StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I absolutely loathe sports games (excepting Crush Deluxe, but that's basically a science fiction variation of Blood Bowl where you try to kill and cripple as many of the opposing players as you can in the midst of something resembling rugby or American football or whatever the fuck those sports are).

I also loathe racing games. Seen one, seen them all. Bleaaargh!

Did I mention RTS games? Well, add those to the list. My stratgey just needs to be turnbased, period. I hate the micro attendant in so many RTS games, and I don't like the constant need to rush that is part and parcel of them.

Action games with 3rd person viewpoint also annoy me a lot, so a game of that type really needs to be good for me to stand it. I prefer the FPS point of view.

Edi

I hate motherfucking Counter-Strike, and all of its clones. For the very brief time that I played it, this was a typical experience:

Game starts
Run around
See guy
Get killed before I can get a shot off
Wait five minutes for everyone else to die
Repeat

Uh, no thanks. I hate waiting around. That's not why I'm playing a game.

The flamewar that's started around Starcraft is fucking retarded.

Nit: Fast-click sux.
Badme: no it doesnt
Nit: ur a retard
Badme: OMFG n00b
Nit: dumbass fanboytard
Badme: lol t3h gaem is not 4 u!
Nit: fast klik sux, retard!
Badme: n00b!
Nit: dumbass!

The crux of the matter is that this is a thread were people post what games they hate. Obviously, someone is going to eventually get one of his or her personal favorites offended.

SirNitram wrote: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.

While you and "millions of others" might not find Starcraft's click-intensive gameplay positive, I remind you that Gamespot considers it one of the greatest games of all time, IGN marks it as the seventh of one hundred best games, and in South Korea, there are TV channels where you watch people play Starcraft (a friend of mine visited South Korea and watched them, so I can't source this). At this point, if you have an argument for why click-intensive games are a sign of low intelligence, I would like to hear it.

Morilore wrote:The flamewar that's started around Starcraft is fucking retarded.

Yes it is. When the legitimate problem of excessive Micromanagement is brought up, the fucking fanboys act like this is stepping on a fucking Holy icon and urinating. And then you fucking pretend I've just been saying 'fast clicking sucks' and then yelling insults.

You're a fucking disgrace. No argument? Is that it? Or do you just think this sort of thing is gonna go over well here, a bastion of thinking people?

Other series.. Very good ones.. Were slammed here. But no. Only the Blizzard Fucking Fanboys have to act like this.

SirNitram wrote: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.

While you and "millions of others" might not find Starcraft's click-intensive gameplay positive, I remind you that Gamespot considers it one of the greatest games of all time, IGN marks it as the seventh of one hundred best games, and in South Korea, there are TV channels where you watch people play Starcraft (a friend of mine visited South Korea and watched them, so I can't source this). At this point, if you have an argument for why click-intensive games are a sign of low intelligence, I would like to hear it.

'OMFG GAMESPOT AND IGN LIKE IT!' Why do I give a shit, fuckface? Seriously? Opinions of reviewers mean what? Especially when it's been revealed folks will buy opinions from these folks?

Ladies and gentlemen, the state of Blizzard fanboys: If you can't put forth a real argument, outright lie about what's been said, and jerk off to reviewers.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to the Black Isle fanboys and just shrug at the fact people didn't like Fallout. I'm not such an immature twat as to start and maintain 'flamewars'. Of course, I wasn't flaming yet.. I can flame if people really want...

HemlockGrey wrote:I hate motherfucking Counter-Strike, and all of its clones. For the very brief time that I played it, this was a typical experience:

Game starts
Run around
See guy
Get killed before I can get a shot off
Wait five minutes for everyone else to die
Repeat

Uh, no thanks. I hate waiting around. That's not why I'm playing a game.

That's what always bugged me and kept me from accessing Counterstrike. Once you died.. And if you were bad, you never got better because you died right off.. It was 'sit around for a while'. And if, say, one on each team is really good? You're sitting for a while.

Noone I've ever met over the age of 18 even *plays* Starcraft. Those that do either stop as soon as they're introduced to other more mature RTSs, or only play because all their mates do. I can actually understand this - even CS is actually a good game if it's 32 non-tards playing.

I'm proud to say I've turned dozens of people away from Starcraft, simply by SHOWING them other, better games. It's amusing how many people simply thing the 'big names' are the entire genre (SC, WC, C&C etc).

Going through my CD collection of games I played for a week and hate:

Imperium Galactica 2. AI cheats its dirty little ass off, stupid RTS segments, awful space combat, terrible SimCity development. Worst XXXX game ever.

Thief 3. Good idea, I love the Thief games, but full-minute load times in the middle of a mission are fucking unacceptable. A good game ruined by cross-platform Xboxness.

Kohan: Kings of War. Took everything that was interesting, flexible and new about the old game and removed it from the game. Remade WC3 with bad skins. Ugh.

Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. Not only entirely based on micro and stupid papar-rock-scissors bullshit, but starts with a cool premise and immediately ruins it AND has the worst 'changing your power settings for you without asking' functions EVER. Basing a game on micro and then messing with the micro? Terrible.

Minute load times? THEY KILLED THIEF AND SODOMIZED THE CORPSE!

I hate America's Army.

It began nicely as a good online FPS shooter, fairly realistic. I played the first version A LOT. I particularly liked the training MILES missions at full night (Hostage Camp), where wits and tactics made you feel like god. I used to run a lot of "active defense", sneaking up on guys who equipped with NVG's still couldnt spot me. It had a steady pace, none of the CS rush bullshit.

Then they began modifying the rules, the scene changed and now we have a game that is best played using a calculator. Two steps forward, one left, aim above the rock on the left and fire. You have to practically memorize every fucking pixel on the map to stand a small chance.

I love the Flashpoint tho, its exactly the direction that military games should follow.

SirNitram wrote:Yes it is. When the legitimate problem of excessive Micromanagement is brought up, the fucking fanboys act like this is stepping on a fucking Holy icon and urinating. And then you fucking pretend I've just been saying 'fast clicking sucks' and then yelling insults.

You're a fucking disgrace. No argument? Is that it? Or do you just think this sort of thing is gonna go over well here, a bastion of thinking people?

Other series.. Very good ones.. Were slammed here. But no. Only the Blizzard Fucking Fanboys have to act like this.

The point of my first post was that this:

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.

and this:

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.

Aren't really an argument. You simply dislike something about Starcraft that Badme likes.
I realize that there was more going on, but that struck me as the core of the debate (micro and fast-clicking), and I apologize for misleadingly failing to specify that. It won't happen again.

Especially when it's been revealed folks will buy opinions from these folks?

I honestly didn't know that. That portion of my post was in response to your "millions of others" comment, which I probably should have ignored.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to the Black Isle fanboys and just shrug at the fact people didn't like Fallout. I'm not such an immature twat as to start and maintain 'flamewars'. Of course, I wasn't flaming yet.. I can flame if people really want...

I agree that Badme's original attempt to defend Starcraft was a thread hijack, but don't give me this bullshit about "not really flaming." I don't doubt your ability to flame more, but calling someone an apologist fucktard is a flame, period.

EDIT: Obviously, when I apologized above, I was referring to when I posted that mock-exchange and failed to specify that I was making fun of one part of the argument, not the whole thing. I also realize that in referring to "the flamewar" I may have further misled people.

Morilore wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Yes it is. When the legitimate problem of excessive Micromanagement is brought up, the fucking fanboys act like this is stepping on a fucking Holy icon and urinating. And then you fucking pretend I've just been saying 'fast clicking sucks' and then yelling insults.

You're a fucking disgrace. No argument? Is that it? Or do you just think this sort of thing is gonna go over well here, a bastion of thinking people?

Other series.. Very good ones.. Were slammed here. But no. Only the Blizzard Fucking Fanboys have to act like this.

The point of my first post was that this:

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.

and this:

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.

Aren't really an argument. You simply dislike something about Starcraft that Badme likes.

And you know the difference? Badme is a fucking fanwhore who thinks he has to stand up and degrade anyone who thinks something widely held as a flaw is a flaw. That's the fucking difference. Now grow up and shut up, please, because this childish, desperate crap is irritating.

Why the fuck is this so important to you and the other Blizzard fanboys that you have to rush around and screech?

I realize that there was more going on, but that struck me as the core of the debate (micro and fast-clicking), and I apologize for misleadingly failing to specify that. It won't happen again.

Especially when it's been revealed folks will buy opinions from these folks?

I honestly didn't know that. That portion of my post was in response to your "millions of others" comment, which I probably should have ignored.

Now you know. Magazine reviews aren't worth shit. Most reviews aren't worth shit, unless they come from folks you both trust and share views with.

Meanwhile, I'll go back to the Black Isle fanboys and just shrug at the fact people didn't like Fallout. I'm not such an immature twat as to start and maintain 'flamewars'. Of course, I wasn't flaming yet.. I can flame if people really want...

I agree that Badme's original attempt to defend Starcraft was a thread hijack, but don't give me this bullshit about "not really flaming." I don't doubt your ability to flame more, but calling someone an apologist fucktard is a flame, period.

No. It's calling a spade a spade when they're hijacking a thread just to defend something against legitimate complaints.

Diablo. Dungeon Siege. Any game where the depth of gameplay is "click". With maybe some spreadsheet warrioring.

Yeah...why is it that I hate that sort of click game, and yet love 2d Zelda, which tends to be just slashing repeatedly, as far as combat goes?

Alan Bolte wrote:Yeah...why is it that I hate that sort of click game, and yet love 2d Zelda, which tends to be just slashing repeatedly, as far as combat goes?

Because it's far more tactile, especially in terms of timing and physical plaement. Hell, the 3D Zelda adventures has more in common with fighting games than RPGs. It's a concept I'm looking into with my 'multiplayer adventure' design that'll probably just get labled an MMORPG anyway.

Speaking of Counter-Strike, I have to admit I've been playing it again recently, with bots. It's odd because I've got Unreal Tournament 2004 sitting on my desk and each time I said to myself 'I feel like playing an FPS' this week, I'm simply more in the mood for the pace and level of weapon damage and action in CS: Source. They need to add more of the fun maps from the original (I'm a sucker for Mansion and Mouse, and that once with the house in the middle of some canyons with sewers and a garage). Maybe I should just buy one of the newer Rainbow 6 games; I really liked the first one (Eagle Watch needed a lot more than just hostage rescue stuff)

I hated original Diablo, but really only due to the intense cheating that went on.

Walk...walk...walk--white beam of the heavens comes down and kills you-- **cute immense laughter from gangs of pk's.**

Diablo two, though, I disliked because I wasn't fond of the trading system.

Reach for the Stars - Apparently this was a remake of some game from 700 years ago. I don't know anything about that, but I know that this version was a nearly unplayable piece of shit.

Oh it worked well enough. There weren't any crushing bugs. It was just an incredibly poor design. Diplomacy consisted of a tiny 8-bittish picture of a tentacle thing (or whatever) showing you some icons of little arrows. Figuring out which of the indistinguishable races it was, and what the icons meant, was a pain in the ass. And it didn't matter anyway, because even the token pacifist race would pretty much instantly declare war.

Combat was mediocre at best, with minimal player input. Worst of all, warships had no upkeep cost whatsoever! You were pretty much stuck building endless ships until you were either zerged to death by someone who built even more, or the game simply crashed under the weight of them all.

I would of thought that the biggest fucking problem in Reach for the Stars was THAT THERE WAS NO FUCKING AI CODE!

I must have played that game fifteen fucking times and each time, the AI never even started BUILDIGN OR RESEARCHING ANYTHING AND INSTEAD SAT ON THEIR OWN FUCKING PLANET DOING NOTHING.

Fucked game that was.

hrm. I liked Thief 3- and this is an avid player of the first two. I never got the impression that they changed anything major asides from the dueling. Don't remember the load times being that long either. The one thing that pissed me off was that Garrett lost his uber-cool sword. I loved duelling.

Indeed. I don't understand the vitriol against Thief 3 at all. Sure, it might not have been as good as the first 2, but I thought it was a solid Thief game, worthy of bearing the name.

Vympel wrote:hrm. I liked Thief 3- and this is an avid player of the first two. I never got the impression that they changed anything major asides from the dueling. Don't remember the load times being that long either. The one thing that pissed me off was that Garrett lost his uber-cool sword. I loved duelling.

Really? On my 3200/6600GT/2Gb system, the load times in the 'misty' sections are incredibly long - between 45 and 90 seconds. It makes wandering the city between missions horrible, and some missions where you transit them constantly horrible too. The game itself is fun, although the story wasn't great (then T2 wasn't either).

Qwerty 42 wrote: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.

Oh, I loved the AT-AT. That was easily one of the best parts of single player mode.

The TIE Bomber was weird, though. Only missiles? What's up with that?

The race mode was decent (speeder bike+trees+1st person+boosting=fun), but you're right about the missiles during dogfights.

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

Are you sure you weren't playing Warrior Within?

Well, PoP is just a platformer with icing on it anyway. Or that's how I look at it.

Stars!

Too much cargo-ship micromanagement. I'd love to just hire a freight/commerce minister and be done with it!

Almost forgot Star Wars: Battlefront. I didn't think it would be possible for a game based on the major battles in the movies to look or feel so completely unlike them until this glorified BF1942 mod came along and proved me wrong. I don't remember the part in Star Wars where someone has to lean on the trigger on full auto for several seconds before his opponent dies. Maybe I was getting popcorn...

Battlefront 2 continues that abomination of gameplay, but does allow you to hunt Ewoks as Scout Troopers in a dedicated gametype.

weemadando wrote:Battlefront 2 continues that abomination of gameplay, but does allow you to hunt Ewoks as Scout Troopers in a dedicated gametype.

Tusken raiders vs. Jawas is even better.

And the heroes are pretty friggin' well done, I gotta give it that.

EDIT:

Tolya wrote:I hate America's Army.

It began nicely as a good online FPS shooter, fairly realistic. I played the first version A LOT. I particularly liked the training MILES missions at full night (Hostage Camp), where wits and tactics made you feel like god. I used to run a lot of "active defense", sneaking up on guys who equipped with NVG's still couldnt spot me. It had a steady pace, none of the CS rush bullshit.

Then they began modifying the rules, the scene changed and now we have a game that is best played using a calculator. Two steps forward, one left, aim above the rock on the left and fire. You have to practically memorize every fucking pixel on the map to stand a small chance.

I love the Flashpoint tho, its exactly the direction that military games should follow.

That's true to some extent, but it's been significantly alleviated lately with randomly placed multi-tier objectives and spawns. Each round neither team knows for certain what direction the enemy is coming from or how prepared they are in relation to the objectives, which discourages covering certain spots and encourages 360-degree awareness and all around caution.

SBDs vs Gungans?