|
Focused more on graphics than balance and gameplay.
Great graphics will only keep you interested in a game for a short period of time and then all but very few hardcore players will move to other games.
SC on the other hand has decent graphics, sonsidering its a 10 years old game now and even then it was 2D, but it really focused much on gameplay, numerous patches improving the balance every week or two and it was certainly the best RTS game at its time.
Interesting story, interesting and distinct races, low system requirements, easy to learn, hard to master, etc...
Or some games are just plain boring - Dawn of War
|
On January 09 2009 02:02 dmfg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2009 01:53 freelander wrote:On January 07 2009 22:03 Lamentations wrote:
The WC or AoE clones are really annoying, especially when they try to implement 'creative' and 'unique' gameplay mechanics like going underground in armies of exigo but turns out it just ruins the flow of the game. lol you are so funny it's like the destructable obstacles on a map.. you don't have to include underground on a map if you create one you know. the most played exigo map didn't have underground, and not exigo featured underground first.. metal fatigue had 3 playing levels actually. and the other thing: it was a good feature I've never played Exigo but why does this underground thing make me think of burrowed infestors being able to move freely in SC2..?
it's not how you think it is
there is underground level, the closest thing you can think of is the underground levels from the Heroes series, even though those are turn based strategy games.
Basically there are gates where you can go underground, and there are usually new rush routes, expansions there etc. Also there are abilities which have different effects casted underground.
|
On January 03 2009 13:07 Entertaining wrote:
when i play while playing rts like supreme commander i think "i could be cutting my wrists right now" lol jk, id rather play STARCRAFT
knotice how supreme commander is almost like starcraft except crappier and with more units to make it confusing
i hate that game with a passion
|
The thing about supreme commander is that most people haven't played the expansion. The original was unbalanced and slow. Supreme Commander Forged Alliance is like the Broodwar was to original starcraft only more necessary.
FA gameplay is drastically sped up and more balanced. The average 1v1 game ends in 10 minutes now and on some maps an experimental can be stomping towards an opponents by that time (let me repeat an experimental in the first 10 minutes). 1v1 matches rarely go longer than 25 minutes. 2v2 and upward can take longer but even a full 4v4 is now usually only an hour.
The apm needed for supreme commander is still much less than starcraft but the top players in supreme commander regularly are above 100 and there are some who approach 200. This is actually fairly evenly split between micro and macro usually leaning on micro actually.
I'm a big supreme commander fan but also a starcraft fan. A lot of the interesting strategic elements of starcraft have an analogous feature in supreme commander and with the expansion I don't hesitate to say that supreme commander can be a competitive game.
What really has been the failure of Supreme Commander was that it didn't get the support it needed when interest was high. Now even though FA fixes most of the problems that the original had the community remains small. Please get the expansion and give it another try. The single player campaign is pretty bad but the online experience (ranked ladder) is where the good stuff is at.
|
(Random Number Generator)
+ Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck"
|
On January 12 2009 04:11 Volshok wrote:( Random Number Generator) + Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck"
there are a lot of losses because your scout finds later the opponent than your opponent's scout find you..
|
On January 12 2009 04:11 Volshok wrote:( Random Number Generator) + Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck"
What about reavers? They are nothing but luck. People can say they create a OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH moment but when you have 1 reaver taking out 6+ workers every shot in 1 game and in another game another reaver missing all of his shots well.... thats just not right and is very game changing all by luck.
|
On January 12 2009 04:26 freelander wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 04:11 Volshok wrote:( Random Number Generator) + Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck" there are a lot of losses because your scout finds later the opponent than your opponent's scout find you..
That's an issue that exists across the entire RTS genre, not just SC. And it can be resolved by playing maps with only 2 start locations.
|
On January 12 2009 05:03 ManWithCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 04:11 Volshok wrote:( Random Number Generator) + Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck" What about reavers? They are nothing but luck. People can say they create a OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH moment but when you have 1 reaver taking out 6+ workers every shot in 1 game and in another game another reaver missing all of his shots well.... thats just not right and is very game changing all by luck.
That is part of the "little" left to luck. I admitted there is randomness is SC; Scarab travel as you mentioned, is one such issue. However, scarab travel (imo) is not indicative of game wide design flaws.
|
Well I wouldn't call this one in particular "little" since it can directly end a game if the scarabs keep hitting.
|
that movie halfway this post rocked. acad 200$ T_T
|
I think a thing that sets starcraft apart is that the games are dynamic, in DoW you can tell who is going to win after the first major battle. In SC a leader for the beginning of the game can often find themselves losing in the end. This is part of watch makes SC so fun to watch even to the causal viewer
|
On January 12 2009 05:03 ManWithCheese wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2009 04:11 Volshok wrote:( Random Number Generator) + Show Spoiler +
Diss: i remember being at wcg
Diss: and watching these 2 players play this game
Diss: and it was the worst matchup i hate it
Diss: orc v orc
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: grunts raiders kodo
Diss: vs
Diss: frunts raiders kodo
Volshok: Blademaster duels
Diss: anyways, im watching it
Diss: and fuck.., i forget the players names
Diss: but one player was favored over the other
Diss: and he lost
Volshok: The 12 year old spanish kid?
Diss: hahahaha fuckin uh
Diss: leolaporte ? haha nono
Diss: anyways, the guy that lost couldn't figure out why he lost
Diss: and i watched the replay with him
Diss: and we watched the final game
Diss: and you know how grunts do like 12-14 dmg
Volshok: Yeah
Diss: hes watching the fight and he just turns to me and is like
Diss: he rolled all 14s and i rolled all 12s
Diss: thats all i can think of
Volshok: Ouch.
Diss: i mean its sad when a competant player is able to go over all of the information after a game
Diss: and still not be able to have a good answer as to how the outcome actually came about
I'd say SC is great because it's a balanced playing field that rewards players for the actions and decisions they make, leaving little to "luck" What about reavers? They are nothing but luck. People can say they create a OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH moment but when you have 1 reaver taking out 6+ workers every shot in 1 game and in another game another reaver missing all of his shots well.... thats just not right and is very game changing all by luck.
In my opinion Inside the reaver mechanich the luck factor is very smart, the micro factor is like 95% or more (reaver placement/opponent workers-units run/reaver aim etc).
You can't compare 1 sc unit 5% luck factor to wc3 all units random attac (12-14), items drop, etc
On January 17 2009 04:44 Grel wrote:
I think a thing that sets starcraft apart is that the games are dynamic
ye and fluid/ballanced/clear and extremely competitive, already after 2:30 minuts start direct pvp challenge, instead of kill creeps and do items shopping
|
well imo that 5% is rather 50%
|
1) Too many units occupy the same niche and there's a lack of diversity among units. Why build Heavy tanks when you could build Mammoth tanks? Why build light tanks or missile trucks when you could get Heavy Tanks? (CnC). A lot of units were mostly flashy but didn't really bring anything fresh into the game. Warcraft three slightly falls into this as well, in that a lot of units in Castle-tech completely outclass in every way the corresponding tier two or tier one unit. The difference that was made in Starcraft is that (most) units are specialized and diverse so that they find their place in a niche that isn't a iron hardcounter to any specific strategy, but a malleable softcounter to an opponent's observed unit combination. Each race is also given a different dynamic, which changes the pace of the gameplay immensely.
2) Reaction and scouting isn't that important: if you see your opponent going seeker rush, there's nothing you can really do except continue with the strategy that you started with; a seeker rush. Starcraft strategies on the other hand are so numerously diverse (yet still not as to be just too much for a gamer) and importantly, there is no "winning" strategy such as the OU Seeker Rush. Really, a lot of more unorthodox strategies (such as Reverse Stove sairgoon, bluegoon v T, bachanic or ghosts v P, or Dragoon Templar v Z, etc.) are semi-viable and at least make for an interesting game dynamic, whereas in a lot of RTS's its all about massing a lot of one type of tank and then winning.
3) Weak-paced micromanagement; almost all units don't move too quickly and micromanaging them doesn't lead to much benefit.
4) No depth in economy. Macromanagement and expanding in Starcraft is tremendously important, but the same can't be said of most RTS games that have less-harassable bases or less benefits to economic expansion, overall dumbing down the gameplay in other RTS's. All false in upper level play.
All very false.
|
they failed cos blizzard didnt make em. end of
|
I have to say the naval battles in the new total war look promising.
|
On January 17 2009 06:49 L wrote:Show nested quote +1) Too many units occupy the same niche and there's a lack of diversity among units. Why build Heavy tanks when you could build Mammoth tanks? Why build light tanks or missile trucks when you could get Heavy Tanks? (CnC). A lot of units were mostly flashy but didn't really bring anything fresh into the game. Warcraft three slightly falls into this as well, in that a lot of units in Castle-tech completely outclass in every way the corresponding tier two or tier one unit. The difference that was made in Starcraft is that (most) units are specialized and diverse so that they find their place in a niche that isn't a iron hardcounter to any specific strategy, but a malleable softcounter to an opponent's observed unit combination. Each race is also given a different dynamic, which changes the pace of the gameplay immensely.
2) Reaction and scouting isn't that important: if you see your opponent going seeker rush, there's nothing you can really do except continue with the strategy that you started with; a seeker rush. Starcraft strategies on the other hand are so numerously diverse (yet still not as to be just too much for a gamer) and importantly, there is no "winning" strategy such as the OU Seeker Rush. Really, a lot of more unorthodox strategies (such as Reverse Stove sairgoon, bluegoon v T, bachanic or ghosts v P, or Dragoon Templar v Z, etc.) are semi-viable and at least make for an interesting game dynamic, whereas in a lot of RTS's its all about massing a lot of one type of tank and then winning.
3) Weak-paced micromanagement; almost all units don't move too quickly and micromanaging them doesn't lead to much benefit.
4) No depth in economy. Macromanagement and expanding in Starcraft is tremendously important, but the same can't be said of most RTS games that have less-harassable bases or less benefits to economic expansion, overall dumbing down the gameplay in other RTS's. All false in upper level play. All very false.
Yes what I said was an oversimplification, and there is more depth to other games on the upper level of play, but that doesn't detract from the fact that there is just so much MORE depth on the upper levels of play in Starcraft, so much more importance of multimanagement (I am aware that pros can micro CnC heavy-tanks like dragoons and etc), and so forth. What other games had is the difference between choosing say a hydralisk with more HP and more damage but less cost, and a regular hydralisk, whereas in SC it's the choice between a hydralisk and a mutalisk, both of which fill entirely different niches within the game. Other games are by no-means not skillbased, or are by no means bad games, but can you elaborate more on your point on how it's very false that SC has more diversity, more reaction/scouting/micromanagement, and more depth to the economy please? And in which games?
|
|
|
On January 22 2009 18:06 hunter3 wrote:
Warcraft II = win
Big time. I still listen to the soundtrack on my ipod and I cry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
