TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- BioShock (The Film)!
Pages (3): « 1 2 [3]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thanks for giving us immediate warning that you don't know the first thing about games.

Well supreme commander isn't exactly the most accessable game. So no need to get all defensive. It's like the eurodance fan saying techno is crap...

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN thanks for giving us immediate warning that you don't know the first thing about games.

Quite defensive aren�t we? I said it was imho, not that it was fact. What I do consider good RTS include the war/starcraft series, red alert/C&C, DoW and (probably not an actual rts) RTW

edit: forgot Age of Empires 1/2

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo Quite defensive aren�t we?

not at all, i would consider my original post as offensive.

i don't care what your tastes in games are, if you reckon supcom is one of the worst RTS titles there is, you're not worth listening to. its that simple.

i still havnt played the game but i hear its tits.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN not at all, i would consider my original post as offensive. i don't care what your tastes in games are, if you reckon supcom is one of the worst RTS titles there is, you're not worth listening to. its that simple.

Ok, maybe I didnt put it in the right words. I think it is bad, and compared to some others it is not good, however there are ofcause worse RTS games..

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo Ok, maybe I didnt put it in the right words. I think it is bad, and compared to some others it is not good, however there are ofcause worse RTS games..

im sorry, but that's the wrong answer.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry, but that's the wrong answer.

Well then tell us since its clear you know just how great the game is

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo Well then tell us since its clear you know just how great the game is

for those in the cheap seats that missed this the first, second, or third time around. im back with a repeat. yee-har!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN What makes this the epitome of RTS strategy games? tactical and strategic depth The most important criteria for ANY strategy game. How many ways are there to win? How many different strategies does the game allow for and reward? With the scope of the game and the sheer number of versatile and diverse units, FA offers more depth than any other RTS. Include in this all the different strategic buildings and you have a wealth of play styles, and a wealth of tactical options. For instance: Let's say you are being harassed by a Tier (T) 1 bomber. What can you use to counter it? You have: T1/T2/T3 fighters. T1/T2 Anti Air (AA) ground units. T1/T2/T3 static AA defenses. And 2-4 naval units that come equipped with AA defenses. that's 10-14 different units to combat that particular unit. No other game allows for such versatility. Sure some are better than others (as you would want and expect) but that's the strategy- what are your goals going into the mission and how do you achieve that goal with the units you have at your disposal? there are simply a million different ways to play with the combination of units. No other RTS has the same freedom, especially since they all use "hard counters" of 1 or 2 units. simulation It is rare to find an RTS that is a simulation, indeed the only other big name is total annihilation (I know there is one other but I do not know the name of it). never EVER underestimate the gains in gameplay dynamics that you receive from playing a simulation. If someone doubts the veracity of the argument that a simulation improves gameplay, they simply do not understand how much of a difference it really makes. If your aircraft flies too close to artillery, there is a (small) chance it could get taken out by a shell intended for somewhere else on the map. I saw an amusing video recently where a player flew his fighters too close to his flying experimental unit, and when the experimental fired, it managed to hit half his supporting fighters- you simply cannot get this type of dynamic in the purely maths-based rules you find in all other games. If units walk in front of other units they will get hit instead of the unit that is now behind. What does this all mean? DYNAMIC battles. They are unpredictable. There is no more "oh I have 5 footmen he has 4 grunts, im going to lose". A unit might simply be microed behind a legde so that unit X cannot fire on it. Not because there's an arbitrary rule stating "units in area of X get +50% to armour bonus" -unit X cannot be hit simply because there is something in the way. This allows for real strategy when placing buildings too. Put your static defenses in a "ditch" and artillery will have a harder time hitting it, again, not because of any bullshit rules. Bubble shields are great for protecting those IN the bubble, but ALSO those that are stationed BEHIND the bubble, because enemies firing at them will hit the bubble first. You cant get that kind of dynamic without a simulation. This also changes balance. Any unit that can hit any other unit will hit that unit, no penalty! There are no silly rules to remember "oh, magic does extra damage to heavy armour". What this means is that you don't get ridiculous things happening, like in empire at war where an ATAT had been coded to be useless against ground troops. I mean, we all saw them tear humans up in empire strikes back didn�t we? It means enough of unit X will beat unit Y, no matter how powerful. This adds to tactical variety "oh, he's got that super duper unit, but if I mass enough of my average unit I might just get over the top of him". It allows for artillery to be useless against units, as well as being AWESOME againt units AND buildings. How? Simple. Artillery projectiles are relatively slow, meaning a good player can micro his troops out of the way. BUT, if the artillery still manages to hit, then it does its full, regular damage. No need for bonus damage against buildings and reduced damage to units. It just happened NATURALLY and fluidly, and again, makes sense!!! It means real tactics come into play and you get real rewards- forcing a well-executed pincer on an opponent works because dynamically. Again, there are no "if you execute a pincer you get +50% to attack rolls", it works because you have come into behind (or to the side) of an opponent, and it takes valuable time for the unit's TURRET and/or DIRECTION to shift to face the new threat. It means that if a group of units such as aircraft retreat, they can no longer fire on you because their turret's rotation is limited. Again, all of this rewards a player that can use their troops well, and makes it more of a its how you use your units rather than what units you have moreso than any other RTS available. freedom This kind of ties in with the other two topics, but what the hell. Because of its rich tactical nature and the fact that it is a simulation, there are no hard and fast rules to victory. In many other RTS's its all about buildings heaps of troops and sending them to your opponents base. Repeat. But in FA you really need to be aware and prepared for anything. Tactical missile strikes, hidden bases behind your lines of defense, troop drops behind enemy lines, stealthed fighter-bombers, mobile bombs, navy bombardment, having your bases captured and used against you, amphibious units sneaking up on you unprotected etc etc etc. I have watched dozens of replays and I rarely see the same tactics twice. Thus intel plays more of a role than any other game that has come before, which is cool because you then have to worry about jamming, stealth, and cloaking! If you lose the information war you'll probably lose the game. Again, this really rewards sound strategy. The diversity of all the new units makes play really interesting, and adds more to the tactical depth and the freedom of how you choose to play. If you found map control unimportant in supcom, you will be VERY pleased with how important map control is in forged alliance. It means you are fighting over the entire map for the majority of the game! The action is better than anything ive played or seen. Hundreds and hundreds of versatile, diverse units all shooting the shit out of each other. And because there's no bullshit hard-counter rules, it is MUCH more satisfying. build templates Ok, this might not appeal to some but I think it is fantastic. Load a sandbox game (testing to just play with yourself). Build any combination of structures. Save. Load a multiplayer game and BINGO! There's your saved group of structures ready to be built in the order you originally built them. no more fucking around in your base building economy or defenses. You simply load a saved template and you're away! I love this because it really allows for some creative, sexy & functional base designs and forward firebases without you having to spend the time designing them!! It saves SO much time! And that's more time you get for moving your troops around. Nobody says you have to like FA more than other titles in the RTS genre, but I am simply stating that FA is easily the best in the categories I have briefly outlined. Tactical/strategic depth, simulation & freedom are the most important aspects of a strategy title however, and there can be no argument that FA wins hands down in these departments. Make no mistake, FA is the strategy title for adults that want as much freedom from their gameplay as possible. And gameplay > all. Pick up the standalone expansion for about $30US and try it for yourself. 5 massive massive armies out of 5

quote:

Originally posted by saluyamo 1 of the worst RTS games out there. Also Crysis or STALKER are imho better than Bioshock

STALKER was based on a Novella/Movie FYI

From all accounts, Bioshock was just a dumbed-down version of System Shock with killer graphics. Having played System Shock, I concur.

quote:

Originally posted by beema STALKER was based on a Novella/Movie FYI From all accounts, Bioshock was just a dumbed-down version of System Shock with killer graphics. Having played System Shock, I concur.

some of you people need an imagination. bioshock's gameplay certainly wasn't anything exceptional but that was only half the game. the art design and polish and atmosphere were as good as you'll see in any game ever made. bioshock is the perfect example of a game that represents serious artistic endeavour. im still amazed that a bunch of coders could bring a world to us with such vivid personality. to be fair though i could never play system shock very well coz it ran like crap on my machine :/

STALKER was a great game too, but suffered from many bugs, awful weapon dynamics, average outdoor graphics, too much text, and virtually no polish at all.

yummy yum yum

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN halflife wasn't nearly as engrossing or immersive or atmospheric, and the storyline sucked. it also doesn't possess nearly as much style and attention to detail. HL2 had a few missions like "the buggy mission", "the lion bug mission" and some nice physics. terrible storyline, boring gunplay, and those stupid fucking critters through the whole freakin game- you're gonna accuse the big daddies of being tedious? ha. please feel free to mention the "many" other games that "top this by a mile".

Are you fukin joking!?.. I think HalfLife is arguably one of the few games where you actually feel as though you are progressing through a story, the flow from one level to the next was unnoticable. BioShock, is go here do that, do this level then move on to here where this character might be - Its completly basic.

The original Metal Gear Solid, DeusEx, the original ResidentEvil, FF7, Doom3, shit all over this.

Like I said previously - its a good game and playable, but I think people got far to carried away, Agreed.. It does off some originality, but its laughable how basic some of the elements are.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN some of you people need an imagination. bioshock's gameplay certainly wasn't anything exceptional but that was only half the game. the art design and polish and atmosphere were as good as you'll see in any game ever made. bioshock is the perfect example of a game that represents serious artistic endeavour. im still amazed that a bunch of coders could bring a world to us with such vivid personality. to be fair though i could never play system shock very well coz it ran like crap on my machine :/ STALKER was a great game too, but suffered from many bugs, awful weapon dynamics, average outdoor graphics, too much text, and virtually no polish at all.

like you said in your opening statment
'bioshock's gameplay certainly wasn't anything exceptional'
Where as other games with all the secondary qualities mentioned have far superior gameplay.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday I think HalfLife is arguably one of the few games where you actually feel as though you are progressing through a story,

what fucking story? HL2 didn't even have one.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday the flow from one level to the next was unnoticable.

yeah, unnoticeable. unless of course you have half a brain and could see the map load points a mile away.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday BioShock, is go here do that, do this level then move on to here where this character might be - Its completly basic.

well, if you CHOSE to play it that way that's your fault. HL2's levels were completely linear. bioschock, you could run around anywhere you wanted and do mostly whatever you wanted until you decided to focus on progressing the story. HL2 was absolutely no different to any other shooter, except that it didn't have "levels".

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday The original Metal Gear Solid, DeusEx, the original ResidentEvil, FF7, Doom3, shit all over this.

i dont know why you'd include MGS, RE or FF7 in this comparion. stalker, deus ex and doom 3 are obviously comparison material.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday Like I said previously - its a good game and playable, but I think people got far to carried away, Agreed.. It does off some originality, but its laughable how basic some of the elements are.

we got far too carried away because we obviously saw things you didn't. there isnt a game i have played with better atmosphere and art design and ambience than bioshock. there is so much in that game to take in, it is easily missed by those treating it as just another shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by chrisday Where as other games with all the secondary qualities mentioned have far superior gameplay

wrong. where was doom 3's "superior gameplay" ?? doom succeeded simply because of its atmosphere. gameplay is terribly important of course, but sometimes it can take a backseat to the sheer experience of trudging through an incredibly atmospheric or beautifully designed sunken city or base on mars. asides from HL2's physics i didnt see how the gameplay was especially innovative. indeed i found some of it gimmicky and cheesy like a console arcade game.

bioshock was art.

I think we can all safely say:
Deus Ex > *

Half life 2 didn't have a story? What are you on? Theres nothing wrong with a linear game if done well... which half life 2 was.

quote:

Originally posted by Darkarbiter Half life 2 didn't have a story? What are you on? Theres nothing wrong with a linear game if done well... which half life 2 was.

Apart from "oooh, there's an evil oppressive government�the end".

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Apart from "oooh, there's an evil oppressive government�the end".

Maybe it has a bad story but it certainly has a story. There were plenty of other characters and stuff as well.

Bioshock imo felt so contained, it often felt like there were 8 levels. I'm obviously missing something here, because all I see is someone telling me to go to this point, get there.. oh and now I get to this point, and guess what on to the next point. I don't know if you understand what i'm on about.. collect this part to make this, oh and guess what I have to go all the way back through the same environment, only to be attacked by spawning enemies.... Its just completly unoriginal.

Half life felt as though you were progressing all the way through the game, with twists and turns carrying the story through, just because it was a basic story didnt mean it was a bad one.

{ please feel free to mention the "many" other games that "top this by a mile" }

Pretty sure you mentioned the word 'games' there... I just find it laughable how critics and gamers can compare this to other top titles which achieve so much more.

Bioshock looked fantastic, I totally agree it should do.. its on the latest consoles. I guarantee halflife looked just as good and created the same kind of atmosphere TEN years ago.

Innovative.. Do you mean telekenisis ripping off the gravity gun?? Do you mean that kind of innovative....

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.