years of meta-game. There are more strategic options on the table because of how well, how precise and fast the units could be handled.
The unit handling in SupCom2 is nothing if not frustrating (long arc turn-around for air units, 'smart-ai' that is reluctant to obey manual target fire orders or immediate withdrawals without firing off a few last shots, very sluggish handling for any sort of attack-retreat micro etc, etc.)
|
On October 26 2012 02:22 Falling wrote:
I don't know about SupCom 1, but for SupCom2 there is frankly not much to do with your army. The complexity of the strategies in BW are contingent on all the different tactical skills you could master for small groups of units.
Altogether these created a great arsenal of options for your overall strategy of not just where and with what to attack, but HOW to attack. It's more than just 15 years of meta-game. There are more strategic options on the table because of how well, how precise and fast the units could be handled.
The unit handling in SupCom2 is nothing if not frustrating (long arc turn-around for air units, 'smart-ai' that is reluctant to obey manual target fire orders or immediate withdrawals without firing off a few last shots, very sluggish handling for any sort of attack-retreat micro etc, etc.)
Every time I play SupCom 2 I honestly and truly feel the pain of BW "elitists"
|
When someone says Supreme Commander Forged Alliance, it is implied that they think supcom 2 is garbage. Please don't talk about that game in the same thread with Supcom FA.
If you are a fan on RTS and you haven't tried Supcom FA on a competitive level then you haven't played RTS. I want you to show me one player who got good at Supcom FA who would say that there is any RTS that is better.
TLO who got good at Supcom FA, SCBW and SC2, clearly said supcom FA is 10 times more complex than SC. He also said any idiot could learn SC but supcom FA takes weeks just to understand. He also said it is the only RTS out there, with SC being RTT in comparison. (TBO's twich channel, TLO interview)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
