[ May 19, 2007, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: 777 ]
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Huh?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That looks like a teaser site counting down Blizzard's previous releases, culminating with their next big (unannounced) project.
Buzz I'm hearing suggests it might be World of Starcraft ...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I heard the same buzz, as they are hiring staff for an MMORPG.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
No way dude, It's Diablo 3. I'm almost dead sure.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If it's a MMO, I'll be profoundly disappointed.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think it'll be Diablo 3, with like a single-player campaign and then the similar stuff online to what they had in Diablo 2 and WoW. I personally hate MMORPGs and I want something like Warcraft 3 or Starcraft to be made but that's probably not going to happen.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I can't imagine them releasing another MMO when WoW is doing as well as it is. There's no reason to undercut themselves like that. I think it's probably more likely to be Starcraft:2 which paves the way for a Starcraft MMO down the line, not unlike what was done with Warcraft.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
If they followed the same release pattern, then a Starcraft 3 would have to happen as well, before any Space of Starcraft was made.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's no reason to undercut themselves like that.
Why not? Churn is a known issue.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Definitely time for Starcraft II. Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Personally, I haven't touched Diablo or Starcraft in so long, I'm sort of having a hard time working up a lot of enthusiasm for either. I'd have to see the game first before I can set my excitement level.
I'm much more interested right now in the recently-announced Call of Duty 4, Splinter Cell: Conviction, and this weird MMO from Funcom called The Secret World ...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I am level 67, halfway to level 68, in World of Warcraft currently.
I would not be surprised at the announcement of a Starcraft MMORPG, on the same day I finally hit 70.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
Heh, that Starcraft2.com site has been the same since... oh, 2002. That being said, I hope it's Starcraft 2.
I'm hoping it's an RTS game, and preferably Starcraft. the only reason I have to think it won't be World of Starcraft is that it would compete with WoW, and would be released by the same corporation.
At least the Warhammer games are by different developers (and look like they'll be vastly different games. Go THQ!)
I'd be happy with Diablo 3 though...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I hope it is Starcraft 2. Starcraft MMO will do nothing for me, as I don't much care for MMORPGs. But Starcraft 2 would pique my interest, as SC is one of my favorite RTS games.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I would be surprised if Blizzard were to release a competing MMORPG for one of its own games, already the top of the heap by a long shot if I'm not mistaken.
What would be the benefit for them? They certainly wouldn't be getting any economies of scale or anyhing. It's not a "have two for twice as much" issue, either.
Then again, if they were announcing production now, it's not as though it would come out quickly or anything. I'm not an expert, maybe Puffy? I'd think two years minimum before it went gold, or maybe even before it went beta. So they could be planning ahead, if that's the case.
I'd really like a Starcraft 2, though. It was a fun game, and I'd like to see what happens next Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, the release will be announced on May 19th at the World Wide Invitational Tourny in SK.
Interestingly, Starcraft: Ghost, which was cancelled a couple years ago, is listed on Best Buy for preorder on PS2/Xbox/Gamecube (which is suspicious since those are all a generation old systems) with a release date of June 15, 2007.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What would be the benefit for them?
Churn. It's a known issue with MMO business models: people play, max out all the characters they care to max out, and then move on (sometimes with their whole guild) to the next big thing. The quality of the original game only seems to slow down this inevitable disillusionment -- which makes sense, because MMOs are inherently unfun; at best, a well-designed MMO can just delay that moment when you realize "I'm not actually enjoying myself" for a year or two. People with really addictive personalities may never even figure this out, and will move on only after they believe they've "won" the game as much as it can be won.
So if you know that an enormous chunk of your player base is going to migrate to another game about once every two to three years, regardless of how good your actual game is, there is substantial incentive to also publish the game they migrate to. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
WarDiabloCraft - Coming SOON!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, the release will be announced on May 19th at the World Wide Invitational Tourny in SK.
Interestingly, Starcraft: Ghost, which was cancelled a couple years ago, is listed on Best Buy for preorder on PS2/Xbox/Gamecube (which is suspicious since those are all a generation old systems) with a release date of June 15, 2007.
Don't put stock in what retailers say about release dates, they are typically just estimates and they are loath to simply expunge and entry no matter what its status. StarCraft:Ghost is dead, or in blizzard's terms, "On hold indefinitely." I don't expect to ever see it come out in its current incarnation, perhaps down the road they will completely overhaul it, and release it then, or perhaps they will take certain concepts from it and incorporate them into the new Starcraft game down the road, but I wouldn't expect to see it ever.
But in response to the original poster, BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA YES YES YES REVEAL THE NEW FACE OF MY SOON TO BE ADDICTION!
Ok I really need to get to work and earn money like a decent human being Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Don't put stock in what retailers say about release dates,...
***cough*** Half-Life 2... ***cough*** Team Fortress II... ***cough*** Duke Nukem Forever... ***wheeze*** Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So here is my Blizzard fanboy resume:
Warcraft: Orcs & Humans This, along with Doom and Doom II, were the very first computer games I played a lot. I played the Orcs exclusively, hereby starting my loyalty to the green skinned ones. It is now 13 years later, and I am nearly level 70 in WoW with an Orc Shaman. For the horde! Now, I was never particularly good at this game. In fact, I had more fun editing the files which store unit information, and going to town on the humans with uber units. I was a young kid though, so cut me some slack.
Warcraft II Once again I was an Orc player. Never did play online (no internet for me back then). I beat both campaigns, and also both campaigns of the expansion.
Diablo I played a Sorcerer, and played him a ridiculous amount of time. I beat the game probably 100+ times over, getting him more and more elixirs and spells. Tristram was reduced to a huge pile of gold and items when I got done with it.
Starcraft Still one of my favorite games of all time. I still crank it up every now and then, if only to tear through the Terran campaigns again. Unlike the vast majority of Starcraft fans, I've never played this online. I loved the single player campaigns, and this was the first game where I started to spend just as much time with the campaign editor as I did with the actual game! I played Terrans mostly, and loved the *CHOOOM* of siege tanks. I also really liked the marines. I also had a crush on Sarah Kerrigan's voice, as a lot of guys did I hear. (I also thought the medic's voice was adorable, and it turns out they were the same voice actress: Glynnis Talken Campbell).
Diablo II The numbers of hours logged to this game for me is truly obscene. I played a ton back few years ago, and have started back up a few times since then. Here are my top characters (six total): Necromancer (94,92) Sorceress (93,87) Paladin (92,89) I've done more cow runs then any man ever should. I have recently given away my CD key, and think that the monkey is finally off my back.
Warcraft III As you may have guessed, once again an Orc player . I actually did play this one online a bit, but never have I had the twitch style of gameplay needed to truly be good at it. I tended to stick to a Farseer. This game I probably spent two to three times as much time designing my own campaigns, stories, and playable races as I did playing the game.
World of Warcraft I was in the second phase of the closed beta, and played an Orc Shaman. When the beta ended, and I had very little money for a while, I didn't subscribe. Then I did subscribe for a while, got a few characters into the twenties, and another Orc Shaman to level 44. Then I took a year off. I recently resubscribed in Feb of this year, and have since gotten my Shaman up to level 67. He will be level 68 soon, and probably level 70 within a week or two.
? Whatever this game is, you can bet I will play it a ton!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:MMOs are inherently unfun;
I'm thinking you're not playing them right, because I find them to be great fun.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
MMOs are not fun for me either, and I "play them right". Just becuase somebody doesn't like it like you do doesn't mean there is something wrong with them or the way they play them.
If it's StarCraft 2, I'll be all over it. I haven't played a good RTS game in a long time. C&C games have been crappy since Red Alert 2.
If it's Diablo 3, you will never hear from me again.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As for MMO or RTS, I really think it could go either way. Rumor has it that blizz will also announce a new game come this august at Blizzcon.
Blizzard has expanded enormously, I think the staff for WOW is sufficient to keep it going perpetually, and since Blizzard has two other design teams I'd be surprised if they only have ONE game in the "currently working on" section.
Blizz has learned TONS and improved the MMO genre by a considerable leap, it is reasonably to believe that if they created a new MMORPG it would still be much different from WOW even if there were a good number of similarities.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nick: When somebody says, "MMOs are inherently unfun," Thats a pretty broad statement. Thats like saying team sports are inherently unfun. Its pretty hard to state why that is so without just saying, thats my opinion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:MMOs are not fun for me either, and I "play them right". Just becuase somebody doesn't like it like you do doesn't mean there is something wrong with them or the way they play them.
By the same token, people who enjoy MMOs aren't simply fooling themselves or have yet to "realize" that they aren't having fun.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I will be very irritated with Blizzard if it's another MMO, even if it's StarCraft based.
I want a good RTS or RPG. I was just playing Diablo 2 last night wondering if there ever was going to be a Diablo 3.
WarCraft has had its day, move on. I liked WarCraft 1, 2, and 3 w/ expansions, but I want something NEW for crying out loud. StarCraft has only had ONE game.
*prays for a StarCraft RTS*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm thinking you're not playing them right, because I find them to be great fun.
In what way? Compared to other genres? I'm hard-pressed to come up with something that the MMO genre does better than any other genre, with the possible exception of cooperative teaming -- and even there, any such teaming is ultimately subsumed by the genre's complete dedication to the grind.
I suppose it's possible to carve some genuine fun out of a MMO, but it's important to recognize that any attempt to do so is actually a conscious subversion of the game design.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Nick: When somebody says, "MMOs are inherently unfun," Thats a pretty broad statement. Thats like saying team sports are inherently unfun. Its pretty hard to state why that is so without just saying, thats my opinion.
I didn't say that they are inherently unfun, that was Tom's statement. I simply disagreed with Dagonee's statement that people who don't like them MUST be playing them wrong. That is a totally false statement. Also, what's wrong with me saying "I don't like MMORPGs because they don't provide any level of fun for me"? Am I supposed to provide quantifiable proof? Do you find it offensive that I don't like the games you like?
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: By the same token, people who enjoy MMOs aren't simply fooling themselves or have yet to "realize" that they aren't having fun.
When did I say otherwise? I never said people who enjoy them are fooling themselves...
Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think Dag was just pointing out that I was over-generalizing. And then you pointed out that he was over-generalizing.
Which is why I suggest that we all learn to TOLERATE a certain degree of over-generalization; the alternative is pretty much what I imagine Hell might be like.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Fair enough, Tom.
I like the games I like, Tom likes his, Dag likes his, and BlackBlade likes his. We all like them equally and there is nothing wrong with any of us.
Can't we all get along? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. People who like the wrong sort of games must be either re-educated or destroyed.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Which is why I suggest that we all learn to TOLERATE a certain degree of over-generalization; the alternative is pretty much what I imagine Hell might be like.
Writing this one down,
Nick: I don't think we understand each other. You were defending Tom's statement, and I was stating why it was not the best statement, I was not trying to dabble into how you have found MMOs to be not fun across the board, to each his own.
If its a SC MMORPG I will be very excited, if its Diablo MMORPG Ill be very excited, if its SC RTS I will be very excited, if its COMPLETELY NEW FRANCHISE RTS or MMORPG or even just RPG Ill be VERY VERY excited!
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I wasn't defending Tom's statement, merely saying that I didn't find them fun either, personally.
I'm still hoping it's StarCraft 2(RTS).
StarCraft, WarCraft, and C&C Red Alert were my all time favorite RTS games. Too bad Westwood sold, that's when their games really went down to a porcelain death.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Everyone has clearly misunderstood that link. It's a cry for help from a company that doesn't know where to go.
Help them. Please help them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Would suggesting World of Diablostacraft be too much of a...JUXTAPOSATION?!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Hang on, hang on.
LAWL.
Yes. Lawl.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Must resist... but you made a countdown reference.
Anyway, My bet is on Starcraft 2. So many places to go in that universe, and it's time for another RTS. There will be a fouth faction this time. Shamans and pallies from space!
Wow is fun and all but I'm still hoping for a Fallout MMO.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Wow is fun and all but I'm still hoping for a Fallout MMO.
That could quite possibly the most popular concept that everyone wants made, but for some reason has just never happened.
If you google for it you will find TONS of close calls for an actualy game being made.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When did I say otherwise? I never said people who enjoy them are fooling themselves...
Are you trying to put words in my mouth?
I was clarifying my original post, which was in response to Tom, not you.
quote:I think Dag was just pointing out that I was over-generalizing. And then you pointed out that he was over-generalizing.
Which is why I suggest that we all learn to TOLERATE a certain degree of over-generalization; the alternative is pretty much what I imagine Hell might be like.
Actually, I didn't over-generalize. I said YOU must be be playing them wrong. I said nothing about anyone else.
This is actually somewhat true, not just a smart-mouth response. Based on how I've seen you talk about games, I think you'd have had a blast in Ogres for Ogres on EQ's Vallon Zek. We were funny, we fought impossible odds, we did things that were generally considered not possible, and we killed lots of good-aligned characters. We also got great screenshots of Ogre trains running across the plains.
quote:In what way? Compared to other genres? I'm hard-pressed to come up with something that the MMO genre does better than any other genre, with the possible exception of cooperative teaming -- and even there, any such teaming is ultimately subsumed by the genre's complete dedication to the grind.
I suppose it's possible to carve some genuine fun out of a MMO, but it's important to recognize that any attempt to do so is actually a conscious subversion of the game design.
I view MMO's as providing a world for me to mess around in with other people. I think that's by design - most companies put in a "storyline" or progression for hard-core raider types and also provide lots of other content. I like it better than multi-player role-playing games because I like to meet people, usually who know people I already know but sometimes based on my saving them or them saving me from a bad situation. I don't think this is subversion, I think it's there by design. There's some really funny and witty people.
I also make up my own challenges, some progression-oriented, some not.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Im hoping for a RTS probly a Supreme Commander blend of Starcraft, but while I would be dissappointed in an MMO Starcraft I would play it as long as it accomlished one of 2 things:
Continues to interactively tell the story of the Koprolu sector.
and if inseatd of being a WoW kind of MMO is more of a Planetside MMO, where it is a continueus back and forth struggle for domination between the Terrans and Protoss versus the Zerg.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:In what way? Compared to other genres? I'm hard-pressed to come up with something that the MMO genre does better than any other genre, with the possible exception of cooperative teaming -- and even there, any such teaming is ultimately subsumed by the genre's complete dedication to the grind.
The reason that MMORPGs are fun is inherently tied to the social aspects of the game.
The reason I stopped playing WoW was because I wasn't having much fun. I hadn't made any friends on there, and was basically playing it like a single-player game. In that regard, it did get boring.
Now that I've found a guild which I can actually tolerate, my "fun" has increased exponentially. Very recently I got teamspeak, which allows you to talk to others with headsets in order to cooperate and coordinate challenges in a group. After I got done running a new instance with it and some members of my guild, I told Niki that it was most fun I'd had yet playing the game. In fact, it was probably the most fun I've ever had playing a computer game period.
Honestly Tom, calling what over 15 million people spend a lot of their time doing "unfun" is fine, but implying that when we think we are having fun that we are deluding ourselves, really doesn't put you in a good light.
It's the same as declaring that the millions of sports fans out there "aren't really having fun" when watching a game, and trying to justify that position. You come off as a jerk, even if you think that its true.
I personally think that knitting is "inherently unfun" for me, but I am not going to tell the knitters of the world that they just think they are enjoying themselves.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Honestly Tom, calling what over 15 million people spend a lot of their time doing "unfun" is fine, but implying that when we think we are having fun that we are deluding ourselves, really doesn't put you in a good light.
*shrug* No biggie. The thing that I see, though, is that you'd have more fun with the same group doing almost anything ELSE. In general, long-term grouping in a MMO becomes a serious pain in the butt due to the demands of the grind. Grind's killed (to one degree or another) all the Hatrack attempts to group, for example.
Now, you could design a massively-multiplayer game without a grind-advancement mechanic. There are even a few (like Guild Wars) already out there. But the issue there is that they quickly evolve into FPS games rather than RPGs at that stage, meaning we're no longer talking about the same genre. (Note that I don't consider character advancement to be an essential attribute of CRPGs, but I'm in the minority on that one; still, all that means is that I consider more things to be RPGs than other people might.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also its been almost a year since Blizzard announced it was working with Legendary Pictures to make the live action WOW movie. What has happened with that?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tom: MMOs = IRC + RPG. I like chatting. I like killing things and taking their loot. With an MMO, I can do both at the same time.
Oh, since this is an MMO thread..
ObBrag: Got my swift flying mount this morning. I had 5200g, now I have 8 silver.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Tom: MMOs = IRC + RPG. I like chatting. I like killing things and taking their loot. With an MMO, I can do both at the same time.
Oh, since this is an MMO thread..
ObBrag: Got my swift flying mount this morning. I had 5200g, now I have 8 silver.
I have no idea how I will obtain that much gold, I hover almost constantly at 2000g never getting beyond +300 or -300g.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:*shrug* No biggie. The thing that I see, though, is that you'd have more fun with the same group doing almost anything ELSE.
Like what? Playing a first person shooter? Sorry, shooting people over and over again is "inherently unfun" to me.
Playing a RTS? Strategy games are fun for me, until I hit the wall between casual and hardcore players, and get the floor wiped with my corpse. The only way RTS are fun is against other people, and in this scenario someone has to lose. I don't like to lose over and over again.
This isn't so for an MMORPG, where the "loser" is almost always the boss at the end of the mission. And even when you lose, you gain gear/money/rep/XP, so it was still worth your time more often than not.
Also key here for me is progression. Every time I start up an RTS (for multi-player), I have the same exact setup that I will every other time I will ever play it. The only thing that progresses is (supposedly) your skill. This can be fun, for a few weeks, a couple of months at best.
In an MMORPG, I get new abilities, new items, new recipes for trade-skills, as well as new challenges, at regular intervals. The game is not the same exact game every time I play it. This is essential for a long-lasting gaming experience.
I do have a lot of fun with the single player portions of RTS games, because your "army" progresses, as does the plot. Unfortunately, RTS campaigns usually end within a couple of weeks of play time.
Single Player RPGS? Actually, I've played these a bunch, but most take only a couple of weeks to beat, and you miss the social aspect of an MMORPG. You get your character to Uber status, and then what? There are no more challenges left. In an MMORPG, they are constantly adding new things to do.
Racing? The "grind" here is beating your own best time. Sorry, I will pass.
Simulations? I loved the Sims, and it's sequel. Once you get the basic strategy down, however, it's pretty much the same thing every day. Once you get the biggest house you want, and everyone has the top career, what's left to do?
Perhaps I should ask you which games are fun, Tom, and why you think this is the case.
We could perhaps also get into which other activities qualify, if we rule out computer games completely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I like killing things and taking their loot.
See, that's what I dispute. It's the "taking their loot" part -- or even the "getting their XP" part -- that's perceived as fun when it actually isn't. The "progression" that Xavier describes, the "loot" that Pix describes, are illusory achievements: the environment ramps up to match them, so nothing is actually GAINED. It's a treadmill of steadily-decreasing reward.
It can feel satisfying, but I'm going to remain firm in my assertion that "collecting" in that way is not so much "fun" as it is "compelling." It's why Oblivion felt like candyfloss, and why the people who talk about Diablo don't talk about the gameplay, or even their character's abilities, but rather about their levels and gear. (Note: I'm using non-MMOs to illustrate that the problem is the obsession with "progression," and not anything inherent in having a large online player base; having lots of players just creates more of a progression-mania.)
There's an element of obsessive collection involved in MMOs that, as it does with CCGs, casino gambling, etc., strikes me as profoundly unhappy. And like all those other hobbies (arguably less so with CCGs), the rewards rapidly decrease with time; by the end, the time required for each marginal return is enormous.
(Of course, that brings me to the other problem with many MMOs: that the only currency of value is time, something that's untrue for pretty much every other type of "fun.")
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
For me fun is something cyclictic, for one week somehing is fun then unfun so i spend the next week doing something else. And eventually I get back to whats fun.
For me WoW is fun again and im playing it more, heck part of the reason could be that I play it for free but meh.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's the "taking their loot" part -- or even the "getting their XP" part -- that's perceived as fun when it actually isn't. The "progression" that Xavier describes, the "loot" that Pix describes, are illusory achievements: the environment ramps up to match them, so nothing is actually GAINED. It's a treadmill of steadily-decreasing reward.
It IS fun - because the gain can be measured both by what one can do that one couldn't before and by what more one can do in the environment.
For example, there are a series of bards stationed in various places on one of the continents in EQ. They killed my character numerous times when it was weak.
Later, I went back and soloed each and everyone of them. It was fun.
I've also had fun in the economy on EQ. I got one piece of desirable equipment and sold it. Then I bought some other things that I knew were underpriced, carried them to a place where they were worth more, and sold them.
I bartered. I advertised. I engaged in price wars or cornered the market on certain things. It was fun. To me.
It was also useful to those didn't do this for fun, because the market let them do other things that were fun to them.
There's a lot of strategy involved in these games - equally-equipped/leveled characters can vary in power by factors of 2 or more. Convincing someone to try a new strategy and then fine tuning it is fun.
I know lots of raiders whose fun is figuring out the latest boss mob. Sure, they like the drops. But they also like figuring out ways to get around the developers' tricks.
This is what makes me think it's how you play the game that actually matters. You seem to have seized on one aspect - the progression - and declared that not really fun. But there's far more to the game than that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But there's far more to the game than that.
Not really. There's more to the people who PLAY the game, but there's not much more to the game. I respect EVE a bit for this, because it's honest about it: the players bring a depth to it that the designers have been up-front about not being willing to implement. And yet even the most famous EVE "story" involves someone not actually playing the game.
It's like saying that RISK is a fun game because you can try to see how high you can stack the little plastic pieces.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:It's the "taking their loot" part -- or even the "getting their XP" part -- that's perceived as fun when it actually isn't.
For you.
quote:The "progression" that Xavier describes, the "loot" that Pix describes, are illusory achievements:
As are all video game achievements. Winning the superbowl in Madden, beating the best time in Wave Race, killing Darth Malik in KOTOR, conquering the world in Civ, are all "fake" achievements. It's called a game for a reason. I think the part which you are missing is that gaining achievements, however illusory, can still be fun!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:But there's far more to the game than that.
Not really. There's more to the people who PLAY the game, but there's not much more to the game.
I think your definition of "the game" is hopelessly narrow. I do all of those things in the game. The reason I can do them all is because the game - by design - is free-form in structure and - again, by design - allows and encourages that type of interaction.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It's like saying that RISK is a fun game because you can try to see how high you can stack the little plastic pieces.
No, it's more like saying that someone who uses house rules in D&D to have fun is still playing D&D.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
My leet epics aren't real!?! Oh snap!
I'll go read a book, because there my reward on completion is definitely tangible....I've got it right here....
Posted by gsim1337 (Member # 10168) on :
I'm just sitting back and ticking off the days till Guild Wars 2 comes out.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Winning the superbowl in Madden, beating the best time in Wave Race, killing Darth Malik in KOTOR, conquering the world in Civ, are all "fake" achievements.
Oh, absolutely. But they all a) require skill, even if that skill is not useful in the real world and/or b) represent "accomplishment" in the game. If you win the Super Bowl or kill Malik, you've won; in a MMO, if you win the Super Bowl, that just means that someone else can't win it for a half hour. And that big sword you got from the nasty boss might make you better at killing things for the next ten minutes, but that just ensures that you'll level to a point where it's no longer a useful sword even faster.
I think we're calling "addiction" fun. It's like saying that video poker is "fun," instead of soul-deadening.
--------
calaban, you're missing the point I'm making. It's not that video game achievements aren't "real;" it's that MMO achievements aren't even real within the framework of the game. The few things that ARE "permanent" advantages -- like epic mounts, for example -- are generally deliberately grueling to get, mainly to increase their perceived value and exclusivity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, absolutely. But they all a) require skill, even if that skill is not useful in the real world and b) represent "accomplishment" in the game. If you win the Super Bowl or kill Malik, you've won; in a MMO, if you win the Super Bowl, that just means that someone else can't win it for a half hour. And that big sword you got from the nasty boss might make you better at killing things for the next ten minutes, but that just ensures that you'll level to a point where it's no longer a useful sword even faster.
I think we're calling "addiction" fun. It's like saying that video poker is "fun," instead of soul-deadening.
MMOs definitely require skill, unless one simply grinds until a new mob isn't difficult. Which is basically choosing to play in easy mode.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But as long as you choose to continue to play, you are in essence grinding until a new mob isn't difficult. That's part of what I meant about time being the only currency of value.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:MMOs definitely require skill, unless one simply grinds until a new mob isn't difficult. Which is basically choosing to play in easy mode.
And which you can no longer do at level 70 in WoW.
In order to progress in high end content, your group needs to do well together, and instant communication between team members is essential (which is why teamspeak is a requirement for pretty much all guilds these days). Killing a difficult boss can take just as much skill as capturing the flag in a FPS.
But you're also not considering PVP, Tom, in which you get better gear to help you kill other players with. I don't particularly feel the need to kill other players to feel like my progression "matters", but to those who do, you can go to a battleground or arena and you are basically playing a FPS at that point.
Edit: In this case, your arena wins and losses as a team are ranked like chess rankings, and the better your record, the higher your rank. This could be your "accomplishment" which you this is so vital.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But as long as you choose to continue to play, you are in essence grinding until a new mob isn't difficult. That's part of what I meant about time being the only currency of value.
Which is only relevant if you keep hunting those mobs until then.
If you move on before they become easy, then that problem doesn't exist.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Since I mentioned that I personally don't need PVP, perhaps I will expand on my own sense of accomplishment.
When I get to level 70, I plan on respeccing to a healing spec for my Shaman. To cut out the lingo, this means that instead of my character being set up to kill monsters, it will instead be set up to heal player characters.
I plan on using this character to help group of guild-mates clear harder and harder content. To me, being able to heal a party through difficult encounters will be all the accomplishment required to have fun. In order to be able to heal through these encounters. You need better and better gear, and loads of skill. You won't get anywhere if you have one, and not the other.
To me, overcoming greater and greater challenges is a blast.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I agree with you on quite a few points Tom , I was just trying to lighten the mood a little.
I especially agree that addiction to MMO's can be just as destructive as any other habit that is allowed to reach a cumpulsive level.
Take Wow for instance, To be member of a raiding guild often requires from 20 to 40 hours a week (some demand even more). Additionally you need to farm your own materials required for your raid on your "own time." That kind of commitment is what kills jobs, educations, and relationships not to mention the dangers to health and personal hygene.
I enjoy many aspects of WOW. The persistent character the rich backstory of games I have played in the past and the PVP aspects are a few of them. However in my opinion the demanded time to reach the pinnacle of the game is a little steep. I will not sacrifice anything to get purple pixles, including sleep. Its just not worth it to me.
But thats just me; There are those for who the required time is worth it. Some people really find playing for bragging rights fun. Being the person that has the unique mount or that edge on the battle field is what it's all about. I think we might consider shifting the nature of the debate here away from whether or not MMO's are fun towards a discussion on how fun is defined. Perhaps we might emphasise understanding why there are so many diverse ways people seek to have fun, some of which are not universally accepted by the rest of us.
Edited for runonsentenceofdeath.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Tom, for gods sake man, enough. by your definition nothing is fun because everything is an illusion. I could up your logic one level and state that LIFE is meaningless because it is an illusion, I do not personally believe this but i believe it should fittingly represent the slipperly slope your logic leads to. People play games because we like it and thats the only reason that matters next thing we know youll try to campaign for video games to be banned for something.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Tom, for gods sake man, enough. by your definition nothing is fun because everything is an illusion. I could up your logic one level and state that LIFE is meaningless because it is an illusion, I do not personally believe this but i believe it should fittingly represent the slipperly slope your logic leads to. People play games because we like it and thats the only reason that matters next thing we know youll try to campaign for video games to be banned for something.
In my book one of the primary components of fun is it's ethereal nature. Fun cannot last for ever or else it becomes tedium. For many people MMO's are nothing but tedium. I understand thier veiwpoint and do not consider it unjustifiable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Something is either fun or it is not. And it's an interpretation, on a personal level.
My MMO experience wasn't magically 'not actually fun' because the fun I was actually having was an 'illusion' with no 'real progress.' Whether I'm getting my fun from an MMO, video poker, reading a book, crack cocaine, yoga, sex, or whatever, it's all still fun as long as I'm having it.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Sorry to break up the dispute, but...
Has anyone considered the possibility that they might come out with something other than a simple RTS or MMORPG? Something along the lines of...
...a MMORTS?
Something along the lines of Gate 88--a dynamic RTS battlefield where hundreds of players engage each other in a battle for the Koprulu Sector. I could easily see something this massive coming out, especially from Blizzard. After all, their job listings involve both RTSs and MMORPGs.
Just a thought. Purely speculative. But I seriously doubt it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I especially agree that addiction to MMO's can be just as destructive as any other habit that is allowed to reach a cumpulsive level.
Not literally. There are habits which can literally give you brain damage. MMOs, AFAIK, cannot.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
2 pages and the game hasn't been announced yet. lol...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Not literally. There are habits which can literally give you brain damage. MMOs, AFAIK, cannot.
You've obviously not experienced Barrens chat...
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
PVP in WoW (I'm not familiar with other MMORPGs) has to be about the most unsatisfying out there. I don't agree with everything Tom is saying, but I do agree with his point that time is the only currency that matters in WoW.
After playing battlegrounds against twinks, I don't think I'd seriously play PVP in MMORPGs. Lots of Gold=chugging pots every 2 minutes, godly gear, more opportunities for talent tweaks, etc. Since really, the only way to get gold is time, those people that have more time they are willing to invest in the game will always outclass people who spend less time.
I like a game like Counterstrike, where the only component is your skill (once you get past the learning curve). OTH, I do miss the lack of progression in CS. If only there was a way to get the progression based more on skill than grind....
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:After playing battlegrounds against twinks, I don't think I'd seriously play PVP in MMORPGs. Lots of Gold=chugging pots every 2 minutes, godly gear, more opportunities for talent tweaks, etc. Since really, the only way to get gold is time, those people that have more time they are willing to invest in the game will always outclass people who spend less time.
Try the arena. You have to be level 70, so no twinks. No consumables allowed.
You do need gear, of course, but all the rest is skill. The best arena gear is also gotten by, well, doing arena matches, so you don't even have to really compete much against hardcore raiders.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Since really, the only way to get gold is time
Or credit card.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There are MMORTS or MMOFPS games, Navyfield, Planetside, Tabula Rasa (in beta), Warhammer MMORVRRPG etc
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
I just bought the expansion pack for WoW today. I'm very excited.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Outlands is a blast!
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
You know what would really rock? A non-online Blizzard game with no graphics to speak of and no multiplayer. It would be great if the file size were about 40 megs, too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
WoW: Palm Pilot edition. It would be wow in text format!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Warcraft I?
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
We should change the name of this thread to: An argument of "My definition of fun is better than yours!"
And by the way Tom, don't ever rag on KOTOR again. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
Novelty, Blayne. Novelty and originality. And no, I'm not on crack.
I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
In other news, this is the countown I am watching.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its called "Civ2" Mr Toad.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Or perhaps "Starcraft". That game is still pretty much the peak of RTS, and I could play it on a lousy laptop.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote: I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
I've played both Starcraft and Civ II. I'm talking about Blizzard or a company in the same vein releasing, now , a game that fits those specifications. Just for the interest of seeing what they would do.
And Starcraft is online. It does have a good single-player campaign, but most Starcraft is played on the Battlenet servers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Total Annihilation trumps Starcraft every which way.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
no no no no NO
NO
NO...
no...
Even better....
Total Anniliation PLUS starcraft as ONE game....
I think I am on... to something here...
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban: In other news, this is the countown I am watching.
Oh, hell yes!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Can someone explain the Fallout thing to me? I got told over and over again to play the games. A few years ago, I found a bundle pack of Fallout 1 & 2 at a CompUSA for $0.99 and tried them and I just couldn't get into it, which apparently makes me an RPG heretic.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Can someone explain the Fallout thing to me? I got told over and over again to play the games. A few years ago, I found a bundle pack of Fallout 1 & 2 at a CompUSA for $0.99 and tried them and I just couldn't get into it, which apparently makes me an RPG heretic.
And I am the self appointed inquisition. You will suffer for your crimes!
But seriously, If it a game doesn't suit you that's all good. I think it's funny how cliquish gamers can get. Someone who likes RPG's will trash the FF series, Fallout or the D&D titles as if thier distain actually is more important than another persons enjoyment. GT4 versus Forza. Wii, PS3 and 360 debates. Ford vs Chevy. Evo VS Impreza. Harley versus anything else.
It's as if people are seeking ways to foster even more distain through fabricating as many ways to feel superior to someone else as they possibly can. I can understand why people don't cotton to the Fallout series and that's fine by me; I'm just a sucker for post apocalyptic.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Total Annihilation trumps Starcraft every which way.
Damn straight. Gameplay-wise, it's not even a contest.
The one exception to TA's dominance is the storyline, which even Chris Taylor admits was frankly crap. But since the guys who wrote Starcraft's story have left Blizzard, anyway, I think it's a safe bet that Starcraft 2's story will be orders of magnitude crappier than its predecessor's... y'know, on a level with Warcraft 3.
That said, I'm still psyched for Starcraft 2. Not so much if it turns out to be World of Starcraft (Star of Starcraft? Galaxy of Starcraft? Space-time Continuum of Starcraft?).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: are you on crack how would that be in anyway fun.
Novelty, Blayne. Novelty and originality. And no, I'm not on crack.
I'm only half-joking. I'd like to see a company like Blizzard put out a game that didn't make n00b computers explode, that didn't rely on massive online communities to make it fun, and didn't take a chunk out of your hard drive. Just to see if they could make it a good, playable game.
Actually Toad its generally accepted that Blizzard makes their games very compatable with older computers. Its why people criticized WOW for not having super top end graphics.
But yes, if you have a computer that was say new when Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction came out it probably will not run their new game, whatever it is when it comes out.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Total Annihilation trumps Starcraft every which way.
Damn straight. Gameplay-wise, it's not even a contest.
The one exception to TA's dominance is the storyline, which even Chris Taylor admits was frankly crap. But since the guys who wrote Starcraft's story have left Blizzard, anyway, I think it's a safe bet that Starcraft 2's story will be orders of magnitude crappier than its predecessor's... y'know, on a level with Warcraft 3.
This is somthing that I have heard debated quite hotly. Keep in mind that I love TA and have played it extensivley, I prefer starcraft for many reasons including unit controllability and unit balance.
I have a buddy that was well ranked on TA ladders, he even won a tournament in it's early days using a 14.4. Most of his losses came from DC's in matches where he had the upperhand. He was ungodly with the Dgun.
Later he became a Starcraft fan and was Ladder ranked on Battlenet for a while; I would sometimes just watch him play because the match was that interesting. I haven't seen a game that has the unit contol capacity that starcraft has. By that I mean if you take take two very skilled starcraft players the skill sets they have developed to get to that point will be far and above that required to play any other game at it's top level.
I will grant that in most cases thier matches come down to certain tactics and build schemes that are memorized, the issue is that all RTS have that element. I feel that getting beyond those pat build up schemes and zerg tactics is where Starcraft starts to shine.
It is the only game I know of that I can watch a skilled player play and be just as entertained as playing the game.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Zergling rush!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Zergling rush!
Trumped by firebats inside bunkers.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Arbiter rush!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Arbiter rush!
ordinary marines in bunkers can stop that, ;p
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
power overwhelming gg Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
You guys are terrible. I'm going to have to go home, install, and play Starcraft tonight Unfortunately, my wife doesn't dig the RTS games, she likes the MMORPGs more. This is all on your heads, all of you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Grind's killed (to one degree or another) all the Hatrack attempts to group, for example.
I don't agree with this at all. I think that in CoH, for instance, we had people with greatly different tine zones and availability that caused problems.
I realize you put a qualifier in your statement, I just wanted to clarify that.
There are a lot of reasons why I stopped playing CoH, and none of them had to do with the grind. It was there, to a point, but you could ignore it easily with a group for friends if you weren't into leveling just for leveling's sake.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:I don't agree with this at all. I think that in CoH, for instance, we had people with greatly different tine zones and availability that caused problems.
I was never even able to set up a proper team Beta of my game because of that. I'm in Miami, and I had team members across the globe, from Japan to Austria. At most, I was able to get three people, including myself.
Even worse was my earlier Q2 project (PainRift), in which the *entire* team was in Australia and I was in Miami. So they decided to test the game without their sole programmer present. That went well...
Anyway, I digress. Move along.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Having played both TA and Starcraft, I would just like to say TA is nowhere near Starcraft. Starcraft is infinitely more balanced and fun with far more relying on actual unit strategy and far less on the pure rush aspect. Plus with a smaller number of available units each unit actually has a purpose. TA got absolutely absurd with the number of units you could choose from, many of which I could barely tell the difference between.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pure rush? Who have you been playing TA against? A rush in TA is a sure way to get slaughtered. Anyone with decent defensive skills can destroy a rush.
TA has a lot of units because it is trying to allow considerable flexibility in strategy. Almost all those units are genuinely useful, and choices in unit combinations lead to hundreds of potential, meaningfully distinct strategies for defeating opponents.
Strategy in Starcraft hardly enters the picture. It is a tactical game.
edit: I like starcraft too, but it is a much simpler, less strategic game.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
Strategy in Starcraft hardly enters the picture. It is a tactical game.
Hmm. Using this logic, you could argue that chess is not a strategy game, but rather a tactical game. Not criticizing your perspective or anything like that, but I simply can't see how you arrived at your conclusion that fewer types/numbers of units = less strategy.
Not to mislead you--I love what I've recently experienced with TA. I've only dipped into TA Spring, but the entire game is awesome. My only regret is that Supreme Commander simply won't work on my computer. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Chess isn't a "strategy game," for a given definition of strategy.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
How do you figure that that chess isn't a "strategy game"? Strategy, according to dictionary.com and my Webster's dictionary here at home, can be defined as: a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result: a strategy for getting ahead in the world.
You're telling me that you don't plan in Chess? You don't have a method or you don't conduct series of maneuvers? I play chess that way...
I play RTS games that way...
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I've been curious for some time to see a complete listing of video game genre acronyms and their meanings. I grok FPS, RTS, RPG, and the prefix MMO. What am I missing?
Here's the list of video game genres as it currently appears in wikipedia. "4x • Action • Action-adventure • Action role-playing • Adventure • Artillery • Beat 'em up • City building • Computer role-playing • Console role-playing • Economic simulators • Educational • Fighting • First-person shooter • Flight simulator • God game • Government simulation • Grand strategy • Life simulation • Massively multiplayer online (MMORPG • MMOFPS • MMORTS) • Music • Platform • Puzzle • Rail shooter • Racing • Real-time strategy • Real-time tactics • Roguelike • Run and gun • Shoot 'em up • Simulation • Sports • Stealth • Strategy • Survival horror • Tactical role-playing • Tactical shooter • Third-person shooter • Turn-based strategy • Turn-based tactics • Vehicular combat"
Which of these are referred to by acronyms? Can gamers give me a complete list?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
4X is an acronym, actually, although it's not recognizable as one.
The others are basically non-acronymic.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
What does the acronym 4x stand for?
Are there any other game genre acronyms besides RTS, FPS, RPG, and the prefix MMO? For instance, if someone said they like RTT games, would that be understood? Is that acronym commonly in use? How about TPS, TRP, TBS, etc.? I'm wanting a comprehensive list, for reference. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Chess isn't a "strategy game," for a given definition of strategy.
Tautology time!
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strategy in the military sense and strategy in the colloquial sense are two different things. Given that the RTS games in questions are military games, I'm using it in the military sense, where there is a distinction from tactics. In the colloquial sense, tactics are much the same as strategy.
Tactics: "The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy"
Strategy: "The science and art of military command as applied to the overall planning and conduct of large-scale combat operations."
(Those are off american heritage, through answers.com, so they're still pretty vague, particularly for strategy, but hopefully you start to see the distinction).
Some parts of Chess are strategic. Most of the play of Chess is tactical.
Its not the difference in types of units (it does have something to do with numbers; when you only have a few units, tactics are nearly everything) that makes one more strategical, its the implications of the differences in these particular cases. TAs unit variety (and in particular the interactions among the various units) creates long-term strategic planning considerations that are not present in starcraft.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I've never understood the difference between tactics and strategy, and after reading those definitions I still don't. Is it that strategy is making decisions about what objectives are important, and tactics is how you go about achieving those objectives?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Tatiana -- that's a pretty good definition.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Correct me if I am wrong but examples,
Tactics: deciding, "I am going to seize the enemies oil supplies so that they cannot power their vehicles, as well as their economy at home."
Strategy: I will employ my navy seals to scope out the area, and then use an amphibious assault to land a company of marines to secure a beach head. Once the beachhead is secure I will land my invasion force. The enemey will likely respond with artillery, and possible airstrikes, so I will land the invasion force under cover of night and avoid detection as long as possible. Naval aircraft will provide defense against air strikes the enemy might use to drive us from the beach.
But I could be wrong.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Exactly the opposite, actually.
Strategy: I will seize the enemy's oil supplies, and will assault on multiple fronts with combined arms.
Tactics: Two tanks are approaching my left flank, so I'll turn to fire on them and ignore the infantry in front of me.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: What does the acronym 4x stand for?
4X - explore, expand, exploit, exterminate (not sure on that last one, though). It refers to a specific type of real-time game. They're generally longer, and involve more than military action. 4X games usually involve many types of resources (food, oil, metal) whereas non-4X games will have just one resource (usually just money). In addition to building a military force, you have to build the economy and society to support it.
Empire Earth, Age of Empires, and Civilization are examples of 4X games, whereas Command and Conquer, Homeworld, and Company of Heroes are not.
*
[edit] I think you have the entire list (FPS, RPG, RTS, to a lesser extent TBS, and the MMO prefix) Some people could probably guess what RTT is. A few more might be able to figure out TBT.
--j_k
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
4X games don't need to be real-time. And I think both Empire Earth and AoE are just on the edge of the classification, due to their very small maps (i.e. devoid of much exploration).
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Yeah, I definitely wouldn't include "real-time" in the definition of 4X. In fact, I'd be tempted to require turn-based gameplay, since the gold standards of 4X are all turned-based (Master of Orion, Civilization). "Many types of resources" is also not really a required part of 4X games- MoO, for example, really only had money as an actual resource in the same sense as the word is defined for RTS. However, you had to think of territory, diplomatic status, trade routes, technology, etc as effective resources, even if they aren't quantified as a little number at the top of your HUD.
If there's one thing that, I think, sets 4X apart from other strategy games, it's that there must be many avenues to victory- as is implied by the acronym. You have to be able to win through means other than military force, whether it be through control of land/space, diplomacy, suitably advanced technology, economic dominion, or whatever.
If you think of strategy gaming as a continuum from "pure tactics" to "pure strategy," I'd place Starcraft and C&C at one end, and 4X games at the other. Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander lie somewhere in the middle. Age of Empires lies between TA and Starcraft, as it is still very much a rock-paper-scissors, "I use this unit to counter that unit" type of game. In a truly strategic-level game, you shouldn't even be thinking in terms of individual units- the battlefield should, at least in your mind, be abstracted to choke points, territory, offensive lines, trade routes, etc.
Edit: Now that I think about it, I'd actually place resource-free games like "Myth" on the far tactical side of the continuum. Starcraft and C&C are more strategic than Myth, TA is more strategic than Starcraft, and Master of Orion is more strategic than TA.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Exactly the opposite, actually.
Strategy: I will seize the enemy's oil supplies, and will assault on multiple fronts with combined arms.
Tactics: Two tanks are approaching my left flank, so I'll turn to fire on them and ignore the infantry in front of me.
See I figured if I said it wrong it was because I had gotten them switched around. Thanks for the correction.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Regardless of disputes about what people call 'tactics' or 'strategy', I think it's safe to say that Starcraft and C&C will always be filed in the RTS category, not the RTT.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: Regardless of disputes about what people call 'tactics' or 'strategy', I think it's safe to say that Starcraft and C&C will always be filed in the RTS category, not the RTT.
Yes, because the presence of resources means that the games are about more than just unit control- as I noted above, RTT games like "Myth" (or the various "commando" missions in the single-player modes of C&C and Starcraft) omit that component in favor of deeper tactical gameplay.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by 777: Regardless of disputes about what people call 'tactics' or 'strategy', I think it's safe to say that Starcraft and C&C will always be filed in the RTS category, not the RTT.
Yes, because the presence of resources means that the games are about more than just unit control- as I noted above, RTT games like "Myth" (or the various "commando" missions in the single-player modes of C&C and Starcraft) omit that component in favor of deeper tactical gameplay.
The man has a point.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: 4X games don't need to be real-time. And I think both Empire Earth and AoE are just on the edge of the classification, due to their very small maps (i.e. devoid of much exploration).
Bah, forgot Civ4 is Turn Based.
* * *
Re: Tarrsk's point above, I think because the RTS genre is so large and the RTT genre is so small in comparison, any game in either group will generally be given the label "Real Time Strategy" simply because its more convenient.
--j_k
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Actually, one company is making an RT4X game now.
In space.
Sins of A Solar Empire ftw!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Pure rush? Who have you been playing TA against? A rush in TA is a sure way to get slaughtered. Anyone with decent defensive skills can destroy a rush.
TA has a lot of units because it is trying to allow considerable flexibility in strategy. Almost all those units are genuinely useful, and choices in unit combinations lead to hundreds of potential, meaningfully distinct strategies for defeating opponents.
Strategy in Starcraft hardly enters the picture. It is a tactical game.
edit: I like starcraft too, but it is a much simpler, less strategic game.
Warcaft III is tactical. Starcraft is definetly strategical. If you know anything about Starcraft then you know that there are about 15-20 open games for each race, each leading to an entirely different middle game strategy.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Certainly, Warcraft III tends to be more tactical than strategic. But it's still an excellent RTS.
However, many of its trigger-based maps are more strategic than tactical--Footmen Wars, Footmen VS Grunts, Battleships, Line Tower Wars, Hero Line Wars--the list goes on.
I think a general rule can be put into action: those games that focus more on macro tend to be more strategic, while those that focus on micro tend to be tactical.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Warcraft III has definetly lost the strategy aspect that first appealed to me when I bought the game. Sure the game is very complex and it has a lot of depth, but it has turned into a giant game of rock paper scissors, and it isn't as balanced as starcraft was which definitly creates a problem.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
In what ways is Warcraft III completely imbalanced? Especially after twenty to thirty balancing patches?
The magic in Warcraft III may be a factor for imbalance, but in a battle between skilled players, no side really has any distinct advantage over the other. Unless, of course, one player decides to go pure army and the other actually levels up their hero. In that case, then yes, Warcraft III can be imbalanced.
Heroes just give the battles more variety. They're there to break the stalemates that would be typical of a long match in most other RTS's, Starcraft included.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Exactly the opposite, actually.
Strategy: I will seize the enemy's oil supplies, and will assault on multiple fronts with combined arms.
Tactics: Two tanks are approaching my left flank, so I'll turn to fire on them and ignore the infantry in front of me.
If that's the case, the chess is absolutely strategic.
Strategy: I will create a pawn break to establish a majority king side, which will allow me in the end game to queen a pawn before my opponent and win the game.
Tactic: everything that happens in the darn middle game that keeps me from doing this. *wry grin*
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. With the exception of the actual gameplay, chess is strategic. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For a given level of player, yes. (Mine, for example. Porter has me on the ropes right now based on tactical play.)
For expert to master level, strategy is decisive in many games.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*nod* That's because the tactical game in chess is really very basic, and it's conceivable that two opponents could actually play it "perfectly." In that situation, their initial choice of strategies would determine the win.
I don't think there are many tactical errors made at very high levels of chess proficiency. The only one that immediately springs to mind involves a game against a computer in which the player just completely overlooked a mate-in-one situation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, arbiter rush? While you're blowing your money on that, well...n/m. This thread is already nerdy enough! Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I really don't like you guys anymore... I played starcraft for 2 hours yesterday...
must not get addicted... must not...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: I really don't like you guys anymore... I played starcraft for 2 hours yesterday...
must not get addicted... must not...
*russian accent* Battle Cruiser operational. */russian accent*
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
Geez, I nearly shed a tear reading this thread and seeing names like TomD and Dag and all the others, struck a chord of nostalgia for me. Especially considering that I infrequently visit, I have a lot to say since Starcraft is my favorite game of all time.
But I will keep this short:
I still play SC nearly every day and usually play a free for all or melee match against 7 computers on a fast money version of Hunters.
My son, 11 has also taken up the torch and we hook up a 3rd computer for his friend and play a ton of LAN battles. And THIS is where SC really shines.
The single-player missions are classic and nearly perfect. Forget the SCVs getting stuck and the path-choosing of units to be a bit arwry, those missions ROCK. But playing against another human, sweat beading on your brow, hands shaking, as you plan to breach your opponents defenses for the first time, the fog of war receding almost painfully slow...
This is what makes me crave Starcraft. And all the other things mentioned. The quirky voiceovers, the graphics, the sound effects. All perfectly blended together to make a game bigger than the sum of its parts.
For those of you who do not know, my middle daughter is named Kerrigan, and I don't know if I could give a better example of what influence the game has had for me.
En taro Adun!
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
One more story: I am trying to teach my 21 month old how to say neat words like:
For Aiur Terra Kala!
and so on and so forth. It may be obvious that I usually play Protoss, but I have been playing Terran and Zerg in LAN battles at home.
I also had to edit for one final thought: Is it possible that the Blizzard announcement is nothing more than a 360 version of World of Warcraft? I heard they were working on such a thing. I hope the announcement is something more than that...
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: I also had to edit for one final thought: Is it possible that the Blizzard announcement is nothing more than a 360 version of World of Warcraft? I heard they were working on such a thing. I hope the announcement is something more than that...
I seriously doubt that this is the announcement. It is building up to a new game, not a port of an old one.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:For those of you who do not know, my middle daughter is named Kerrigan, and I don't know if I could give a better example of what influence the game has had for me.
That is SOOOOO cool.
I'd have to say, if I were ranking the best computer games of all time, Starcraft would still be my number 1.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I also had to edit for one final thought: Is it possible that the Blizzard announcement is nothing more than a 360 version of World of Warcraft? I heard they were working on such a thing. I hope the announcement is something more than that...
Certainly not, I would stake my life on the bet that they are not announcing anything like that. Its been the right amount of time since they announced a new game, a port of say WOW to the 360 would not warrant a big hush hush countdown. I missed whether there was a countdown for WC3 or WOW but Diablo 2 and SC both had their own countdowns that I remember waiting with baited breath for.
Blizz only counts down for BIG announcements. Starcraft Ghost for example was announced at E3 I believe without a countdown.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Porter has me on the ropes right now based on tactical play.
It's probably my turn, eh?
*goes to check*
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alucard...: For those of you who do not know, my middle daughter is named Kerrigan, and I don't know if I could give a better example of what influence the game has had for me.
I would have done something similar with my son, but my wife didn't like my choices of either "Grand Wizard of Frobozz" or "Larry Laffer".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh, arbiter rush? While you're blowing your money on that, well...n/m. This thread is already nerdy enough!
The arbiter rush is UNSTOPPABLE
Think about it, they do like ten damage every five seconds or so. GG
Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
There is a map in the brood war expansion within the 'Allied' folder titled "Defenders of the Galaxy". Basically, you control an arbiter and 2 dragoons and fight off onslaught after onslaught that keeps trying to kaibosh your nexus. You can touch overlords, drop ships and shuttles with your arbiter for super bonuses. Fun!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Porter has me on the ropes right now based on tactical play.
It's probably my turn, eh?
*goes to check*
Nope. Still your turn.
Posted by xtownaga (Member # 7187) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have no idea how I will obtain that much gold, I hover almost constantly at 2000g never getting beyond +300 or -300g. [/QB]
I realize this has been more or less left behind in the past few pages, but if you hover at ~2000 and fluctuate as much as around 300, you're spending a whole lot of gold. That means you either need to start playing with better people so you don't have ridiculous repair bills or stop buying stuff. I got my epic flyer a month or two ago, it was by doing every quest I could find after hitting 70, doing a bit of farming (not too fun in and of itself but worth the sense of accomplishment to me) of primal mana in Netherstorm. In addition to doing all this to earn money though, you have to stop spending as much as is remotely possible. Repairs are obviously necessary, as is occasionally buying water from a vendor (depending on your class of course), but don't buy trade goods, consumables or gear off the AH (or really in general with the possible exception of plain old food/water from an innkeeper or what have you). It takes some time but isn't hard to do, and the epic flyer is wonderful.
In regard to the countdown, I'm going with Starcraft II. A blizzard VP said they should have a starcraft-related announcement by the 10th anniversary of the release of the original, which is this year. A warcraft-related announcement is very unlikely as it would either be so far off they wouldn't need the hype of a big countdown like this, or would cause problems with WoW (when do you insert everything that happens in the other game into wow?). A Diablo release is somewhat unlikely insofar as those games were produced by Blizzard North, which has disolved and almost everyone who worked on them left all at once. It could of course be something new, but why spend all the extra money to invent a new universe when you have a wonderful, hardly-touched one (Starcraft) that has millions of fans waiting to buy the next chapter of.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I suspect a StarCraft MMO, though I'd prefer StarCraft 2.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Am I allowed to desire a game that isn't a sequel to anything?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
I know I am.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Am I allowed to desire a game that isn't a sequel to anything?
From Blizzard specifically, or in general? Arguably, the Blizzard of the last ~13 years has done best with games and concepts that are derivative at the very least, if not directly sequels or games sharing a setting. So looking for new IP from Blizzard may not be in your best interests as a gamer. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Am I allowed to desire a game that isn't a sequel to anything?
Thats like asking George Lucas to hold off on Return of the Jedi and to give us Indiana Jones Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Well OK I love both movies so I guess thats a good thing.
I too would REALLY enjoy to see blizzard take the plunge into a whole new universe, but that is extremely risky, and I don't know if they will.
But hey, here's hopin.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Blizzard's looking for a technical writer. I'm sorely tempted to apply, but most of my material has "CLASSIFIED" written all over it.
Hmmm...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Blizzard's looking for a technical writer. I'm sorely tempted to apply, but most of my material has "CLASSIFIED" written all over it.
Hmmm...
Do you have to move to Irvine California? Most of their jobs require it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I would so move to California.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I would move to CA if they paid me enough.
I meet most of their technical requirements; but I don't have a real passion for video gaming. And I'm not overly fond of the material Blizzard's produced. (No, not even Starcraft, which I found tiresome, or Diablo, which I found to be rather boring after the first three levels.)
I may still apply just to test a resume.
Now, if Bethesda Softworks ever has an opening for a technical writer, you can bet I'll jump on that. I love me some Elder Scrolls.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If you work for blizzard 5 years, you get an authentic sword in the medieval style. If you work 10 years or perhaps its 15 you get a suit of armor. How can you refuse that?!
Have you played WOW scott? Also, you may not like their games, but Blizzard definately does alot of new things in the world of video games and they are the only company to for at least 15 years, not release a bad game, in fact all their games have done incredibly well.
I've heard the company is a fun one to work for.
But hey, by all means test the waters. You might start out doing technical writing but find yourself doing something else for them down the road.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:I would move to CA if they paid me enough.
A shame it doesn't pay as well as it should, or I would like. If money wasn't an object, I would have already moved to San Francisco, Irvine, Seattle, Dallas... even Wisconsin. But darn it all that they can't pay me what I'm making now.
And "Honey, do you mind if we take a 60% pay cut so I can go write video games three thousand miles away?" doesn't go over too well...
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Don't think CA is the greatest state. It's nice, but it VERY expensive. I'm trying to buy a home within the next 5 years and I can't find a suitable home for less than 350K (3 bed, 2 bath), and that's in Sacramento. A home of that size in San Francisco or Santa Cruz or any other expensive region would be close to or above 1 million.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Since Korea is ahead of us by 18 hours and the event where the new title will be announced should take place sometime between 11:00-1:00am EST thats in just a few hours, I am very psyched! Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
That's 8-10pm Pacific and it's 4:30 right now. Please God, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG, not a MMORPG...
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Wow, I was just about to post that, but BB beat me to it.
Too bad I won't be here for the announcement--my ward is having an annual "fathers & sons campout" tonight. It's killing me.
Blast you, wholesome social life!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
hey even if it is an MMO as long as it is well done and continues the story ill be happy.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
any minute now... the suspense is killing me!
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: hey even if it is an MMO as long as it is well done and continues the story ill be happy.
I won't. As much as I love Starcraft, I just can't don't like MMORPGs.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Blizzard definately does alot of new things in the world of video games
:shrug:
If you say so. But Starcraft, to me, was Command & Conquer IN SPACE; Diablo was Gauntlet with good graphics and mangled, naked, bodies; and World of Warcraft seems to me to be an unimaginative and restrictive way to role play.
Now, my preference would be to play a game with an exceptional storyline-- or to create a world with no story line at all, but that allows true, complete, REAL player freedom. There's a game...System Shock, I think...that Slash raves about all the time. The game is YEARS old-- something about a computer having killed everyone on a space station, and you, a hacker, are sent to investigate. Jaded, cynical Slash gets revved up for this game.
I want to create something that will make him cry like a little girl every time he plays it.
More than anything, I want to capture the emotion that I feel when I play an RPG. THAT would be innovation; that immersion, that sense of tight characterization, where it actually matters what your character does. Where your character has more options than just fight, sneak, or use magic to overcome difficulties.
Game play innovations are nice, but they're not what I get thrilled about. I get thrilled for stories and for in-game freedom of choice.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
You know that when you go to the domain name www.starcraft2.com it redirects to blizzard.com? That, and the fact that they're announcing in Korea, the Starcraft capital of the universe, seems highly suggestive that it's gonna be Starcraft 2.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: You know that when you go to the domain name www.starcraft2.com it redirects to blizzard.com?
Unless that's changed recently, I don't think that fact actually makes much difference. Even if they intended to never make another starcraft game again, it would make sense for them to hold onto that domain and redirect it back to their main site.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Starcraft II: RTS.
quote:3:16 - showing space platform environment, land mass floating over planets / nebulae. Showing phoenix units failing to destroy terran battle cruisers - new protoss unit - Warprey - flying unit that does increased damage the longer it hits a target with it's continuous blue laser.
3:15 - Zerglings can mutate into suicidal bomb things thar roll across the ground - very powerful explosions. Colossus using new IK system to move across differences in terraing height. Colossus extremley weak against air strike - New unit for protoss - Pheonix - can overcharge guns for multiple projectile blast - but after blast the ship is rendered inert for a short period.
3:14 - Protoss colossus - huge unit that can blast out dual lasers and use long legs to traverse differences in terrain height - in the demo two of them obliterate about fifty or so zerglings.
3:10 - Terran reapers - can hop across unever terrain with jump packs - two types of small pistols that don't activate immortals. Protoss now have the ability to create shields whereever they want. Protoss can now warp in units from manufacturing facilities anything within pylon range. New protoss unit - stalker - can teleport - quadripedal thing - can keep blinking forward - seems to be a shot cooldown on the ability. Zerg start coming in, giant worms pop out of ground unleasing zerglings. Protoss can use phase fields and teleporting abilities to create an army anywhere on the battlefield, according to Blizzard.
3:09 - controlling protoss zealots - still has psi blades and personal shield - new charge ability that let him quickly close range on enemies. Siege tanks shown - still the same type of behavior where they can lock down - take out zealots really quickly - new protoss unit - called immortals - have special shield that only activates upon being powerfully attacked - siege tanks could barely do any damage to them.
3:07 - Showing gameplay footage - Looks like protoss ships - floating over asteroid/ base structure - entering protoss ase - similar looking buildings - vespene gas still in the game - character pane shows up on right side - some protoss guy - shifts to terran bases floating on rockets over same type of territory - sill collecting crystals as resources - marines load out. Dustin is actually playing the game - nothing in the game is final.
3:05 - Morheim says everyone eager to see actual game - going to show actual gameplay - bringing up SC2 lead designer. Dustin Browder.
3:00 - FMV sequence in a spaceship - looks Terran - zooming in on a metal door - door opening - reveals a guy with a cigar in chains - prisoner - door shuts behind him - there's so much bass the room is shaking - guy steps into some kind of metallic devicce - legs are strapped in - guy rising toward ceiling - Korean text on screen got people very excited - another part of the machine is dropping metal arms on him - machine whirring - applying armor to his torso - extremly detailed visuals here - now guy is strapping on gloves - armor is molding together - seems like a Terran marine - rockets turn on - zerg now onscreen - Marine delivers a line - StarCraft 2 officially announced.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Excellent. Everyone was pretty sure of either Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 (except for the people who thought Starcraft MMO, which I never thought to be likely right now). I'm glad to see that Starcraft 2 won out. Given Blizzard's track record, I'm sure it will be amazing, and that we won't actually be seeing it in stores for a couple more years now.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
Schweet!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
GO GO SC2! I would not be surprised to find out D3 is well in the works come Blizzcon, but then again with Blizzard you never know, they can hold back for a long time.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Neato! Looks pretty much like Starcraft 1 in 3D, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. I do hope we can zoom out further in the final version... after ten years, that interface is looking a little cramped.
Anyone have a translation of the dialogue and text in the trailer?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Text -- Terran Marine status: Active Dialogue* -- Hell, it's about time
* Matching the slogan on http://blizzard.com/ Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Neato! Looks pretty much like Starcraft 1 in 3D
Sure does.
I can even recognize 80% of the units. Hell, the art has barely gotten an upgrade on those Photon cannons have just barely even had an art upgrade.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think it looks awesome!
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I want to see the gameplay video tomorrow before I judge the art too much. Really, though, for an RTS it just has to look good enough to tell units apart at a glance.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Looks pretty awesome. I'm sure I'll get it, and I won't be very good Posted by Alucard... (Member # 4924) on :
There is a group that has been working on a Starcraft 3D version using the Warcraft III engine, and last I heard, they were more than 20% done but less than 100% done. I wonder if that project spurred Blizzard on a bit???
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You can now just go to www.starcraft2.com and see both trailers at VERY good quality. There is also some previews of the units and how they look, the protoss units are the only ones up for preview as of now. But there is alot more I have not had a chance to look at.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
ah ya someone change thread title now Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I looked at all of it, and it seems very cool, what they have up so far. I am so glad it's sc2, and that it's going to be an RTS and not an RPG. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I'm not gonna lie, it looks pretty sweet.
I'm also happy that the graphics aren't so jacked up so my comp can actually handle the game lol.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alucard...: There is a group that has been working on a Starcraft 3D version using the Warcraft III engine, and last I heard, they were more than 20% done but less than 100% done. I wonder if that project spurred Blizzard on a bit???
I don't know, cease and desist letters are much easier to write than games.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Yes! They didn't ruin the series with another WORTHLESS MMORPG!
I was really worried about that.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I liked Warcraft 3...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can obviously see what race is what, and even the units look pretty damned similar to their old counterparts, but I hope that this game is more than just an artistic upgrade, otherwise that'd be unfortunate, and I doubt I'd pay much to get it. (edit to add: while some of the units are identical to older units with 3D treatment, some of them also look brand new. If the story is new and good, and the graphics good enough, and the gameplay updated, I think it's totally worth getting)
I'm also concerned about what the system requirements are. My laptop is a year old, and already newer games are beyond me, and that's with a gig of RAM and a 256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 graphics card, which at the time was the best they made for laptops. So maybe I won't be able to play it at all.
But I look forward to seeing more, any news on a release date?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm also concerned about what the system requirements are. My laptop is a year old, and already newer games are beyond me, and that's with a gig of RAM and a 256MB nVidia GeForce 6800 graphics card, which at the time was the best they made for laptops. So maybe I won't be able to play it at all.
From what I'm hearing, they're making the graphics extremely scalable, specifically so users with older computers can play, while the people with bleeding edge hardware will be able to utilize ultrapretty DirectX 10 benefits and highly detailed models, etc. etc. You might not be out of the running, although once the game is released, who knows what the new technology benchmarks will loook like. There's also going to be a logical lower limit on how crappy you can make the graphics to accommodate older computers, given the huge number of 3d models rendered in any (edit: modern) RTS game.
No release date info yet. Edit: I'm betting on an announced Q2 2008 release, and an actual Q4 2009 release.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Man, you got it made. I still got a 2ghz Pentium 4 with only 256MB of DDR RAM and a 128MB nVidia GeForce FX 5600.
Do you really think they're going to release it at a least a year from now?
*pulls hair out*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Man, you got it made. I still got a 2ghz Pentium 4 with only 256MB of DDR RAM and a 128MB nVidia GeForce FX 5600.
Do you really think they're going to release it at a least a year from now?
*pulls hair out*
All I can say is: Diablo 2.
Edit: also, assuming you don't buy a monitor, you could easily put together a top shelf core 2 duo system with 2 gigs of RAM and a 512 meg geforce 7950 for under $600, which I imagine will be more than sufficient to play SC2 with decent graphic settings.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Honestly the graphics don't look that much better than Warcraft III's it's just that there will definitely be more units on screen. My old TNT 1 Pentium 3 550 MHZ computer could play Warcraft 3 fine, so I don't think you guys need to worry at all.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
Do you really think they're going to release it at a least a year from now?
Given Blizzard's track record in the past, I'd say that there will easily be a year wait.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Can't...wait...that...long...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Meh, give it a month, you'll have forgotten about it entirely until the next promotion campaign launches.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Oh nuts, I loved Starcraft as much as anybody but I really set on the idea of a third Diablo. I'm glad it's coming out but I'm going to let this one pass by.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
there are enough Diablo clones as there is.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I would have been happy with Diablo 3, but I wonder, how could the storyline continue?
Diablo didn't really die, Blizzard had to invent some magic story again, like the soulstones.
eh...
Starcraft's universe is ripe for continuation, so I think Blizzard made a wise choice in making this game. I think it looks cool.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: Honestly the graphics don't look that much better than Warcraft III's it's just that there will definitely be more units on screen. My old TNT 1 Pentium 3 550 MHZ computer could play Warcraft 3 fine, so I don't think you guys need to worry at all.
are you serious? my 1.8 ghz geforce 2 laptop couldn't do it at all. (but now that I'm on an awesome computer, I may have to give it another shot. I only made it through one campaign because it ran intolerably slowly at the lowest setting.)
Edit: I should install starcraft and play it a little for old times' sake. Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: there are enough Diablo clones as there is.
See, I wouldn't know. And I doubt they'd give me the same pleasure that Diablo did. That game was perfect to me. I was in love with the atmosphere built by the graphics and music, I loved the voice acting and meeting all the various characters, I couldn't get enough of the lore and running around reading what happened in Sanctuary from reading those tombs and talking to people (I read and re-read the manuals to Diablo and Starcraft almost as much as I played the games, the original Diablo manual is right by my side actually, while the game is lost). And I cherish my DVD of those fabulous Diablo II cut scenes. Something about those games just really gave my imagination a lot to chew on.
So yeah, disappointed Blizzard didn't direct their attentions to a third. Though I suppose I'd probably only really be happy if the original Blizzard North team worked on it.
As for what the story could be about, we never really knew what happened to Sanctuary after the Worldstone was shattered.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
About Chess:
Any Go player knows that it has a complete dearth of strategy .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Though I suppose I'd probably only really be happy if the original Blizzard North team worked on it.
You realize most of Blizzard North reformed to make a Diablo clone, right? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Near as I can tell they are merely adding some more units, modifying the abilities and look of most if not all the units, and its now in 3d so you can choose the perspective. I fully expect there will be a good deal more than that, but I am pretty sure Blizzard realizes they don't want to fix what isn't broken about SC.
If SC2 looked just like the old SC and was just new single player campaigns, story fleshing, and cinematics, I'd buy it purely for that.
I hope they just create a solid game, and implement tools that will let the mod community go crazy with such an expansive universe full of possibilities.
Also ersomniac is right, if its out Q4 2009 I really would not be surprised.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: In true Blizzard form, SC1 will remain playable via Battle.net after SC2 launches.
The trailer was extremely pretty, if somewhat silly. I have a sinking feeling I'm going to be disappointed by this game: it looks to be what Warcraft III was to Warcraft II.
You mean to say, a much more balanced and tactically interesting game?
No, I mean to say, a sequel with gameplay so drastically different from its predecessor that it doesn't feel like a sequel. Warcraft 3 just didn't hold my attention: I dislike tactical micromanagement. It's a big part of the reason why TA and Supreme Commander are much more interesting to me than Blizzard RTS games.
When SC came out, I played it regularly for 3 years. When TA came out, I played it regularly for 4 years, then off and on until Supreme Commander came out.
Back when War3 came out, I played it off and on for a year, maybe, and most of that was tower mods.
quote:Luckily for you, Blizzard are saying that they plan to keep the classic StarCraft pacing, with emphasis on the early game. They're going out of their way to say that it won't be like War3. That's appropriate, since I don't think SC2 should particularly resemble War3, but War3 is likely to remain my favourite Blizzard RTS.
Whew.
Anyone else amused that the delays have already started, and the gameplay trailer that was supposed to release today now only says "COMING SOON?"
[ May 20, 2007, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: erosomniac ]
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
There are some gameplay trailers at Gamespy.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Well, duh, those have been there since yesterday. I'm talking about the official one from Blizzard's site, which was labeled for release on 5/20/07 yesterday, and now says "COMING SOON."
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I like the idea of less micromanagement in battles and that example of the 4 Pheonixes vs. the 6 Pheonixes was a good idea too. Hopefully the game will be a lot faster paced than Warcraft 3, which while it was exciting in the beginning parts and end parts of the game, was really boring mid-game.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Meh, not so keen on the updated look. Too cartoony. Maybe it'll grow on me.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
The "updated look" seems to me like the exact style from Starcraft 1, but in 3D. Warcraft 3 was a much bigger (and more "cartoony") departure from previous art styles than SC2, IMO.
Count me in as another who is relieved that they'll be moving away from the micromanagement hell that was Warcraft 3's gameplay. I'm more apprehensive about the storyline, which was one of the original Starcraft's greatest strengths. Warcraft 3's story was mediocre at best, a real step down from Blizzard's earlier work. I worry that this is symptomatic of the writing environment at Blizzard as a whole these days... but we'll see.
Here's also hoping that they get the original voice actors back. Few games were as well-cast as the original Starcraft.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: I'm more apprehensive about the storyline, which was one of the original Starcraft's greatest strengths. Warcraft 3's story was mediocre at best, a real step down from Blizzard's earlier work. I worry that this is symptomatic of the writing environment at Blizzard as a whole these days... but we'll see.
Other than Diablo 2 and Starcraft, I don't really see that many of Blizzard's games that had a better story than WC3. Maybe you disagree with me on this, but personally I think that this isn't really enough to say that there's a general trend.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Count me in as another who is relieved that they'll be moving away from the micromanagement hell that was Warcraft 3's gameplay.
For me, it was skirmish hell. Armies oozed back and forth endlessly with no real battles occurring until it was all or nothing.
Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Though I suppose I'd probably only really be happy if the original Blizzard North team worked on it.
You realize most of Blizzard North reformed to make a Diablo clone, right?
NO What? Which game? Did you like it? Answers!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I keep forgetting how everyone but me hated War3. It's my favourite RTS, with Myth II a close second. After that it's a toss-up between StarCraft and Homeworld 2.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Warcraft was fun before certain matchups like Night Elf vs. Orc got so abusive that the game no longer became fun. The story was sorta lame too because the game focused too much on Arthas and the expansion pack's story didn't even include Orcs in it.
On a side note I noticed that the terrans look a lot less grittier than in the original. I'm not sure I like it but whatever, as long as the game rocks I'm fine.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I was actually talking about Fate instead of Hellgate, but the concept applies. But now that the lead designer of Fate is working on Mythos for Flagship, I think it's mostly safe to say that Flagship Studios is the semi-official zombie brother of Blizzard North.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think sticking close to the feel of SC1 is a good idea. In the end I believe RTS fans will get a good solid game, even if it does not bring tons of NEW gamers like WOW did (though some will certainly try it out as WOW made such a positive impression.) Blizzard certainly does not need MORE money, they have plenty to play around with.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I'm just happy that it's NOT an MMO game. I can appreciate why people might like it, but I find them loathsome.
I'm NOT happy that I have to wait so long after seeing all the eye candy the past 2 days... Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Pheonixes
BTW, this is not how the word is spelled.
Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
I like the mix of old and new. Since they aren't advancing time far past the original game, it makes sense that some original units are still in (and even those show upgrades and tweaks). And remember that the 'speed' of play for SC1 came from cranking those MP games up to 'Fastest'. The trailers are probably at the default speed settings.
I can't find my SC1 disk...No Bnet for me until I find/replace. I want to play!
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
I'm fine as long as someone makes some of that marine power armor for me.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Starcraft 2: Three syllables that are obviously getting a large portion of the world's gaming community all hot and bothered.
Not me.
There are only three other syllables that could elicit such a response in me: Fallout 3.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
as long as you have the CD key download the game, if you already bought Starcraft its your right to find a replacement, unless you just happen to walk into Bureau En Gros and see the very last Starcraft original for sale at bargain prices and just happen to see another ten gamers seeing it at the very same instant, you start to flex your muscles growl a little to scare off the smaller skinnier ones but it just doesnt scare off enough of them so get twitchy and suddenly you all get the same idea, There can only be ONE person here to get the game so you all charge madly for the crate with the game inside crashing into it atfull speed clawing and hitting and biting off all opposition until finally being the last one alive and injured to rejoice at being the top of the pack holding the game up high! And so you calmly strut your way to the cash register and pay the ten $, you pass th cashier the bloodied box, and she goes to swipe in the price but tells you that the blood prevents them from computing the price so they cant sell it and you scream NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Raynor!!!!!!!!!!
And then you wake up all panting and sweaty as if you run 2 miles straight home, and you find yourself clutching the Starcraft box.
So you sigh in relief.
Until you realize you bought a french version of the game Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: Starcraft 2: Three syllables that are obviously getting a large portion of the world's gaming community all hot and bothered.
Not me.
There are only three other syllables that could elicit such a response in me: Fallout 3.
Perhaps you missed this link earlier Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
Interplay developed that abomination, and though they also made the first two fallout games and tactics, and those games were way fun, Bethesda owns the rights to any future Fallout game now.
Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think they will treat the franchise right.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I enjoy Oblivion, but dialogue isn't exactly its strong suit. IIRC, the folks at Obsidian -- the stuido formed by Black Isle alumni after Interplay shut Black Isle down -- weren't too happy to hear that Bethesda bought the rights to what they presumably think ought to be their game.
I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be. That was one of the things that made StarCraft hard for me -- lots of units, but a low group limit made them difficult to control. I ran out of control groups pretty often, and that's even with my tendency to use overlapping control groups to make it easier to adjust tactics on the fly. So I'm happy to see what looks like a control group size limit increase, just like I was happy to see the step away from large armies (while keeping the same control group size limit) in War3. Anything that makes my units easier to maneuver is good in my books.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
It's true.
Then there was tactics, a miss for most people. I enjoyed it because I liked Jagged Alliance and Deadly Games.
Fallout 3 will most likely have to be rated mature (and push the envelope at that) for it's current fanbase to accept it. Lots of discussion here.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Primal Curve: I'm not holding my breath due to some events that have transpired recently which I can only pretend do not exist.
Interplay developed that abomination, and though they also made the first two fallout games and tactics, and those games were way fun, Bethesda owns the rights to any future Fallout game now.
Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, so I think they will treat the franchise right.
I don't want an FPRPG for Fallout. It seems like Bethesda can't make anything else. I'd much rather the game system be something like KOTOR or Neverwinter Nights.
As to Interplay making a Fallout game... that's like saying 20th Century Fox made Star Wars.
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
quote:I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be.
Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I really like the idea of being able to control more units than 12. I always found it tedious to have to select a team then action, team then action, team then action when all you wanted to do was to send 36 zealots to attack an opponents base. It makes far more sense to be able to do that with one command.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777: Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Oh, that's wonderful news. The twelve-unit selection limit was one of Blizzard's silliest interface design choices... it was vaguely understandable in the Warcraft 1 and 2 period, before battles could feature appreciably more than a few squads' worth of units, but choosing to keep the limit for Starcraft and Warcraft 3 was just bizarre. After playing TA, in which you can easily select all of your units and structures and still maintain fine control, the 'craft games have always felt oddly crippled to me.
The other silly interface design choice is Blizzard's refusal to adopt TA's shift-based queueing system, which vastly streamlines unit control and allows the player greater strategic freedom as well as the ability to execute more complex tactics (flanking maneuvers, ordered targeting of multiple enemies, etc). I would be pleasantly shocked if they added this functionality to Starcraft 2, but I really doubt it'll happen. More's the pity.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by 777:
quote:I like what I see. For one thing, the control group size has very obviously been increased beyond 12, to at least 16. It looks like there's space for up to 32 portraits in the squad bar, but it's hard to say what the final control group size limit will be.
Twinky, you should check out this article, and in particular, the following quote:
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Of course, as can be seen in the video, it will still display all units (and their relative amounts of HP) in the command bar--sort of like Rise of Nations.
Yes! Now I can finally send ALL OF MY FOUR HUNDRED ZERGLINGS at you ALL AT ONCE muahahahhaha.
I have determined that in a ground war with some time to setup endless waves of zerglings and hyralisks with the occasional ultralisk always pwns when sent in mass waves.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I just want to know what happened to Kerrigan, I want to see the eye candy, and most importantly, I want something to take advantage of the new computer I'm going to get. I haven't decided on whether to buy my own laptop, or to build my own desktop. Laptops are expensive if I was to make it as fast as what I could build in a desktop, but portability would be nice...
I just need to replace my ancient PC so I have a hope of running this game when it hits the shelves after the eternity of waiting that Blizzard has no doubt planned.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Pardo has pointed out that unlike previous Blizzard games, Starcraft II will have no "selection limit"--that is, you'll be able to click and drag your mouse to select an unlimited number of your own armies to control.
Great! That'll be helpful.
I wonder if they'll ever do a WarCraft IV, or if World of WarCraft will take over the franchise and the RTS will be left to StarCraft? I'd like to see a War4 after StarCraft 2 that moves the game further toward the Myth style of tactical gameplay. It would be a good way to differentiate the two series, if they want to maintain them both... especially in light of the fact that the Myth franchise seems to have come to an end.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think the story for War4 can be handled completely through patches in WoW.
What I wanna see after SC2 is an MMO SC, they have now pleased the RTS gamers, now they have to please the MMO players.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think the story for War4 can be handled completely through patches in WoW.
It can, yes. I hope they don't, though, because I'm not interested in MMOs.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Yes! Now I can finally send ALL OF MY FOUR HUNDRED ZERGLINGS at you ALL AT ONCE muahahahhaha.
I have determined that in a ground war with some time to setup endless waves of zerglings and hyralisks with the occasional ultralisk always pwns when sent in mass waves.
My favorite Zerg strategy on unlimited resource maps is to send a continuous stream of Hydralisks into their base. It requires about 20 Hatcheries to really do right, but it's really fun just to watch the river of hydralisks start flowing on the minimap. They just don't stop Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
In terms of cost-effectiveness, I'm convinced that Hydralisks are the best unit in the game.
<3 Zerg.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
You gotta mix units in order to be most effective in the game. For example, the simple combo of defilers and zerglings could beat an army of pure hydralisks.
Anyways marines are better than hydralisks. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think the story for War4 can be handled completely through patches in WoW.
What I wanna see after SC2 is an MMO SC, they have now pleased the RTS gamers, now they have to please the MMO players.
Says you. See, RTS player's needs are more important. Didn't you get the memo? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: You gotta mix units in order to be most effective in the game. For example, the simple combo of defilers and zerglings could beat an army of pure hydralisks.
Anyways marines are better than hydralisks.
I believe hydralisks have more hit points then marines, and they hit harder too. They can also hit air units.
Now a group of firebats fighting a grp of equal numbered hydralisks at point blank range is just a hydralisk BBQ.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Now that you mention it BlackBlade, I didn't see any Firebats in the gameplay demo video. It was mostly showcasing protoss units, so maybe I shouldn't assume they've been eliminated from the game. Not that I minded seeing everything from the Protoss point of view, they've always been my favorite race to play.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I can't stand the Protoss. They're freakin' space elves. And like the Eldar before 'em, and the elves that were their inspiration, they're laaaaame.
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
whereas hydro's do have more hitpoints the reason hydro>marine is because of the range.
I hope they change something i cant stand waiting 15 minutes, then everyone throwing their Bc's and Carriers at each other, then whoever lost thier fleet quits game.....
its just annoying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: In terms of cost-effectiveness, I'm convinced that Hydralisks are the best unit in the game.
<3 Zerg.
In terms of cost effectiveness, this is true. They also have the deserved reputation of being the most effectively massed unit, with their general utility exceeding that of marines and dragoons.
Terran are the best massers, however, as they have effective maximized ground-to-ground utility to combine with the dreaded 3/3 infantry.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I hated how Zerg was always to slowest to get running. Like 99% of the time you needed to build a hatchery before your first spawning pool, and even if you didn't you would still be behind in the early game unit count and if you got rushed it was hard to stop it.
That's why I always played Protoss and just straight up rushed the zerg. Bringing a probe to make a shield battery or two really extended the longevity of your zealots and it was tough for me as a zerg player to counter something like that.
Lol, nothing like StarCraft to bring out the inner-nerd in me. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
if you do it right, a siege tank counter battery is slower then the onslaught of zerglings and hydras, a constant wave after wave of hydras will always manage to inch its way closer and close until its finally close enough to take out the defences, and usually you just exert just enough pressure for the enemy to be too focused on repairing his defences to the point he cant do anything to counter you.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I think it's preference and playing style determines what's the "best bread-and-butter" unit out of all the races.
Somebody mentioned liking the hydrolisks' range, another liked using a shield battery in conjunction with zealots. I personally like the marine/medic combo with the medic using the flare ability on stationary siege fire units.
There is no best unit IMO.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
the fasest ground unit is a vulture.
speaking of which i hope they make spider minds a littrle more useful, like being able to refill a vultures ammo once its out and crank up their damage a little, a minefield of enhanced spider mines would be awesome.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: In terms of cost effectiveness, this is true. They also have the deserved reputation of being the most effectively massed unit, with their general utility exceeding that of marines and dragoons.
Terran are the best massers, however, as they have effective maximized ground-to-ground utility to combine with the dreaded 3/3 infantry.
I've never liked Dragoons because they take up so much freakin' space. It often made it difficult to coordinate fire.
In terms of unit combos, I really have to agree that the Terran 3/3 squad o' doom takes the cake. The Hydra/Defiler combo shouldn't be overlooked though. As Blayne said, Ultralisk tanks shouldn't be overlooked either.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: That's why I always played Protoss and just straight up rushed the zerg. Bringing a probe to make a shield battery or two really extended the longevity of your zealots and it was tough for me as a zerg player to counter something like that.
As long as you're not trying to pull the "sneak a probe inside my base at the start and build photon cannons next to my resources" maneuver, we can still be friends.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:if you do it right, a siege tank counter battery is slower then the onslaught of zerglings and hydras
Zerglings and hydras versus terran tanks and infantry is the very quintessence of throwing resources ineffectively against a superior ground force.
Properly scaled, the emergence of tanks trumps the emergence of hydras; excessive range, excessive splash firepower, and the proper damage type (explosive) mean for ground superiority.
Success for zerg in midgame requires either an exploitation of fast zerg expansion (drowning) or quick emergence of specific tank counters such as spawn broodlings.
Hydras are efficient massers, but they are not specialized in the least. Anything that whoops them through specialization will render them into a costly liability (as is the case in other combinations, like goliaths v. mutas). They even have trouble managing the meatier general-use units like Dragoons, which will usually hack them up in straight fights.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:In terms of unit combos, I really have to agree that the Terran 3/3 squad o' doom takes the cake. The Hydra/Defiler combo shouldn't be overlooked though. As Blayne said, Ultralisk tanks shouldn't be overlooked either.
Every unit has its purpose in Starcraft.
The purpose of the Ultralisk is to make your opponent laugh so hard that he can't micromanage.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:In terms of unit combos, I really have to agree that the Terran 3/3 squad o' doom takes the cake. The Hydra/Defiler combo shouldn't be overlooked though. As Blayne said, Ultralisk tanks shouldn't be overlooked either.
Every unit has its purpose in Starcraft.
The purpose of the Ultralisk is to make your opponent laugh so hard that he can't micromanage.
This man speaks the truth!
My best friend and I played a 2v2 against some Koreans who were visiting Hong Kong. We had watched them play a match prior to us and we knew we would probably lose this one. I went Terran and my friend went Protoss. The Koreans both went zerg, it was obvious what was coming.
Right from the get go I realized the only way into my base was by air or through a bottle neck, I built nothing but marines, bunkers, and seige tanks, at the bottle neck, and I setup the siege tanks so they would not accidentally hit the bunkers. I placed TONS of turrets around all the edges of my base.
The Koreans found my friend's protoss base first and steamrolled right over it, after that they eventually found me.
It took them 20 minutes at least from the moment of discovering my location to finally beating me to get through my defenses. It was kinda fun fighting a battle you knew you were going to lose.
I had SCV's rotating in and out repairing my bunkers when I could, and rebuilding turrets they managed to blow up. If a bunker was a lost cause I had 2-3 new seige tanks move in to regain the lost ground. Whenever I defeated a wave I immedietly set to work repairing and rebuilding whatever they had taken out and trying to push out more.
But eventually my resources got low and their zergling river broke through.
I managed to fly 3 seperate buildings out and sent them to 3 different corners of the map, it was another 15 minutes before they blew the last one up. Posted by -Xan- (Member # 10091) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier:
Playing a RTS? Strategy games are fun for me, until I hit the wall between casual and hardcore players, and get the floor wiped with my corpse. The only way RTS are fun is against other people, and in this scenario someone has to lose. I don't like to lose over and over again.
This isn't so for an MMORPG, where the "loser" is almost always the boss at the end of the mission. And even when you lose, you gain gear/money/rep/XP, so it was still worth your time more often than not.
Also key here for me is progression. Every time I start up an RTS (for multi-player), I have the same exact setup that I will every other time I will ever play it. The only thing that progresses is (supposedly) your skill. This can be fun, for a few weeks, a couple of months at best.
In an MMORPG, I get new abilities, new items, new recipes for trade-skills, as well as new challenges, at regular intervals. The game is not the same exact game every time I play it. This is essential for a long-lasting gaming experience.
I do have a lot of fun with the single player portions of RTS games, because your "army" progresses, as does the plot. Unfortunately, RTS campaigns usually end within a couple of weeks of play time.
[/QB]
All I see you saying here is that because of your lack of skill in RTS's you put hours and hours into a MMO because you have to progress eventually. That makes people with time instead of skill better than the rest of the group. Which I don't think sounds like much fun.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by -Xan-: All I see you saying here is that because of your lack of skill in RTS's you put hours and hours into a MMO because you have to progress eventually.
Exactly. MMOs will, eventually, reward even people who do not have any natural aptitude at a game. Why do you think so many people play?
quote:That makes people with time instead of skill better than the rest of the group. Which I don't think sounds like much fun.
Generally speaking, people with more time = better at anything than people with less time. This is true in almost all video games (look at how many hours the top competitive players in Halo log), sports, hobbies of all kinds.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
thats a really non kosher strategy.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I disagree that only playing against other people online is the only way to have fun with RTS games. I actually love the single player campaign missions in most RTS games. I really like the campaign editor too, I spent almost as much time designing custom maps than playing the game, in SC and WC3.
If I didn't want to get the floor mopped with me, I would simply play a comp stomp with another player. I never was very good, but I did enjoy the games.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:All I see you saying here is that because of your lack of skill in RTS's you put hours and hours into a MMO because you have to progress eventually. That makes people with time instead of skill better than the rest of the group. Which I don't think sounds like much fun.
TO YOU.
The whole point of my entire wall of text post was to demonstrate the MMORPG's are fun FOR ME, and the only reason I listed the other types of games is to demonstrate why they aren't as much fun as an MMORPG FOR ME.
I was not at all trying to say that one genre is better than another in general, just for my own playing experience.
I love RTS games, I just mostly stick to the single player aspect. I will buy Starcraft II the day it comes out, and probably log hundreds of hours with it (especially if the campaign editor is as good as Warcraft III or better).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Also key here for me is progression. Every time I start up an RTS (for multi-player), I have the same exact setup that I will every other time I will ever play it. The only thing that progresses is (supposedly) your skill. This can be fun, for a few weeks, a couple of months at best.
For you. I still play War3 Frozen Throne multiplayer. Heck, I started playing StarCraft again recently. However, I pretty much only play these games with my friends, and I don't do the ranked/ladder thing. I'm not looking to climb rankings or have a winning record (I don't); the play's the thing.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Simulations? I loved the Sims, and it's sequel. Once you get the basic strategy down, however, it's pretty much the same thing every day. Once you get the biggest house you want, and everyone has the top career, what's left to do?
The Sims, like SimCity, is a sandbox. There's no goal, it isn't a matter of getting the biggest house or the top career. You don't "win." You just do whatever you want -- for example, you might abuse your sims cruelly to see how they react. You might try to get two particular sims to start dating.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Single Player RPGS? Actually, I've played these a bunch, but most take only a couple of weeks to beat, and you miss the social aspect of an MMORPG. You get your character to Uber status, and then what?
This assumes that the "point" of a single-player RPG is character progression. For many people, myself included, it isn't. Character progression is all well and good, but by itself it won't make a game interesting to me -- which is why I play very few JRPGs and don't play MMORPGs at all. Hack 'n slash RPGs I only play with my girlfriend, with the possible exception in the future of Silicon Knights' Too Human, which if history is anything to go by will have a fascinating and deep storyline. I took WoW for a test drive recently to see what all the fuss was about. I killed some mobs so that I could gain levels and abilities which I then used to kill other mobs. Quests I undertook included "kill 8 wretched zombies and 8 mindless zombies," "kill 12 skeletons," and "kill 6 bats." Frankly, I'd like to have that time back.
All of these comments I've quoted (which come from different posts) sum to one thing for me: in general, what you're looking for in games and how you approach them is very different from what I'm looking for and how I approach them.
In general the first thing I look for in a single-player game is narrative.
I didn't play the War3 single-player because I wanted to have bigger and bigger armies and access to new and more powerful units, I played through the single-player mostly because I wanted to know what happened in the story, and partly as a warmup for mutliplayer. It may not have been the most original or surprising story ever, but I enjoyed it. Same goes for StarCraft.
"SimCity has no narrative!" you might say. Ah, but it does: it has the narrative I create within the framework provided by the game. "My city was founded in 1950, and expanded quickly, but it was decimated by the Great Godzilla Attack of 1959."
I love to finish a single-player game and feel the same way I feel when I finish a good book or a good movie, where I just sort of sit back and bask in the emotions I'm feeling. That's why my favourite games are ones like Planescape: Torment, Shadow of the Colossus, and so forth. But I also like plotting strategy and tactics, which is why I enjoy games like Myth, War3, Advance Wars, and even some shooters like Ghost Recon and Gears of War, but also stuff like SimCity and some puzzle games like Lumines and Hexic.
Anyway, all of this is to say that very little of my enjoyment of games comes from "advancement," whatever form that may take. So, while I enjoy social gaming as well as single-player experiences, MMOS don't hold the appeal for me that they seem to hold for their millions of subscribers.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: All of these comments I've quoted (which come from different posts) sum to one thing for me: in general, what you're looking for in games and how you approach them is very different from what I'm looking for and how I approach them.
Not necessarily. I loved Planescape: Torment, KOTOR, Fallout, and the single player campaigns of WC3 and Starcraft for the same reasons that you did.
However, once those games are "beaten" from a single player campaign, and you know the story, that's the end of it. I will probably pop the game back into the old computer from time to time to relive the story, but at most I get 100 hours of gaming from each game's single player campaign, and more likely 20-40 hours or less. So even for these great single player games, they only hold my interest for a few weeks at best. KOTOR I beat in under a week.
quote:The Sims, like SimCity, is a sandbox. There's no goal, it isn't a matter of getting the biggest house or the top career. You don't "win." You just do whatever you want -- for example, you might abuse your sims cruelly to see how they react.
Yeah, I know this. I loved Sims and Sims2, and SimCity. But I've built my own narratives several times over with each of these games, and that only holds my interest for a few weeks (or a couple of months, as was the case for Sims2).
quote:You might try to get two particular sims to start dating.
Like I've said, I've played the game a ton, and frankly I'm amused by this suggestion. Getting two sims to date takes maybe 10 minutes of play time.
Like I said, I am not trying to say these genres aren't as good as MMORPGs. I was trying to demonstrate why a game like World of Warcraft is fun for me (in response to a direct challenge that I was deluding myself, and that it really wasn't fun for me at all) and by doing so I stated my experiences with other genres, and why a MMORPG like WoW has more long lasting appeal to me.
Going down my list of favorite games, games from other genres are near the top.
Just off the top of my head:
1) World of Warcraft 2) Starcraft 3) Warcraft III 4) Diablo II 5) Planescape: Torment 6) Fallout 7) City of Heroes 8) The Sims 2 9) Knights of the Old Republic 10) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64) 11) Final Fantasy III (SNES)
Perhaps now you will see why I don't need much convincing?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Can someone explain the Fallout thing to me? I got told over and over again to play the games. A few years ago, I found a bundle pack of Fallout 1 & 2 at a CompUSA for $0.99 and tried them and I just couldn't get into it, which apparently makes me an RPG heretic.
There are many reasons:
1) Post-apocalyptic setting, at the time (and now still) it was a nice refreshing break from the endless number of Tolkien-lite fantasy worlds that so many RPGs tended to inhabit. No magic, no god-like beings. 2) Interesting backstory/writing/humour, lots of little references back to "our" world and the alternative 50s from which it sprung 3) Real decisions and consequences, unlike many games your choices are more than just "you can kill the boss in one of two ways, if you're a thief do this, if you're a fighter do this". Instead, you can make real moral (or immoral) choices and these are reflected in the narration when you finish the game 4) The "SPECIAL" game mechanic, to this day, when compared to the D&D style character creation in NWN and KOTOR, or the Morrowind/Oblivion, this system created the most memorable characters with the most interesting results in-game.
I'm sure there are many other reasons, but these are the ones that come to my mind. Now, obviously it will not be everyone's cup of tea and thats ok.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: However, once those games are "beaten" from a single player campaign, and you know the story, that's the end of it. I will probably pop the game back into the old computer from time to time to relive the story, but at most I get 100 hours of gaming from each game's single player campaign, and more likely 20-40 hours or less. So even for these great single player games, they only hold my interest for a few weeks at best. KOTOR I beat in under a week.
I agree with your point here -- i.e. a single-player game, like a book, has a definite end. One difference is that it takes me a lot more than a few weeks to sink 40-100 hours into a game -- I put close to 100 hours into Oblivion on my first playthrough, but it took me something like 6 months. That aside, though, I don't see the fact that single-player games are finite as a problem, given the length of my game queue. There are lots of great games out there to be played, so I tend not to focus on one for too long. I also tend to intersperse them so that I can play whatever I feel like playing when the mood strikes.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Like I said, I am not trying to say these genres aren't as good as MMORPGs.
Just to be clear, I didn't think you were.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: I was trying to demonstrate why a game like World of Warcraft is fun for me (in response to a direct challenge that I was deluding myself, and that it really wasn't fun for me at all) and by doing so I stated my experiences with other genres, and why a MMORPG like WoW has more long lasting appeal to me.
That's fair, but in doing so you described your approach to a wide number of games in MMORPG terms ("advancement"), which is why I drew the conclusion I drew -- that is, that you like the advancement aspect of games a lot more than I do.
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: Perhaps now you will see why I don't need much convincing?
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and I'm not looking to be convinced of anything. I'm just exploring whether and to what extent our approaches to gaming are different. Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
Man this thread has gone on long enough and I have the solution. RTS>MMORPG RPG>MMORPG Anybody who likes MMORPG<Smart There. Settled.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Man this thread has gone on long enough and I have the solution. RTS>MMORPG RPG>MMORPG Anybody who likes MMORPG<Smart There. Settled.
So by your book anyone who doesnt like what you like and think like you is <smart...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by calaban:
quote:Originally posted by Nick: Man this thread has gone on long enough and I have the solution. RTS>MMORPG RPG>MMORPG Anybody who likes MMORPG<Smart There. Settled.
So by your book anyone who doesnt like what you like and think like you is <smart...
Yes that is exactly what he said. Sure it lessens your existence if you think differently.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
I thought my made the sarcasm pretty obvious. Posted by TheTick (Member # 2883) on :
So...who wants to play tonight? My Bnet id is TheTickMS, and I'm addicted to Bunker Command II.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I really enjoy a variety of video games, but I rarely play online any more, because I've found that many people have WAY more time to devote to the game than I do. I've often run into kind of a wall, where it seems that if you play at one level, you can compete, but at the next level you get steamrolled every single time, usually so effectively that you aren't even learning or improving, because you're completely stomped.
That's one of the reasons I stick with single player. I can set the difficulty level to offer me as much challenge as I like, without the boredom of a too-easy win, or the frustration of being completely outclassed. I've rarely found the proper balance online. I've had some really good times, but also too many completely boring of frustrating games so that more often than not, it seems like wasted time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
My solution to that problem is to play with friends rather than playing random matches. Since we pretty much only play with each other, we all gain skill at a roughly comparable rate, so there's no "wall."
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
My problem is that I stomp my friends and family in a routine game of Starcraft; thus, they don't want to play with me.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
That's why I'm happy they had custom campaigns available online and user-made maps. Anyone remember Uther's Party from Warcraft III?
Posted by 777 (Member # 9506) on :
Nope.
Do you know of any outstanding Open RPGs for Warcraft III that I might be interested in? I mean, besides Imagica, which I already have, and The Black Road, which is strictly multiplayer.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Unfortunately no.
I was one of the few that actually played the game rather than its user-made maps.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Unfortunately, my wife doesn't dig the RTS games, she likes the MMORPGs more. This is all on your heads, all of you.
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
Warcraft 3 was a much bigger (and more "cartoony") departure from previous art styles than SC2, IMO.![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
It's true. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)