EPTLets play speed chess at an hour per turn, more ability to think well intuitively and deeply into the game even though competitively it makes it intense and difficult, and would not be 100% good moves, and therefore not a true game of strategy.
PC Gamer Editorial - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
._.
1133 Posts
Lets play speed chess at an hour per turn, more ability to think well intuitively and deeply into the game even though competitively it makes it intense and difficult, and would not be 100% good moves, and therefore not a true game of strategy. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
 | ||
|
Zanno
United States1484 Posts
slow RTS games are just easier to master, noobs like those have these ridiculous conception of straterregy where they think they're calculating some ridiculous master plan that most likely isn't viable at even mid-level play. they'll spend 5 minutes thinking about where to attack when they fail to understand they should just go with their gut reaction and attack it basically all the strategy in this game is a result of reacting to what your opponent is doing. hmm, there's another strategy game that sounds an awful lot like that, what's it called again? oh, i think it's chess On May 03 2008 21:03 MiniRoman wrote: Someone should write a response article in hopes of being published. yeah i agree. get manifesto or tasteless or someone else who's important to do it | ||
|
Showtime!
Canada2938 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
RTS CAN implement proper Strategy, take Sins of a Solar Empire for example. That game doesn´t even have properly distinctive races, yet it can pull of way deeper strategic moves. It even has politics and a somewhat working market! SC strategy is hurt by more things than just gamepace. It´s a tradeoff Blizzard made intentionally though, they WANT to award "fast" players. SC is a RTS without the S. That doesn´t mean it´s bad, actually it seems good enough to be the standart right now. SINS is really a fresh breath for the genre. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
I don't know how after 7 pages you still couldn't get that uneducated opinions and unsupported statements don't prove shit. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5649 Posts
On May 04 2008 01:48 Unentschieden wrote: If chess was as easy as "look at the board and act accordingly" everyone who knows the rules would master it within days. Like Tic-Tac-Toe. The art is predicting/guessing what your opponent thinks/does. Some would call it game sense. RTS CAN implement proper Strategy, take Sins of a Solar Empire for example. That game doesn´t even have properly distinctive races, yet it can pull of way deeper strategic moves. It even has politics and a somewhat working market! SC strategy is hurt by more things than just gamepace. It´s a tradeoff Blizzard made intentionally though, they WANT to award "fast" players. SC is a RTS without the S. That doesn´t mean it´s bad, actually it seems good enough to be the standart right now. SINS is really a fresh breath for the genre. Just because you don't understand strategy in StarCraft doesn't mean it's not there. ;] | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
A game of strategy, maybe an MMO RTS? But really, in most games it's just the metagame that's the strategy. And the basis of the game is execution and/or tactics. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5649 Posts
| ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On May 04 2008 01:48 Unentschieden wrote: RTS CAN implement proper Strategy, take Sins of a Solar Empire for example. That game doesn´t even have properly distinctive races, yet it can pull of way deeper strategic moves. It even has politics and a somewhat working market! SC strategy is hurt by more things than just gamepace. It´s a tradeoff Blizzard made intentionally though, they WANT to award "fast" players. SC is a RTS without the S. That doesn´t mean it´s bad, actually it seems good enough to be the standart right now. SINS is really a fresh breath for the genre. You're kidding me right? Sins is only more strategical proportionally, because mechanics are so irrelevant in that game. The game really isn't that deep either. Many units, buildings and large portions of the tech tree in that game are redundant or useless and don't even need to be built. Also, people just haven't figured out what the optimal strategies are yet because it's a new game, so everyone gets to mess around. It's also so slow that I would hardly even consider it RTS. Sins is not a "fresh breath" on the RTS genre, it's a new hybrid genre that's more like TBS, except both players are taking turns at the same time. A game like Civ4 would be real strategy, although it's not RT. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Kwidowmaker
Canada978 Posts
On May 03 2008 11:07 Klogon wrote: Your kidding, right? I meant the article on chess players. | ||
|
wswordsmen
United States987 Posts
This isn't phrased very well but you should be able to figure out what I mean. | ||
|
8882
2718 Posts
TPM would be thinking what to build, when, what is the opponent doing etc. APM would be the clicking. I believe there is a certain limit of thoughts needed to play starcraft at fastest speed. Personally I believe at current speed, people have enough time to think. Even when there are like 4 expansions per player, I think I can keep track and make the right units. But many people (including me) cannot keep up with the clicking. There is simply too much of it. Often I end up with things I would like to do, which I simply canoot do (e.g. macroing, extensive microing, while building etc). People like that PC Gamer guy seem to believe, that if Starcraft's speed was 50%, then it would get more strategic depht. I believe, that even I - the 90 apm player, can get 100% of the strategy from the game. I might have problems in doing it, but I certainly know what to do. The only times I might have not enough time to thing is some complex ZvT, where I kill the opponents main and lose mine. Then the game is very fast "thinking" pace for me. Generally, I believe that the thinking speed is ok in Starcraft - e.g. you can "think enough" to plan the strategy 100% most of the time. And as for the apm limit - I believe a faster player will always do more clicks. Give him more time (slower game) - he will simply micro/macro/multitask more perfectly and thus win this way. And to make the game equal - giving both players enough time to micro/macro, it would become absurdly slow (even turn based). At some point (dunno 5expansions vs 5 expansions TvT?) speed will become a factor anyway. I love the fact that a lot of decisions in starcraft have to be taken quickly, but seriously, the strategy is not that deep. I mean, come on, in that Jaedong game, Jaedong knew exactly when the tank will come (killed it with mutas) and knew exactly when the first vessel will come (nearly killed it with scourge). Starcraft is not that much strategic, but still one of the most complex RTS games I have ever played (all other are usually about hard counters, this game is about soft ones). *** Take ZvZ for example. It's hated by MANY (did he get banned btw?), but it's like my favourite matchup. People do not see the beauty of it. Despite using mostly 4 units, there is a lot of thought I put into every game. Basically I often try to project ("natural maphack") my opponent, or simply watch his base with an overlord. I win with superiour economy, by squeezing a drone here and there, but good unit placement (scourge, lings) as my micro is not the greatest. I simply anticipate my opponents actions and feed on his mistakes. | ||
|
LetMeBeWithYou
Canada4254 Posts
| ||
Zelniq
United States7166 Posts
These people need to first understand the game before they can make strategical decisions on it. And for those who do understand the game, a slower speed is not going to help their strategical decision making much at all. Mostly it'll help with the mechanical aspects and the strategical parts should remain the same. There are I suppose some situations you come across where a slower speed setting will allow you to make better strategical decisions, (mostly those that are difficult decisions that you need to make quickly), but for the most part the Fastest speed I believe is slow enough for strategical thought. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
On May 04 2008 04:41 8882 wrote: Generally, I believe that the thinking speed is ok in Starcraft - e.g. you can "think enough" to plan the strategy 100% most of the time. That is the point. SC is quite shallow, thats WHY it is so easy to come up with a Strategy, or as it would be better said a Tactic. Strategy would suggest a bigger commitment how long does it take to switch from one Strategy to another in SC (very simple: Land to Air based force?) given that you survive? Simply adding depht wouldn´t work - the Player doesn´t have time for a "bigger" strategy to develop. A slower gamepace itself wouldn´t increase strategic depht. But it would be necessary were Blizzard to make the game deeper - which they won´t, SC2 will be just as executionbased as SC is. I´m not saying that they should! It´s hard to call a game strategic when it is supposed to last less than 30 minutes. Of course FFAs are something completely different, alone the fact that alliances (open or not) are possible adds A LOT. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On May 04 2008 05:39 Unentschieden wrote: That is the point. SC is quite shallow, thats WHY it is so easy to come up with a Strategy, or as it would be better said a Tactic. Strategy would suggest a bigger commitment how long does it take to switch from one Strategy to another in SC (very simple: Land to Air based force?) given that you survive? Simply adding depht wouldn´t work - the Player doesn´t have time for a "bigger" strategy to develop. A slower gamepace itself wouldn´t increase strategic depht. But it would be necessary were Blizzard to make the game deeper - which they won´t, SC2 will be just as executionbased as SC is. I´m not saying that they should! It´s hard to call a game strategic when it is supposed to last less than 30 minutes. Of course FFAs are something completely different, alone the fact that alliances (open or not) are possible adds A LOT. What the hell is the point you're trying to make? | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
Slower game can mean more Strategy but simply making it slower is not enough, it isn´t even crucial for it. That is why I used Free For Alls as example. They are not slower but add strategy by making alliances viable. Do you think cease fires in a 1v1 would work in SC? SC isn´t strategic because it has such a emphasis on "Micro"(Yes 50% Micro is a lot in a Real Time STRATEGY game), the fast gamepace is a sideeffect on that. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
| ||
| ||
