Fun Stuff > CLIKC

Starcraft 2 to be three games, internet to explode

<< < (35/46) > >>

snalin:
Isn't "exploiting game mechanics" just a fancy word for "playing"?

The Dawn of War argument is kinda poor, you still take over control points to gather resources, it's just built a different way. Direct resource gathering is fun because it makes the game harder to play; you have to worry about more stuff than you have to worry about with the other variant. It's two completely different kinds of gameplay, with completely different skills needed to excel. I guess the best thing would be to do the same thing as Age Of Mythology did, where you could choose to fight over plenty vaults, or if you wanted to mine gold/gather food etc. the usual way.

And why shouldn't SCVs be able to fight? What is the problem with stacking a builder unit in an opening so the enemy has to chop it's way through it? It seems like a completely natural move to me. Somebody is shooting you, but there's someone between you and them, so you have to hack your way through the obstruction before you can kill the people shooting you. Can't see the problem at all. Everything that's a part of the game is a valid tactic. Exploiting bugs isn't, but that would be more like clicking special keys to teleport zerglings into the enemy base, not moving units around.

Bluhrg, reedited this post a bit too much, a stupid discussion to be having. Somebody likes one thing, others like the other. The fact that Dawn Of War didn't turn into such a massive multiplayer thing as Starcraft just means that more people preferred the traditional gathering. I guess.

TheFuriousWombat:
Not sure if you can correlate the two. Just b/c Starcraft has traditional gathering and became so popular and Dawn of War doesn't and didn't doesn't mean that type of resource gathering and popularity are linked in any way. In fact, I kinda doubt they are. Of course, that's an equally unfounded statement so maybe you're right. Who knows!
Also, I think there is a difference in exploiting mechanics and simply playing. A really good player learns all the little tricks, things that you can technically do but that the devs didn't necessarily intend to be commonly done, if done at all. It's all about learning the game in depth and then using that knowledge to do things in an unexpected way that sets the great players apart from the more casual ones. Sometimes this does mean exploiting certain little issues or possibilities that probably should have been ironed out by the dev team. Of course, that apparently entails dozens of hours of practice per day so it's probably worth it just to play casually and also do other stuff with your life.

lolwut:

--- Quote from: snalin on 19 Apr 2009, 14:16 ---The Dawn of War argument is kinda poor, you still take over control points to gather resources, it's just built a different way.

--- End quote ---

The DAWN OF WAR argument is that micromanagement is fucking stupid in a game where you're controlling large armies. It's less about the differences in resource gathering and more about the being streamlined so that there's actual possibly tactical strategy rather than... idunno, spreadsheets.

I always liked the Myth series better than anything else anyway.

est:
The Dawn of War argument is not poor.  I am saying that I think abstracting the resource gathering so that it is a part of the fun part of the game rather than a separate entity is preferable to me because I don't like fucking around with resource gathering.  I find it dull.  It is boring.  It is a chore.  I play games to have fun, not to get frustrated due to running out of resources halfway through a big push because a dude gets stuck behind a crystal due to pathing issues or what have you. 

Also, I don't care about how popular a game is in multiplayer, because there are very few games I play multiplayer.  Dawn of War had a superior single-player experience for me, which is all I want from the RTS genre. I think the key here is something you've already said, these are my opinions about the game.  You obviously like the game and you're not going to change my mind about the things I'm saying, so let's agree to disagree/play the games each of us prefer.

MadassAlex:

--- Quote from: lolwut on 19 Apr 2009, 17:46 ---The DAWN OF WAR argument is that micromanagement is fucking stupid in a game where you're controlling large armies. It's less about the differences in resource gathering and more about the being streamlined so that there's actual possibly tactical strategy rather than... idunno, spreadsheets.
--- End quote ---

Micromanagement is fine. In fact, it's almost the entire point, in that it's the major decider of how efficient each soldier is. The alternative is macromanagement, which is a kind of fire and forget mode that doesn't appeal much to developed RTS gamers.

In addition, the resource-gathering system of Starcraft was retained due to how fine-tuned it was. It had you make real choices about the time and resources you would allocate to gathering new resources.

Some players don't like this, but it's a part of the RTS experience for others. I think I should be clear on one point, though: Starcraft is definitely a more complex and detailed gaming experience, and it's attractive to players that like that level of complexity as opposed to Dawn Of War, which is much more casual. Due to the nature of things, it's a question of preference more than anything.
What I am saying is that if you dislike the complexity and flexibility inherent in Starcraft, that is cool, but it was not designed with you in mind. It's kind of like listening to Black Sabbath and saying "these guitars are too heavy". It's a part of the experience.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page