The Earth shakes(Starcraft 2 Announced)

[General Zod]

If the gameplay mechanics are horrible, boring or otherwise completely unbalanced, then pretty graphics aren't going to help for jack. See the PS3.

Unless someone is making the case that RTS games in general are horrible, boring and completely unbalanced, there's no point ignoring graphical developments in the entire RTS genre. You know, I like the incredible looking nukes in the World in Conflict Trailer, I like how RTS games are fully three dimensional these days unlike Starcraft and I like the C&C games superweapon effects.

If I was talking about RTS games specifically, then you might have a point. As it is I was saying that as a general rule pretty graphics do not make a game better.

[brianeyci]

If I was talking about RTS games specifically, then you might have a point. As it is I was saying that as a general rule pretty graphics do not make a game better.

No, I still have a point. Let's talk about games in general. All other things are equal, everything: let's say two games run on the same engine and have exactly the same gameplay. Theoretical, but it's possible with say direct expansions.

But one game... runs at higher resolutions and greater anti-aliasing. In fact, it is far prettier, and that is the only difference.

Is the pretty game better than the other, with all other things being the same? I say fuck yeah.

Therefore graphics are like all other factors when considering whether a game is good. It probably has to do with the idea that "pretty" is subjective, and to a large part it is. But ignoring graphics entirely is not being honest.

[General Zod]

If I was talking about RTS games specifically, then you might have a point. As it is I was saying that as a general rule pretty graphics do not make a game better.

No, I still have a point. Let's talk about games in general. All other things are equal, everything: let's say two games run on the same engine and have exactly the same gameplay. Theoretical, but it's possible with say direct expansions.

But one game... runs at higher resolutions and greater anti-aliasing. In fact, it is far prettier, and that is the only difference.

Is the pretty game better than the other, with all other things being the same? I say fuck yeah.

Therefore graphics are like all other factors when considering whether a game is good. It probably has to do with the idea that "pretty" is subjective, and to a large part it is. But ignoring graphics entirely is not being honest.

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever. . .if everything is equal then they will improve a game. But graphics alone do not a good game make.

[brianeyci]

Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with my point whatsoever. . .

What was your point exactly? You were responding to this:

And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count.

With some kind of canned response that PS3 games suck because they have bad gameplay and mechanics, which has what to do with graphics? Thanks man .

Unless your point is graphics don't count if mechanics suck, which is not exactly true. See porn (porn's not a game, it's entertainment to me man.) If graphics are good enough, I can ignore mechanics entirely in a game. Graphics always count.

[General Zod]

With some kind of canned response that PS3 games suck because they have bad gameplay and mechanics, which has what to do with graphics? Thanks man .

Unless your point is graphics don't count if mechanics suck, which is not exactly true. See porn (porn's not a game, it's entertainment to me man.) If graphics are good enough, I can ignore mechanics entirely in a game. Graphics always count.

Don't be such a dumbass. You made some vague generalization about graphics being important. Since you didn't bother being more specific I couldn't very well assume you were talking about anything else. Your porn comparison is equally retarded since we're obviously talking about games here.

[White Haven]

Pros: Yay, trailer. Some spiffy artwork.

Cons: Scale still buggered all to hell, Protoss defensive structures still hilariously useless, presumably extending to other races as well. Too m uch focus on the old Starcraft market. These are people who'll buy it anyway, you don't have to slather it all over them.

So far, it doesn't look good, but on the flip side, it IS very early in development. I'll keep an eye on it, and if it doesn't change much, I'll bargain-bin it for the cinematics and story.

[brianeyci]

Don't be such a dumbass. You made some vague generalization about graphics being important. Since you didn't bother being more specific I couldn't very well assume you were talking about anything else. Your porn comparison is equally retarded since we're obviously talking about games here.

Vague generalization my ass. I mentioned Supreme Commander in the very next sentence as looking better. Graphics are always important. Tell me, would PS3 be worse if it looked worse. Of course. And pot calling kettle black: you say you're not talking about RTS in a reponse to ME who was talking about RTS, then you say I can't use entertainment in general when you start talking about games in general! Go figure.

Basically it reduces to this: I said graphics are important. You decided to respond to this as if I had said, graphics are more important than mechanics, which I never claimed. I'm done here .

[General Zod]

Don't be such a dumbass. You made some vague generalization about graphics being important. Since you didn't bother being more specific I couldn't very well assume you were talking about anything else. Your porn comparison is equally retarded since we're obviously talking about games here.

Vague generalization my ass. I mentioned Supreme Commander in the very next sentence as looking better. Graphics are always important. Tell me, would PS3 be worse if it looked worse. Of course. And pot calling kettle black: you say you're not talking about RTS in a reponse to ME who was talking about RTS, then you say I can't use entertainment in general when you start talking about games in general! Go figure.

Who cares whether it's an RTS or whatever genre, when games were what's being discussed, and my claim applies to all genres of gaming? Oh, wait. You're a moron. I keep forgetting.

Basically it reduces to this: I said graphics are important. You decided to respond to this as if I had said, graphics are more important than mechanics, which I never claimed. I'm done here .

Except I never said that. I believe I specifically said that the graphics aren't going to help if the mechanics suck ass. Did I say you claimed that? No? I was pointing out that pretty graphics alone do not necessarily help. Try pulling your head out of your ass.

Use the search function and look at the last time someone tried to say Starcraft was the be all and end all of strategy games. You're not saying exactly the same thing, but almost as bad Aaron. Terrain, graphics, deployment (soon to come World in Conflict which doesn't have base building at all), special boosts and weapons (C&C), heroes (WC3), everything has advanced.

Terrain, deployment, special boosts and weapons are all an aspect of game mechanics are they not? So remind me again how my comment about the mechanics was not valid.

[brianeyci]

Who cares whether it's an RTS or whatever genre, when games were what's being discussed, and my claim applies to all genres of gaming? Oh, wait. You're a moron. I keep forgetting.

So when someone decides to talk about RTS in a post specifically directed against someone criticizing RTS, you decide to bring up games in general in response?

Guess what that's called a red herring.

At least play by the same rules dickbrain: if you can go in general about games I can go in general about entertainment.

Basically it reduces to this: I said graphics are important. You decided to respond to this as if I had said, graphics are more important than mechanics, which I never claimed. I'm done here .

Except I never said that. I believe I specifically said that the graphics aren't going to help if the mechanics suck ass. Did I say you claimed that? No? I was pointing out that pretty graphics alone do not necessarily help. Try pulling your head out of your ass.

I don't think that a game sucks if the mechanics suck. Focusing on mechanics as the be all end all of games is lame. It's the same mentality as those people who say "Blizard is generations behind." All I have to do is name one good game where the mechanics suck ass and the graphics are revolutionary and you'll concede eh?

You sure you want to go down that route? Or maybe you don't know the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.

Terrain, deployment, special boosts and weapons are all an aspect of game mechanics are they not? So remind me again how my comment about the mechanics was not valid.

You were replying to ME not making some isolated claim Zod. I thought you'd actually be making a relevant point instead of a red herring. Guess what: if I mentioned terrain, special boosts, weapon balance, that means I already know that those are important and making the same point again is just red herring. At least be honest and admit you contributed nothing then .

[General Zod]

At least play by the same rules dickbrain: if you can go in general about games I can go in general about entertainment.

And again you miss the point. The same claim applies to every type of game in existence. Or to use your entertainment example, do you honestly think that all the pretty graphics in the world could have saved, say, Star Trek Nemesis from being a shitty movie?

I don't think that a game sucks if the mechanics suck. Focusing on mechanics as the be all end all of games is lame. It's the same mentality as those people who say "Blizard is generations behind." All I have to do is name one good game where the mechanics suck ass and the graphics are revolutionary and you'll concede eh?

You sure you want to go down that route? Or maybe you don't know the difference between a necessary and sufficient condition.

So if a game's mechanics are so hideous that you can't advance without dying 1,000 times on easy, you'd still think it was fun if it had pretty graphics?

[Covenant]

(But hey, if it's so easy to come up with something new and fresh and exciting and oh my god INNOVATIVE!!!! then why don't you start a thread and throw up some of your revolutionary ideas for us to see?)

Heh heh I would like to see that.

To keep it within the sphere of Starcraft and still very much a Starcraft game:

Dynamic Scale: The game takes a turn for the realistic, and attempts to capture the cinematic feel of the Starcraft 1, Starcraft 2 and Ghost cinematics. Unit scale is adjusted so that our flying camera sees things nearly as they would appear in reality--as either tiny hordes or massive orbiting warships. There are no infantry squads though, infantry and other units are assigned to groups which have group controls, like formations and behaviors.

Reinforcement: Ground control becomes more important, as the Resource model has been adapted greatly. Now, resources are generated as 'Reinforcement' points that continually tick upwards. Deploying reinforcements generally takes place from the base, but you can also deploy them to the combat field, generally for a tax that makes it more efficent to deploy them at your base via a structure but not uncommon for field deployments.

Field Deployment: Most unit types can be deployed in your base, where they come from a structure or something, or in the field. This makes the game far less about dueling bases and more about field battles. It also keeps the game moving. It is still more economically efficent to deploy most of your forces inside your base than outside. The unit summon buttons, once unlocked by the proper structure, appear on the left side of the screen like a C&C3 or BFME 'power'. Building a barracks unlocks the Deploy Marines button. Building two barracks gives you two buttons, stacked. They don't decrease the cooldown, and the cooldown for the button 'power' is the same as it would take to 'build' the unit. Infantry are generally deployed in groups, even though these are not organized into a squad.

Patrol Zones: You can't deploy units anywhere though. Enemy units and Structures emit a 'patrol zone' which is a sight radius that they use for detecting enemy units. The Patrol Zone also hampers the ability to reinforce, as the idea of field deployment is to simulate a large army conducting maneuver. I believe that a combat deployment would cost extra, bumping the cost from a field deployment up from 125-150 percent to 200. Instead of fading in, essentially, with maybe a little smokescreen as they appear--as is normal when deploying to the field, they'd drop down from orbit in pods or burst in with a flash of teleporter light or explode upwards from the ground in a swarm. The cost makes this prohibitive, but it also allows for an extremely dynamic play style, and makes the smallest and cheapest infantry and units directly useful even at the end game. And because of the base-structure patrol zone, it's hard to abuse a summon into their base. It behooves you to summon outside their patrol radius and fight inwards, or better yet, to build at your own base and get the full discount value.

Control Points: Reinforcement points can be added to by capturing vital locations, like Mineral patches and Vespene vents. Placing a Refinery further speeds the process, as Mineral and Gas refineries add to the value, and also force the player to trade off between money now and future money. The monetary input is realtively minimal, and you can further decrease it by raiding the enemy refinery and whacking their SCVs. I would also provide an upkeep cost for refineries, forcing the enemy to actually harvest with them, and not simply keep the SCV's snuggled up inside the sprawling and diffcult-to-damage refinery complex. This helps increase the value of light 'raiding units', something that was an issue in C&C3.

Refinery Tech: These structures also provide an up-tech value. Rather than locating all tech structures inside the base, where they can be defended or used for turtling, SC2 will force you to go out and capture locations to place refineries in order to upgrade your own units. So while you may never hear "You need more Vespene Gas" when trying to build some siege tankss, you may be required to have a Mineral and Vespene patch both captured with a placed refinery in order to call in Battlecruisers on your own. You need a solid infrastucture to gain access to all these units and structures, so even if you have the money, you cannot afford to turtle in your base. You must take outside territories to unlock not your 'Best' units but your most specialized and sometimes potent.

Realism Considerations: A variety of 'realism' changes were made to increase the feeling of actual warfare. Primarily, weapon effects are now drawn from the source instead of being a 'roll table'. This adds more potency to maneuvering and turret traversal, and makes control of terrain important. Secondarily, armor facing for vehicles is implimented, as well as many other considerations, such as morale (and panic effects), supply, and the ability to deploy units in the field rather than produce them during the battle (as if one would actually train soldiers and build tanks during a battle rather than before).

Firebases: Resupplying your troops is important in SC2. Fighting a long battle in enemy territory is taxing, and pulling back to a forward firebase to be resupplied and repaired is a common and advisable step in any successful campaign, especailly given the size of the maps. Firebases are commonly built on Control Points that do not also feature vespene or minerals. It's quite possible you can upgrade them to do something else besides just sit there, like Zerg could make a Nydus Canal or the Protoss could upgrade it with a big energy shield. Tanks take battle damage to a small number of important systems, which can be repaired at Firebases.

Supplies: Having a force be supplied is important. While for the same of Starcraft troops do not run out of ammo completely, they can go into 'low supply' mode if they're pinned down. This is most noticable for the terrans, who are both individually durable and prolific users of ranged weapons. A small fireteam of marines can hold off a large amount of zerglings for a very long time, but running low on supplies is dangerous, and decreases both rate of fire and damage by a small degree as well as lowering morale. Vehicles also move slower when drained of supplies, and take a larger hit to their rate of fire. Troops and Vehicles that have been resupplied and have not yet engaged in combat also gain morale and movement speed bonuses. These bonuses about half a minute after combat starts, but it allows you to send in the cavalry. Units that are field deployed do not count as freshly resupplied.

Morale: Morale is important, as troops cannot fight once they've lost the will. This is most obvious among terran troops, but protoss and zerg also have morale issues. All races respond differently to morale, with several types of individual units having specific reactions. Morale is not an issue when a firefight is back-and-forth, but drops most noticably when troops are shot at from behind or the sides. Units that take fire from many sides simultaneously lose morale the fastest. Vehicles are resistant to morale damage from small arms, but not immune. Units that fail morale begin to 'panic'. Most units will withdraw to the nearest firebase or defense structure, though some Protoss and Zerg will make suicide rushes and Terrans often will fire blindly at anyone nearby.

Battle Damage: Vehicles are harder to destroy outright but easier to knock out of the game with busted drivetrains, and the same goes for large Zerg units like Ultralisks that fight on even with horrific damage or broken tusks. This makes more sense once the scale of units is realized as in cinematics, many Zerg units are not very large or durable even when given the same 'general' role of vehicle. Infantry take battle damage too, but this is generally just being classed as 'wounded', which renders them immobile and unable to fire. You can unwound troops along with vehicles via a resupply truck type unit for terrans, while the Zerg use overlords and the protoss use Arbiters to warp units around, including the wounded, who are not healed but used as a discount for the creation of Protoss Immortals and Dragoons.

Arbiters: Protoss Arbiters are a unique resupply unit, as they do not 'repair' units or heal troops. They use their teleportation technology to warp those units back to base to be repaired. They can also be used to redeploy them via teleportation cheaply, so the protoss strategy often revolves around teleporation hopping more than the Terrans or Zerg, who prefer to repair in the field and continually reinforce forward positions. This teleportation warping helps offset their generally higher unit costs. Infantry that have been killed and collected are counted by a vehicle bay as 'counters' for decreasing the cost of a dragoon or immortal, which is also produced as a veteran (level 1).

I can keep going!

[Lord Zentei]

Heh. The picture of the Immortals in the art section makes them look a bit like Droideka knock-offs.

Still, hoping for a release. But I'll beleive it when I see it, like many.

[Flagg]

I have no doubt it'll be released, but it's probably going to be mid to late 2009 at the earliest. I figure internally Blizzard is aiming for late 2008, so I wouldn't be at all shocked if it came out in 2010.

[Faqa]

Yes, yes, ho-hum, RTS's don't evolve, game will be old-school crap, blah, blah, blah........Oh, to hell with it.

This is motherfucking STARCRAFT TWO, FUCK YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



If I can get old-school RTS'ing with all the polish of newer RTS's, I'll be happy man. And I am even more happy to see Blizzard finally getting off this MMORPG gig they were on.

[Uraniun235]

[a lot of words]

That sounds really complex and complicated to manage and implement successfully, both on a development and end-user basis. But regardless of that, not all of your ideas are even so revolutionary and innovative as you might think:

Morale - already done by Dawn of War
Ammo - already done by Earth 21xx
Battle damage - already done in 1995 by Command and Conquer (damaged tanks would move slower than undamaged tanks)
Weapon effects - already done by Total Annihilation
Armor facing - done by someone else, I think


Also, have you considered that perhaps Blizzard may not be interested at all in creating a realistic game? I mean, jesus, they've got "battlecruisers" that hover above a battlefield popping off pew-pew lasers and getting downed by punk-ass ground units. The gameplay video shows that they're still using "space station" maps which make absolutely no sense whatsoever outside of "hey this looks cool and/or nostalgic". (I'm not trying to slam Blizzard for these things, mind.)

I think you missed the point of my post: people have implemented new features in previous RTS games, which have since been lost to obscurity or simply not repeated. Dawn of War implemented a morale system, and both C&C3 and SupCom completely ignored morale. The Earth 21xx games implemented ammunition supply mechanics and almost nobody adopted them after that. Similarly, Operation Flashpoint offered some of the most realistic FPS action ever, and yet we still have games like Quake Wars and Unreal Tournament coming out.

The RTS market is not as interested in depth and detail and realism and innovation as some might wish. This is part of what I was trying to convey to Aaron Ash. (The other part was a slam against what I perceived as the sort of "omg gaming sux there's no innovation at all" masturbation that would have us believe there's absolutely no difference whatsoever between Doom and Half-Life 2.)

[phongn]

Armor facing - done by someone else, I think

Company of Heroes did that. It also has multiple weapons types, so riflemen can't really do anything to a tank, for example (though so did C&C:RA)

[Ace Pace]

Armor facing - done by someone else, I think

Company of Heroes did that. It also has multiple weapons types, so riflemen can't really do anything to a tank, for example (though so did C&C:RA)

Ground control did it years ago, 1998.

[size=0]No, i will not shut up about GC1.[/size]

[Faqa]

Why the hell would we want an ammo limitation?

I dunno about you guys, but having all my expensive units suddenly turn into useless chunks of metal is not appealing in the slightest. It's an annoying limitation, at least if the game is all tactical

If the GAME involves overall supply lines between battles, then yeah, ammo could work in that context, but then it wouldn't exactly be a traditional RTS, would it? And Blizzard is nothing if not traditional.

Hell, one thing I'd love that REALLY began to bug me in SC1 and hasn't stopped ever since? TARGET PRIORITIZATION FOR THE BLOODY AI.

Yeah, Goliaths, you guys? QUIT FIRING YOUR TOY MACHINE GUNS AND KILL THOSE FUCKING MUTALISKS!

MAN, that bugged me. And it continues to this day, with GDI rocket troops wasting their time on infantry squads.

If Blizzard could remove this annoying and artificial use of my micro'ing time, I'd be grateful. Just make it customizable to the end-user. As I recall, they DID make the revolution of attack-move, so it's quite possible.

Ground control did it years ago, 1998.

No, i will not shut up about GC1.

And yet it forgot the amazing new feature of in-mission save...

[Tasoth]

Blitzkrieg implented alot, like not base building, morale, armor facing, weapons types, limited ammo, yadda yadda.

I just have to say that the armoring system in the cinematic just seemed kinda over the top. Why not just make armor you can slip into easily and that the hand controls are actually controlled by the fingers? Meh.

Oh, and Quake 3 called, they want Sarge back. : P

[Companion Cube]

Blitzkrieg implented alot, like not base building, morale, armor facing, weapons types, limited ammo, yadda yadda.

I just have to say that the armoring system in the cinematic just seemed kinda over the top. Why not just make armor you can slip into easily and that the hand controls are actually controlled by the fingers? Meh.

Then they'd need to make the Marines narrower than they are tall.

[brianeyci]

And again you miss the point. The same claim applies to every type of game in existence. Or to use your entertainment example, do you honestly think that all the pretty graphics in the world could have saved, say, Star Trek Nemesis from being a shitty movie?

And you miss the point. Star Trek Nemesis was a bad movie because it had a bad story, not because it had good graphics. Bringing up graphics is just one fat red herring.

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That graphics are not important? That mechanics are more important? That graphics are as important? I would say the last, you seem to be saying one of the first two, both bullshit. A game that looks like shit nobody will want to play. You can wank about innovation and mechanics all you want.

So if a game's mechanics are so hideous that you can't advance without dying 1,000 times on easy, you'd still think it was fun if it had pretty graphics?

Now you're being dishonest. You don't need to die ten thousand times on easy for the game mechanics to be hideous.

I remember playing a game called Buzz Aldrin's Race into Space. Now this game's mechanics were horrid. The game mechanics meant your chances to actually get on the Moon with certain strategies were very low -- with perfect equipment and pilots, I remember under a 1% chance, even though the game said 95% reliability. I had to reload over and over and over. You know why I did that? Just to see the cinematic of the guy planting the flag on the moon. Apparently many people agree, because the game's a classic.

Now, my tastes have changed. I could not stand loading over and over and over. But even though I demand more in terms of mechanics in modern games, I also demand more in terms of graphics. I see no proof that mechanics are more important than graphics as you claim. In fact, mechanics and graphics are linked, especially in FPS. Meanwhile, there's ample proof of retards who think for some reason graphics don't count -- starting with you -- and that mechanics are more important than graphics.

You can take your elitist shit and shove it up your ass.

[Nephtys]

Regarding the artstyle.

"Hey, you got Starcraft in my Warcraft 3!"
"You got warcraft 3 in my starcraft!"

Pretty much. Giant heads, cartoony caricatures with a lot of glow effects.

Oh, and all the units look like plastic toys with those soft edges for kids. This is especially true about the terrain buildings and units if you look at the screenies.

Oh, and about time they made the method of tracking hits something besides 'always hits'. It's annoying to see your speedy, speedy hoverbikes get hit by incredibly slow projectiles that do crazy turns to chase after them.

Regarding Brian and Graphics...

People don't really care abotu cutting edge graphics unless they're these youngin's who actually want a PS3 for some ungodly reason. You just merely need 'good enough' graphics.

For the rest of us, I'm pretty sure most of us would play X-COM or Red Alert 1 or Fallout, over a crappier modern game that has flashies. What matters is good art direction and style, instead of powerhouse on the megahurtz. Look at Homeworld 2. IT's old as hell by modern standards, yet looks better than 95% of modern games because they chose to use low-poly models, with textures that make them look awesome.

Seriously? Total Annhiliation looks like crap compared to a lot of modern RTS, but I'd play that over 'Act of War' any day, or 'Left Behind: The Evangelical Whatever Game'.

[Covenant]

[a lot of words]

That sounds really complex and complicated to manage and implement successfully, both on a development and end-user basis. But regardless of that, not all of your ideas are even so revolutionary and innovative as you might think:

I realize they were lifted, I even made references. Not all of them though--nobody's gone as far as I have in terms of mid-battle deployment, and using all these elements together along with supply limits and such is certainly innovative. You'd be able to attack an enemy indirectly by harassing his supply train, something that's certainly step above massing zerglings in terms of strategic counter-infrastructure planning.

I think you missed the point of my post: people have implemented new features in previous RTS games, which have since been lost to obscurity or simply not repeated. Dawn of War implemented a morale system, and both C&C3 and SupCom completely ignored morale. The Earth 21xx games implemented ammunition supply mechanics and almost nobody adopted them after that. Similarly, Operation Flashpoint offered some of the most realistic FPS action ever, and yet we still have games like Quake Wars and Unreal Tournament coming out.

The RTS market is not as interested in depth and detail and realism and innovation as some might wish. This is part of what I was trying to convey to Aaron Ash. (The other part was a slam against what I perceived as the sort of "omg gaming sux there's no innovation at all" masturbation that would have us believe there's absolutely no difference whatsoever between Doom and Half-Life 2.)

And I think you missed the point that I was making. You said "If it's so easy, throw down some ideas," and I threw down a bunch. I said I could keep going, and I could, since the SC2 as we're seeing it is basically just Starcraft 1 with a fresh coat of paint. Not exactly the most complex game.

Is there anything inherently wrong with that? Not really, so long as it's fun, it doesn't really matter if it advances the genre too much. We play games for fun, and though innovation often IS fun, it's not the only deciding factor.

The RTS industry's interest in doing what works has no bearing on the fact that you COULD add even a few elements from other games together and create a product more advanced, more modern, and deeper in strategy than anything we've seen yet. Hell, even the buyers may not care that much, since it just adds something annoying and new they've got to learn how to do when all they really wanted to do was mass zerglings anyway. My game might be good, but it's not Starcraft, and I know that.

But you do have to admit to me that I did offer a unique gametype, something people haven't seen, which would be innovative. Supply trains, firebases, mid-combat deployment across large maps, forcing people out of their bases to not only control points but also to drop down tech structures and resupply outposts across the map... it's a very different type of game. I would say that qualifies as innovative.

So I think I satisfied the criteria of what you asked for, because even though not all of what I proposed was brand new, it was all implimented in an innovative way and there were several brand new elements. However, we can see why they don't do these kinds of things from the responses we got: people just don't want to deal with that. It's really not that hard to think of something innovative at all, but it may be next to impossible to sell it to someone. What I think you should have said is "If it's so easy to think of something innovative that's not going to put people off of it or ruin the theme and fanbase of an established, massive franchise, I'd like to hear it."

Since, when it's put that way, it's obvious why they didn't change much. There's no reason to change a product that already has a ton of people who love it--you might as well just update the graphics. I know of a lot of old games I wish they'd do the same with

So I know what Blizzard is doing, and it's fine. I was a big supporter of this idea when C&C3 wanted to go tradtional, and I'm still supporting Starcraft's choice to go oldskool, even though I think the actual look of the game so far is pretty cruddy and I hope they add a lot more polish. But the point of my post is that the RTS game genre doesn't have to be so traditional. It's not suffering from a lack of good ideas. It's not innovation that's lacking, it's buying power from those people who want innovation. Starcraft 2 is a product, not a service. If people want the product the way it is, then might as well keep it that way. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be done differently.

And for the record, your tank wouldn't have turned into crud just because it ran out of fuel/ammo. But forcing you to bring an ammo truck is not unprecedented (homeworld 1 used fighter fuel, lots of turnbased strategy games have fuel/food requirements, rise of nations had ammo trucks that decreased the attrition penalty) and what it would do is encourage you to lay down and protect a supply line to the front lines, which adds a lot to strategy. In my version, a truck out of 'supply' just fires a bit slower and moves slower. It's overall usefulness and DPS drops, but if your opponent can outlast you, destroy your fuel trucks, cut off your avenue of retreat, and sever your supply lines... then I really don't think you have much of an excuse.

[General Zod]

What exactly is the point you're trying to make? That graphics are not important? That mechanics are more important? That graphics are as important? I would say the last, you seem to be saying one of the first two, both bullshit. A game that looks like shit nobody will want to play. You can wank about innovation and mechanics all you want.

If you weren't so fucking dense and stuck on black and white fallacies, you'd realize the only fucking thing I've been saying is that good graphics alone will not help a game be good if the mechanics are shitty. You seem to be under this absurd impression that it's either all or nothing, and graphics must either be uber or shit.

Now you're being dishonest. You don't need to die ten thousand times on easy for the game mechanics to be hideous.

I was giving an example you imbecile. One out of several. Or am I being dishonest just because I didn't give ten or twenty?

Now, my tastes have changed. I could not stand loading over and over and over. But even though I demand more in terms of mechanics in modern games, I also demand more in terms of graphics. I see no proof that mechanics are more important than graphics as you claim. In fact, mechanics and graphics are linked, especially in FPS. Meanwhile, there's ample proof of retards who think for some reason graphics don't count -- starting with you -- and that mechanics are more important than graphics.

When did I claim they were more important or didn't count shitbrick? Oh wait, I haven't. So stop strawmanning me.

[brianeyci]

I've been saying is that good graphics alone will not help a game be good if the mechanics are shitty.

And I'm saying you're wrong. I've already named one game with shit mechanics but good graphics (both relative to the time) that's a good game. Therefore you're wrong. What part of that can't your brain accept?

You've got an anime avatar. What about dating sims or anime games. The mechanics on those kinds of games are terrible, like reading a novel online, clicking and reading words. Yet people play them for the beautiful anime art.

And you replied to me. How many times do I have to repeat that. Do you or do you not agree that some people ignore graphics completely, and that this is unwarranted. If you wanted to make an isolated point that has nothing to do with "people are stupid to ignore graphics completely" maybe you shouldn't have quoted my post as if you were posting a rebuttal.