Grey Goo - new RTS from original C&C devs - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On December 18 2014 01:46 ahswtini wrote: you're forgetting rockvee micro vs tank gen gatts/rpg quads? another large factor was that you played most games without the minimap and that really trained your map awareness. I mentioned rocket buggy micro. But I didn't micro as much vs non-tank units as they died fast to everything else. On December 18 2014 03:38 Technique wrote: Unit movement looks painfully slow... that already takes the fun right out of it for me. It means you get more time to multitasks and micro. It can be as fun. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
| ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1978 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17025 Posts
and RTS Guru provides this preview. http://www.rtsguru.com/game/575/article/7689/I-Cant-Get-That-Grey-Goo-Out-of-My-Grey-Matter.html interesting note in their conclusion "It strives to reduce the number of busywork decision the player must make as a matter of rote while preserving and enhancing the importance of each decision the player makes." what this boils down to rings familiar with the C&C catch-phrase... "basebuilding that is not a chore". | ||
|
GreggSauce
United States566 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10682 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On December 19 2014 08:33 GreggSauce wrote: it isn't very fun, i played it at pax, it could become fun, but it feels extremely generic to me. didn't get to play goo though, but if only one race doesn't feel generic then what's the point? You could same about Sc2 Terran and Toss. Only Zerg in SC2 is not generic. Terran and Toss design has been seen even before Sc1. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
Look at ra1/ts/ra2... units move very quick - the speed of the game is what made those games fun. Even look at the newer cnc games - cnc3-kw/ra3 units move fast besides the few heavy units. And the seemingly simple unit designs/rolls work because of this speed. If you slow everything down you get into a complete different territory, then units absolutely need interesting abilities like a wc3 game, else it will become boring real quick. And then the economy, besides ra3 all the older games had subtle (and less subtle) ways to optimize your economy. That's definitely part of the ''easy to learn, hard to master'' phrase they like to throw around. Then when you say ''we took out the micromanagement of the economy'' and give units no abilities and let them all move slow as hell... then what exactly is hard to master? The strategies? Timings? Maybe... but it feels shallow to me. And last, the right click speed scroll was also great in cnc games. When I play sc2 (as in almost never) I still miss that feature, I asked the devs making Grey Goo about this feature and I got a ''maybe''. So really... everything I personally associate with the classic rts game feel is not in this game. Sorry for the rant. ![]() | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
As for the rest, we will have to wait and see. Slower movement means average gamers have more time to multitask. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
![]() | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On December 19 2014 22:41 Technique wrote: Probably cause you mostly played generals (I am assuming), the black sheep of the family. ![]() I played all C&C games all the way to C&C 1 on PC386 computers. We loved to build two engineers back then, put them into a transport and go take out enemy HQ. The game had two tactics, either do that to your enemy or ASAP build anti-infantry and put them around your HQ. And even then you would lose some other buildings. Only later when we agreed to not do the engineer stuff the game became more fun :D Oh and its famous tanks have one more range if you are attacking from the bottom "bug". You could use Mammoth Tanks to outrange all stationary towers and easily kill the enemy :D Anyways, I tried them all except for latest C&C that I read was terrible. | ||
|
Technique
Netherlands1542 Posts
In ra2 everything was really quick besides maybe kirov/mammoth. And TS I remember a good mix of slow and quick units, for example Devil's Tongue was SUPER fast underground and kinda slow once surfaced (else they would be way op I guess). And I did play some CnC1 on the Playstation, used to play that against a buddy who had that Playstation link thingy. But all I remember is that he did nothing besides lay mines everywhere, so pointless :D. And that we sometimes put that level (forgot its name) down to the point where you could only make infantry... inf spam wars ftw. Ps: Have you played the alpha? Where there at least some quick units? | ||
|
HaRuHi
1220 Posts
| ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
CnC1 biggest problem was small maps and not enough resources. You could not really build much stuff before you used up the whole map and then waiting for tiberium to come back slowly was too slow. | ||
|
RoieTRS
United States2569 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On December 20 2014 00:28 -Archangel- wrote: I played all C&C games all the way to C&C 1 on PC386 computers. We loved to build two engineers back then, put them into a transport and go take out enemy HQ. The game had two tactics, either do that to your enemy or ASAP build anti-infantry and put them around your HQ. And even then you would lose some other buildings. Only later when we agreed to not do the engineer stuff the game became more fun :D Oh and its famous tanks have one more range if you are attacking from the bottom "bug". You could use Mammoth Tanks to outrange all stationary towers and easily kill the enemy :D Anyways, I tried them all except for latest C&C that I read was terrible. I really miss Red Alert. So much skill involved :> I miss 'Q' micro, crazy macro in custom maps (I played in a league where we had all custom maps - Map of the Week - style...Global Domination...), and the fast paced game play. Not to mention shroud and having no 'map' (e.g. radar) until later in the game that actually had a cost to it. Scouting was a lot more critical and you could definitely tell who was going to win just by their Q micro and build positioning (+ resource micromanagement w/ ore trucks). Very similar to SC1 in that regard..something I found sorely lacking in SC2. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On December 20 2014 14:44 RoieTRS wrote: There's no appeal in a game like this that doesn't cater toward skilled players. Average and lowskill players won't even take the game on in the first place if it doesn't promise a high-skill ceiling or strategically deep game at the highest level. I guess you missed all the talks of people accusing sc2 of not catering to less skilled players and as a result having a smaller player base. Well this game goes opposite. | ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On December 20 2014 20:28 -Archangel- wrote: I guess you missed all the talks of people accusing sc2 of not catering to less skilled players and as a result having a smaller player base. Well this game goes opposite. but SC2 does cater towards the less skilled players. Auto mining, infinite control groups, MBS, anti micro abilities, lack of mechanics, retarded economy designs, warp gates, etc. The list goes on and on and on... What makes an RTS game good is the mechanics. If you dumb down mechanics, you dumb down the game. (Its why Brood war is the best rts game ever created since it has the highest mechanic ceiling of all rts games). | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1978 Posts
On December 20 2014 20:38 amazingxkcd wrote: but SC2 does cater towards the less skilled players. Auto mining, infinite control groups, MBS, anti micro abilities, lack of mechanics, retarded economy designs, warp gates, etc. The list goes on and on and on... What makes an RTS game good is the mechanics. If you dumb down mechanics, you dumb down the game. (Its why Brood war is the best rts game ever created since it has the highest mechanic ceiling of all rts games). I guess it depends. I tend to agree with you but i still have fun with Total Annihilation Zero which is less mechanically demanding than my favourite RTS Broodwar. | ||
| ||

