| Author |
Starcraft2 |
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
|  Posted: 2007-05-19 17:40
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-19 15:15, Peter Wiggin wrote:
Who cares about supreme commander? Aren't you the one always saying "You can't compare DS to EvE" and you are doing that with starcraft2...
Starcraft is not the ONLY game in development right now, and there has been hype for the next SC for years now, it is just not until now that they have had any news for it..
Supreme commander is a game I will most likely never own, and never even heard of until today. Starcraft 2 on the other hand, is a game I will surely own(because I have been a fan of starcraft since its release).
As an example: How would an army game for XBox overshadow a racing game?
[ This Message was edited by: Peter Wiggin on 2007-05-19 15:16 ]
|
|
Where do I begin my little walking brain fart....
A) I don't say "Don't compare DS to EVE!" I just say "EVE Sucks" 'cause I think it does.
B) There has also been tons of hype for Supreme Commander. You just haven't been allowed outside your cage enough to read anything about it.
C) You just made my own point for me, TYVM - Chris Taylor & Gas Powered Games pumped so much money and effort into making an incredible game that they didn't have the advertising and publicity to match Bliz's propaganda machine.
D) This is just old history again. Great RTS game comes out, not enough advertising budget to make it to the mainstream. Worse/simpler game comes out but is pimped harder than Clinton & the Blue Dress so all the little fanbois fall into line.
I would like to think that a DS player among all others could appreciate the irony here... guess I just overestimate people.
[Edit]Oh, and to address your edit... no you don't compare an army game to a racing game. But you do compare an RTS game to an RTS game... especially when this is a 100% repetition of history. Chris Taylor develops and releases Total Annihilation in 1997, and Blizzard delays the release of Starcraft and pumps up the publicity and advertisements - pimping 3 sides to choose from, as opposed to the near limitless potential in TA (which was capable of supporting 4 sides at release, but the devs preferred to perfect the balance and gameplay of the existing two first...)
You don't wanna play in this sandbox with me, boy.
[ This Message was edited by: Coeus on 2007-05-19 17:43 ]
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2007-05-19 18:04
We're forgetting about the new Warcraft game coming..
_________________
|
-RevenG-
Raven Warriors
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 2673
| Posted: 2007-05-19 18:30
Meh, TA and SC are different games. Supcom and SC2 will be different games. Both will not be liked by all. Calling either of them bad games is just stupidity.
_________________
|
Lacrosseian
Fleet Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 01, 2004
Posts: 1254
| Posted: 2007-05-19 18:53
Rev, you are missing the point. We are saying that the two games may be compared because they are of the same genre, RTS. Yes they are two completely different games, but none the less they can be compared. And you are correct on the fact that each game is going to be liked by some and hated by others.
_________________
|
-RevenG-
Raven Warriors
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 2673
| Posted: 2007-05-19 19:03
I got that point. Comparing Genre is one thing, comparing games, is another. : P
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-05-19 19:21
Just so you all know, TA (Christ T's game (he made SupCom)), pretty much set the standard for RTS when it was released. Pretty much any good RTS since then has had something from that game.
For instance, true line of site, and accuracy/vision advantages due to height is from TA.
Multiple units being able to build/repair other units comes from TA.
Rock/Paper/etc units are from TA.
TA was probably the best RTS for years, even better than SC on paper, but the ease of SC apealed to many, as did Blizzards general aproach to making games (the fun little tricks you could do). Which is why it did better than TA, and why I think, again, SC2 will do better than SupCom.
Not because it's "the better game", but because it's style it apeals to more people.
And being Korea's national sport might be something to do with it...
_________________
|
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
| Posted: 2007-05-19 19:32
...
the only real way you can compare a game is to another game inside the genera...
Asherons Call and Everquest
San Francisco Rush and Cruisin USA
Doom 3 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein
Command & Conquer and Warcraft
Total Annihilation and Starcraft
Supreme Commander and Starcraft 2
and to be honest only AC & EQ, TA & SC, and SupCom & SC2 are truely fair comparisons since they all have similar settings inside the generas.
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
Bobamelius
Grand Admiral
Galactic Navy
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 2074
From: Ohio
| Posted: 2007-05-19 20:44
Quote:
|
On 2007-05-19 13:56, Coeus wrote:
Typical Blizzard... Chris Taylor releases a better game earlier & then Bliz hypes up a crappier game afterwards to overshadow... typical!
|
|
Amen to that.
We can do so much cool stuff with the technology available today. We can have massive maps and huge armies, more realistic logistics, realistic combat and all kinds of neat, innovative stuff, so what do we do? We take the same old RTS crap and repackage it in a prettier package, and add a few bells and whistles.
The traditional RTS genre needs to die, it's been around long enough and we can do better now.
Not to mention Starcraft 2 has the most horrible unit size scaling I have ever seen... even worse than C&C3. One marine could barely fit inside a battlecruiser in this game. Come on, those are supposed to be full-on capital starships, and in the game they're about the size of a TIE fighter.
And the friggin' aircraft still just float stationary. When will someone besides Taylor make planes that actually fly? That drives me nuts.
[ This Message was edited by: Bobamelius on 2007-05-19 20:51 ]
_________________
|
Supertrooper
Marshal
Pitch Black
Joined: March 18, 2004
Posts: 1895
From: Maryland, U.S.A
| Posted: 2007-05-19 23:03
I dont find it right to compare Starcraft and Total Assault on gameplay, being that they are two different styles of RTS.. There for, both TA's tactical strategy and SC's blitzkrieg type strategy both fall under the title of RTS.. For graphics/scales/storylines, go right at it.. Real Time Strategy is a rather open type of genre. You can find almost every type of military strategy in games. There for, both TA's tactical strategy and SC's blitzkrieg type strategy both fall under the title of RTS..
On one hand, we have Total Assault. This game started it out for the total strategist in everyone. It showed how a Strategy based RTS should be. You had to think, plot, and counter every single event you could think of if you wanted to win, and do it succesfuly.
On the other, there is the end all be all god of rush-based RTS games. You didnt have to plan much, other then how and where you would ambush your opponent and what you would attack him with. You would have very little strategy in how you'd defend your base, or any counter attack. You just rushed, and Starcraft did that well.
Comparing them on Gameplay is like comparing Darkspace and EvE, their both in the same type of game, but both are different styles of that type.
So, fight about their graphics and storyline or something, not gameplay..
PS. I Win.
- Crim.
[ This Message was edited by: Crim on 2007-05-19 23:26 ]
_________________
|
-RevenG-
Raven Warriors
Joined: March 03, 2004
Posts: 2673
| Posted: 2007-05-19 23:52
Crim said exactly what I was thinking. Thank you crim, I now can remain lazy and not post a long thing. o/
_________________
|
Sardaukar
Admiral
Raven Warriors
Joined: October 08, 2002
Posts: 1656
| Posted: 2007-05-20 04:03
As a me-too elaboration on what Crim said... that is, the "why" to the "they're different types of games"...
My personal antidote for the "Hey! Nice toy battlecruiser!" effect in Starcraft 1 (and now 2) is that the -craft games are more like Real Time board games. Like... TA and SupCom, and heck, even CoH are real war-stategy games, whereas SC, WC, and maybe C&C are more like a fast-paced UI on a game that's more about making the right moves before your opponent, with a quick endgame decided upon by those first few moves. In TA and SupCom, you can easily recover from various setbacks, if you play right.
Case in point: Nukes. In the "RT Board Games", a nuclear strike typically means "you lose"; in the large scale games- TA and SupCom- a nuclear strike is very damaging, but you typically have ample time to setup Strategic Missile Defense structures and, failing that, time to evacuate your units from the estimated impact site.
I'd say that there is plenty of strategy in smallscale games, it's just not the kind of strategy people think of when they think "war"... It's the kind of strategy you employ in chess.
So to sum up my point: Teeny weeny battlecruisers are okay because they're really just 3D representations of Rooks.
EDIT - For fairness, a nuclear strike in SupCom can be very damaging. Like when you fire ten at once. And then eat popcorn while you watch the panoramic view of fiery bloomy explosions. And have flights of Broadsword Heavy Gunships mop up.
Oh yes.
[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2007-05-20 04:16 ]
_________________
|
Light-of-Aurora
Grand Admiral
Joined: December 01, 2003
Posts: 602
From: NJ, USA
| Posted: 2007-05-20 14:17
Quote:
|
Case in point: Nukes. In the "RT Board Games", a nuclear strike typically means "you lose"; in the large scale games- TA and SupCom- a nuclear strike is very damaging, but you typically have ample time to setup Strategic Missile Defense structures and, failing that, time to evacuate your units from the estimated impact site.
I'd say that there is plenty of strategy in smallscale games, it's just not the kind of strategy people think of when they think "war"... It's the kind of strategy you employ in chess.
[ This Message was edited by: Sardaukar on 2007-05-20 04:16 ]
|
|
If your talking about SC Nukes, they're utter garbage and used for humiliation.
You probably weren't though 
_________________
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2007-05-20 14:49
@Coeus
How the hell is Command & Conquer equal to Warcraft?
?!
War-esque RTS vs. fantasy RTS, with completely different things.
_________________
|
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
| Posted: 2007-05-20 15:16
Dunno... heh... I think I prolly meant to say Dune 2
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
Axianda The Royal
Fleet Admiral
Terra Squadron
Joined: November 20, 2001
Posts: 4273
From: Axianda
| Posted: 2007-05-20 17:28
I watched the trailer......
i think i wet myself.....
_________________
- Axi
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
