Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
my shitty skills are probably still better than yours, and knowing RTS's arent my strongpoint doesn't make me a scrub either, halfwit.
- wrong. you are garbage at probably anything, thats okay, you'll get better eventually, practice makes perfect what is your strong game then sir? eating dicks? tell me what your strong point is in..
quote:
and yet IGN still gave it 90%. gee, you got me there, dickhead. what else did they have to say?
- k but i dont know and care but i was only pointing out that a major flaw and drawback of the game is the fucking complexity of taking care of resources. if they want to make it like that then do the route of the starcraft MACRO level management of resources. it looks sweet and the idea is awesome but the resources severely hinders the game.
quote:
im 6' 2" and 80Kg. fat boy?
- pretty fat tubbs.
quote:
oh please little boy. ive been gaming longer than you've been wasting oxygen. whichever games you might succeed over me at are few and far between.
why on earth would i start playing an inferior game again when its you that don't have the talent to play the latest generation of games?
- again, talking shit running his mouth but not providing any games to play. good stuff.
lol? playing the latest generation of games... what a joke. "supcom" is hardly anything to be bragging about, from what I saw in my skim reading, more of the same massive scale with SOME cool graphics. nice dude... really impressive. but just to name a few
WiC = got ranked 10th in Canada. stopped playing after that
CS:S = CAL-M team, stopped playing in that just the beginning of last year.
what other latest generation games did I dominate? oh Crysis.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-20-2008 23:03:
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
- k but i dont know and care but i was only pointing out that a major flaw and drawback of the game is the fucking complexity of taking care of resources. if they want to make it like that then do the route of the starcraft MACRO level management of resources. it looks sweet and the idea is awesome but the resources severely hinders the game.
its only a major flaw to little children that don't appreciate how awesome the economy model is. like you. too dumb to play. but that's ok, there's plenty of dumbed-down RTS's for you to play. like WiC or CnC3. run along little boy.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
lol? playing the latest generation of games... what a joke. "supcom" is hardly anything to be bragging about, from what I saw in my skim reading, more of the same massive scale with SOME cool graphics. nice dude... really impressive.
your knowledge of games and gaming is virtually non existant. supcom does things which virtually no other game does. ignorant clown.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
WiC = got ranked 10th in Canada. stopped playing after that
wow, but you can't manage to play supcom. you can tout your ability to play rock paper scissor real time tactics all you like. i still wont be impressed.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
CS:S = CAL-M team, stopped playing in that just the beginning of last year.
oooh, the game that people play when the rogue spear titles are too hard for them. your pares must be proud.
Posted by Darkarbiter on May-21-2008 03:01:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its only a major flaw to little children that don't appreciate how awesome the economy model is. like you. too dumb to play. but that's ok, there's plenty of dumbed-down RTS's for you to play. like WiC or CnC3. run along little boy.
Last I checked Supreme commander wasn't the next big thing to be played at pro level.
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
wow, but you can't manage to play supcom. you can tout your ability to play rock paper scissor real time tactics all you like. i still wont be impressed.
So your saying supreme commander is above "rock paper scissors"? If someone rushes and you defend it successfully their likely to be on a bad foot. No different to any other RTS no matter the amount of rocks and papers and scissors and how good they are v.s. each other. The importance of scouting or formation or micro may be different but it's hardly above rock paper scissors.
Fair enough that "I got ranked y in x fps competition" is a little off topic though.
Posted by r5a on May-21-2008 22:52:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
its only a major flaw to little children that don't appreciate how awesome the economy model is. like you. too dumb to play. but that's ok, there's plenty of dumbed-down RTS's for you to play. like WiC or CnC3. run along little boy.
retard, it's not only a major flaw to me thats why i posted the IGN and that other mag review because they noticed it to. and even in my post my friend who is an rts champ and played the previous noticed it. if they wanted to make a game where you have to really think about your $$ then go devlop a sim and not a cool looking would-be fun RTS.
quote:
your knowledge of games and gaming is virtually non existant. supcom does things which virtually no other game does. ignorant clown.
you base this on what? i have been gaming for years now and still do quite a bit so you might wanna rub your mouth with some bounty wipes cause your talking shit (again)
quote:
wow, but you can't manage to play supcom. you can tout your ability to play rock paper scissor real time tactics all you like. i still wont be impressed.
i died in laughter from this.
quote:
oooh, the game that people play when the rogue spear titles are too hard for them. your pares must be proud.
oooh the excuse everyone says when they get destoryed playing the game!
dont worry, keep on pratacting and you'll be a champ in no time! Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-21-2008 23:02:
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
retard, it's not only a major flaw to me thats why i posted the IGN and that other mag review because they noticed it to. and even in my post my friend who is an rts champ and played the previous noticed it. if they wanted to make a game where you have to really think about your $$ then go devlop a sim and not a cool looking would-be fun RTS.
wrong. they said it was complicated, not that this was an inherent problem. indeed its quite the opposite. it introduces a whole other level of strategy fool. so what you're saying is that your RTS champ friend found the game too hard? awwwww, poor children.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
oooh the excuse everyone says when they get destoryed playing the game!
no, proper reasoning from players that were into real tactical combat games before somebody decided to dumb it all down with CS for the 10 year olds to play. but you should certainly be proud that you could beat all the other 10 year olds. go you!
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-21-2008 23:04:
quote:
Originally posted by Darkarbiter
So your saying supreme commander is above "rock paper scissors"? If someone rushes and you defend it successfully their likely to be on a bad foot. No different to any other RTS no matter the amount of rocks and papers and scissors and how good they are v.s. each other. The importance of scouting or formation or micro may be different but it's hardly above rock paper scissors.
go look up the difference between hard and soft counters, and try and visualise the difference between a system with calculated ballistics VS an insta-hit system.
what it means is that the RPS system in supcom is far more dynamic and less predictable making the RPS far more subtle and the counters less "hard" if you will.
Posted by r5a on May-21-2008 23:34:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
wrong. they said it was complicated, not that this was an inherent problem. indeed its quite the opposite. it introduces a whole other level of strategy fool. so what you're saying is that your RTS champ friend found the game too hard? awwwww, poor children.
complication takes away from the game play = sometimes unfun to play = problematic.
but okay, let me summarize your whole "other level" of strategy which, mind you every RTS game has regardless.. one sits in there base (turtling) microing their engineers to make some power plants and mass extractors. then when you think your stable enough to maybe oh build 1 unit or a building, OH FUCK -200 we gotta CHILL THE FUCK OUT on building any sort of unit till we get an EVEN MORE stable system going on here, lets go back to turtling some more and hope for the best. = 20 minutes. = gay as fuck.
quote:
no, proper reasoning from players that were into real tactical combat games before somebody decided to dumb it all down with CS for the 10 year olds to play. but you should certainly be proud that you could beat all the other 10 year olds. go you!
... dumb it all down? son for as long as FPS games have been developed (date back to quake 1, and half life 1 back when CS was in ALPHA and not even played) it was all the same, and still is (minus a few things) there is no such thing as a real tactical combat game.
i remember playing lan games of Q1 and then a couple months later half life came out, and big surprise, instead of space we got a real world. cool. NICE, same half life 1 = Q1 with a few differences but follows the same formulaic FPS. good im glad we can agree, lets move forward in time.
cs comes around as a mod by a wonderful sir named Cliffe, and it does really well, changes a few things to Half life and viola. continue process of fixing and adding things. flash forward to today and what are we seeing? big surprise CS source an extension onto csc, cool. continue development till today.
while this is happening on the pc front this is happening with consoles as well. goldeneye on n64, diffrent shit same formulaic fps. awesome.
im really seeing a pattern of dumbing things down. OH WAIT. how is that possible when EVERY SINGLE FPS HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE SAME PATTERN AND PHILOSOPHY? oh shit, not even fps do that too. ITS ALL GENRES.
and your "high level" big brains series of rouge spear (which I played) is the exact same thing as an FPS. with of course the game attempt on trying to do something diffrenet, but hey! all games do that in their respective catagories. wc3 with heroes in RTS, cool. generals with the abilities. ect.
now, heres the REAL good part, your rouge spear series is hardly played. but if i look at the cs and cs source stats for # of players (a peak of 1.5 mil, take off the .5 for the random steam cames on there, you still got close to a mil people playing) vs your 5 people on rouge spear. i wonder what happened? hmm, maybe because adding completixy into games = problematic. oh but don't cry now, thankfully the devs are smart and they started focusing on the more 'normal' fps style with the Vegas series, and guess what, that is popular as shit.
so when your "challenging" game dies and nobody will play it because the devs fucked up with the way they designed the resources you can come back to playing real games and games that don't have serious flaws. just prey that supcom devs change things in patches... otherwise CYA SUPCOM.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-21-2008 23:45:
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
but okay, let me summarize your whole "other level" of strategy which, mind you every RTS game has regardless.. one sits in there base (turtling) microing their engineers to make some power plants and mass extractors. then when you think your stable enough to maybe oh build 1 unit or a building, OH FUCK -200 we gotta CHILL THE FUCK OUT on building any sort of unit till we get an EVEN MORE stable system going on here, lets go back to turtling some more and hope for the best. = 20 minutes. = gay as fuck.
hey, its not my fault you didn't learn how to make the game work properly. but yes, there were concerns which were fixed in the expansion, making things far more war-centric.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
now, heres the REAL good part, your rouge spear series is hardly played. but if i look at the cs and cs source stats for # of players (a peak of 1.5 mil, take off the .5 for the random steam cames on there, you still got close to a mil people playing) vs your 5 people on rouge spear. i wonder what happened? hmm, maybe because adding completixy into games = problematic. oh but don't cry now, thankfully the devs are smart and they started focusing on the more 'normal' fps style with the Vegas series, and guess what, that is popular as shit.
it never ceases to amuse me that people equate sales with quality. as if the harry potter books are better than lord of the rings. or pop music is better than EDM. indeed, there's a strong case to be made that the more popular something becomes the shittier it has to be, in some kind of bell-curve relationship obviously.
and man did the vegas series suck. Which is why it sold well. do you really think dumbing games down to ensure wider appeal is a good thing?
Posted by r5a on May-22-2008 00:13:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
hey, its not my fault you didn't learn how to make the game work properly. but yes, there were concerns which were fixed in the expansion, making things far more war-centric.
im going to have a lan with this thing and im going to upload the reply for you to show you that i didn't fuck up. and its just terrible.
quote:
it never ceases to amuse me that people equate sales with quality.
and man did the vegas series suck. Which is why it sold well. do you really think dumbing games down to ensure wider appeal is a good thing?
i didnt say sales, i said current number of people playing... obvously if the game has flaws and its not fun to play, people wont, hence people not playing, its not rocket science.
im not saying dumbing down games is a good thing. if you deviate from the formula thats been here for years, you better damn well sure it works well with playtests becasue will you will be failing.
but dont worry when the novelty wears off of this shitbag game you'll realize what a piece of crap it is and feel like a dipshit for talking shit over it but i get it, you think your cool to play random non "mainstream" shit that you think no-ones heard of becasue people dont play it but these things arent unheard of because they're "too hard" for "normal ppl" who arent "supreme commanders" like yourself but dont worry, keep on playing it to make yourself feel good and rock on that e-peen. truthfully, no-one plays these games because they suck ass and arent fun and dont have good competetive qualities for professional play
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 01:15:
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
im going to have a lan with this thing and im going to upload the reply for you to show you that i didn't fuck up. and its just terrible.
no need. i bought the original and i had no problems at all getting my economy running.
quote:
Originally posted by r5a
but dont worry when the novelty wears off of this shitbag game you'll realize what a piece of crap it is and feel like a dipshit for talking shit over it but i get it, you think your cool to play random non "mainstream" shit that you think no-ones heard of becasue people dont play it but these things arent unheard of because they're "too hard" for "normal ppl" who arent "supreme commanders" like yourself but dont worry, keep on playing it to make yourself feel good and rock on that e-peen. truthfully, no-one plays these games because they suck ass and arent fun and dont have good competetive qualities for professional play
wow, sentences are your friend. its also not a "novelty", it currently offers the deepest RTS experience. its chess with huge robots, and chess is awesome.
yeah, look so crap
Posted by Darkarbiter on May-22-2008 07:32:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
go look up the difference between hard and soft counters, and try and visualise the difference between a system with calculated ballistics VS an insta-hit system.
what it means is that the RPS system in supcom is far more dynamic and less predictable making the RPS far more subtle and the counters less "hard" if you will.
That just means more units get used in general and theres a bigger reliance on economy?
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 07:48:
quote:
Originally posted by Darkarbiter
That just means more units get used in general and theres a bigger reliance on economy?
*sighs* no, it means nothing of the sort.
Posted by Domesticated on May-22-2008 09:23:
pkc, I've watched you flog this game for months and months, yet kept my mouth shut, hoping you'd get the message yourself.
Calculated ballistics, soft counters, 407484747 units on screen at once.
NOT EVERYONE CARES.
When I get home from work the last thing I want to do is play something that stressful and engaging; I'd rather play internet checkers.
Yes, your game may be "better" in every sense of the word, but not everyone wants to play something that hardcore.
Posted by pkcRAISTLIN on May-22-2008 09:34:
quote:
Originally posted by Beat Blog
pkc, I've watched you flog this game for months and months, yet kept my mouth shut, hoping you'd get the message yourself.
Calculated ballistics, soft counters, 407484747 units on screen at once.
NOT EVERYONE CARES.
When I get home from work the last thing I want to do is play something that stressful and engaging; I'd rather play internet checkers.
Yes, your game may be "better" in every sense of the word, but not everyone wants to play something that hardcore.
right on every point. but im still not gonna shut up about it Posted by Domesticated on May-22-2008 10:16:
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
right on every point. but im still not gonna shut up about it
Actually, I do admit that this game sounds awesome.
If I had a good enough computer I'd play it.
When the mood strikes (usually on weekends) I can play hardcore games for 5-6 hours at a stretch, though that rarely happens anymore
Used to love Unreal Tournament.
Posted by aquila on May-22-2008 11:34:
Posted by Domesticated on May-22-2008 11:44:
Oh shit, that reminds me of one of the most fun games I've ever played.
If anyone can help me remember the name of it, I'd be much obliged.
It was a top-down 2d view, and you started in an island base with 3 tanks, 3 choppers and 3 jeeps.
Each map was a huge collection of small islands linked by bridges, and you had to drive/fly across the map and take out turrets and army men; no other objective other than to blast the enemy.
It was set in WWII I think, and I played it circa 1999, though I think it was a game from 1995-6?
It had a really simple name, like "flag", "tank" or "conquest".
Posted by lacksesepsotygh on May-22-2008 13:29:
no one mentioned the total war series yet? (didn't read the thread very detailed).
recs..
company of heroes
rome: total war
medivial 2: total war
world in conflict
command and conquer generals
Posted by Darkarbiter on Jun-06-2008 04:17:
quote:
Originally posted by lacksesepsotygh
no one mentioned the total war series yet? (didn't read the thread very detailed).
recs..
company of heroes
rome: total war
medivial 2: total war
world in conflict
command and conquer generals
Maybe because the campaign is a crock of shit and the units default units aren't terribly interesting/balanced. NTW2 and RTR however are great to play in multiplayer. The Europa universalis 3 campaign owns the total war campaign on every account except maybe atmosphere. The rare exception of the only actually decent campaign and AI is RTW:BI. MTW 1 is ok if you want something a little more simplistic and its probably the most atmospheric of any of the games in that little niche I can think of.
Posted by djdimensions on Jun-06-2008 05:05:
