|
Gamers Thread (pg. 14)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| sunrise3500 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mzvirbulis
man i love Flight Simulator 2004, cant get enough i want the next one to come out.
i love perfecting my ILS approach. |
:O
how big of a plane are you capable of landing on your own ?
I stuffed around a bit with it when it came out.. small planes are easy.. try like a 737 without all the visual aids it's like.... *oops* :)
IL2 (a ww2 flight sim) is pretty awesome too!!! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
i am not completely one-eyed but yes the game means a lot to me. you may have played your first RTS in 92 but how many have you played between then and c&c? and how many have you played since c&c? you may think its good but you can't deny the impact it had on the genre. |
im not denying its impact on the genre (but what half the world's children are playing is of little or no interest to me). and imo warcraft has played way more of a role in defining the RTS genre over the last decade or so.
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
the interface was so much better than dune 2 and warcraft. warcraft 1 had basically 1 race with 2 different colours! to be honest warcraft 2 didn't really increase the variety either. c&c had some of the same units on either side but they also had different units which needed different approaches. |
well, perhaps i didnt play either side far enough, but i never encountered these individual units, to me it was always a case of same units just with different sprites.
| quote: | Originally posted by Philby
i think your dislike of c&c stems from some recessed memory of a complete pwnage in multiplayer or something, you cannot be a gaming fan and especially an RTS fan and say you didn't like c&c. |
mwahahahaaha. firstly, i dont get owned by anyone. yeah, i get beaten from time to time. owned, no. and i didnt even have a network card when i played the first CnC so no it wasnt from getting beaten in MP. and that only make me try harder in case youre wondering ;)
i thought the units were boring. the maps were uninteresting. perhaps i didnt play enough of it to really get into it (like i said, only for a couple of weeks, i was only 16 when it came out) but you cant will yourself to love a turd. or house music. its just how it is. but im glad you loved it philby, and i would really enjoy the opportunity at owning you at a real RTS sometime :D |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
im not denying its impact on the genre (but what half the world's children are playing is of little or no interest to me). and imo warcraft has played way more of a role in defining the RTS genre over the last decade or so.
|
i love warcraft to bits too but i think the first two games compared to c&c and red alert may not have had a bigger role personally. clearly war2 had more character and better graphics, but i think from a gameplay perspective c&c offered more. the campaigns in war2 are basically exactly the same until you get halfway through. maybe the troops in c&c don't say cute funny things but then you don't see the footmen dropping down and doing pushups and cleaning their weapons.
| quote: |
well, perhaps i didnt play either side far enough, but i never encountered these individual units, to me it was always a case of same units just with different sprites. |
clearly you did not :D in warcraft you had your peasant/peon, knight/boar rider, footman/grunt, priest/warlock (i think? i can't remember war1 very well) etc etc. they were all the same, so theres your case of same unit/different sprite. in c&c the gdi had grenadiers, abrams tanks and hummers, nod had bazooka and flamethrower troops, light buggies and rocket bikes and smaller tanks, different strengths and weaknesses in different areas. if you sent 8 abrams and mammoth tanks up to an army of nod light tanks sure they would get whooped. but if you had some light tanks, some rocket bikes and bazooka troops you could outmaneuver (sp?) them and take them down suprisingly quickly. in warcraft your footmen and grunts hack at each other, your crossbows/spear throwers shoot at each other and your catapults bomb away. its like a mirror image. certainly not the case in c&c.
| quote: |
mwahahahaaha. firstly, i dont get owned by anyone. yeah, i get beaten from time to time. owned, no. and i didnt even have a network card when i played the first CnC so no it wasnt from getting beaten in MP. and that only make me try harder in case youre wondering ;)
|
i would like to challenge you one day :D when i played war2 against a mate in high school he told me he was pretty good and i should be careful, i only had very limited multiplayer experience then but i knew the different styles you needed compared to single player and promptly whooped his arse :D including one close match where my mate snatched defeat from the jaws of victory :haha: i never played starcraft or war3 enough on multiplayer, it was so hard getting good game speeds and i dont think i have the aggressive competitiveness required to dish out major pwnage hehe. especially trying to rush hehe. it got boring when every single game was on hunters omg super resources.
| quote: |
i thought the units were boring. the maps were uninteresting. perhaps i didnt play enough of it to really get into it (like i said, only for a couple of weeks, i was only 16 when it came out) but you cant will yourself to love a turd. or house music. its just how it is. but im glad you loved it philby, and i would really enjoy the opportunity at owning you at a real RTS sometime :D |
i never played c&c much in multiplayer (omg trying to set up dial up connections argh) but i think the single player maps and missions were certainly not uninteresting. i dont think the units were boring, but yes i know they didn't have the character of the warcraft units. whats a real RTS to you? give me some examples and i'll try and get them so we can have a game :)
as for house music
well even the best of us can sometimes stray towards the easy dark path ;) |
|
|
| batemanscott |
holy philby is pissed! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Go PHILBERNATOR !!!
i liked c&c. :( |
|
|
| Teflon_Teapot |
| i like angband the greatest game the world has ever known |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
well defended position philbs! :)
im really struggling to regain my memory of what irked me so much about the original game.
lol @
| quote: | | including one close match where my mate snatched defeat from the jaws of victory |
i have a friend just like that too!
the RTS' that have made an impact on me would be
herzog zwei (mega drive)
myth 2
warcraft 1,2,3 (and 3 remains the greatest of all time for me)
starcraft
shogun
dawn of war
battle for middle earth (and #2 looks awesome!)
and now, empire at war
like i said, generals wasnt too bad, but i guess i tend to lean towards the fantasy stuff a bit more. but you have admirably defended your game, perhaps the 16yo pkc shouldve pressed it a bit harder, but i just couldnt get into it.
frozen throne is just brilliant becoz it has such a gorgeous balance and so many different ways in which to play; i have never encountered a game with so many tactical options. |
|
|
| ONION |
RTS wise:
* Red Alert 2
* Yuris Revenge
* Generals + Expansion
* Age of Empires II & III
* Age of Mythology / Titans Expansion
* Warcraft 3
For me, its all got to do with balance of... units / resources / special abilities or upgrades... It doesnt matter how pretty the graphics are.. as long as the gameplay rawwwkz.
But in terms of strategy- Nothing beats playing UT in a duel against a top player |
|
|
| mzvirbulis |
| quote: | Originally posted by sunrise3500
:O
how big of a plane are you capable of landing on your own ?
I stuffed around a bit with it when it came out.. small planes are easy.. try like a 737 without all the visual aids it's like.... *oops* :)
IL2 (a ww2 flight sim) is pretty awesome too!!! |
yeah i got il2 also, great flight combat combat sim!
i like the smaller planes most times. king air is not bad. but is bloody noisy. |
|
|
| Philby |
| quote: | Originally posted by batemanscott
holy philby is pissed! :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:
Go PHILBERNATOR !!!
i liked c&c. :( |
haha
c&c holds a place dear in my heart :)
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well defended position philbs! :) |
why thank you. your are powerful in your arguments, but you are not a jedi yet.
| quote: |
the RTS' that have made an impact on me would be
herzog zwei (mega drive)
myth 2
warcraft 1,2,3 (and 3 remains the greatest of all time for me)
starcraft
shogun
dawn of war
battle for middle earth (and #2 looks awesome!)
and now, empire at war
like i said, generals wasnt too bad, but i guess i tend to lean towards the fantasy stuff a bit more. but you have admirably defended your game, perhaps the 16yo pkc shouldve pressed it a bit harder, but i just couldnt get into it.
frozen throne is just brilliant becoz it has such a gorgeous balance and so many different ways in which to play; i have never encountered a game with so many tactical options. |
i've only played warcraft, starcraft and dawn of war from that list :(
i love the warcraft series, especially the third one, i think for me it was a perfect balance between rpg elements and the traditional warcraft, but i think c&c had a bigger impact on me personally. as much as i love the fantasy stuff too i think i actually lean towards the semi-futuristic sort of realistic sort of sci-fi army kinda stuff. if that makes any sense. hehe.
im only about half way through the alliance missions i think in frozen throne, haven't played it for a while! im up to the one where you are on draenor and illidan is trying to close the extra portals or something, i cant remember. i love the design of the spell breaker unit, especially in the menu background picture. i don't get into it as deep as other people so when i read the balance updates in patches and stuff i generally have no idea why they are changing stuff hehe.
wanna game some time? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ONION
But in terms of strategy- Nothing beats playing Q3 in a duel against a top player |
fixed :p |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
lord of the rings: battle for middle earth 2
firstly, its a massive improvement on the original. lots of gameplay fixes to make everything work that much better. units do what you tell them to do in an intelligent fashion, and do it quickly rather than getting into formation which could take ages and miss the moment. you can build wherever you like now, and you can build your own custom walls! i love building castles i must admit ;)
there are now 6 races, and all seem to be nicely different but designed in such a way as to being able to jump from one to the next without too much hassle.
formations now work 100% better and dont take any time to set up, and theyve removed the option of joining troop types together which was a bit redundant in the original. you can now tell troops to move to a location and specify the formation of your entire army, much like shogun or (i assume) rome total war. saves the hassle of getting those archers stuck in front!
theres an option to create your own character heroes, so needless to say i was smashing things with my very own raistlin last night :) the game keeps track of your hero and their achievements which is a nice addition. capturing gollem in each map and returning the ring to your castle allows an extra hero. nothing exciting but something a little new and different which i always applaud.
the negatives are mainly personal preference issues that i wouldve thought youd include. maybe in a further patch... if you group 2 or more different unit types into a command group you cant switch between the 2 in any way without individually selecting each unit on the battlefield. in warcraft they had a wonderful tab system to cycle thru each unit type, and even in dawn of war the icon for each unit would come up in the command bar. this can be frustrating if youre trying to purchase upgrades in the midst of battle. theres no fast-forward option in replay mode, so you have to sit thru a replay in real time. fvcking stupid. again, there isnt any real way of knowing how much of an improvement the upgrades give you, so when youre trying to choose when you have limited $$ its a bit hard to know what to do. all this stuff like this is really simple to include so i get pretty pissed when its not.
theres a risk styled campaign mode which i havent touched yet but looks intriguiing. ive actually only played skirmish and multiplayer skirmish coz the single player doesnt interest me, but the multiplayer is excellent. much more manageable than the original, though still an ask when you have a load of troops. but thats the nature of the beast i guess. the rock-paper-scissor system is more much effectively and sensibly implemented than star wars: empire at war and i certainly think LOTR is the better of the two (at this early stage).
graphics (especially) and sound are excellent, though expect slow downs on non-ninja machines. im off to buy another 512 ram this week to hopefully alleviate some of that.
its not a warcraft killer (since war 3 frozen throne is perfect) however it might just be the best RTS ive played since.
4 rings out of 5.
edit: just realised the game isnt released yet and not even ign or gamespot have reviews up. oops :D |
|
|
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by ONION
But in terms of strategy- Nothing beats playing UT in a duel against a top player |
Onion is 100% correct. UT is alot more reliant on strategy than dueling in Q3A or any other FPS in both their respective top tiers.
maybe we should educate them our clan video onion? ;) |
|
|
|
|
