StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Harvest Moon. I just DON'T GET IT!

That or I don't think I'd have the patience for it...I admit I haven't played it, but after watching my friends play... not for me.

In general, I don't care for about 90% of all games; the newest game I liked enough to purchase and play to completion was Thief 3. But to go from "dislike" to "can't stand", the game needs to suck, yet have legions of screaming fanboys and waste space on the Web, magazines, TV, bookshelves, and movie theatres (!).

Those are:

1. Blizzard games. I've never liked Warcraft, Starcraft, or Diablo. Warcraft is juvenile and cartoony; it also simultaneously requires ridiculous micromanagement and clumsy strategy to succeed. Starcraft is a bit better, but not better enough. And yet these games' fanboys call very different (and much better) games like Myth "ripoffs".

2. Traditional FPSs. Doom, Quake, Unreal, and their ilk all strike me as dull, repititive, and puerile. I like FPSs, but I like them to have either actual atmosphere and storytelling (Max Payne), fun gameplay (Descent), or some mixture of the two (Marathon, System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief, Red Faction, Halo).

3. MMORPGs. Take a MUD, throw on some pretty pictures. Multiply the number of online players by a thousand and divide their IQ by a thousand. Multiply the system requirements by a thousand and divide the stability by a thousand. Change the price from "free" to "$50 plus $20/month". Slick graphics don't make grinding through endless goblins while surrounded by cheating "w00t w00t hehe lol" morons any more enjoyable.

4. Console RPGs. Take a ridiculously convoluted, yet utterly derivative story. Push the player through it on rails, interrupted by random tile-based RPG combat. Disguise the derivative combat rules by multiplying every number by ten thousand. Disguise the derivative gameplay by making every attack trigger a forty-minute long "kewl" cutscene. Somehow earn enough money from this nonsense to finance multiple feature-length movies.

5. WWII-themed FPSs. This is different because, although I have little interest in playing them, I'm sure all of these games are decent enough. But how many FPSs with the same goddamn setting do we really need? I don't follow the gaming industry very closely anymore, so I have difficulty telling "Battlefield 1942", "Brothers in Arms", "Medal of Honor", and "Call of Duty" apart, and I haven't heard of very many other FPSs recently.

Spacebeard wrote:In general, I don't care for about 90% of all games; the newest game I liked enough to purchase and play to completion was Thief 3. But to go from "dislike" to "can't stand", the game needs to suck, yet have legions of screaming fanboys and waste space on the Web, magazines, TV, bookshelves, and movie theatres (!).

Those are:

1. Blizzard games. I've never liked Warcraft, Starcraft, or Diablo. Warcraft is juvenile and cartoony; it also simultaneously requires ridiculous micromanagement and clumsy strategy to succeed. Starcraft is a bit better, but not better enough. And yet these games' fanboys call very different (and much better) games like Myth "ripoffs".

2. Traditional FPSs. Doom, Quake, Unreal, and their ilk all strike me as dull, repititive, and puerile. I like FPSs, but I like them to have either actual atmosphere and storytelling (Max Payne), fun gameplay (Descent), or some mixture of the two (Marathon, System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief, Red Faction, Halo).

3. MMORPGs. Take a MUD, throw on some pretty pictures. Multiply the number of online players by a thousand and divide their IQ by a thousand. Multiply the system requirements by a thousand and divide the stability by a thousand. Change the price from "free" to "$50 plus $20/month". Slick graphics don't make grinding through endless goblins while surrounded by cheating "w00t w00t hehe lol" morons any more enjoyable.

4. Console RPGs. Take a ridiculously convoluted, yet utterly derivative story. Push the player through it on rails, interrupted by random tile-based RPG combat. Disguise the derivative combat rules by multiplying every number by ten thousand. Disguise the derivative gameplay by making every attack trigger a forty-minute long "kewl" cutscene. Somehow earn enough money from this nonsense to finance multiple feature-length movies.

5. WWII-themed FPSs. This is different because, although I have little interest in playing them, I'm sure all of these games are decent enough. But how many FPSs with the same goddamn setting do we really need? I don't follow the gaming industry very closely anymore, so I have difficulty telling "Battlefield 1942", "Brothers in Arms", "Medal of Honor", and "Call of Duty" apart, and I haven't heard of very many other FPSs recently.

I take it you've bought a lot of games you very much dislike.

Darth Yoshi wrote:Well, it was the first one that came to mind. *shrugs*

Rogue Squadron 3 deserves a mention, too. As much as I loved the first 2, Factor 5's decision to rebuild the game engine from the ground up killed the game. The missions are too short, especially the ground missions, and if feels like they had missions planned out but never implemented, leaving plot gaps in the Wedge campaign. The best part of the game, ironically, is the Rogue Leader co-op mode.

The big difficulty with Rebel Strike was that every on foot mission just sucked. The flight missions were great, Attack on Executor and Fondor immediately spring to mind. The AT-STs were tolerable, the AT-AT was a fun interlude. However, half the game was comprised of running around mashing the A Button against enemies that could not shoot up. Since that means you've got about 7 total missions that you'd enjoy, and the homing missile system and the two-player restriction shatter the versus mode completely, you're limited to the co-op Rogue Leader, mostly. That had some missed opportunities too- I'd prefer player 2 was your gunner on hoth, and the exclusion of the Vader missions. However; Kothlis, Imperial Academy, Razor Rondezvous, Death Star Escape, Endor, and Endurance are all amazing. However, I would have loved four-player to death. I don't care about the screen size, just bring back the HUD from Rogue Squadron and we'd be fine.

Naturally, I'm not touching Dagobah or the Sail Barge with a ten foot pole.

mplsjocc wrote:Harvest Moon. I just DON'T GET IT!

That or I don't think I'd have the patience for it...I admit I haven't played it, but after watching my friends play... not for me.

I find it relaxing, but I can certainly understand why others would dislike it.

FF8: I like most of the final fantasy series, but I hated this one. Apathetic "hero," convoluted juncution system, need to rely entirely upon the summonsing, I could go on and on about why I hated it.

MMOs: I do not want to be just another member of society when I play a video game. The trains should not run until I board them, cursed villages should remain cursed until I get there to fix it, millions should toil under the yolk of tyranny until I get there to topple the evil empire and free them. Wanting the world to revolve around you is a pretty selfish thing to want in real life, but video games are not real life. They're what gamers do to take a break from real life.

Edit: fixed typo

As a hardcore Starcraft gamer, I feel dismayed by some of the points raised against it...

Rye wrote:

InnocentBystander wrote:

ggs wrote:Starcraft

Alright, I'm demanding an explanation. The game is now nearly a decade old, and I still love Starcraft!

I loved starcraft's storyline, but I fucking loathed the gameplay. I generally dislike the "craft" ui, and I hate micromanagement and upgrading your troops on the fly. It looked somewhat like ass, which I was prepared to deal with till the gameplay problems surfaced. The main ones that bugged me were the computer AI rushing you in an unreasonable amount of time,

No, you just haven't played enough to understand the mechanics of the game. The melee AI plays ATROCIOUSLY; they randomly choose one of maybe three build orders, completely ignore map differences beyond 'Durr, where's the start position?!!', and are easily fooled by any number of means. They're also very slow, and cannot micromanage (Starcraft player's definition: in-battle movements/tactics to maximize the effectiveness of your shit) at all. They're literally limited to the 'Attack-Move' command. If you're getting your ass kicked by the AI, you're just a newbie. That's all.

and fucking zerg bombers being out of range of the SAM sites.

That was fucking ABSURD. Flying bombers that could bomb from further away than air defence guns?! What the hell kind of game balance was that?

Let's see. A missile turret costs 75 minerals, is available several minutes into the game as an off-shoot of the lowest troop-producing tech building (CC --> Barracks -- > Engineering Bay --> Turrets), and is STILL more effective as anti-air than an unupgraded Terran Goliath, which costs 100 Minterals/50 Gas, and is an entire level of tech beyond the Turret (Factory --> Armory). Oh, and it has an extremely short build time, too.

The Zerg Guardian overall cost is 150 Minerals/200 Gas, ignoring the cost of the 'Guardian Aspect' tech required to build them. They build very slowly; you need to make a Mutalisk, THEN morph them into Guardians, during which they're cocooned and can't do shit. They also require the highest-tier Zerg tech in the game. And even after that, they're slow, have low HP, and have no anti-air capabilities whatsoever.

Still think it's so absurd that a late-game tech unit wipes out an early-game structure that it's specifically designed to kill?

I dislike any game where vehicles have more power then defensive structures, the defensive structures should make up for their lack of movement with increased power and range, check TA for an example of how to do defensive structures. That's all I can remember really frustrating me with it for the moment.

Defensive structures are cheaper than units and are vastly more powerful than them, at the same level of tech, and oftentimes even higher. Try putting a 150 Mineral/100 Gas Wraith against that 75 Turret, see how long it'll last you. That's the entire point of defensive structures in Starcraft: they're designed to be utterly beatable by late-game tech to prevent people from turtling for eternity. They're an insurance against drops and hard counters to lower tech units; you cannot rely on them to do all the fighting for you. And design-wise, you shouldn't. If you do nothing the entire game but defend your one starting base, should you really have a shot when the enemy comes in with high-tech units, running off a six-base economy?

SirNitram wrote: Micro is encouraged.

Define micro. The RTS player uses the term to describe in-battle movements and tactics, getting the 'most' out of each unit. The 'Craft games are all predominately tactical as opposed to strategical, so it's not crazy that micro would play a vital role. It also takes jaw-dropping amounts of skill, accuracy, and speed to pull it off at a high level; watch some of the stuff on SClegacy.com's Pimpest Plays if you dont believe me.

You're limited to a tiny number of units per click-drag.

Agreed, this is easily one of the biggest problems with Blizzard's RTS.

The unit balance is pathetic.

Examples? Note that at high levels of Starcraft skill, nearly every unit is used, some more than others, but each has a role to play. The one notable exception is the Infested Terran, for obvious reasons (although you still see it used occasionally, if the Z manages to infest a CC somewhere...).

Defensive structures lurch, wildly and unpredictably, from 'useless'(AA units outranged by flapping bombers), to ridiculously overpowered(kekeke terran bunkers 4tW!).

Bunkers are actually rarely used by serious Starcraft players, on serious maps. You might see one occasionally to stop a rush, and you might see a 'bunker rush' done in Terran vs Zerg, or part of the Gundam opening in Terran vs Protoss. Otherwise? They're not really worth the 100 minerals, sorry.

Hilariously enough, Turrets are great, cheap, stationary anti-air in Terran vs. Terran, countered only when BCs start coming out. Terran vs. Protoss and Terran vs. Zerg they're also vital, not so much for their ability to fight off drops (which they do) or prevent harass (which they do, Z less than P), but for their detection abilities.

And how the fuck can I respect a powered armour guy who can't stop a dog-thingy from running through his weapons fire to headbutt him?

Durr, that whole 'unit balance' thing again, remember? It'd be kind of hard to implement melee units when a single ranged unit can just snipe them all out.

Funny thing to note: the ranged unit gets a MAJOR boost at high levels, solely becuase of, yet again, good micromanagement. A group of stimmed Marines can dance circles around slow lings, as they simply shoot, run, shoot, run, etc. Same trick can be done against Zealots, or any slow melee unit for that matter.

Tribes 2 squicks me for unknowable reasons.

It has a terrible learning curve, but this might help you along, have lots of fun, and help your team out, even if you're a newbie. I swear by it.

Badme wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Micro is encouraged.

Define micro.

Why is it, in all of the RTS', the only one to have the fanboys employ this pathetic, weak excuse is Blizzard? Oh yes, because to enjoy them, you have to actually get the idea that micromanagement is good.

The RTS player uses the term to describe in-battle movements and tactics, getting the 'most' out of each unit. The 'Craft games are all predominately tactical as opposed to strategical, so it's not crazy that micro would play a vital role. It also takes jaw-dropping amounts of skill, accuracy, and speed to pull it off at a high level; watch some of the stuff on SClegacy.com's Pimpest Plays if you dont believe me.

I've seen it. I'm rather disgusted this is looked on as good: It's not 'tactical', it's 'omfg i kin klick fasta!'. 'Tactical' is the accurate way to describe how 'RTS' games work, as 'strategy' would be more like the war side of Civilization.

The fact that the 'Craft series makes Micro the game-winner is the issue. For most of us, babysitting a half-dozen units is not how we enjoy our games. We enjoy things like Homeworld, where we can give strike craft a formation, basic aggression level, and a capital ship to follow, and send the capship in to cause havoc, while knowing you can turn away for a moment. The same with Dawn of War, where entire squads are treated as one unit to decrease Micro.

You're limited to a tiny number of units per click-drag.

Agreed, this is easily one of the biggest problems with Blizzard's RTS.

The unit balance is pathetic.

Examples? Note that at high levels of Starcraft skill, nearly every unit is used, some more than others, but each has a role to play. The one notable exception is the Infested Terran, for obvious reasons (although you still see it used occasionally, if the Z manages to infest a CC somewhere...).

I don't give much of a shit about the 'highest levels of skill'. The Terran defenses are wank-fucking-tastic, and the Zerg Rushing is ridiculous.

Defensive structures lurch, wildly and unpredictably, from 'useless'(AA units outranged by flapping bombers), to ridiculously overpowered(kekeke terran bunkers 4tW!).

Bunkers are actually rarely used by serious Starcraft players, on serious maps. You might see one occasionally to stop a rush, and you might see a 'bunker rush' done in Terran vs Zerg, or part of the Gundam opening in Terran vs Protoss. Otherwise? They're not really worth the 100 minerals, sorry.

Here's where we get into the snobbery and arrogance of the fanboy: If it's not done by 'serious players', it's not a problem/issue/thing to worry about. Of course, most folks aren't 'serious players', they want a game they can pick up and enjoy without a huge learning curve.

Hilariously enough, Turrets are great, cheap, stationary anti-air in Terran vs. Terran, countered only when BCs start coming out. Terran vs. Protoss and Terran vs. Zerg they're also vital, not so much for their ability to fight off drops (which they do) or prevent harass (which they do, Z less than P), but for their detection abilities.

You have to build dedicated anti-air, not to stop air, but to detect things. And no one sees an issue.

And how the fuck can I respect a powered armour guy who can't stop a dog-thingy from running through his weapons fire to headbutt him?

Durr, that whole 'unit balance' thing again, remember? It'd be kind of hard to implement melee units when a single ranged unit can just snipe them all out.

Or you could, I dunno, intelligently design the Zerg? Make them a plausible baddie?

Funny thing to note: the ranged unit gets a MAJOR boost at high levels, solely becuase of, yet again, good micromanagement. A group of stimmed Marines can dance circles around slow lings, as they simply shoot, run, shoot, run, etc. Same trick can be done against Zealots, or any slow melee unit for that matter.

'Duh-uh, if you babysit a Marine constantly he does well. Ergo I can't see no problems.' I'm here to command a war, not babysit Sgt. Fuckup.

Tribes 2 squicks me for unknowable reasons.

It has a terrible learning curve, but this might help you along, have lots of fun, and help your team out, even if you're a newbie. I swear by it.

I'll consider it. Tribes was my favorite, but somewhere in the transition something changed. Fundamentally.

Badme wrote:As a hardcore Starcraft gamer, I feel dismayed by some of the points raised against it...

Being of your generic non-hardcore vareity of folks who enjoy starcraft I'm pleased to report that all the stuff which you care about is basically shit I couldn't care less about. Starcraft is a fun game, and with those great lord of the rings custom maps I played it for years to follow, but on the whole it's pretty much a game you play now and again for kicks with pals.
Starcraft has it's flaws, which after 8 years you might have learned all sorts of amazing ways to bypass them, but really pretty much everyone else doesn't care that much.
For those who enjoy the game, it's not about tricking the AI, it's not about
the advanced economics of the game, it's about building some marines or zealots, and going out and killing guys, maybe making a few battlecruisers or mutalisks here and there. That's really all there is to it. When it comes to starcraft, well. You can only have so much.

Shit, if I could beat the AI with my eyes closed that would suck. Picking it up once or twice a year is great. Keeps the game interesting. It's a nice and easy lan party game too, wouldn't want to have to remove it from the list because it's a FFA only time deal.

Badme wrote:

Tribes 2 squicks me for unknowable reasons.

It has a terrible learning curve, but this might help you along, have lots of fun, and help your team out, even if you're a newbie. I swear by it.

Farmer? What!
I was an engineer damnit. In my day I knew how to keep that Jerico set up perfectly. Ideal location, turret arc, sensors. It was my thing, and I enjoyed it.
That's not farming!
I enjoyed controlling the turrets too. I sometimes miss those giant 60 man games, it was crazy stuff. But always fun, even if I never quite got the handle on fighting out in the open with the weapons available.

Fixed the quote tag.

~Faram

Bounty wrote: I tried PoP : Sands of Time, and what a letdown that was. Frustrating to play, shit combat, and it felt like work rather then fun.

Okay, the combat was not that great, but... "it felt like work rather than fun"?

Are you sure you weren't playing Warrior Within?

AVP2 drove me batshit insane because for some reason I lagged a lot while playing on a goddamn LAN, making me dead-meat half the time I went up against an Alien, and for awhile my friends always wanted to play AVP2 at every fucking LAN.

Sometimes I got pissed off and just started spamming the Predator plasma cannon and racking up lots of kills. It wasn't terribly fun per se, but it was a little satisfying just plowing through them and dying once for every few kills I made.

SirNitram wrote:I'm here to command a war, not babysit Sgt. Fuckup.

I concur wholeheartedly with this sentiment.

SirNitram wrote:

Badme wrote:

SirNitram wrote: Micro is encouraged.

Define micro.

Why is it, in all of the RTS', the only one to have the fanboys employ this pathetic, weak excuse is Blizzard? Oh yes, because to enjoy them, you have to actually get the idea that micromanagement is good.

The RTS player uses the term to describe in-battle movements and tactics, getting the 'most' out of each unit. The 'Craft games are all predominately tactical as opposed to strategical, so it's not crazy that micro would play a vital role. It also takes jaw-dropping amounts of skill, accuracy, and speed to pull it off at a high level; watch some of the stuff on SClegacy.com's Pimpest Plays if you dont believe me.

I've seen it. I'm rather disgusted this is looked on as good: It's not 'tactical', it's 'omfg i kin klick fasta!'. 'Tactical' is the accurate way to describe how 'RTS' games work, as 'strategy' would be more like the war side of Civilization.

The fact that the 'Craft series makes Micro the game-winner is the issue.

It isn't. Any credibility you had on the matter was destroyed in this sentence. Macromangament, of base, economy, map control, opening build and responses to, expansion/attack timing, and unit matchup (Much of which can be summarized in the form of the Power vs. Mass relationship: production capabilities vs. army size) is something like 90% of playing and winning the game. Micro is only really important when the skill levels are so evenly matched, and everyone's got the previous stuff mastered. It doesn't matter if you can make your units worth twice your opponents if he's outplayed you to the point where he can bring five times as much force to bear.

But if you must persist: Yes, Starcraft's micromanagement (and macromanagement) require a good deal of mechanical skill to pull off correctly. They require thought and intelligent play, but yes, first and foremost, they require mechanical skills. The tactical game only really begins once you've mastered that.

For most of us, babysitting a half-dozen units is not how we enjoy our games. We enjoy things like Homeworld, where we can give strike craft a formation, basic aggression level, and a capital ship to follow, and send the capship in to cause havoc, while knowing you can turn away for a moment. The same with Dawn of War, where entire squads are treated as one unit to decrease Micro.

Having never played Homeworld, and without a computer than can run DoW, I'm unable to relate the analogies.

You're limited to a tiny number of units per click-drag.

Agreed, this is easily one of the biggest problems with Blizzard's RTS.

The unit balance is pathetic.

Examples? Note that at high levels of Starcraft skill, nearly every unit is used, some more than others, but each has a role to play. The one notable exception is the Infested Terran, for obvious reasons (although you still see it used occasionally, if the Z manages to infest a CC somewhere...).

I don't give much of a shit about the 'highest levels of skill'. The Terran defenses are wank-fucking-tastic, and the Zerg Rushing is ridiculous.

I have asked you for specific examples. You have failed to give any, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll respond as well as I can to your vague generalizations:

1. Any defense is breakable. Starcraft is designed so that certain higher-tech units defeat lower tech units and defenses; I already gave the example of the Turret vs. the Guardian. Furthermore (and this is the clincher) Starcraft defense is a precaution against drops, harass, and support in the case of attacks. It is not the end-all-be-all. Any competent player, when he sees a Terran turtling, will laugh and expand. Why? The 'unshakable Terran defense' has just ceded control of the entire map! If you're too dense to figure out that the best way to deal with a a defense-heavy player who poses no offensive threat is to expand, then I'm sorry, can't help you there.

If it still doesn't sink in, here's a hint: Money is good. More money equals more production buildings equals more units. An opponent who's defending isn't preventing you from taking that money. See where this is going?

2. Zerg rushes are only overpowered on the extremely small maps that no one seriously plays: 64x64 and co. Every single competent map designer I know makes 128x128 maps; if you're losing to rushes on good maps, it is, again, not my fault that your build-order is slow, your unit micromanagement is weak, you don't know how to wallin/marine+SCV block your ramp, or you have no idea how SC's economy works. Again, watch some replays of competent players have at it: the Terran should always have several Marines prior to the rush, (which, with his SCVs, is MORE than enough to counter a 6 ling threat), but as long as he's scouting well, he's going to read the Zerg build, see the rush, and get a bit of extra defense early. It's that simple.

If you have specific examples of a build order, unit, or situation that you find overpowererd, I'd love to hear it.

Defensive structures lurch, wildly and unpredictably, from 'useless'(AA units outranged by flapping bombers), to ridiculously overpowered(kekeke terran bunkers 4tW!).

Bunkers are actually rarely used by serious Starcraft players, on serious maps. You might see one occasionally to stop a rush, and you might see a 'bunker rush' done in Terran vs Zerg, or part of the Gundam opening in Terran vs Protoss. Otherwise? They're not really worth the 100 minerals, sorry.

Here's where we get into the snobbery and arrogance of the fanboy: If it's not done by 'serious players', it's not a problem/issue/thing to worry about. Of course, most folks aren't 'serious players', they want a game they can pick up and enjoy without a huge learning curve.

And here we reach the central problem. It's not my fault you suck, I'm sorry. A chess player will not have pity on you if you can't figure out how to counter a specific opening, nor will he take you seriously if you throw up your hands, toss the board on the floor, and cry 'Imbalance!' as a response to your frustration. A Starcraft player won't either. I'm not talking 'high level of skill' as in the Korean professionals, I'm talking someone who plays enough to understand a bit of how the game works. If you can't handle that, then go play Tic-Tac-Toe, I hear it's got a pretty nice learning curve for newbies.

Hilariously enough, Turrets are great, cheap, stationary anti-air in Terran vs. Terran, countered only when BCs start coming out. Terran vs. Protoss and Terran vs. Zerg they're also vital, not so much for their ability to fight off drops (which they do) or prevent harass (which they do, Z less than P), but for their detection abilities.

You have to build dedicated anti-air, not to stop air, but to detect things. And no one sees an issue.

No, since they also fulfill their other function of stopping drops/harass. This one of the best parts of Starcraft: the matchups are so different that unit strength varies wildly between them all, but in the end, is still balanced. Turrets stop most Terran air cold, but are handled with relative ease by a mid-tech Zerg flier, the Mutalisk. Infantry counters much of what Zerg throws at it until the late game, but is practically instant-lose against Protoss past the 5 minute mark. Wraiths are great harassment in Terran vs. Terran but have little to no use in Terran vs. Protoss, in most situations. As soon as you start hitting semi-competent levels of play, the race split is almost completely even. As you get higher, it stays that way, and at the top, it's stays that way. No race is in a position where it can dominate any other, they're just forced to play differently. If you're having trouble vs. a particular race or tactic, then it's almost certainly your lack of skill, not poor design.

And how the fuck can I respect a powered armour guy who can't stop a dog-thingy from running through his weapons fire to headbutt him?

Durr, that whole 'unit balance' thing again, remember? It'd be kind of hard to implement melee units when a single ranged unit can just snipe them all out.

Or you could, I dunno, intelligently design the Zerg? Make them a plausible baddie?

I was playing this game called Chess the other day, and wouldn't you know, horses can jump over castles! And bishops are apparently used as soliders! And if you advance a foot soldier forward enough, you'll find out that he's actually a transvestite, since he can turn into a Queen! What a terrible, unrealistic, implausible game!

Get real, Nit. Starcraft is an abstraction, just like chess.

Funny thing to note: the ranged unit gets a MAJOR boost at high levels, solely becuase of, yet again, good micromanagement. A group of stimmed Marines can dance circles around slow lings, as they simply shoot, run, shoot, run, etc. Same trick can be done against Zealots, or any slow melee unit for that matter.

'Duh-uh, if you babysit a Marine constantly he does well. Ergo I can't see no problems.' I'm here to command a war, not babysit Sgt. Fuckup.

Good players can command a war while individually controlling every action their units make. They have the mechanical ability to control units that fast as well as the mental agility to keep track of everything that's going on at once. If that's not what you want, then Starcraft clearly isn't the game for you.

Tribes 2 squicks me for unknowable reasons.

It has a terrible learning curve, but this might help you along, have lots of fun, and help your team out, even if you're a newbie. I swear by it.

I'll consider it. Tribes was my favorite, but somewhere in the transition something changed. Fundamentally.

Probably because you're playing the base game as opposed to the Classic mod, which is overall much faster-paced.

People who enjoy games regardless of flaws have no business posting in a 'games you hate' thread. Some people can ignore game flaws: I'm sure they live a wonderful life, but their input is meaningless here.

Badme wrote:They're literally limited to the 'Attack-Move' command. If you're getting your ass kicked by the AI, you're just a newbie. That's all.

Of course, all the necessary micro in starcraft means that there's really no point in playing against anything other than the computer.

Still think it's so absurd that a late-game tech unit wipes out an early-game structure that it's specifically designed to kill?

Yes, it is pretty absurd, since there's no reason to build the tower as anything other than a detector in the first place.

That's the entire point of defensive structures in Starcraft: they're designed to be utterly beatable by late-game tech to prevent people from turtling for eternity.

Don't play on mega-money maps if you don't want that to happen.

If you do nothing the entire game but defend your one starting base, should you really have a shot when the enemy comes in with high-tech units, running off a six-base economy?

If you have six bases, and your opponent has one, then you are guaranteed to win anyways.

Define micro. The RTS player uses the term to describe in-battle movements and tactics, getting the 'most' out of each unit.

Micromanagement is when you perform repetitive actions that take large amounts of your time to maximize the benefit you obtain from your actions far beyond what you should get under normal circumstances. What starcraft needed was to lock units into combat so that they suffer massive penalties for withdrawing while under fire.

The 'Craft games are all predominately tactical as opposed to strategical, so it's not crazy that micro would play a vital role.

No, they are primarily action games with a small amount of strategy thrown in.

Bunkers are actually rarely used by serious Starcraft players, on serious maps. You might see one occasionally to stop a rush, and you might see a 'bunker rush' done in Terran vs Zerg, or part of the Gundam opening in Terran vs Protoss. Otherwise? They're not really worth the 100 minerals, sorry.

So first the defensive structures are too powerful, now they aren't worth building. Seriously though, for the 400 or so minerals it costs to build and fill up a bunker, it should really be able to take on 400 minerals in any other unit.

Durr, that whole 'unit balance' thing again, remember? It'd be kind of hard to implement melee units when a single ranged unit can just snipe them all out.

That's why the melee units are stupid.

Funny thing to note: the ranged unit gets a MAJOR boost at high levels, solely becuase of, yet again, good micromanagement. A group of stimmed Marines can dance circles around slow lings, as they simply shoot, run, shoot, run, etc. Same trick can be done against Zealots, or any slow melee unit for that matter.

Which is part of the problem with the game. You should be locking those marines into combat like what happens in Kohan or Dawn of War. Starcraft was decent for its era, but its interface and game design philosophy belongs in the distant past.

all this hating for Merrowind, you would think that people here never had a chance to play Arena, or Daggerfalls or Redguard first?

ok so I have been having a guilty pleasure of playing ninja drow/catgirls in Elder Scrolls games, and own most of them.

SirNitram wrote:We enjoy things like Homeworld, where we can give strike craft a formation, basic aggression level, and a capital ship to follow, and send the capship in to cause havoc, while knowing you can turn away for a moment.

Homeworld (and Homeworld 2) still has issues with micromanagement. Not focusing on an engagement and you're likely to find out how mean Salvage Corvettes can be.

The same with Dawn of War, where entire squads are treated as one unit to decrease Micro.

I would consider DoW to be very intensive micro due the fact that you're usually trying to process multiple units performing different tasks at different map locations all at once. Also, similar to Starcraft, ranged units perform much better against close combat units if you dance them.

Micro will exist in all RTS so long as a human is able to manage units better than what the "AI" can.

Micro might exist, but there's a difference between the existance of micro and basing the entire GAME around Micro. I feel the 'Craft games have gone too far on that end, and while Relic's offerings do have micro in them, it doesn't become the purpose of the entire game to manage it.

Supreme Commander, for example, appears to be a game that will minimize micro as much as possible. Will micro continue to exist? Sure, almost certainly. However, will it be necessary to micro the special abilities of each squad in combat in order to win? Most likely not.

Meanwhile, Stark - frankly speaking, ALL games have flaws, and if you dig deep enough, you'll find something wrong with any game you play. The trick, in this thread, I think is to find the games that push us past our limits of accepting the bad with the good. In some cases, the reviews aren't really fair (McNum's failure to notice the main quest getting kicked off, for example), and people who think a game isn't getting a fair shake will defend it. Some people LOVE the 'Craft series because of the micro. Others don't. Of course there's going to be a lot of back and forth about it.

I myself realize that Morrowind is not everybody's cup of tea. I enjoyed the fuck out of it, but that doesn't mean everyone else is going to do the same. I don't want to jump on people just because they didn't like it - I just want to make sure people are giving it a fair shot beforehand.

WAH WAH WAH It isn't. Any credibility you had on the matter was destroyed in this sentence. WAH WAH WAH

Oh fuck off you pathetic fanboy. You have demonstrated that Micro is the issue, because instead of rebutting the abysmal amount, you play semantic-whore games of 'Define micro' and other such utter bullshit. Especially when you fall back onto the 'IT'S NOT MY FAULT YOU SUX0R!!!!!' level of fanboy crap; so anyone not up to your skill level shouldn't enjoy a game? Funny, I'm able to enjoy alot of other RTS' just fine...

But if you must persist: Yes, Starcraft's micromanagement (and macromanagement) require a good deal of mechanical skill to pull off correctly. They require thought and intelligent play, but yes, first and foremost, they require mechanical skills. The tactical game only really begins once you've mastered that.

Let's not bullshit here any further, wanker: Starcraft requires you to click quickly. That's the thing that seperates it from Red Alert 2, Homeworld, DoW, and so on. The margin of error for fast-clicking for the win is much smaller due to great Micro required.

I have asked you for specific examples. You have failed to give any, but since I'm a nice guy, I'll respond as well as I can to your vague generalizations:

'Nice guy'? When you're being outright dishonest? Don't bullshit me, kid! The fact your 'responses' are ridiculous strawmen don't help; you see a comment about Terran defenses and assume they must be ceding the map. What, is Mr. Uber Starcraft Player Unable to Expand AND Fortify? 'No one uses 64x64!!!!' Well, yea, people do. People who are wanting quick matches without that ridiculous uber-money crap and the like.(BTW: It's amusing how you chatter about how defending with Terran uberdefenses means you lose the map, then immediately say the solution is bottling up.)

I'm not among the 'serious' players who devote some ridiculous amount of time to memorizing build-orders or the like; I play to have fun, not memorize Chess openings.

And here we reach the central problem. It's not my fault you suck, I'm sorry. A chess player will not have pity on you if you can't figure out how to counter a specific opening, nor will he take you seriously if you throw up your hands, toss the board on the floor, and cry 'Imbalance!' as a response to your frustration. A Starcraft player won't either. I'm not talking 'high level of skill' as in the Korean professionals, I'm talking someone who plays enough to understand a bit of how the game works. If you can't handle that, then go play Tic-Tac-Toe, I hear it's got a pretty nice learning curve for newbies.

What did I say about snobbery and arrogance? So your argument is 'OMFG NOOB'. Here's my argument: Starcraft's learning curve is ridiculous, it's micro is ridiculous, and thus lots of people will hate it forever, and with good reason. Only imbecilic fanboys can see a steep learning curve and a requirement for clicking for the win as positives, and only desperate, pathetic ones charge into a thread to defend these things.

If you're having trouble vs. a particular race or tactic, then it's almost certainly your lack of skill, not poor design.

I really love how it's constantly being decided it's because I suck, not because anything in the game. It's rather like the immense imbalance in DoW's Orkz prior to 1.4, where you literally could not defeat Eldar unless the other guy fell asleep(And if he had set Warp Spiders to Overwatch, he'd still outlast you).

By the way. Had no problem with air assaults; this was a game so ridiculously designed that guys with rifles can be a plausible threat to starships, so there was rarely a shortage of ways to bring down air assaults. The criticism, since you're completely illiterate, was that they made you need an AA facility to detect ground stealth units.

was playing this game called Chess the other day, and wouldn't you know, horses can jump over castles! And bishops are apparently used as soliders! And if you advance a foot soldier forward enough, you'll find out that he's actually a transvestite, since he can turn into a Queen! What a terrible, unrealistic, implausible game!

Get real, Nit. Starcraft is an abstraction, just like chess.

It's a shitty one, since these Zerglings are taken down by pitchforks in the non-abstractions, yet still viewed as a threat. But hey, fanboys never let go of their fandoms.

Good players can command a war while individually controlling every action their units make. They have the mechanical ability to control units that fast as well as the mental agility to keep track of everything that's going on at once. If that's not what you want, then Starcraft clearly isn't the game for you.

Let me translate: 'DEY KLICK 4 TEH W1N!!!!!' And yes. For me and millions of others, Starcraft and it's Micro-bullshit isn't the game for us. Which is why we post in threads like this. And why we hate apologist fucktards like you who pretend excessive Micro isn't a problem.

The Jester wrote:

SirNitram wrote:We enjoy things like Homeworld, where we can give strike craft a formation, basic aggression level, and a capital ship to follow, and send the capship in to cause havoc, while knowing you can turn away for a moment.

Homeworld (and Homeworld 2) still has issues with micromanagement. Not focusing on an engagement and you're likely to find out how mean Salvage Corvettes can be.

Ugh. Now I'm gonna have flashbacks to the Salvage Corvs for a week. You bastard!

The same with Dawn of War, where entire squads are treated as one unit to decrease Micro.

I would consider DoW to be very intensive micro due the fact that you're usually trying to process multiple units performing different tasks at different map locations all at once. Also, similar to Starcraft, ranged units perform much better against close combat units if you dance them.

See, I'm lucky. I don't play in the 'serious' rankings where you have to memorize build orders and where my opponents constantly dance. You can have a very fun game of DoW without excessive micro. I'm well aware of the 'micro-dancing' that can happen.. It made Orkz a non-race for a while in the Ladder.. But I avoid folks who do it.

Of course, arrogant fanboys will proclaim I 'suck' for doing what I enjoy. Thankfully, arrogant fanboys have never mattered.

Micro will exist in all RTS so long as a human is able to manage units better than what the "AI" can.

Indeed. But one need not make the game around it.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, arrogant fanboys will proclaim I 'suck' for doing what I enjoy. Thankfully, arrogant fanboys have never mattered.

I think that about hits the nail on the head for this thread.

Here's a clue for those who need it: if some game needs some element involved to be "good" at it that someone doesn't like, then guess what? They're not going to like that game! Who gives a fuck if you're the uber-badass who has it all figured out? If I'm not enjoying the game then I'm not going to like it. Pretty simple, no?

People sing praises about Counter-Strike, for example. Me, if I'm going to do a game like that, I'd prefer to be "tactical", sneak around, go slow, crouch, peek around corners, and so on. And yet in that game some idiot can go hop around like some rabbit on speed and score headshots with a sniper rifle fired from the hip while running forward and in the middle of a great bounding leap!

I don't give a fuck if that's how the "serious" or "expert" gamers do it and thus I am some sucky n00b for not doing it. I'm not going to like the game because of that. Period.

RogueIce wrote:I don't give a fuck if that's how the "serious" or "expert" gamers do it and thus I am some sucky n00b for not doing it. I'm not going to like the game because of that. Period.

The problem is identical to comic-book fanwhores. There's fanboys, of course, who love their games/movies/whatever. See: Those who do their impressions of Extras in the Life Of Brian when Fallout is criticized here. But that's all they do; one liners because they recignize that yea, you can hate the games(It didn't help that both were painfully buggy and Fallout 2 literally unfinished).

Yet, of course, when Starcraft and it's derivative ilk are mentioned, the wardrums are beating and the assholes are out proclaiming anyone who doesn't enjoy Starcraft 'noobs'. I suppose that's the price you play for obsessing over such an old game. Constant insecurity about newer ones, thus lashing out.

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Bounty wrote: I tried PoP : Sands of Time, and what a letdown that was. Frustrating to play, shit combat, and it felt like work rather then fun.

Okay, the combat was not that great, but... "it felt like work rather than fun"?

Are you sure you weren't playing Warrior Within?

Nope, Sands of Time. I've started playing it twice, and gave up both times about a quarter through. It's not that I dislike platformers, or suck at it, it just wasn't any fun.

RogueIce wrote:People sing praises about Counter-Strike, for example. Me, if I'm going to do a game like that, I'd prefer to be "tactical", sneak around, go slow, crouch, peek around corners, and so on. And yet in that game some idiot can go hop around like some rabbit on speed and score headshots with a sniper rifle fired from the hip while running forward and in the middle of a great bounding leap!

Honestly, what you're looking for isn't Counter-Strike but something like the Rainbow Six games. While the bunny-hopping has long been absent from CS, and I personally think Source is better at making it a more tactical game (flashbangs work a lot better), it's still aimed at being a very fast-paced game.

Uraniun235 wrote:

RogueIce wrote:People sing praises about Counter-Strike, for example. Me, if I'm going to do a game like that, I'd prefer to be "tactical", sneak around, go slow, crouch, peek around corners, and so on. And yet in that game some idiot can go hop around like some rabbit on speed and score headshots with a sniper rifle fired from the hip while running forward and in the middle of a great bounding leap!

Honestly, what you're looking for isn't Counter-Strike but something like the Rainbow Six games. While the bunny-hopping has long been absent from CS, and I personally think Source is better at making it a more tactical game (flashbangs work a lot better), it's still aimed at being a very fast-paced game.

Yeah. I like Rainbow Six. I was just using that as a quick example I had off the top of my head.

Incidently, I kinda hated Homeworld 2. The research system and the unit caps were a major pain. The research system I guess I could deal with, but I never could turn off the unit caps. Which was annoying, because I liked have a big fleet float serenely in space.

Actually what I'd love to do is LAN it between just myself so I can make my nice pretty fleet and take some shots before the AI comes around and starts shooting (oh sure I win, but it doesn't make for good screenshots of my fleet floating in space).

FF8 for reasons stated before, mostly the whole Junction thing. I always hated that. The card game seemed pretty useless too. Did it serve any purpose or was it just there?

I got so pissed at FFX when my sister was playing it, although I'll admit it was for a silly reason: I just wanted those characters to shut the fuck up in battle!

Actually the card game was a fast way to numerous power ups you could not recieve elsewhere.

FF8 had some odd points, but it wasn't unrefined or such, just had a similar problem that FF7 had. Once powered up enough, all the characters were interchangeable except the usage of special attacks.

SirNitram wrote:See, I'm lucky. I don't play in the 'serious' rankings where you have to memorize build orders and where my opponents constantly dance. You can have a very fun game of DoW without excessive micro.

These sorts of things are the inevitable by-product of the traditional RTS game format. Especially when you have a large community of players, always searching for a way get the upper hand over the opposition. If players can build, then they will start finding the optimal build strategies in pursuit of victory. Even in smaller groups of friends, if things are semi-competitive, then players will start developing build orders (if only inefficient ones) over time.

Even chess has its book openings, however the breadth of chess openings far exceeds the number of build orders available for any RTS.