StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Hey guys, PCs are superior to consoles, am I right?

Uraniun235 wrote:Hey guys, PCs are superior to consoles, am I right?

Damn straight. Good man, Uraniun.

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear someone praise Starcraft as the end all RTS either.

Because we all know the answers to that is currently Ground Control 1 and HW2 right guys?

Uraniun235 wrote:Hey guys, PCs are superior to consoles, am I right?

Look, I'm not trying to say that consoles are worthless, I'm just saying that if you look at the games that have been "shared" between PC and Console, by and large the PC versions or standalone games are better, by and large. There are some exceptions, to be sure (Steel Batallion, for example), when you look at the face of it, Consoles tend to have a different focus when it comes to which of their games are really, really good. Name the best console games you've ever played. Chances are the vast majority of them will be Japanese Rails RPGs, Platformers, Fighting Games, Sports games, Beat-em-ups, DDR/GH style games, and so on.

But seriously, look at the difference between Halo PC and Halo X-Box, or Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, or heck, Deus Ex 1 and Deus Ex 1: The Conspiracy. Or Rogue Squadron and Freespace, MechAssault and Mechwarrior 2-4.

Heck, I remember trying to play C&C 1 on the SNES. That was a nightmare.

Nephtys wrote:I'm going to pretend I didn't hear someone praise Starcraft as the end all RTS either.

No, that's Warcraft III.

Or possibly Starcraft II.

As for games playing years later... I expect that will be a problem, oh ten years from now, when I finally pay off my student loans, buy a decent computer, like Brother Captain-Gaius did .

Brian

Nephtys wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Hey guys, PCs are superior to consoles, am I right?

Damn straight. Good man, Uraniun.

I'm going to pretend I didn't hear someone praise Starcraft as the end all RTS either.

To a point, it kinda is.

Sure, there are better games out there. Dawn of War, Rise of Nations/Legends, Total Annihilation, and what, at least half a dozen others you could name that I didn't mention(Supreme Commander doesn't count yet)?

But sadly, none of them have been able to actually remove Starcraft from the top spot among gamers as a whole. You don't get to be the king simply by being better. You have to kick the reigning guy off his throne, too.

That's what worries me about Supreme Commander. As good as it looks like it's gonna be, I'm afraid it's just not going to have the ability to break Starcraft's sheer weight of numbers. At least, not without some help...

Since when was popularity ever a good judge of quality? Take a look at half the movies that are produced every week, and how utterly crappy they are. And sit there and realize they're grossing far more than (your favorite underdog movie here).

Are you going to suggest Counter-Strike is the most deepest skillxors fps ever, just because a hundred thousand people enjoy playing the same maps, the same way, every 3 minutes?

Dozens of games are better than those mentioned. They're better on their own merit and that's all that matters.

If you're aruging that popularity is a measure of quality, then apparently 50 Cent: Bulletproof is a better game than Psychonauts.

Hotfoot wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:Hey guys, PCs are superior to consoles, am I right?

Look, I'm not trying to say that consoles are worthless, I'm just saying that if you look at the games that have been "shared" between PC and Console, by and large the PC versions or standalone games are better, by and large. There are some exceptions, to be sure (Steel Batallion, for example), when you look at the face of it, Consoles tend to have a different focus when it comes to which of their games are really, really good. Name the best console games you've ever played. Chances are the vast majority of them will be Japanese Rails RPGs, Platformers, Fighting Games, Sports games, Beat-em-ups, DDR/GH style games, and so on.

But seriously, look at the difference between Halo PC and Halo X-Box, or Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat, or heck, Deus Ex 1 and Deus Ex 1: The Conspiracy. Or Rogue Squadron and Freespace, MechAssault and Mechwarrior 2-4.

Heck, I remember trying to play C&C 1 on the SNES. That was a nightmare.

Actually, I was lampooning the direction the thread had taken; I generally find 'console vs. pc' arguments to be pretty silly.

Look, I'm not trying to say that consoles are worthless, I'm just saying that if you look at the games that have been "shared" between PC and Console, by and large the PC versions or standalone games are better, by and large.

You're ranting against subpar ports, not consoles.

Hotfoot wrote: Starcraft is not the most uber RTS of all time,

No, but the number of significant design improvements since it can be counted on one hand. There's been no other game that's managed quite such a fine balance of units and forces, whilst having the feel of playing the different sides be so different, the only real movement forwards has been in resource management and the attempt to remove onerous micromanagement. There's a reason that Blizzard are still fully supporting it with patches and fixes, whilst support for even much more recent games is halted after only a few years.

There might be games that are better than Starcraft in some areas, but no-one has put everything together better. (not even Blizzard, Battles in War3 are too predicated on the correct use of hero units).

and the only rival to PC-RPGs was KOTOR, which was for both console and PC.

The trouble here is that KOTOR is also the only rival to PC RPGs on the PC. Black Isle have died and the only people that might take up their mantle are Bethesda, and that's if they can get FO3 right. The best western RPG since Baldur's Gate II has been Jade Empire. (hell, KOTOR isn't even as good as BGII, it's more on par with the original BG, the character balance is broken, the game design allows you to create an unwinnable endgame because of the stupid last boss, the minigames are shit, and the whole thing degenerates into a scavenger hunt for star maps for most of the game)

Bounty wrote:

Look, I'm not trying to say that consoles are worthless, I'm just saying that if you look at the games that have been "shared" between PC and Console, by and large the PC versions or standalone games are better, by and large.

You're ranting against subpar ports, not consoles.

O Rly?

So why don't you show me a FPS, RTS, TBS, or Simulation game that is on console AND PC and is identical in functionality, level sizes, and so on.

Otherwise, I have a very long list of shared games that get gimped when they are brought to console, sometimes even when the development wasn't even a port, but rather co-development.

I understand it may take a while. That's cool, I'm willing to wait, but ask yourself this: if 90% of the games shared between console and PC are better on the PC, what conclusion should you draw?

A. 90% of the console versions are shitty ports, even if the game wasn't a port, but rather part of a co-development project.
B. 90% of the games are poorly suited to the technology of the console (too little memory, bad controls, etc.)

Since we know, for a fact, that consoles tend to lag behind PCs, it's not a leap to imagine B could be possible. To assume that A is likely, however, we have to assume gross negligence on behalf of the programmers.

If it just so happens that the remaining 10% are games that ran well on a console and were ported to the PC well, that just further hammers home the point.

Vendetta wrote:No, but the number of significant design improvements since it can be counted on one hand. There's been no other game that's managed quite such a fine balance of units and forces, whilst having the feel of playing the different sides be so different, the only real movement forwards has been in resource management and the attempt to remove onerous micromanagement. There's a reason that Blizzard are still fully supporting it with patches and fixes, whilst support for even much more recent games is halted after only a few years.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of horse shit. To start with, the first RTS game to include vastly different sides was Command and Conquer.

Let's review, shall we? Homeworld gave us a game with full 3D movement. That's a pretty damn huge step forward. Ground Control removed base building and economy management, instead focusing on, you know, fighting. Oh, and it had fully three-dimensional terrain, artillery, and a few other fun features. Total War's RTS engine gave us huge numbers of units on screen at the same time and fully 3D environments with, you know, cover, height advantages, and so on. Total Annihilation gave us weapons that fired beyond the fog of war, truly devestating nukes, and queues without limit, and oh yeah, unlimited resources.

Want more? Okay, Dawn of War and Homeworld 2 helped bring multiple units as one unit into the fold. Conquest: Frontier Wars allowed you to activate multiple special abilities with a fleet of mixed units with just one screen and introduced an interesting island hopping element to the game. Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising had a command menu that was based on the location of the keys on the keyboard, instead of some arbitrary shortcut command menu. Both Hostile Waters and Battlezone allowed the player to command from the front lines as a unit in the army they built. Remote Assault had near-programmable AI configurations allowing for incredible amounts of micromanagement from the touch of a button. Nexus: The Jupiter Incident brought in a new level of unit management detail to the table. Earth: 2150 had fully customizable units.

But hey, just keep telling yourself that no RTS has ever added anything significant before or after Starcraft. I'm sure if you say it often enough you'll start thinking there is some truth to it.

There might be games that are better than Starcraft in some areas, but no-one has put everything together better. (not even Blizzard, Battles in War3 are too predicated on the correct use of hero units).

So all something has to do is have races that are different and distinct, and it's a better game than Starcraft? How about Homeworld: Cataclysm or Homeworld 2? How about Ground Control? How about Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 or any other Command and Conquer game? I mean, when you say everything, what are you talking about? The fact that Blizzard still makes patches? All that tells me is that Blizzard is very dedicated to supporting their game lines, not that it's necessarily a wonderful game.

The trouble here is that KOTOR is also the only rival to PC RPGs on the PC. Black Isle have died and the only people that might take up their mantle are Bethesda, and that's if they can get FO3 right. The best western RPG since Baldur's Gate II has been Jade Empire. (hell, KOTOR isn't even as good as BGII, it's more on par with the original BG, the character balance is broken, the game design allows you to create an unwinnable endgame because of the stupid last boss, the minigames are shit, and the whole thing degenerates into a scavenger hunt for star maps for most of the game)

Hey, if you want to pick apart games, I have a rant about a mile long about BG (1 and 2) dealing with a ton of things I had problems with. The point is that Japanese RPGs, for the most part, are more about telling you a story, while western RPGs are more about letting you experience a story as a character inside of it. While there hasn't been a major release, various RPGs of that nature have been released since then by smaller companies (not that you'd see something like that very often for consoles, of course).

But barring that, let's remember, KOTOR was the first RPG of its type available for console. Baldur's Gate never made it to the console (no, Dark Alliance does not count, it's not the same game). So, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate are games PC owners can lord them over console owners. Why you even bothered to make that point is beyond me, but hey, I guess when you're supporting a losing position, you've got to scrape for whatever you can get. Slowly, console RPGs are starting to pick up (largely because Microsoft has been whoring Bioware as much as it possibly can to keep up with Square/Enix).

Hotfoot wrote:I'm sorry, but that's a load of horse shit. To start with, the first RTS game to include vastly different sides was Command and Conquer.

Which has what to do with the fact that Starcraft did it better, and no-one has, to date, surpassed it in unit balance.

Let's review, shall we? Homeworld gave us a game with full 3D movement.

But had sides with largely cosmetic differences and tactics that boiled down to building a bigger hammer than your opponent. It was a step forward in some ways, a step back in others.

Total War's RTS engine gave us huge numbers of units on screen at the same time and fully 3D environments with, you know, cover, height advantages, and so on.

But has a largely braindead AI that can be beaten with remedial tactics.

Total Annihilation gave us weapons that fired beyond the fog of war, truly devestating nukes, and queues without limit, and oh yeah, unlimited resources.

It also gave us about a hundred units we were never going to use, and was susceptible to rush based gaming (especially a Flash rush)

It's also interesting that many of the games you've cited (Homeworld, Ground Control, Total War), barring Earth 2150 (not the first with fully customisable units, ever play Warzone 2100?), are going on for six years old. And still, they're a niche within a niche today. If relic announced "World of Homeworld" as their new MMORPG, we wouldn't all be swimming to work in gamer jizz.

The fact that Blizzard still makes patches? All that tells me is that Blizzard is very dedicated to supporting their game lines, not that it's necessarily a wonderful game.

No, what it means is that there are still enough people playing it regularly to make continued support worthwhile.

So, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate are games PC owners can lord them over console owners. Why you even bothered to make that point is beyond me,

The point is that no-one is making these games any more. Except Bioware, and they develop equally for PC and console these days. The thread, remember, and the point within it, is about games you missed. You don't miss anything in these genres, because you've seen it all six years ago!

Nobody is going to disagree that Starcraft has three well-balanced teams. However, saying it's the last great milestone in RTS development is just mindboggling, and your replies to Hotfoot simply show that you're arguing from taste. I fucking HATE Starcraft: it's a fanboyish, uninspired game with a terrible scripted SP campaign and 'rush lol' multiplayer tactics. I can still see that it was well balanced for it's time without putting it on some absurd pedestal.

Frankly, your complaints are absurd. You claim Starcraft did different teams 'better' with no evidence other than opinion. You claim HW2 boiled down to 'more=win', JUST LIKE STARCRAFT. You claim Total War has a terrible strategic AI, even though Starcraft has ZERO strategic AI and is only a challenge when CHEATING IT'S ASS OFF. I'm not sure how this demonstrates Starcraft superiority. You then connect this to your other unrelated argument! Should I point out that I made this thread because I found wierdass PC games I'd *never heard of* years after they left the bargain bin, and they're excellent? Here I am wanting to find out about wierdass, probably niche or Eastern European games, and everyone's crying on about Starcraft and RTSes.

Vendetta wrote:Which has what to do with the fact that Starcraft did it better, and no-one has, to date, surpassed it in unit balance.

Okay, so now you're claiming that refinements are important, when before you railed on other RTS games for only doing just that? We call that a double standard, and since when was unit balance the most integral feature to an RTS, and if the balance was so often, HOW COME THEY CHANGE IT EVERY PATCH?

Yeah, you heard me. Listening to feedback about balance is not the same as getting it right the first time, and you can't seriously look at Starcraft at release and tell me everything is perfectly balanced.

But had sides with largely cosmetic differences and tactics that boiled down to building a bigger hammer than your opponent. It was a step forward in some ways, a step back in others.

Hey, guess who never seriously played HW online! I suppose the number of guns, relative power, facing, armor, and so on really didn't mean anything. After all, it's just cosmetic, right? But hey, let's not forget that fighters remain not just viable, but integral to many builds throughout the game. No, that's not balanced at all. Not that you would know, you spend all your time playing Starcraft and making strawmen about other games.

But has a largely braindead AI that can be beaten with remedial tactics.

As opposed to AI that cheats to be unbeatable? Oh, I guess you forgot Total War's RTS element could be played online. Don't worry, I'm sure there's LOTS you don't know about the games you're trashing, but that's okay, because I at least have an idea of what I'm talking about.

It also gave us about a hundred units we were never going to use, and was susceptible to rush based gaming (especially a Flash rush)

Ahem. ZERGLING RUSH!!!!!! Okay, sure, the game had some useless units, but you could always remove them from the game to make it less of a hassle. Meanwhile, I don't know too many people who make Goliaths or Lurkers in most games of Starcraft, but hey, I could be wrong. Maybe someone uses them...sometimes. Somewhere. On Mars.

It's also interesting that many of the games you've cited (Homeworld, Ground Control, Total War), barring Earth 2150 (not the first with fully customisable units, ever play Warzone 2100?), are going on for six years old. And still, they're a niche within a niche today. If relic announced "World of Homeworld" as their new MMORPG, we wouldn't all be swimming to work in gamer jizz.

Oh look, all of them have had recent sequels, jackass. Funny how the game you're citing is even older, and thus everything I listed came AFTER Starcraft, which ruins your position that no game since Starcraft has done anything significant for the genre. Oh, and nice appeal to popularity. That'll win you lots of points here. Remember that just because a game is popular doesn't make it amazingly good. If you want to start judging games by sales, you'd better bend over for the Sims or Deer Hunter. So let's go back to the point of features and quality, shall we? Oh, and thank you for correcting me, I did mean Warzone 2100, I was incorrect in citing Earth 2150. I have been working largely from memory for this.

No, what it means is that there are still enough people playing it regularly to make continued support worthwhile.

It's worthwhile only because they decided to make it worthwhile. The only way they get any money from people still playing is if someone clicks an advertisement on battle.net. The primary purpose is that it keeps their existing fanbase happy and maybe encourages them to play the new games by Blizzard, but not until they patch it up so it's balanced. Until then, play Starcraft, which is finally balanced after eight years! For real this time!

By the way, what does it tell you about the balance if it's eight years after the game came out and they're STILL fixing it?

The point is that no-one is making these games any more. Except Bioware, and they develop equally for PC and console these days. The thread, remember, and the point within it, is about games you missed. You don't miss anything in these genres, because you've seen it all six years ago!

Hello McFly! Games you've missed INCLUDES GAMES THAT WERE RELEASED OVER SIX YEARS AGO. Have you seen the number of people in this thread bemoaning that they've not played Planescape: Torment? This thread includes as part of the very concept games that you missed out on years ago. But hey, far be it from you to completely miss the point.

It's cool though, I know how it is. You're probably playing Starcraft while you're posting, so it's easy to get distracted. I know I'm less of a person because while I was typing this, you pwned twelve little nublets on Battle.net who didn't even know to build two barracks as a part of their strat's build order.

Seriously, Starcraft was a good game, especially for the time, but to claim it was the best there ever was and ever will be is utter lunacy.

In an attempt to get this thread back on topic, I'll mention a game or two that I missed and wished I could have played. System Shock 1, Wing Commander: Prophecy (which I actually snagged at a bargain bin but haven't been able to get working), Blade Runner (the adventure game that randomized every time you played). I always wanted to play X2-X3, and BCM/Galactic Combat, but I could never actually bring myself to buy them and give them a shot, because the reveiws were hideous and I was short on cash and money. On the console end, I always wanted to get Steel Battallion, but I could never justify the cost of the console and the controller.

Hey Flash had that Blade Runner game. I'm rubbish at adventure games (seriously, Sam and Max was too hard for me ) but it was pretty neat how the storyline changed each time.

PS, if anyone has any idea how to get Europa 1400: the Guild mulitplayer working, now is the time. Flash and I can connect, but the joiner gets stuck on the load screen. The Diplomacy-style play would absolutely rule in multi, so I'm eager to get it working if possible. No, I don't want to wait for the Guild 2, which will doubtless suck.

Vendetta wrote:Which has what to do with the fact that Starcraft did it better, and no-one has, to date, surpassed it in unit balance.

Right. Because spamming hydralisks is balance. The three sides were very equal, but you know, statistically Dawn of War has balanced five sides within 1 percent in win/loss rates across tens of thousands of games. But no, go on believing what you will.

Let's review, shall we? Homeworld gave us a game with full 3D movement.

But had sides with largely cosmetic differences and tactics that boiled down to building a bigger hammer than your opponent. It was a step forward in some ways, a step back in others.

Yes, because bigger always means better. That's why it's always better to attack an enemy bomber formation with a battlecruiser. (sagenod)

You know, you have not addressed how inherently more interesting 3D movement was, using our 2D habits to spring attacks, or engage each other in a truely unique RTS surpassed only by it's sequels in this manner?

Total War's RTS engine gave us huge numbers of units on screen at the same time and fully 3D environments with, you know, cover, height advantages, and so on.

But has a largely braindead AI that can be beaten with remedial tactics.

...and yes, Starcraft's skirmish AI is sooo brilliant?

Total Annihilation gave us weapons that fired beyond the fog of war, truly devestating nukes, and queues without limit, and oh yeah, unlimited resources.

It also gave us about a hundred units we were never going to use, and was susceptible to rush based gaming (especially a Flash rush)

Every unit had a use. Nobody was forcing you to use every one, every game. That's better than a game where your forces were more or less expected, with rock-paper-scissors balance so hideously scripted in it wasn't funny. Take a look. Oh no, zerglings! Firebat time! Done. Oh no! Firebats! Hydralisk Time!

It's also interesting that many of the games you've cited (Homeworld, Ground Control, Total War), barring Earth 2150 (not the first with fully customisable units, ever play Warzone 2100?), are going on for six years old. And still, they're a niche within a niche today. If relic announced "World of Homeworld" as their new MMORPG, we wouldn't all be swimming to work in gamer jizz.

World of Homeworld? That's Eve.

Again, you're appealing to Starcraft's popularity as somehow being a measure of it being better than other things. It certainly was good, but people as a whole have no fucking taste.

The fact that Blizzard still makes patches? All that tells me is that Blizzard is very dedicated to supporting their game lines, not that it's necessarily a wonderful game.

No, what it means is that there are still enough people playing it regularly to make continued support worthwhile.

Yes. It's commendable that a company continue supporting their products. But does that inherently improve on a game's model?

So, Icewind Dale, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate are games PC owners can lord them over console owners. Why you even bothered to make that point is beyond me,

The point is that no-one is making these games any more. Except Bioware, and they develop equally for PC and console these days. The thread, remember, and the point within it, is about games you missed. You don't miss anything in these genres, because you've seen it all six years ago!

And does that make them any less good? Is 'Episode 1 Jedi Starfighter' a better game than Wing Commander 1-4, because it came later? This is a completely irrellevant point of yours.

I object. Starcraft is not about spamming. Every gosu player knows it's about the micro .

Honestly though the rock paper sissor thing might be great, but it gets boring after awhile and the only thing left to do is map all the keys to the left of your keyboard so you click faster and practise clicking faster and faster until you hit two hundred actions a minute (moving a unit's three or four so it's not that many) and you retreat your weakened units before they die. It becomes more an action game than anything because the macromanagement you nail down in a couple days because of the simplistic technology tree. And the double-jointed agile Koreans kick ass, because they click faster. Horray!

Brian

On Starcraft:

Check out some of the games on www.battlereports.com, or anywhere else where good players gather. Zergling rushes only beat brand new players, massing pure hydras is suicide, and tons of people use units like goliaths, vultures, ghosts, lurkers, etc. Other units actually are rare, like arbiters or ultralisks, but that's because they are rarely cost effective. They're still used with devestating results in some great games.

Thoughts on Starcraft more generally. I do feel that StarCraft is the greatest game I ever played, but I recognize that it's an opinion. Just a few things that I really liked:
-It was simple yet complex. Any idiot could get started, but great players thought of huge numbers of strategies.
-It balanced micromanagement and macromanagement. I noticed someone above trashing micro as "onerous," but I think that's a little one-sided. You might not enjoy micomanagement, but it's a key skill in many RTSes. Likewise, I feel that games like WarCraft III underemphasize macromanagement, with a low unit cap and focus on single battles with heroes. In Starcraft, the best players can expand while fighting a huge battle in the center of the map while dropping units in the emeny's expansion while cranking a new army at home. Of course, you don't need to be able to do all of that at once to win a lot of games. But it's damn impressive to see the guys who can do it all.
-I liked the three unique races and the specific *way* they were balanced. Many games use a rock-paper-scissors formula, but too many of them are like Age of Empires, which is infanty>ranged>cavalry. Which is realistic, but consistent across all cultures and therefore boring (to me). In StarCraft, any strategy you use has between one and three counters for each race, and no two are quite alike.

On the actual subject of the thread:

Bungie's Myth games. I picked up Myth II years after it came out, and I loved the small tactical battles, the lack of base management, the 3-D engine, and the ability to carry veterans over from one mission to the next. Myth and Myth II also had decent single player plots. (I never did hear anything about or play Myth III.) And let's not forget the way body parts went flying when those dwarves tossed their bombs!