van HellSing on 23/5/2007 at 16:27
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
I only played Starcraft for the first time about a year ago, and it left me a little underwhelmed in the interface department. If I want to build some type of unit, I should be able to issue that order directly, dammit, not have to hunt down the specific building that makes them.
One of the reasons I like the C&C series more than the Blizzard games. Not counting Generals of course, which copied the Blizzard system. Tiberium Wars introduced a hybrid system where clicking on a building simply changes the current build tab to one associated with the building, but managing everything from the sidebar is just way more efficient.
dj_ivocha on 23/5/2007 at 17:27
Quote Posted by van HellSing
One of the reasons I like the C&C series more than the Blizzard games.
One of the reasons I like the Blizzard games more than the C&C series. :p
Managing everything from a single menu is more suited for building sim games IMO - like Caesar, The Settlers, etc. For action-oriented RTS-es the starcraft way makes more sense. If you don't want to micromanage your buildings, there are games that offer such kind of gameplay, like Ground Control for example.
Swiss Mercenary on 23/5/2007 at 22:11
Quote Posted by van HellSing
One of the reasons I like the C&C series more than the Blizzard games. Not counting Generals of course, which copied the Blizzard system. Tiberium Wars introduced a hybrid system where clicking on a building simply changes the current build tab to one associated with the building, but managing everything from the sidebar is just way more efficient.
I found the dreaded vertical scroll bar on the construction sidebar to be "No thanks."
Now, I also didn't like the unresponsive building UI for Starcraft, but Warcraft 3 resolved most of those issues.
Matthew on 24/5/2007 at 08:31
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
If you don't want to micromanage your buildings, there are games that offer such kind of gameplay, like Ground Control for example.
I think that example's a bit too far in the other direction, given that it has no base management at all. ;)
C&C's system makes sense when you think about it though - after all, you're supposed to be controlling the action from a console miles away from the battle zone, so why wouldn't you be able to have a unified construction system linked to the satellite feed?
dj_ivocha on 24/5/2007 at 08:53
Quote Posted by Matthew
I think that example's a bit too far in the other direction, given that it has no base management at all. ;)
That's precisely what I meant - what's the point in having many different buildings that each make certain other building/units available, if you won't really be using those buildings at all after completing their construction? If you don't want to "interact" with your structures, they are nothing but glorified doodads and you might as well remove them altogether and go the Ground Control route.
After all, giving orders from a great distance and not being on the battlefield yourself makes the game a tactical RTS, whereas starcraft/C&C are supposed to be action RTS-es, meaning you are in direct control of everything and are right there, when something is happening.
C&C's methods of controlling buildings and units contradict each other - if you are really miles away and only have some satellite uplinks that connect you to the hot zone and enable you to control your production remotely, then how can you give direct orders to each and every footsoldier of yours?
Anyway, that's just my opinion and one of the reasons I prefer starcraft to C&C and its various ripoffs.
Matthew on 24/5/2007 at 09:06
Quote Posted by dj_ivocha
C&C's methods of controlling buildings and units contradict each other - if you are really miles away and only have some satellite uplinks that connect you to the hot zone and enable you to control your production remotely, then how can you give direct orders to each and every footsoldier of yours?
Given that American M1A2 tanks currently have a (
http://www.peostri.army.mil/PM-CATT/CCTT/CITT/io/ie/io_10.htm) rudimentary tactical display system built into them now, it's not such a stretch to imagine that such control could be expanded in the future, particularly if they were miniaturised into something like the kit used in the Future Force Warrior programme.
Nameless Voice on 25/5/2007 at 12:58
Hardly anyone seems to be talking about the gameplay video yet.
What they show of the Protoss (my favourite SC race) so far, I'm not certain. The new units they've shown seem interesting, but I hope that they haven't taken out all the remaining units from the original game. I'm seeing a disturbing lack of Dark Templar, Corsairs, High Templar and Arbiters in that video.
The one thing that I'm very, very wary about is the Mothership.
"You are only allowed a single mothership at one point."
This begins to sound not just like heroes, but far worse, it sounds like they're ripping off Dawn of War's stupid arbitrary unit caps. I have no objection to a unit which is so expensive in terms of resource and supply that it is impractical to have more than one on the field at once, but I simply hate the idea of arbitrary caps on a single type of unit. If they go down that road, it's only a matter of time before they reach Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, with its basically fixed armies, where arbitrary caps force you to build certain armies because you simply can't choose to build more of a certain type of unit than Relic choose to allow.
Also, is it just me, or do the Terran Siege Tanks look some kind of giant suction cup?
icemann on 25/5/2007 at 18:57
Dawn of Wars "stupid" unit caps were grounded in Warhammer 40K rules with each side being limited to x number of units based on how much starting points were there to spend per side. Though these were more appropriate to the board game than the computer game, as the board game could take several hours for a battle with only a hand full of units per side. Epic large scale armies battling out could take days to finish a game of. And so the points limitations were there to encourage people to stick to the smaller scale battles.
Incomparison with the computer game where you could have a epic scale battle done in an hour or so. That said I didn`t mind it in the game (Dawn of War), as it tied in with the source material. With Starcraft theres no real reason besides keeping framerates down to have it in there.
Nameless Voice on 25/5/2007 at 19:55
I'm not talking about global unit caps ("Supply"), I'm talking about arbitrary restrictions on specific types of unit.
Sure, in Dawn of War: Dark Crusade, you could only have 20 supply worth of vehicles - but you couldn't use that supply as you saw fit. You were only ever allowed to have, for example, two Chaos Predators, even though they only used less than half your vehicle cap, because there was an arbitrary restriction on their number, presumably used as some poor form of unit balance.
Uncia on 26/5/2007 at 06:51
Okay, having watched the ~22 minute gameplay video, I don't get it. It's a brilliant video, and then during the Invitation gaming sites put up the last 2 minutes and everyone goes "boo, this is boring". Well no shit, it's the outro to 20 minutes of awesome, like going to a screening and showing people the credits.
