StarDestroyer.Net BBS

NB - I don't want to hear about how lovely and wonderful Sids designs are. I liked them too, back in 1993 where they belong. Anyway.

I play strategy games. It's lame, I know. What makes it REALLY lame, however, is that there has been little to no actual design done in this genre for perhaps a decade. We're playing basically the same game with new graphics.

Case in point - Civ3. I liked Civ. I hated the 'fixed turn resolution' thing, and the way battleships could be killed by musketeers, but thats not the point. How many strategy games are simply Civ? Most of them? This is bad.

Look at MOO. MoO actually had a *different* design, and it worked. Cut down on constant monitoring and micro. Its sequel? A Civ clone.

I could go on, but TBS players from the 90s already know what I'm talking about. I'm talking about shield-based, one-thing-at-a-time, 100-years-to-build-a-wall gameplay. I hate it. And it still lives! Even modern games, with nice flash graphics and everything, can't get away from the '5 food, 4 shields' concept. Bah. I hate Sid Meier. He should have been shot after Pirates, at the height of his powers, and not left to linger and stagnate the TBS genre.

So, you are saying that Sid Meier cursed the strategy genre by making good games?

Goddamn. Go and play some more Real War or Mission Humanity if that is your only complaint.

In any entertainment or art field, there are The Classics. People lacking in creativitiy or daring will shamelessly copy The Classics. Don't blame Sid for setting a standard; blame all those other developers for shamelessly recycling his ideas.

Try homeworld or dawn of war if you want something that's faster paced.

Frankly, it doesnt matter to me how annoying some of his concepts are (cant stand the sims) he was the father of the empire building genre and quite a few others sub-genres

303, go fuck yourself. I carefully elucidated all of my complaints, and 'fast paced' wasn't one of them. I also don't give a fuck about 'the father of the genre', since he's also KILLED the genre, since it never went anywhere. It takes tiny backyard games like Dominions 2 to actually innovate.

Badme, I guess you're right. However, most of the better TBSs are Sid Meier or his silly company, and they never change. It's retarded.

Ando, what's your point? They AREN'T good. They SUCK. It takes a century to walk down a road! You can only build one thing at a time! The entire 'city' system is identical! The 'trade' system is bolted on! They've even got the same 'take person off harvesting a square to make them increase luxuries/tax/science' thing. It's disgusting: even a deadshit genre like RTSs have changed so as to be almost unrecognisable, but Civ3 is almost exactly the same as Civ, MoO2, Alpha Centauri, etc. Alpha Centauri is arguably worse, since it doesn't have to cover the stone age.

Stark wrote:It takes tiny backyard games like Dominions 2 to actually innovate.

Dominions 2, while being a great game, isn't that innovative. Much of it's mechanics are lifted straight from VGAPlanets.

It takes a century to walk down a road! You can only build one thing at a time!

So what? It's an abstraction. Deal with it and accept it, or move on and don't. Your contention that all strategy games are Civ is particularly laughable.

The entire 'city' system is identical! The 'trade' system is bolted on! They've even got the same 'take person off harvesting a square to make them increase luxuries/tax/science' thing.

That's why it's called a _sequel_. It's supposed to keep the parts of the game mechanics that work well.

It's disgusting: even a deadshit genre like RTSs have changed so as to be almost unrecognisable,

No, RTS's have not changed appreciably. There have been a very large number of interface improvements, but Dawn of War shares the same fundamental gameplay elements the created Dune 2.

but Civ3 is almost exactly the same as Civ, MoO2, Alpha Centauri, etc. Alpha Centauri is arguably worse, since it doesn't have to cover the stone age.

Why shouldn't it be the same?

Someone woke up cranky. Maybe he needs a nap.

Look, is it Sid's fault no one else came up with anything brainy to do in it? Golly gee, no, it isn't. He made damn good games, as shown by the fact a shitload of people enjoyed the hell out of them, consistantly and enduringly. You don't like 'em? Okay, play something else then. Fuck off, you whining bastard.

Your entire argument is 'Waaaah, Sid Meier makes really popular games that I don't like!'. Well, gee shit. I don't think anyone here cares. Trying to claim he's somehow evil for the fact no one else came up with innovations in it isn't really gonna win you any support for your argument.

*sigh*

So everyone likes all these games being the same. I'm fine with that. I'd love Graham to back up his 'MoO2 and Alpha Centauri aren't like Civ at all' statement, but eh.

Course, Sid Meier cursed the genre. How? By making a format that never changed. Gave us a game where a plane took years to fly around the world, and noone ever fixed it. Ironically, since everyone seems to like the format, I now know WHY noone ever fixed it.

Well the way to fix the "musketeers killing battleships" thing is to go into the rules.txt document and give the modern units better stats. I like to make sure there is a significant difference between my modern units and the ancient ones. You can also change the move rates too if you don't think your planes have enough range. Civ II lost its luster for me until I learned how to edit the units.

Also Civ II: Test of Time with the multiple maps and the Sci Fi/Fantasy options were pretty refreshing.

Stark wrote:*sigh*

So everyone likes all these games being the same. I'm fine with that. I'd love Graham to back up his 'MoO2 and Alpha Centauri aren't like Civ at all' statement, but eh.

Course, Sid Meier cursed the genre. How? By making a format that never changed. Gave us a game where a plane took years to fly around the world, and noone ever fixed it. Ironically, since everyone seems to like the format, I now know WHY noone ever fixed it.

'I don't like what you say so I'll just shove words in their mouth and whine some more!'

Thank you for being our requisite fart in the wind.

Darth Fanboy wrote:Well the way to fix the "musketeers killing battleships" thing is to go into the rules.txt document and give the modern units better stats. I like to make sure there is a significant difference between my modern units and the ancient ones. You can also change the move rates too if you don't think your planes have enough range. Civ II lost its luster for me until I learned how to edit the units.

Also Civ II: Test of Time with the multiple maps and the Sci Fi/Fantasy options were pretty refreshing.

Test Of Time had sci-fi?

Sci-fi was why I loved Call To Power!

...Now where the shit am I gonna find CivII ToT?

There's a Civ2/Civ3 boxed set floating around: 'swhy I'm playing Civ3 ATM.

BTW, what words in whose mouth? We disagree; so what? I happen to hate the Civ design, and it seems most people don't. You're being a bitch about it... why again? Heaven forbid I accept your opinion!

Stark wrote:There's a Civ2/Civ3 boxed set floating around: 'swhy I'm playing Civ3 ATM.

BTW, what words in whose mouth? We disagree; so what? I happen to hate the Civ design, and it seems most people don't. You're being a bitch about it... why again? Heaven forbid I accept your opinion!

Because you claimed we all wanted games the same. But hey. Literacy clearly isn't your thing. Even, apparently, when it's your own words. But I don't judge, I just mock.

Actually, I said 'everyone seems to like the format' and 'these games being the same', ie the games under discussion (Civ-derivatives). And... you all do seem to like the format, and the games under discussion. So I said 'you want all games to be the same' where again?

Stark wrote:Actually, I said 'everyone seems to like the format' and 'these games being the same', ie the games under discussion (Civ-derivatives). And... you all do seem to like the format, and the games under discussion. So I said 'you want all games to be the same' where again?

So everyone likes all these games being the same.

It's alot for people to just say 'You know, I fucked up, I admit it' it seems.

The part you quote is quoted in my post. If you want to read 'all these games' as meaning 'all games forever' when we're talking about a specific subset of games, thats up to you: I explained myself already.

Stark wrote:To everyone likes all these games being the same. I'm fine with that. I'd love Graham to back up his 'MoO2 and Alpha Centauri aren't like Civ at all' statement, but eh.

I'd like you to learn to spell my name. I'd also like you to learn to read, since I wasn't aware that "Why shouldn't they be the same?" meant "MoO2 and Alpha Centauri aren't like Civ at all". Perhaps strategy games aren't well-suited to somebody of your intellectual calibre.

Oh I feel for you: people misinterpreting your post can be annoying, can't it?

Games like Civ and Alpha Centauri being the same *IS* odd. Civ gets a lot of free parking because it's got to cover such a large range of time and capability, but Alpha Centauri never features stone-age technology. Alpha Centauri DID incorporate several features that made it into later Civ versions, but arguably Colonisation shows how games for different environments can afford to be different.

Ahem....a thread about originality in real-time strategy games, and no-one even deigns to mention Starcraft? Come on, people...how much more innovative can ya get?

Granted, we're still waiting for a sequel...and no, I do NOT mean Starcraft:Ghost...

Molyneux wrote:Ahem....a thread about originality in real-time strategy games, and no-one even deigns to mention Starcraft?

Actually the thread is about turn-based strategy games, Newbie. And Starcraft isn't all that original, a lot of it is a cardboard cutout of Warcraft 2 (that said, SC is clearly superior to WC2 EDIT: in the same way Alpha Centauri is a cutout of Civ 2, but is clearly superior).

Molyneux wrote:Ahem....a thread about originality in real-time strategy games, and no-one even deigns to mention Starcraft? Come on, people...how much more innovative can ya get?

Possibly because it's WarCraft in space.

Funny how everyone talks about turn-based strategy yet forgets about X-Com.

Tsk tsk. A collective responsibility adherent. Sid is responsible for precisely one subset of games being similar to Civilization, and that is the games made by, you guessed it, Sid. People like you are the ones who sue the manufacturer of a handrail because they were too stupid to use it and fell over as a result. You want to bitch? Of course you do, you're Stark. You want something to bitch at, bitch at the companies that keep aping the style. You've got piss and anger enough for ten people, I'd think you'd learn how to direct it properly by now.

Stark wrote:Oh I feel for you: people misinterpreting your post can be annoying, can't it?

So where's your fucking apology for lying about my post dipshit?

Stofsk wrote:

Molyneux wrote:Ahem....a thread about originality in real-time strategy games, and no-one even deigns to mention Starcraft?

Actually the thread is about turn-based strategy games, Newbie. And Starcraft isn't all that original, a lot of it is a cardboard cutout of Warcraft 2 (that said, SC is clearly superior to WC2 EDIT: in the same way Alpha Centauri is a cutout of Civ 2, but is clearly superior).

Ack, sorry...I posted at about 3:00 or so last night, completely missed the fact that it's about turn-based strategy games. Mea culpa.

And I'd debate the contention that Starcraft is derivative of Warcraft, but that's a topic for another thread...