The Earth shakes(Starcraft 2 Announced)

[General Zod]

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?

According to you. You'll excuse me if I find what you consider to be "good" laughably subjective.

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.

You seem to have a weird definition of what is considered "good mechanics". To me if a game isn't playable because the mechanics hinder progression, then the mechanics suck, and all the pretty graphics in the world aren't going to make it any less of a headache to go through.

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.

And? So? Therefore? I was saying that pretty graphics aren't enough to make a game good. The general market seems to agree with this, as is evident by PS3 sales. (Lots of pretty graphics, lots of shitty mechanics).

[Covenant]

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.

I'd say that's probably too subjective. There's lots of games out there with bad mechancs AND bad graphics (by today's standards) that are still quite popular. Checkers for example. Boring, stupid gameplay, and really boring graphics. Come on, what are we, on a red and black apple IIe?

It's a silly example, I know, it's a joke. I'd probably say that while checkers is pretty basic, it's still got what I'd call "solid" gameplay.

I think we're also confusing "Good" with "Exemplifies a high degree of craftsmanship and skill."

There's a lot of games out there that are really, really basic. Sports games, for example. The feedback needs to be solid, but the gameplay is supposed to be as static and boring (IE, exactly like the real sport) as possible. Why do people buy a NEW one each year? Because it's got better graphics and a newer player list. Or, like, a Grand Theft Auto game. Graphics are okay, but not great. Gameplay is pretty basic, bridging on retarded, and the plot is not exactly much to write home about.

I would however call it a good game. It delivers on fun value, and a lot of people like it, and it does quite well. Graphics can't save an unplayable game from the dustbin, but the level of 'mechanics' you need to make a game worth your time (like a first person shooter) is really not very high. Cutting age graphics with the most advanced pixel shaders may not be important (for good reason, not everyone has a new graphics card each month), but when you look overall at what makes a game fun, graphics do matter more than I think most serious gamers admit.

I wouldn't say it's more important than mechanics for a second, because if you had one and not the other then you need mechanics and don't need graphics. But you can definately turn a shitty little basic 'run of the mill' game into something much more fun by adding intricate combat animations, lots of beautiful environments to explore, and a strong sense of immersion.

[brianeyci]

Listen General Zod, I asked a rhetorical question.

And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count. Supreme Commander looks better, why doesn't that count.

Now, this is probably my fault in that I didn't put a question mark at the end of it. So I'm going to do it now: Why doesn't that count?

You answered, so I assume when someone answers a fucking question about why graphics don't count that the person is saying that graphics don't count. If you didn't want to say that graphics don't count, maybe you shouldn't have answered my question like that was your position. If the lack of the question mark is the reason for the confusion, then fine I apologize, but otherwise go eat your ass.

[Covenant]

Listen General Zod, I asked a rhetorical question.

And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count. Supreme Commander looks better, why doesn't that count.

Now, this is probably my fault in that I didn't put a question mark at the end of it. So I'm going to do it now: Why doesn't that count?

I would say that SupCom's graphics really aren't that good. They're messy and boring. I'd say that's actually an example (like TA) of the underlying combat mechanics of the game making an otherwise boring game into something deep strategy and fun.

[General Zod]

Listen General Zod, I asked a rhetorical question.

And I'm sick of people saying that graphics don't count. Supreme Commander looks better, why doesn't that count.

Now, this is probably my fault in that I didn't put a question mark at the end of it. So I'm going to do it now: Why doesn't that count?

You answered, so I assume when someone answers a fucking question about why graphics don't count that the person is saying that graphics don't count. If you didn't want to say that graphics don't count, maybe you shouldn't have answered my question like that was your position. If the lack of the question mark is the reason for the confusion, then fine I apologize, but otherwise go eat your ass.

Funny, because it didn't seem very rhetorical when you posted it. (I suppose you'll be ignoring my point earlier about what I consider to be "good" mechanics). As it is graphics are only marginally important. Yes, they can enhance gameplay, but they can't make something not suck.

[Vendetta]

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.

Target prioritisation is definitely a must. Really, every RTS maker that doesn't do it should be whipped through the streets naked.

Also, I'd like to see more terrain interactions. Rather than just having a flat distinction between pathable and non-pathable there should be bonuses and penalties for fighting in certain kinds of terrain, allowing, for example, infantry to use broken terrain as cover from weapons fire, or artillery pieces to intentionally crater or otherwise disrupt terrain in order to provide such cover.

Particularly interesting in the context of the Zerg's creep, which all of a sudden takes on a new tactical value as it changes the terrain to one they have a noticable benefit from (and a new weapons ecosystem could arise from this, with the other races having abilities which disrupt or reverse this).

[brianeyci]

Funny, because it didn't seem very rhetorical when you posted it. (I suppose you'll be ignoring my point earlier about what I consider to be "good" mechanics). As it is graphics are only marginally important. Yes, they can enhance gameplay, but they can't make something not suck.

I didn't expect anybody to take the position that graphics don't count, at all as some nostalgia gamers like to point out. Or fanboys who don't like say Fallout 3's possibility of improved graphics, who demand isometric or hell freezes.

Your idea of mechanics is strange. You say that mechanics are broken if they hinder game progression. I say that mechanics are not on a linear spectrum. There's a game, the worst game of all time according to I believe Gamespot, something involving a truck that I'm too lazy to look up. The truck you run, can zoom through walls because there's no clipping. Now that's not hindering progression at all -- it's making it ridiculously easy.

Mechanics in my view is anything than enhances interactivity with the game, be it being able to pick up any object in the game, to interacting with more real characters, to more accurately conveying your intentions to your units. It does not mean easier or harder as you put it. I take it you do not like hard games. I like a challenge, and something that hinders game progression is not necessarily a bad game.

[Starglider]

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.

No, it's a piece of crap, you just happened to lap it up due to your toddler-like fixation on a cinematic.

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.

Clicking through a slideshow != play.

Mechanics in my view is anything than enhances interactivity with the game, be it being able to pick up any object in the game, to interacting with more real characters, to more accurately conveying your intentions to your units.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Game mechanics, plot flexibility and interface design are quite distinct subdisciplines of game design. Essentially any professional game developer will tell you this.

[brianeyci]

No, it's a piece of crap, you just happened to lap it up due to your toddler-like fixation on a cinematic.

Well well, a me-too. Maybe you missed the point where I said I would not like that kind of game anymore. Perhaps you don't know that the game was released in 1992. Or perhaps you'd call RA series fans calling for the return of Kane cinematics "toddlers" too. Who knows, hard to understand a troll.

Clicking through a slideshow != play.

And a semantic whore too. So you're saying dating sim games are not games, that they're slideshows? . Wonder where they breed you fucks.

Your opinion is irrelevant. Game mechanics, plot flexibility and interface design are quite distinct subdisciplines of game design. Essentially any professional game developer will tell you this.

And this has fuck all to do with my rebuttal that game mechanics are not about how easily or more difficult you progress through a game how exactly?

Go troll somewhere else Starass.

[General Zod]

Your idea of mechanics is strange. You say that mechanics are broken if they hinder game progression. I say that mechanics are not on a linear spectrum. There's a game, the worst game of all time according to I believe Gamespot, something involving a truck that I'm too lazy to look up. The truck you run, can zoom through walls because there's no clipping. Now that's not hindering progression at all -- it's making it ridiculously easy.

Mechanics in my view is anything than enhances interactivity with the game, be it being able to pick up any object in the game, to interacting with more real characters, to more accurately conveying your intentions to your units. It does not mean easier or harder as you put it. I take it you do not like hard games. I like a challenge, and something that hinders game progression is not necessarily a bad game.

Challenges are fine, but if it's due to poor design that artificially limits what you should be able to do within the limits of the game, then the mechanics are broken. (Having to worry about whether or not your character will die in an adventure game because the detection physics don't always register where the edge of a cliff is, and you wind up falling for example). Or the controls in Metroid Prime Hunters for the Nintendo DS. I want to like the game, but the touch screen interface and layout makes the controls infuriating. And so on.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Guys, I am actually looking forward to playing around with the new StarEdit and making a campaign more than I want to play the single player campaign.

[Starglider]

Well well, a me-too.

Someone who got fed up with your incoherent crap yes.

Maybe you missed the point where I said I would not like that kind of game anymore.

So you've progressed from toddler to infant. Good for you.

Perhaps you don't know that the game was released in 1992.

Irrelevant.

Or perhaps you'd call RA series fans calling for the return of Kane cinematics "toddlers" too.

Cinematics are a fine addition to a good game. They don't justify an awful game. Though you've demonstrated a clear inability to comprehend this.

Who knows, hard to understand a troll.

Oh no, someone who doesn't let your infantile bitching slide, must be a troll!

So you're saying dating sim games are not games, that they're slideshows?

Yes and the rest of the gaming industry agrees with me.

And this has fuck all to do with my rebuttal that game mechanics are not about how easily or more difficult you progress through a game how exactly?

Difficulty is determined almost entirely by game mechanics (a good interface is one that does not add difficultly). Your usage of 'about' is nonsensical but creating just the right difficulty for all skill levels of player is the central task in game mechanics design.

Go troll somewhere else Starass.

Nice of you to show off your double digit IQ.

[brianeyci]

Well Well Starass, some appeal to authority along with some me-too bullcrap, and a whole bunch of red herrings. Something that is marketed as a game I call a game, whether or not you and your "game industry" pals think it's a game. Hentai games are games whether you like it or not.

Game reviewers have different categories for graphics, gameplay, etc., because mechanics are not the be all end all of what makes a good game and graphics do matter.

You throw off a whole bunch of red herrings about interface design being different than game mechanics your last post, and this post you say difficulty is determined by game mechanics which is a good interface? Contradict yourself on your second post tsk tsk. Where did you learn your crap, game design college? Some no math no science rent-a-college I bet, and you call me low on IQ? Hahaha you moron.

[Elaro]

Game reviewers have different categories for graphics, gameplay, etc., because mechanics are not the be all end all of what makes a good game and graphics do matter.

No, graphics and gameplay are rated separately because they have nothing to do with each other. And no one is saying graphics don't matter; What General Zod said was that

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

That statement doesn't mean "graphics don't matter", it means "graphics is a less important factor in determining whether a game is good than gameplay."

Anyways...

So starcraft 2 is finally announced. I hope they make a good game.

Guys, I am actually looking forward to playing around with the new StarEdit and making a campaign more than I want to play the single player campaign.

Yeah, creativity is fun.

[Spyder]

Hopefully it'll have a nice scripting system. With the last StarEdit if you knew your way around the scripting you could probably turn it into a GC2 style game if you really wanted to.

[Stark]

That doesn't mean shit for Starcraft 2 *itself*, though. The idea that making a game modable makes up for it fucking sucking because mods can fix it is very annoying. Sure, you can probably turn SC2 into a good game. Or - holy shit - you could just get a better game to start with?

[Shinova]

Wheee, Starcraft 2!! I don't mind the cartoony look too much, but graphics for CnC3, CoH, and Supcom still look way better. Perhaps they'll get better as development goes on.

Gameplay however, still looks like the same old SC1, although I see they've increased the unit selection cap (to what limit remains to be seen).

So as of right now, Blizzard has once again managed to be behind most of their peers in graphics, and their gameplay is still same-old stay-safe. And people were ridiculing me over this. Why? I dunno.

I don't dispute that Blizzard obviously caters to their enormous fanbase. So it's true that they don't have to be innovative, and being innovative may actually hurt them rather than help them. But that doesn't stop their game from being an insult to my intellect.



EDIT: HAhahahahahaha, still no firing on the move!!

EDIT2: The Terran battlecruiser is supposed to be a capital ship. That fact and its implementation in the game has always sent my mind spinning in circles. And now it's death sequence in Starcraft 2. *poof poof poof, piff* and these little pieces of wreckage drop to the ground.

LOL, now that's funny!

EDIT3: *Nuclear launch detected*

*waits a few seconds*

PFFT!!.....BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAA!!!!!

[Uraniun235]

EDIT2: The Terran battlecruiser is supposed to be a capital ship. That fact and its implementation in the game has always sent my mind spinning in circles. And now it's death sequence in Starcraft 2. *poof poof poof, piff* and these little pieces of wreckage drop to the ground.

LOL, now that's funny!

Part of me wonders if that might be an intentional acknowledgement of "yeah, we know, this is kind of silly".

Honestly, I'm not so much concerned about silly aspects like that; I'd be much more interested to see if they implemented interface improvements like "select troops, click on transport, all of them auto-load into transport without stupid micromanagement".

[Stark]

Any move away from the crushing amount of micro in SC will really improve the game. Then again, paying attention to the changes in upgrades, special attacks, off-map stuff, etc seems a bit beyond Blizzard.

[Shinova]

Blizzard probably wants to stay away from streamlining micro. Korean Starcraft gamers hold APM (actions per minute) in high regard, and apparently cite it a lot in pro games. More APM is probably good for Blizzard.

[Stark]

Yeah, that's what I mean - if they play to the established market, the game will suck. It'll ignore everything that's changed in RTS design (frankly, people who claim RTSs haven't changed since StarCraft need to play more RTSs) and probably set it back years. This is enough reason to hate the game by itself.

[Shinova]

So any idea when this is coming out?

[petesampras]

So as of right now, Blizzard has once again managed to be behind most of their peers in graphics, and their gameplay is still same-old stay-safe. And people were ridiculing me over this. Why? I dunno.

This is what Blizzard do, and they are more successful than most of their peers in terms of making money. If you want to play innovative RTS don't play Blizzard games, but all this moaning that Starcraft 2 looks like it will lack technical or gameplay innovation is pointless. There is clearly room in the RTS market for a company that focuses on highly polished but 'out-of-date' games - as Blizzard have proven over the last 10 years. Why would it make any sense for them to change a winning formula?

[Stark]

How does any of that mean we can't lambast these games for sucking? Nobody is debating that Starcraft 2 will make money - indeed, it's basically a license to print money. This in NO WAY changes the fact that it looks like SHIT.

[Archon]

I wonder what I will look like?


EDIT: I also hope the UED makes a comeback.