|
Far Cry 2 is the best in the series
SpaceClown fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Mar 12, 2017 |
#
¿
Feb 14, 2017 09:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
basic hitler posted:As a nerd growing up you have to learn to avoid certain communities, and a true friend will pull a person aside and save their friend, if they notice a taken interest in fighting game tournaments, or competitive card game tournaments, or honestly any nerd thing + tournament what if its a racing sim tourney? those are pretty cool but im also completely biased and am a sucker for racing sims.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:does it attract mal-adjusted people with broken disordered brains that will attack you when they lose? surprisingly not.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
both undertale and lisa suck  earthbound sucks.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 17:22
|
|
|
lljk branch of ss13 would be better if departments didnt come fully fleshed out and you had to actually apply yourself to get everything running
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
wolf3d > doom ones a stealth action game the other is a "just shoot it until it dies lol"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Irradiation posted:Wolfenstein isn't stealth in the slightest wtf. wolf3d is definitely all about the stealth and utilizing ambushes to your advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
lol @ people discussing fallout 4 to this degree like bethesda put that much thought into it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
arma is great fukc u
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:someone gave me a free ARMA key, and i redeemed it, but i have never installed it or played it, ever. Is it worth my time? I don't mind tactical stuff but im not super thrilled about it, and i know that's arma's shtik. is there a fun game underneath the tryhard nonsense? yeah but you'll probably give up because it takes a long time to git gud.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
the key to enjoying arma is to play through the campaign to get a feel for it and then play scenarios arma 3 has a bunch of randomly generating scenarios that are super fun. i recommend dynamic recon ops and dynamic universal war system rebirth.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Rutibex posted:all RTS games should be set in the DUNE universe. this but unironically. we really need a 4X Dune game. Would love a paradox game about the Landsraad. also gently caress yeah, dune 2 clones are loving gayer than dad.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Men of War.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
Blaise330 posted:A lot of people would be really sad if they realized the same people they lost to in starcraft would beat them in the slower RTS games. High apm isn't a special skill, literally thousands of people have that. The ones who win consistently are the master decision makers and strategists. Don't confuse a build order with a strategy. i guarantee you i'd wreck the poo poo out of probably 90% of diamond class star craft players in XPiratez
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 05:46
|
|
|
I guess that isn't a real time game. I'd wreck the poo poo out of 90% of the diamond class players are World in Conflict and if I ever bother to get good at Men of War, that too. It requires a special skill to be able to not only predict where an enemy squad is advancing but also leading them with a napalm strike thats timed so they get wiped out before the other player can react. A special skill that I sharpened to a very nasty point because I spent way too much playing that game back in the day.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 05:50
|
|
|
Blaise330 posted:I agree the game is boring, I just don't agree that top players are bad strategists that would instantly be helpless if they got put into a lower apm RTS game. Also cheese is borderline useless in any genre once you get past a certain point (and that point isnt scraping the bottom of diamond on an elo system). That stuff you do on Tekken and Soul Calibur to your little brother is just utterly ineffectual once you get outside of your bubble. i think they are good strategists at that type of game. properly managing marine blobs doesn't transfer well to games like men of war, or games like hearts of iron.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:The RTS genre is at its core: the player is given a base amount of economic and military resources. The player makes decisions to invest those resources to get more economic and military resources, or detract from villains resources. not every rts is a dune 2 clone you know games like mow and world in conflict function completely differently and men of war places a lot more emphasis on intelligent economy spending that varies wildly after your third or so purchase. plus casualties actually have long term consequences due to the way that the resource system is set up. casualties only matter in starcraft in the short term as units can be replaced indefinitely and rapidly. turtling a massive blob of tanks and attritioning your way into a base is a viable tactic. starcraft suffers from being about as deep as a puddle. I'm not saying there isn't strategic gameplay in it, but what is there pales in comparison to more modern games that aren't steeped in 2 decades of antiquated design philosophy and you have to have not played any other game besides starcraft and supcom and its clones to not see why. SpaceClown fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:23
|
|
|
supcom being very close to the same game as starcraft but with a far bigger emphasis on macro and a marginally more interesting economy. it still lacks the depth and complexity of the modern RTS.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
Zorodius posted:A build order isn't some magical password you're forced to input, it's just an initial plan. You know... your strategy. For the strategy game. the fact that there is an optimal "initial plan" thats more than the opening moves to the game is exactly why starcraft is a pathetic strategy game.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:30
|
|
|
men of war build order: -buy assault squad -buy infantry squad -if the map is 3v3, buy a IFV OTHERWISE -buy another assault squad now its not even 2 minutes in and what you buy next will depend entirely on whether or not you can get away with putting off purchasing a medium tank while your infantry hold the line starcraft 2 build order: -supply depot -barracks -barracks -barracks -marine -supply depot -orbital command -marine -marine -barracks -marine -supply depot -marine -marine -marine and so on and so forth for another 10 minutes
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
starcraft: this blob should hold the enemy at bay long enough for my upgrades to finish  men of war: Lets see, if I position my sniper at the top of this cottage, they can get a good view of the tall grass leading up to flag B, which will allow me to see if any drat brandenburgs are trying to sneak up on my Sherman. I'll just have my marines pop some smoke to cover his entry to the building then have them take cover by their halftrack. Hmm my Pershing is running out of ammo, I really should resupply it but my truck is stuck in no-mans land, sandwiched between two heavy machine gun teams and an AT gun on the enemy side and I really can't spare the cash to buy a new one because I have to anticipate my Pershing's Sherman escort getting tracked and subsequently flanked and I sure as hell am not about to let my pershing investment go to waste. and ah hell the ranger squad just got wiped out by a single HE round from that pesky stug! 
SpaceClown fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:Chess... a pathetic strategy game chess is loving boring so yeah.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:46
|
|
|
im serious, starcraft is stuck in the early 90s the genre has evolved so much since then. honestly supreme commander is the logical evolution of the dune clone brought into the 21st century, but for some reason blizzard would rather rehash the same game with balance tweaks and call it a day and people slurp it up. at this point ArmA is a more interesting RTS than starcraft and thats loving hilarious when you think about it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:I guess I just don't like the real time aspect of RTS games. I don't want to be rushed. try gameboy wars 3
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
its also got a lot more units, like commandos and CAS aircraft there's a english translation romhack somewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
someone sounds upset.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
i dont think i ever implied build orders are the extent of strategy at play in starcraft. just that the game is extremely simplistic and it suffers because of that. thats part of the reason why build orders play such a huge role in the game. i dont think you can realistically deny either of those points.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
imo, supcom perfected base building and starcraft really should have switched gears to copy it instead of sticking with the same old dune 2 formula that's been done to death since it very clearly is never going to increase the complexity of the combat in the series beyond "blob and utilize stims "
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:if there were money or serious competition behind any of the heartbreaker RTSes to come out since the 90s they would be solved to the same degree of specificity (and would probably have fewer viable options than BW once they were) the prospect of minmaxing something drops inversely and exponentially compared to the complexity of the game. a game like MoW there is no real "prime" strategy because there are usually about 10 different ways to tackle a problem and each has their own drawbacks and advantages that are all roughly equal.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:supcom is garbage that deliberately introduced lag to how fast units respond to you because they didn't want their game to be starcraft supcom vanilla is the superior game to starcraft due to that it basically improves on it in every single way while still retaining the same formula underneath it all. FA is worse because seraphim are stupidly overpowered and their T4 bomber was a mistake. JIZZ DENOUEMENT posted:The catfish is right. Building a big static base vs ai can be fun, but it's not an indication of the strategy part of the rts Base architecture is only half the battle in Supcom, though. 70% of the game is commanding multifront assaults with combined arms forces. basic hitler posted:planetary annihilation is a terrible game! this is probably a pretty good opinion just thought i'd say I bought it on sale and i still pretty much regret it! this. i wanted to enjoy it, but it was boring and it's really unstable. also they want me to pay like $40 for an expansion that introduces "totally not experimentals guys, oc donut steel" and im just like "lol"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:there's no "prime" strategy in starcraft either the difference is that starcraft lacks meaningful mechanical complexity to ever evolve beyond basic troop movement serving as the backbone of the strategy in the game. the only response you can have with a marine vs a siege tank or battle cruiser is to run the gently caress away. in that regard, starcraft's strategic elements only run so deep and why the game pales in comparison to modern RTSes
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
The Skeleton King posted:RTS games aren't very good. agreed tbh
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
people seem to try to play supcom 1:1 like starcraft and that just doesn't work. the game is all about automation and thinking 12 steps ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:making fewer and less difficult decisions in the same amount of time isn't more depth, hth you dont seem to grasp that just building a base doesn't win you a game in supcom you automate your main base and your FOBs because, you know, you still have to actually put your units to work, and that's where supcom really shines. You use automation to cut back on the amount of time you're babysitting your bases and like i said, its all about effective use of large scale, multifront combined arms warfare. It requires being able to not only keep track of multiple fronts that each will involve more units on one side than you can spawn in a single game of starcraft but consist of the same mechanical and strategic depth of starcraft, if not to a greater extent due to more useful specialized unit types such as missile launchers and stealth field generators.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Bodyholes posted:Technical depth does not make a game better. There is a difference between strategic depth and artificial depth. If an action is difficult to perform because by nature it has to be, that's fine. But if an action is difficult to perform because it's designed to be, then that's anti-player, and while it may separate players by skill at performing it, it does not add any strategic value to the game. But that depends. Direct control in Men of War is an important tool that is key to winning battles and its very obtuse to use. Tuxedo Catfish posted:nah, it's poo poo that fails to actually understand any of the systems that made starcraft good. micro is more limited, base building puts less importance on distinctions of territory and terrain, it's slow and ungainly. the resemblance is incredibly superficial. but this is false. The micro isn't more limited, it's simply less important and far harder to do because the amount of units in play is several times that of starcraft. terrain and territory are far more important in supcom than in starcraft, what are you talking about? starcraft exists explicity on a 2D plane with impassible areas. supcom has projectile trajectory and utilizing walls to create killzones for point defenses is key to building a successful base. poor defense placement will just result in your defenses shooting at the terrain instead of their target. the high ground is an extreme tactical advantage for anything that isn't artillery or missiles, especially for units with low profiles like tanks. it also means air holds a lot bigger role in supcom, as you can simply fly over mountains and walls with troop transports to drop units behind enemy lines and keep the player distracted from the front. also, it's not slow and ungainly, it's a game on a much larger scale than starcraft and as a result if you're just blobbing your units in one giant killstack instead of engaging on multiple fronts to cope with the large scale, you're a gosh dang idiot.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:how well you can control your units is legitimate to an RTS There are some issues with this. 1.) There is a very important micro game to supcom, however lategame it isn't viable to micro 10,000 units and there is indeed a paradygm shift between mid-late game that is very important to keep in mind. 2.) Starcraft isn't very good at micro in actuality. Neither is supcom, but don't expect an engaging micro from either game. 3.) There is nothing hands-off about the base building in Supcom. It doesn't build itself for you and it doesn't automate itself for you. That's up to you to do and to modify the automation to suit the situation at hand as you need. The base building is simply far more deep than Starcraft's and because of that there are tools at your disposal to make your life easier so you can continue to focus on the actual war going on. Lategame Supcom is very much all about theater scale warfare and there IS a micro game to consider, but concerning yourself with your tanks when you want to make sure your experimentals reach their target is beyond retarded. But experimentals aren't the only thing that you can micro. A personal strategy of mine is to use air transports to drop 20 or so T3 assault bots near a weak point at the enemy base and using effective micro cause a ton of havoc, taking the other player's attention away from my advancing regiments long enough for them to penetrate the outer defenses and pave the way for my experimentals in that portion of the map to flood into the base.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
In starcraft you have to manage 100 units at the most and a single base and due to the way maps are designed the most active engagements at one time will be 3 or 4, or at the very least decisive ones. In supcom you have to manage your main base's manufacturing focus, your FOB's defenses, thousands of air sea and land units, your economy, your experimentals and there are usually 5 or 6 active fronts consisting of hundreds of units at any given time 20 minutes into the game. You have to constantly analyze the terrain to ensure you've got sufficient cover and can actually shoot the enemy. You have to get intel on the enemy base for the best point of entry, you have to make a decision on what unit makeup your regiments will have in order to be effective against all threats. You have to consider that at any given moment 40 minutes in the other player will probably have nukes so it's important to space your battalions and experimentals out so that when one gets nuked, the others don't go with it. You have to consider contingency plans when your major FOBs get attacked because if you don't it will severely hamper your economy and rapid force projection in the area surrounding that FOB. You have to keep an eye on enemy unit types to make sure that they aren't adapting to a weak link in your forces. Your air campaign runs parallel to your ground campaign and requires almost as much attention. Supcom is Starcraft turned up to 11, plain and simple. Good micro and macro is necessary to being a good player. There's a lot more involved in supcom, it's a much bigger game. To deny that it has more strategy at play than starcraft is just as naive and wrong as thinking that build orders are all there is to being an effective starcraft player.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
Universe Master posted:RTSs except for some of the c&c games all suck. this is the thread for unpopular videogame opinions, not blatantly wrong video game opinions
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Lots of things, and your assumption that it doesn't accomplish anything betrays your misunderstanding of competition in general. was this supposed to be quoting me? im going to assume so quote:First off, "it's harder to do" is a legitimate reason in itself. We have worldwide competitions that don't involve a lot of decision-making but do involve doing difficult, repetitive tasks under pressure and being the best in the world at it, because it's interesting to see how far people can go. There are limits to this in practice -- a game that pushes too far in this direction will have no playerbase, and that's not good either -- but it's not inherently bad any more than it's inherently good. But that also has nothing to do with strategy and is one of the main complaints people are having with dune 2 clones. quote:The extremely limited unit selection option in StarCraft creates more choices -- instead of "which of these two blobs of 200 units do I need to focus on right now" the relevant question becomes "which of these dozens of groups of 12 units along one or two fronts is most important?" Macro is a basic skill in supcom and its the very minimum requirement to playing the game. A player microing in the lategame will steamroll over a player who isn't. Being able to micro at the very least 1,000 units across a multi km map is entry level supcom competitive skills, and the fact that you keep saying that there is no micro in supcom makes me think all you've done is play the campaign and skirmish against the awful AI because that's really the only way you are getting away with ignoring the micro entirely. You seem to think that by the multifront clusterfuck that is lategame i mean selecting huge blobs in strategic view and moving them while hoping for the best. That's the hallmark of a terrible player who never bothered to learn how to play the lategame.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 08:42 |
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:i'm beginning to wonder if you've even played starcraft or if this is some kind of very elaborate troll You're an idiot who thinks there's no micro in supcom so I dunno dude, I've been assuming you're baiting this whole time because there's no way someone can be that stupid unless they just never played the game.  You don't run more units because you can ignore micro. You run more units because even microing 3 heavy assault bots won't protect you from a horde of T1 light assault bots. You seem to think that because there is more to do, you can't do everything that you do in Starcraft, but that's simply false. Supcom is Starcraft turned up to 11 because there's so much more going on and if you're anything better than mediocre you're giving everything attention down to the casualty. Starcraft's macro is so severely lacking that it's practically a joke. The big picture in starcraft is bare bones basic, while Supcom took the Dune 2 formula and fleshed out the big picture so that large scale and future thinking are necessary to be an effective player. There's not only an emphasis on tactics, but on strategy. You have to be able to switch from breaking apart a 400 strong assault force into squads of 10 to deal with an array of point defenses to zooming out and setting your nearby FOB to start pumping out reinforcements for the casualties that you should have pre-estimated. You should be constantly switching back and forth between the kind of longterm thinking you do with war games and short term thinking on how you can properly neutralize a heavily defended position without crippling your standing army. That's where Supreme Commander is superior to starcraft as an RTS, it has every kind of strategy and it's all equally important at high levels of play. Tuxedo Catfish posted:Like just fundamentally more precise control is a hallmark of mechanically deep games, because the less precise your control is, the less potential difference there is between the perfect move and failure. Making greater numbers of less precise (and therefore less challenging) decisions or actions is a trade-off of one kind of depth for another, but it's not one I'd want to make because games that trade away precision feel like rear end to play. Units not instantly responding doesn't decrease control granularity, it means you have to be far more deliberate in your actions and plan ahead instead of playing the game like its a twitch shooter.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2017 20:35
|
|