AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > Games

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2011-12-11, 10:38   Link #41
Keroko
Adeptus Animus
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 27
I just hope there won't be limited resources. I like turtling, building an impregnable base and telling others to come and get me, but starcraft style limited resources make turtling impossible.
__________________
Keroko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:01   Link #42
felix
sleepyhead
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
I just hope there won't be limited resources. I like turtling, building an impregnable base and telling others to come and get me, but starcraft style limited resources make turtling impossible.
Having maps like that is fine. It's just the whole concept of a game based on 1-base that's kind of not so appealing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Who View Post
Bioware being put in charge of the developers for this has me scratching my head. I can only see the gameplay turn out like this:

http://i.imgur.com/aJVUT.png
Sad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.

eg.
"Make your super improtant choice:"
"A. Save Civilians & get brownie points (help-chopper crashes and they die anyway)"
"B. Save Natzis & darkside cookies (help-chopper crashes and they die anyway)"
"C. Save Nobody (they all die)"
"Your decition will influence future events"
But I'm sure that's what we'll get so better just enjoy it for what it is.

Well, I have faith in their easthetics and graphics department at least. Let's hope their RTS knowhow doesn't come from the same twats that came up with C&C4 and the new RA ones.
__________________
felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:05   Link #43
Keroko
Adeptus Animus
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
Having maps like that is fine. It's just the whole concept of a game based on 1-base that's kind of not so appealing.
One base? Are you kidding? I need to be able to build anywhere, I need my backup bases!

Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
Sad but true. Bioware's dialog system is a lot of the time extremely redundant in that it just gives you a shitton of options you could have just better gotten as one continous dialog between characters, or *gasp* a proper cutcene. It's like their dialog system is an excuse to create cheap fragmented dialog and avoid proper cutcenes. It was innovative the first time, but it gets reddundant and annoying as it goes on. The trinary nature of the options is also annoying, it would be much better to get less often, and instead get a whole bunch of them when it matters. And in bioware games the options you pick hardly matter, so it's more like a chore.
Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."
__________________
Keroko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:10   Link #44
felix
sleepyhead
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keroko View Post
Yet, when JRPG's do this, many gamers complain that it's "too linear."
If anything Bioware at best just masks its linearity. I think you can even say a game can be non-linear just from it's dialog options. IMO techniques like what Raidient Historia did are much more non-linear. And typically just being different is what makes it non-linear, like say how Terraria works, or most "random content/maps" games work.
__________________
felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:26   Link #45
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
If you played as the infantry general in Generals Zero Hour, you would learn how not to underestimate the cheap ant rush.

Build 5 barracks. Churn out hackers in one, TH and RI on the other 4. Watch the horrified look on your opponent's face at the 10th minute.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:35   Link #46
RRW
Unspecified
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Unspecified
i hope they keep music and DAT voice actor

"AK47'S FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!"
__________________
RRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:37   Link #47
felix
sleepyhead
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: event horizon
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRW View Post
i hope they keep music and DAT voice actor

"AK47'S FOR EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!"


__________________
felix is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 11:49   Link #48
RRW
Unspecified
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Unspecified
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post


__________________
RRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 12:14   Link #49
Nixl
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokkan View Post
EA is trying to turn BioWare into their Blizzard and steal a piece of StarCraft II's pie.
Honestly, I have been thinking the same thing.

- Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
-C&C RTS (vs Starcraft)
-Rumor that Dragon Age will become/have an online component. (vs Diablo 3)

To be honest, it is perfectly fine to have competition, which will drive some interesting games hopefully. However, I shall mourn the loss of Kotor RPG as a causality of the MMO.

Last edited by Nixl; 2011-12-11 at 12:35.
Nixl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:20   Link #50
Firefly00
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Send a message via ICQ to Firefly00 Send a message via AIM to Firefly00 Send a message via Yahoo to Firefly00
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle View Post
Alternatively, you can allow infantry to do the clearing....IE assault urban combat style...in addition to artillery or air power
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
And at least change flash-bangs with frag-grenades (seriously, killing people with flash-bangs?
Whatever you may think of RA3's style, they at least got this part right: Peacekeepers and Imperial Warriors do in fact storm garrisoned buildings; Conscripts toss Molotovs. None of these processes are instant.

On another note, the way the fourth Allied mission (Gibraltar) is designed allows you to pretty much break it if you're smart...

Spoiler for Explanation:
__________________
White Knight of the Order of Mihoshi Enthusiasts
"Destroyed overnight, or the next one's free."
Arc Nova
Firefly00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:39   Link #51
creb
Hiding Under Your Bed
 
 
Join Date: May 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nixl View Post
Honestly, I have been thinking the same thing.

- Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
-C&C RTS (vs Starcraft)
-Rumor that Dragon Age will become/have an online component. (vs Diablo 3)

To be honest, it is perfectly fine to have competition, which will drive some interesting games hopefully. However, I shall mourn the loss of Kotor RPG as a causality of the MMO.
You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG.

Anyways, as to the topic on hand, I'm not sure how I feel about "Bioware" doing this game (why do we still call them Bioware seeing how long it's been since they were bought by EA).

Maybe it's just me, but I was once a big fan of the Command & Conquer series not for its innovative RTS mechanics, but for its ultra cheesy/campy stories and 'cutscenes'. And while we could argue some of Bioware's stories are...a bit out there in cheese factor (DA 2, lulz), I have a hard time seeing Bioware's writers giving us the type of camp the Command & Conquer series is renown for.

I'm not sure how I'm going to feel about a Command & Conquer that features you, the protagonist, having to gather some companions; all of whom are going to be bisexual and romanceable; all the while following a cleverly disguised, highly linear story that has you first: a) Gather your companions, b) deal with a plot point, c) finish gathering your companions, d) deal with another plot point, e) deal with a plot twist, f) beat the big bad in a climax.

If it seems I'm a bit cynical, it's because Bioware has followed the almost exact same general script for every game they've made since KOTOR. Here's hoping they shake things up, or even better, that the "Bioware" label this time really is just a label, and that that particular studio doesn't actually involve any original Bioware employees, because as much as I like the remnants of Bioware, I'm not sure I actually want them to be touching this RTS franchise.

Last edited by creb; 2011-12-11 at 13:53.
creb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 13:50   Link #52
TJR
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiresias View Post
I LOL'd pretty hard at this. And yes, Bioware? I thought the successor was supposed to be Victory Games or something
They are. While Victory Games may answer to Bioware management, they're still a separate operation. In practice, I don't see much change, aside from the fact that Muzyka and Zeschuk now occupy one level of supervision.

For branding purposes, EA has simply rolled a number of existing divisions under the Bioware label. Mythic Games (Bioware Mythic), EA2D (Bioware San Francisco), Victory Games (Bioware Victory).

Quote:
Kotor was warped into a themepark MMO like WoW.
That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.
TJR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:02   Link #53
Nixl
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by creb View Post
You can play SWTOR as if you were playing KOTOR; completely alone, and just for the story, if you so wish. Minimize the chat tab and make sure you have no friendly/enemy player nameplates on, and you wouldn't even realize you weren't playing a single player RPG.
After playing the beta for a little bit, I disagree creb. Throughout my playthrough I never once felt like I was playing Kotor or an RPG, just a themepark MMO like WoW. I saw it as an MMO with a lot of cutscenes and romances, but none of it changed the fact that I never found the story compelling. Furthermore, in the end it was just going to end with raiding each week for the next set of gear. Compared to Kotor 2, Kotor 1, Planescape Torment, Fallout 1/2, New Vegas, Morrowind, etc I felt nothing from TOR.

TOR may have more cutscenes than other MMOs, but it does not make inherently a strong RPG, especially in terms of writing. Bioware has done RPG before and so I do not see why TOR seems weaker than Kotor 1. Simply put, I just do not see how this is meant to be a better option than Kotor 3. I hope my post does not sound offensive or fatalistic, because I would love to debate about TOR's RPG elements, but perhaps a C&C thread is not the best place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJR View Post

That's a pre-existing contract between pre-EA Bioware and LucasArts. While it'll be a huge moneymaker for EA, they had nothing to do with its inception.
That is good to know and thank you for telling me, yet I still think Bioware is strangely coming to mirror Blizzard.
Nixl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-11, 14:23   Link #54
RRW
Unspecified
*Scanlator
 
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Unspecified
it obvious that EA try to make Bioware as it's own blizzard (AKA "Quality" Studio name)
__________________
RRW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 14:32   Link #55
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyl View Post
If you meant by the combat drop with chinooks, then i am against that. Slowing down your own resource gathering , while at the same time the risking losing your chinook (1200 is not cheap) because they can't handle rockets that well, is hardly strategical. Also with some micro management you can evacuate the building before the chinook can clear the building while leaving the chinook stuck defenceless and most likely killed.
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?


I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.


I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 15:20   Link #56
hyl
smile
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?
Well it worked as a rushstrategy against GLA in smaller maps though. Getting flashbang early is not the thing that you want if you want to rush gla supplies and stop their armsdealer from being build at all with a small group of rockvees. Sometimes they will hide workers in the buildings ike in the middle of tournament desert map. In that rare case you might want to use the rangers and a chinook with combat drop to prevent them from building another base while you are decimating his current main base with rockvees.
hyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 18:04   Link #57
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post
The thing that makes the combat drop make even less sense? The only infantry who can do it are Rangers....and Rangers are equipped with ranged grenades that can clear out a building efficiently from a distance. So it does come into question why, oh WHY would you ever clear out buildings via rappelling?


I think things like that with Infantry are probably why C&C needs to take at least a few ques from games like Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2. Infantry need to be given more options with regards to taking cover, ambushing, moving over difficult terrain or staying hidden to help them survive.


I'm wondering if something like that is on the developers mind. Cause I thought it was rather suspicious that the EU tanks in the trailer had fully modeled pintle mounted machine guns. Traditionally, Command and Conquer has been pretty steadfast against basic tanks being armed with anti infantry weapons (aside from running them over). If tanks now have anti infantry machine guns, that to me suggests that they're mixing up how infantry work compared to vehicles in this game.
Ranger drop is used in urban and large maps to secure chokepoints whilw your missile defenders are being built in early game, where only infantry is available.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 18:09   Link #58
hyl
smile
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
Ranger drop is used in urban and large maps to secure chokepoints whilw your missile defenders are being built in early game, where only infantry is available.
I am sure he meant the chinook ability with rangers to clear garrisoned buildings, not the actual drop strategy with a chinook to disrupt expanding and/or rushing your opponent with it.
hyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 18:13   Link #59
SaintessHeart
NYAAAAHAAANNNNN~
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by hyl View Post
I am sure he meant the chinook ability with rangers to clear garrisoned buildings, not the actual drop strategy with a chinook to disrupt expanding and/or rushing your opponent with it.
That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.
__________________

When three puppygirls named after pastries are on top of each other, it is called Eclair a'la menthe et Biscotti aux fraises avec beaucoup de Ricotta sur le dessus.
Most of all, you have to be disciplined and you have to save, even if you hate our current financial system. Because if you don't save, then you're guaranteed to end up with nothing.
SaintessHeart is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2011-12-12, 18:19   Link #60
hyl
smile
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
That is what I meant. When in early game everyone spent their cash researching capture. Ranger drop is a good way to take over your opponent's garrisoned buildings.
I don't actually remember people online playing on big maps with lot's of buildings in it thought. The most played maps that i have seen are Tournament desert (2 players map), tournament island (4 players) and the stupidly huge twilight flame map (8 players). Out of the 3 maps only desert had buildings and those buildings in the middle were more for the show, because all of them have low health and are already quite damaged. Also the map is quite small, so even GLA would beat you to it before usa can build chinooks from the supply centre. You can easily take the west or east routes and completely bypass the centre, leaving yourself open if you wasted too much money on infantry. Exception is GLA , because the tunnels they build comes with 2 free rpg troopers.

There are other maps that are played, but they only have buildings near the extra resources as a way to promote expanding instead of turtling, there were hardly any maps that have conveniently many buildings on choke points or else it would have been an unfair advantage for USA or GLA. There were always around those buildings or bunkers. Unless you count those fanmade mod maps.

edit: researching capture building is only usefull if you have acces to oil fields nearby. Because researching it is slow, it's expensive at the beginning because building 1 barrack, 1-2 rangers (for the actual capture and some defence against infantry) and a few rocket infantry (you need atleast a few because capture building took a long time to complete and you can't build something from your barracks while researching it) Also it might make you vulnerable to rush tactics with early vehicles like technical rushes from GLA and gattling tank from China or even Rockvees (humvees with missile defenders obiously) rushes that are only there to kill your chinooks.

edit: i am slightly overreacting and too passionate, but i used to play this game online very actively and local tournaments when i was younger. I somewhat exprienced the game on a serious and high competitive level.
Even knew how to abuse some minor exploits before they were patched in those plays. Like ordering your units that have some kind of splash damage ( like tank and artillery shells or rockets) to force attack ground instead of the actual target. Because the damage is done against the ground (which has no actual resistances) the splash damage from your attacks will do the full damage on anything. Meaning a nuke or scud launcher could take out a base defence in 1 shot instead of 2-3 shots.
Or the infamous scud storm bug from zero hour, when a not completely build scud storm can fire without a recharge time (it still has the 30 second delay before hitting the area like the normal superweapon though)

Last edited by hyl; 2011-12-12 at 18:57.
hyl is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.