posted
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.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
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...
posted
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.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 4229 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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).
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 292 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
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*
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, arbiter rush? While you're blowing your money on that, well...n/m. This thread is already nerdy enough! Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 187 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
