it's sad but true that RTS games require speed and precision clicking. That's why I prefer turn-based -_- the speed required in RTS games make them feel more like action games, not strategy.
RTS games require as much quick thinking and fine control as any other kind of game. Watch a reply of any pro-level RTS game and you'll see what I mean. You obviously haven't played ANY RTS at anywhere near even the mid-level playing tier.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't play them at all multiplayer because multiplayer in any game is such a wildly varying thing that it barely merits classification. Depending on the server, the players, the gamemode, it can be practically anything.
You <i>can</i> play turn based strategy ridiculously fast if you want to, but that doesn't mean it's a neccesary part of the game. A good strategy game of any genre is about strategy, and strategy is largelly incompatible with speed, therefore you can have a bad RTS which is fast, or a good RTS which is slow. If you make it fast it has nothing to do with strategy because it's more like an FPS, it's about how fast your reflexes are.
Of course on the same note very few strategy games are about strategy anyway because the best method is always to take a well rounded force of the most expensive units and kill everything with superior numbers/very overpowered units, but if you are going to have strategy in a game it's not going to require you to control each individual unit as though you were playing an isometric action game, because if you're doing that you can't be doing anything else, such as thinking about what your enemy is doing or trying to decieve them and win by actual strategy.
I have unfortunately seen starcraft played by 'pro level' players as you put it, it has very little to do with strategy, they just spam commands all over to exploit deficiencies in the AI, it's like wallwalking or bunnyhopping except it's being done with RTS controls, I don't know why they bother playing starcraft considering you can do the same thing in quake.
In that case every rts is bad (not something I particularly disagree with, mind you), because all of them are about speed. If at any time your opponent is working faster than you, he stands a good chance of winning no matter how good your strategy is.
<!--quoteo(post=1767949:date=Apr 20 2010, 05:44 AM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Apr 20 2010, 05:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767949"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In that case every rts is bad (not something I particularly disagree with, mind you), because all of them are about speed. If at any time your opponent is working faster than you, he stands a good chance of winning no matter how good your strategy is.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not exactly, you can simply not play them multiplayer, most RTS games have quite a bit of merit in singleplayer because the missions usually impose some sort of restriction on you which forces you to change how you play, and the good ones throw scripted events at you which can mimic an intelligent opponent, it's only in unstructured games where it devolves into crap.
Total war games are quite good because the battles tend to be against fairly varied compositions of units and on unpredictable terrain, you have to asess your opponent's army, try and predict where he's going, and also see if the landscape offers you any advantage, as well as arrange your army intelligently to deal with his distribution of forces.
Usually in a total war battle I position my troops at the start and don't have a huge amount of input from then on, except to occasionally tell the cavalry to charge or focus the troops on a wavering part of the enemy line, it's probably one of the best series I own when it comes to strategy.
<!--quoteo(post=1767948:date=Apr 20 2010, 05:42 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 20 2010, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I have unfortunately seen starcraft played by 'pro level' players as you put it, it has very little to do with strategy, they just spam commands all over to exploit deficiencies in the AI, it's like wallwalking or bunnyhopping except it's being done with RTS controls, I don't know why they bother playing starcraft considering you can do the same thing in quake.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't have depth and awesome things in it. I'm fine with people enjoying different things than I do, but I'd still appreciate if they showed some respect towards the differing opinions and enjoyments.
In a similar way I don't completely understand Aphex Twin's musical genius, but I don't go calling it "stupid random noise" just because of that. I actually treat it with pretty big interest exactly because I feel I don't understand it (yet!).
The RTS/FPS combination has always been my favorite, the turn based part of X-COM never really appealed to me, I wonder what the new game will be like.
<!--quoteo(post=1767959:date=Apr 20 2010, 09:32 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 20 2010, 09:32 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767959"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't have depth and awesome things in it. I'm fine with people enjoying different things than I do, but I'd still appreciate if they showed some respect towards the differing opinions and enjoyments.
In a similar way I don't completely understand Aphex Twin's musical genius, but I don't go calling it "stupid random noise" just because of that. I actually treat it with pretty big interest exactly because I feel I don't understand it (yet!).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't call it stupid random noise, I said it wasn't strategy.
It's most comparable to an FPS, in that you don't really think about it so much as you develop the twitch skills which allow you to do it quickly, and spend time figuring out all the quirks in the control scheme which allow you to essentially boost your basic stats by performing specific timed movement actions like bunnyhopping.
Strategy on the other hand is much larger scale, and I would suggest should involve some element of planning and deduction, the strategy should probably be a purely thought based action, it's something you do to figure out what your next action should be, rather than something you do to simply boost your unit's stats by having them move out of the way of all the enemy attacks or fire each of their guns yourself.
I would suggest that it has more or less the same depth as an FPS, in the same ways as an FPS, but what it doesn't appear to have is any strategic element to speak of, or at least no element that isn't overshadowed by the neccesity of performing masses of reflexive actions.
<!--quoteo(post=1767963:date=Apr 20 2010, 09:48 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 20 2010, 09:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767963"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I didn't call it stupid random noise, I said it wasn't strategy.
It's most comparable to an FPS, in that you don't really think about it so much as you develop the twitch skills which allow you to do it quickly, and spend time figuring out all the quirks in the control scheme which allow you to essentially boost your basic stats by performing specific timed movement actions like bunnyhopping.
Strategy on the other hand is much larger scale, and I would suggest should involve some element of planning and deduction, the strategy should probably be a purely thought based action, it's something you do to figure out what your next action should be, rather than something you do to simply boost your unit's stats by having them move out of the way of all the enemy attacks or fire each of their guns yourself.
I would suggest that it has more or less the same depth as an FPS, in the same ways as an FPS, but what it doesn't appear to have is any strategic element to speak of, or at least no element that isn't overshadowed by the neccesity of performing masses of reflexive actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You called it button spamming. That's roughly the same as calling music random noises if you ask me.
So, you have never played online RTS and yet you claim you understand the game that has been played professionally for 10 years?
Just for your information: Starcraft has strategy way over the understanding of the vast majority of the gamers. I'm a strategy addict in any kind of games and I feel starcraft strategy is way beyond my understanding more than often. It's extremely complex stuff in the computer gaming scale.
The last player to reach moments of complete domination in korean professional starcraft scene was called Savior. He didn't run over everyone else through superior mechanics, he just had absolutely eerie game sense and awarness. We are talking about one professional outstrategizing the rest of the professionals. That's how strategical Starcraft.
<!--quoteo(post=1767950:date=Apr 20 2010, 06:51 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 20 2010, 06:51 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767950"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->you can simply not play [rts games] multiplayer<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I honestly don't know how to respond to that.
<!--quoteo(post=1767969:date=Apr 20 2010, 11:43 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 20 2010, 11:43 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767969"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You called it button spamming. That's roughly the same as calling music random noises if you ask me.
So, you have never played online RTS and yet you claim you understand the game that has been played professionally for 10 years?
Just for your information: Starcraft has strategy way over the understanding of the vast majority of the gamers. I'm a strategy addict in any kind of games and I feel starcraft strategy is way beyond my understanding more than often. It's extremely complex stuff in the computer gaming scale.
The last player to reach moments of complete domination in korean professional starcraft scene was called Savior. He didn't run over everyone else through superior mechanics, he just had absolutely eerie game sense and awarness. We are talking about one professional outstrategizing the rest of the professionals. That's how strategical Starcraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have played RTS games online I just don't if I can avoid it, and I have played that style of RTS although I also tend to avoid it now that other options are available, so I am familiar with the concepts involved.
Button spamming is the basis of a large portion of games, everything from mario to fighting games to FPS games to driving games is based on the principle of performing repetitive, reactionary actions with little thought involved, it does not have to be anything else to be enjoyable, but it does have to be something else to qualify as strategy by any reasonable definition of the term.
If it's eerie it's probably guesswork, if there isn't a visible mechanism by which someone does something then there probably isn't one and they are just lucky, or they are doing something else that you haven't realised. If someone predicts someone else's movements without any discernable method of doing so, they are either cheating, guessing, or they aren't predicitng their movements and instead are winning through some other means. At least unless we find evidence of psychic powers which is fairly unlikely. It is possible although unlikely that you could achieve that through extensive research of other players, but unless the other players are well publicised and their tendencies well documented that is obviously impossible. It is also possible that you could simply learn all the prominent strategies in the game, but if that were possible the game would have to be rather strategically bereft, as no game with a lot of strategic depth would allow such a possibility.
It is theoretically possible to play any non-chance based game strategically, you can play conkers strategically if you and your opponent both feel like it, because to an extent strategy is independent of the game, you can apply similar strategic elements to anything, but if you only use that definition it kind of devalues the word because it is so wide ranging. Some games have other elements of strategy outside of the meta-game psychology elements involving you trying to understand your opponent and use that understanding to your advantage, and a good strategy game should have a lot of those elements as well as excluding most other elements so they don't interfere, otherwise it isn't a strategy game, it's a non-strategy game that you are applying strategy to.
<!--quoteo(post=1767987:date=Apr 20 2010, 08:42 AM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Apr 20 2010, 08:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1767987"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->If it's eerie it's probably guesswork, if there isn't a visible mechanism by which someone does something then there probably isn't one and they are just lucky, or they are doing something else that you haven't realised. If someone predicts someone else's movements without any discernable method of doing so, they are either cheating, guessing, or they aren't predicitng their movements and instead are winning through some other means. At least unless we find evidence of psychic powers which is fairly unlikely. It is possible although unlikely that you could achieve that through extensive research of other players, but unless the other players are well publicised and their tendencies well documented that is obviously impossible. It is also possible that you could simply learn all the prominent strategies in the game, but if that were possible the game would have to be rather strategically bereft, as no game with a lot of strategic depth would allow such a possibility.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'd be careful of this kind of sentiment. What is not decernable to an observer, may not be indecernable to an experienced player that has logged thousands of hours into the game.
In NS, if I'm building a res nozzle in red zone (area where I know there should be enemy activity) and I don't hear anything for a little while, I'll probably check around, and alot of times I'll catch a skulk trying to ambush me. It's not really that I guessed, it's that if I'm in red zone, I can expect to be ambushed every so often, and I know it takes a certain amount of time for a skulk in a ambush position to safely reposition and attack me when he hears me building. With a certain amount of certainty, I know there will be activity. Other things apply too, like if I'm kharra and I stop feeling pressure from marines in the mid game, they are probably setting up a siege or shotgun rush at one of our hives.
To someone inexperienced, it's pretty difficult to determine how I could be making such accurate estimates, and there isn't really one thing I can point to and say "this is the signal I used to determine my hypothesis", but it's not guessing, there is a background logic to the assumptions I'm making.
In a game like starcraft, this kind of thing is magnified significantly. Of course there are signals, but the signals are boarderline nonsensical. "my opponent was going roaches, but I saw an overlord in my base, so now I know they are going mutalisks". What's left out is that the player knows the overlord spotted the ambush he was about to make, and he knows the enemy player will have to respond to counter what he was doing, so he has the opportunity to counter the counter, or push extra hard, or whatever... but he can determine with reasonable certainty that that counter will be constructed by the opponent.
I'm not too familiar with the exact finesse of original Enemy Unknown, but I certainly hope they make use of it. As an average shooter it definitely feels just another licence ripoff.
The game could use squad dynamics and the tactical variability to create something far more interesting and unique. Too bad that creating smart AI seems to be next to impossible and more complex tactical play isn't rated that high by the bigger studios right now.
<!--quoteo(post=1768043:date=Apr 20 2010, 05:15 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 20 2010, 05:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768043"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm not too familiar with the exact finesse of original Enemy Unknown, but I certainly hope they make use of it. As an average shooter it definitely feels just another licence ripoff.
The game could use squad dynamics and the tactical variability to create something far more interesting and unique. Too bad that creating smart AI seems to be next to impossible and more complex tactical play isn't rated that high by the bigger studios right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The original Xcom AI wasn't brilliant, it was just scary, jumps out at you from the darkness, and rarely stays in one place, so you never really get a sense of safety. However, it was basically just aliens on various random paths with basic bum rush AI once they spotted an enemy.
<!--quoteo(post=1768103:date=Apr 21 2010, 07:35 AM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Swiftspear @ Apr 21 2010, 07:35 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1768103"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The original Xcom AI wasn't brilliant, it was just scary, jumps out at you from the darkness, and rarely stays in one place, so you never really get a sense of safety. However, it was basically just aliens on various random paths with basic bum rush AI once they spotted an enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, I was mostly referring to the squadmate AI. In X-Com you controlled everyone yourself, right? On FPS you're either alone on relying on the AI to some extend. Going solo seems to miss some of the X-Com spirit, but depending on AI mates is more than frustrating on most games.
<a href="http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html" target="_blank">http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html</a> >The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission. >2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
<!--quoteo(post=1774403:date=Jun 12 2010, 12:48 AM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jun 12 2010, 12:48 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html" target="_blank">http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html</a> >The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission. >2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
<!--quoteo(post=1774895:date=Jun 15 2010, 10:47 AM:name=steppin'razor)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (steppin'razor @ Jun 15 2010, 10:47 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774895"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On another note: worth going back and playing the originals? How do they hold up today etc<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
graphically ugly as sin (but you can blow everything up) compared to todays shiny stuff but way easier than Dwarf fortress.
The gameplay is in my opinion both simple on the surface but deep overall. it doesn't hold you hand and if you screw up, you screw up but even then you can still pull it back together, losing doesn't always equal instant defeat and early on your gunna suffer alot of casualities.
I honestly wish if they wanted to remake the game, leave everything alone and just make the graphics and sound nicer(maybe not even touch the sound since it's ace).
The only problem is that it's been so damn long since most of us started playing that we don't remember what caused us trouble initially. For example, how to fire soldiers. Or which new recruits do you fire immediately, and which do you keep. Or which of the starting weapons are useless hunks o junk and which are lethal with the right ammo in the right hands... etc
In any case, get it via Steam and you can at least skip the enormous hassle of setting up DOSBox properly (though you may want to double the cycle rate or whatever its called so it runs at a decent speed).
Then, if possible, run in windowed and ask people over IRC or some other instant chat thing. That helped me a lot with getting into DF, so hopefully it'll help you here.
Bioshock was a bad shooter that was acceptable due to its great presentation. Once the presentation evaporated around the 60% mark though, the game fell to repetition and clunky, stiff shooter mechanics. It was an FPS made by people who really had no idea how to make an FPS.
Hopefully they learned something, but then again, it's 2k, <b>the studio responsible for completely, irrevocably decimating the Tribes franchise.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1774403:date=Jun 11 2010, 02:48 PM:name=Align)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Align @ Jun 11 2010, 02:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1774403"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><a href="http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html" target="_blank">http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/109/1096051p2.html</a> >The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission. >2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
i am excited<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For ######'s sake man, we've been listening to this same god-damn rhetoric for almost 10 years now, and <b>not one developer has pulled it off</b>. The 'modern' (or 'accessible') features ALWAYS take precedence and end up tarnishing the game. It's not "let's take the classic, update it, and find out new ways to do what didn't really work", it's "lets take this half-assed shooter and reskin a couple things".
Yes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I foresee ######loads of disappointment. Not right after release, but months later when the first guy has stepped forward and asserted that the emperor is naked and doesn't wear it well.
<!--quoteo(post=1775030:date=Jun 16 2010, 10:36 AM:name=Retales)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Retales @ Jun 16 2010, 10:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1775030"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->X-COM: UFO Defence is the only one I've played and it's really awesome. I think Terror from the Deep is similar (engine and game mechanics).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
TFTD is basically a full UFO mod, designed to snap your neck and urinate down your throat.
The game is ###### brutal!
Enemies have better stats, compared to their UFO counterparts. The arrival of certain species is more random. You can get lobster men in month 2. A that point you usually have nothing to take them down, expect det-packs !!! MC is harder to get and thanks to the tech tree even getting the MC lab does not help, cause you need to research the MC control devices , which rests in a separate branch of the tech tree. Your own weapons have been weakened. (Gauss (the laser counterpart) uses clips now etc) The Tech tree is more complicated and you are required to catch certain aliens alive (deep ones) to get access to certain key techs, like amour and advanced subs. Shooting down USOs is harder, because you cannot engage them on land, at all. This is really problematic, cause you need to protect the citys from alien infiltration missions, but you can only shoot down USOS over water.
All maps (battlescape) are generally darker, provide more niches for aliens to hide, are bigger and often enough multi staged. (Even better: If you shoot your gun once, the whole clip will be removed, when entering the the 2nd stage. Same goes for all the loot you might find on stage 1 :D
Getting an alien commander alive is harder and you need to get multiple commanders :)
The crysalid counterpart can fly. HOORAY!!!!
- - - - - On the plus side you finally have access to efficient melee weapons.
<!--quoteo(post=1775031:date=Jun 16 2010, 09:44 AM:name=Temphage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Temphage @ Jun 16 2010, 09:44 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1775031"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Bioshock was a bad shooter that was acceptable due to its great presentation. Once the presentation evaporated around the 60% mark though, the game fell to repetition and clunky, stiff shooter mechanics. It was an FPS made by people who really had no idea how to make an FPS.
Hopefully they learned something, but then again, it's 2k, <b>the studio responsible for completely, irrevocably decimating the Tribes franchise.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, bioshock let you shoot bees out of your arm. It's worth playing just for that.
It's also worth playing in a soundproof room so you can yell BEEEEEEEEES really loud every time you do it.
Comments
I'm going to have to revoke your opinion badge.
RTS games require as much quick thinking and fine control as any other kind of game. Watch a reply of any pro-level RTS game and you'll see what I mean. You obviously haven't played ANY RTS at anywhere near even the mid-level playing tier.
--Scythe--<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't play them at all multiplayer because multiplayer in any game is such a wildly varying thing that it barely merits classification. Depending on the server, the players, the gamemode, it can be practically anything.
You <i>can</i> play turn based strategy ridiculously fast if you want to, but that doesn't mean it's a neccesary part of the game. A good strategy game of any genre is about strategy, and strategy is largelly incompatible with speed, therefore you can have a bad RTS which is fast, or a good RTS which is slow. If you make it fast it has nothing to do with strategy because it's more like an FPS, it's about how fast your reflexes are.
Of course on the same note very few strategy games are about strategy anyway because the best method is always to take a well rounded force of the most expensive units and kill everything with superior numbers/very overpowered units, but if you are going to have strategy in a game it's not going to require you to control each individual unit as though you were playing an isometric action game, because if you're doing that you can't be doing anything else, such as thinking about what your enemy is doing or trying to decieve them and win by actual strategy.
I have unfortunately seen starcraft played by 'pro level' players as you put it, it has very little to do with strategy, they just spam commands all over to exploit deficiencies in the AI, it's like wallwalking or bunnyhopping except it's being done with RTS controls, I don't know why they bother playing starcraft considering you can do the same thing in quake.
Not exactly, you can simply not play them multiplayer, most RTS games have quite a bit of merit in singleplayer because the missions usually impose some sort of restriction on you which forces you to change how you play, and the good ones throw scripted events at you which can mimic an intelligent opponent, it's only in unstructured games where it devolves into crap.
Total war games are quite good because the battles tend to be against fairly varied compositions of units and on unpredictable terrain, you have to asess your opponent's army, try and predict where he's going, and also see if the landscape offers you any advantage, as well as arrange your army intelligently to deal with his distribution of forces.
Usually in a total war battle I position my troops at the start and don't have a huge amount of input from then on, except to occasionally tell the cavalry to charge or focus the troops on a wavering part of the enemy line, it's probably one of the best series I own when it comes to strategy.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it doesn't have depth and awesome things in it. I'm fine with people enjoying different things than I do, but I'd still appreciate if they showed some respect towards the differing opinions and enjoyments.
In a similar way I don't completely understand Aphex Twin's musical genius, but I don't go calling it "stupid random noise" just because of that. I actually treat it with pretty big interest exactly because I feel I don't understand it (yet!).
In a similar way I don't completely understand Aphex Twin's musical genius, but I don't go calling it "stupid random noise" just because of that. I actually treat it with pretty big interest exactly because I feel I don't understand it (yet!).<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I didn't call it stupid random noise, I said it wasn't strategy.
It's most comparable to an FPS, in that you don't really think about it so much as you develop the twitch skills which allow you to do it quickly, and spend time figuring out all the quirks in the control scheme which allow you to essentially boost your basic stats by performing specific timed movement actions like bunnyhopping.
Strategy on the other hand is much larger scale, and I would suggest should involve some element of planning and deduction, the strategy should probably be a purely thought based action, it's something you do to figure out what your next action should be, rather than something you do to simply boost your unit's stats by having them move out of the way of all the enemy attacks or fire each of their guns yourself.
I would suggest that it has more or less the same depth as an FPS, in the same ways as an FPS, but what it doesn't appear to have is any strategic element to speak of, or at least no element that isn't overshadowed by the neccesity of performing masses of reflexive actions.
It's most comparable to an FPS, in that you don't really think about it so much as you develop the twitch skills which allow you to do it quickly, and spend time figuring out all the quirks in the control scheme which allow you to essentially boost your basic stats by performing specific timed movement actions like bunnyhopping.
Strategy on the other hand is much larger scale, and I would suggest should involve some element of planning and deduction, the strategy should probably be a purely thought based action, it's something you do to figure out what your next action should be, rather than something you do to simply boost your unit's stats by having them move out of the way of all the enemy attacks or fire each of their guns yourself.
I would suggest that it has more or less the same depth as an FPS, in the same ways as an FPS, but what it doesn't appear to have is any strategic element to speak of, or at least no element that isn't overshadowed by the neccesity of performing masses of reflexive actions.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You called it button spamming. That's roughly the same as calling music random noises if you ask me.
So, you have never played online RTS and yet you claim you understand the game that has been played professionally for 10 years?
Just for your information: Starcraft has strategy way over the understanding of the vast majority of the gamers. I'm a strategy addict in any kind of games and I feel starcraft strategy is way beyond my understanding more than often. It's extremely complex stuff in the computer gaming scale.
The last player to reach moments of complete domination in korean professional starcraft scene was called Savior. He didn't run over everyone else through superior mechanics, he just had absolutely eerie game sense and awarness. We are talking about one professional outstrategizing the rest of the professionals. That's how strategical Starcraft.
I honestly don't know how to respond to that.
So, you have never played online RTS and yet you claim you understand the game that has been played professionally for 10 years?
Just for your information: Starcraft has strategy way over the understanding of the vast majority of the gamers. I'm a strategy addict in any kind of games and I feel starcraft strategy is way beyond my understanding more than often. It's extremely complex stuff in the computer gaming scale.
The last player to reach moments of complete domination in korean professional starcraft scene was called Savior. He didn't run over everyone else through superior mechanics, he just had absolutely eerie game sense and awarness. We are talking about one professional outstrategizing the rest of the professionals. That's how strategical Starcraft.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have played RTS games online I just don't if I can avoid it, and I have played that style of RTS although I also tend to avoid it now that other options are available, so I am familiar with the concepts involved.
Button spamming is the basis of a large portion of games, everything from mario to fighting games to FPS games to driving games is based on the principle of performing repetitive, reactionary actions with little thought involved, it does not have to be anything else to be enjoyable, but it does have to be something else to qualify as strategy by any reasonable definition of the term.
If it's eerie it's probably guesswork, if there isn't a visible mechanism by which someone does something then there probably isn't one and they are just lucky, or they are doing something else that you haven't realised. If someone predicts someone else's movements without any discernable method of doing so, they are either cheating, guessing, or they aren't predicitng their movements and instead are winning through some other means. At least unless we find evidence of psychic powers which is fairly unlikely. It is possible although unlikely that you could achieve that through extensive research of other players, but unless the other players are well publicised and their tendencies well documented that is obviously impossible. It is also possible that you could simply learn all the prominent strategies in the game, but if that were possible the game would have to be rather strategically bereft, as no game with a lot of strategic depth would allow such a possibility.
It is theoretically possible to play any non-chance based game strategically, you can play conkers strategically if you and your opponent both feel like it, because to an extent strategy is independent of the game, you can apply similar strategic elements to anything, but if you only use that definition it kind of devalues the word because it is so wide ranging. Some games have other elements of strategy outside of the meta-game psychology elements involving you trying to understand your opponent and use that understanding to your advantage, and a good strategy game should have a lot of those elements as well as excluding most other elements so they don't interfere, otherwise it isn't a strategy game, it's a non-strategy game that you are applying strategy to.
I'd be careful of this kind of sentiment. What is not decernable to an observer, may not be indecernable to an experienced player that has logged thousands of hours into the game.
In NS, if I'm building a res nozzle in red zone (area where I know there should be enemy activity) and I don't hear anything for a little while, I'll probably check around, and alot of times I'll catch a skulk trying to ambush me. It's not really that I guessed, it's that if I'm in red zone, I can expect to be ambushed every so often, and I know it takes a certain amount of time for a skulk in a ambush position to safely reposition and attack me when he hears me building. With a certain amount of certainty, I know there will be activity. Other things apply too, like if I'm kharra and I stop feeling pressure from marines in the mid game, they are probably setting up a siege or shotgun rush at one of our hives.
To someone inexperienced, it's pretty difficult to determine how I could be making such accurate estimates, and there isn't really one thing I can point to and say "this is the signal I used to determine my hypothesis", but it's not guessing, there is a background logic to the assumptions I'm making.
In a game like starcraft, this kind of thing is magnified significantly. Of course there are signals, but the signals are boarderline nonsensical. "my opponent was going roaches, but I saw an overlord in my base, so now I know they are going mutalisks". What's left out is that the player knows the overlord spotted the ambush he was about to make, and he knows the enemy player will have to respond to counter what he was doing, so he has the opportunity to counter the counter, or push extra hard, or whatever... but he can determine with reasonable certainty that that counter will be constructed by the opponent.
an xcom fps is welcomed!
The game could use squad dynamics and the tactical variability to create something far more interesting and unique. Too bad that creating smart AI seems to be next to impossible and more complex tactical play isn't rated that high by the bigger studios right now.
The game could use squad dynamics and the tactical variability to create something far more interesting and unique. Too bad that creating smart AI seems to be next to impossible and more complex tactical play isn't rated that high by the bigger studios right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The original Xcom AI wasn't brilliant, it was just scary, jumps out at you from the darkness, and rarely stays in one place, so you never really get a sense of safety. However, it was basically just aliens on various random paths with basic bum rush AI once they spotted an enemy.
Yeah, I was mostly referring to the squadmate AI. In X-Com you controlled everyone yourself, right? On FPS you're either alone on relying on the AI to some extend. Going solo seems to miss some of the X-Com spirit, but depending on AI mates is more than frustrating on most games.
>The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission.
>2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
i am excited
>The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission.
>2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
i am excited<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green"><!--/coloro-->> lipservice
> greentext<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
--Scythe--
I'm going to go play original xcom and weep.
graphically ugly as sin (but you can blow everything up) compared to todays shiny stuff but way easier than Dwarf fortress.
<img src="http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/x-com-ufo-defense.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
The gameplay is in my opinion both simple on the surface but deep overall. it doesn't hold you hand and if you screw up, you screw up but even then you can still pull it back together, losing doesn't always equal instant defeat and early on your gunna suffer alot of casualities.
I honestly wish if they wanted to remake the game, leave everything alone and just make the graphics and sound nicer(maybe not even touch the sound since it's ace).
For example, how to fire soldiers. Or which new recruits do you fire immediately, and which do you keep. Or which of the starting weapons are useless hunks o junk and which are lethal with the right ammo in the right hands... etc
In any case, get it via Steam and you can at least skip the enormous hassle of setting up DOSBox properly (though you may want to double the cycle rate or whatever its called so it runs at a decent speed).
Then, if possible, run in windowed and ask people over IRC or some other instant chat thing. That helped me a lot with getting into DF, so hopefully it'll help you here.
Hopefully they learned something, but then again, it's 2k, <b>the studio responsible for completely, irrevocably decimating the Tribes franchise.</b>
>The 2K Marin team has a deep respect for Enemy Unknown, and see retaining core aspects of that title as imperative to its mission.
>2K Marin may just be able to satisfy the old school fans and the expectations of players weaned on modern shooters alike.
i am excited<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For ######'s sake man, we've been listening to this same god-damn rhetoric for almost 10 years now, and <b>not one developer has pulled it off</b>. The 'modern' (or 'accessible') features ALWAYS take precedence and end up tarnishing the game. It's not "let's take the classic, update it, and find out new ways to do what didn't really work", it's "lets take this half-assed shooter and reskin a couple things".
Yes.
Yes.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I foresee ######loads of disappointment. Not right after release, but months later when the first guy has stepped forward and asserted that the emperor is naked and doesn't wear it well.
TFTD is basically a full UFO mod, designed to snap your neck and urinate down your throat.
The game is ###### brutal!
Enemies have better stats, compared to their UFO counterparts.
The arrival of certain species is more random. You can get lobster men in month 2. A that point you usually have nothing to take them down, expect det-packs !!!
MC is harder to get and thanks to the tech tree even getting the MC lab does not help, cause you need to research the MC control devices , which rests in a separate branch of the tech tree.
Your own weapons have been weakened. (Gauss (the laser counterpart) uses clips now etc)
The Tech tree is more complicated and you are required to catch certain aliens alive (deep ones) to get access to certain key techs, like amour and advanced subs.
Shooting down USOs is harder, because you cannot engage them on land, at all. This is really problematic, cause you need to protect the citys from alien infiltration missions, but you can only shoot down USOS over water.
All maps (battlescape) are generally darker, provide more niches for aliens to hide, are bigger and often enough multi staged. (Even better: If you shoot your gun once, the whole clip will be removed, when entering the the 2nd stage. Same goes for all the loot you might find on stage 1 :D
Getting an alien commander alive is harder and you need to get multiple commanders :)
The crysalid counterpart can fly. HOORAY!!!!
-
-
-
-
-
On the plus side you finally have access to efficient melee weapons.
Hopefully they learned something, but then again, it's 2k, <b>the studio responsible for completely, irrevocably decimating the Tribes franchise.</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree, bioshock let you shoot bees out of your arm. It's worth playing just for that.
It's also worth playing in a soundproof room so you can yell BEEEEEEEEES really loud every time you do it.