C&C: Generals

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:smile: :sad: :eek: :shock: :cool: :-x :razz: :oops: :evil: :twisted: :wink: :idea: :arrow: :neutral: :mrgreen:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: C&C: Generals

by bruce » Sun Mar 21, 2004 9:53 pm

AArdvark wrote:
There are no popular subgenres.
I disagree, I would call 'Go to the Metal Concert' a sub catergory
You're both right.

Bruce

by pinback » Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:43 pm

Worm wrote:The only evolution that RTS has is to more strategic gameplay.
Having exposed myself in quick succession to the three "generations" of Warcraft games, I think I'm in a fairly secured spot from which to lob forth the following opinion: You are a dope.

Evolutions from WC1 to WC2:

1. Much better grouping/team controls.
2. Much smoother/quicker gameplay.
3. Vaguely better graphics/sound.
4. Significantly better cinematics.
5. Slightly better voice acting.

Evolutions from WC2 to WC3:

1. Extremely better grouping/team controls (primarily subgrouping, hero-selection methods.) Also, much better control of worker units due to the F8/"idle worker button" controls.
2. Astonishingly better graphics, despite what the delusional Sysop says.
3. Ridiculously better cinematics, dramatic plotline.
4. Sensationally better voice acting. This, if nothing else, is worth the upgrade from 2 to 3. "I WOULD LOVE TO!" indeed. Arg? WC2 is painful to listen to.

Whether the newer game is more "strategic" than its predecessor is open to some conjecture. I mean, in both you still have to choose what buildings to buy, units to purchase, etc. The experience and the refinement of the latter game are so very much richer in every respect, though, that failing to acknowledge this progression would seem to be self-delusional in the extreme.

by AArdvark » Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:44 pm

ADVENTURE GAME: Game in which exploration and the solving of puzzles (which are, ideally at least, tied in some way to the environment of the game, unlike true puzzle games wherein the puzzles are unapologetically arbitrary) are the primary (and usually only) activities the player engages in. There are no popular subgenres.

I disagree, I would call 'Go to the Metal Concert' a sub catergory

by Debaser » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:30 pm

Worm wrote:Debase: Tropico is a simulation game, for fuck's sake.
WRONG. People think Tropico is a simulation game because it is in many ways similair to Sim City. But they are WRONG.

Wonder Twin Powers Activate! Form of: Long-winded pedantic asshole!

There are six broad genres into which most games fit. While some game mix and match (or cross) elements from different genres, nearly all fit primarily into a single classification:

ACTION GAME: Game wherein the player relies primarily on coordingation, reflexes, and the ability to respond appropriately under pressure. Usually involves combat or some other violent activity, but most sports games fit under this banner as well. Popular subgenres include the 2D shooter, the Shoot 'em Up, the Beat 'em Up, the 3D Shooter, the 4D Beater, and the Columbine Massacre.

STRATEGY GAME: A game in which intelligent, long-term planning is the primary key to success. Usually, but not neccessarily includes features such as resource management and tactical combat. Popular subgenres include the Real Time Strategy Game, the War Game, and the 4X Game.

PUZZLE GAME: A game in which the player must solve puzzles or complete arbitrary tasks in an abstract, minimalist, or surreal environment. Popular subgenres include the rythm game.

ADVENTURE GAME: Game in which exploration and the solving of puzzles (which are, ideally at least, tied in some way to the environment of the game, unlike true puzzle games wherein the puzzles are unapologetically arbitrary) are the primary (and usually only) activities the player engages in. There are no popular subgenres.

SIMULATION GAME: A game which is more interested in accurately and realistically depicting a real (or at least plausably possible) activity such as flying a plane than it is in providing a fun and/or challenging experience for the player (though, ideally, the activity is interesting enough to be enjoyable). Usually these games are as much educational as they are entertaining, if not moreso. Popular Subgenres include the flight simulator and the Japanese rape simulator.

ROLE PLAYING GAME: Game wherein the player pretends to be a female elf for a few hours and then softly cries himself to sleep.

Now, as is clear to anyone who has played the game, Tropico in no way accurately depicts the trials and tribulations of actually being the overlord of a banana republic. Hence it does not belong in the simulation genre, but rather the strategy genre. If you insist that a strategy game requires combat, I will simply point out that Tropico does have combat, albeit very little. And, since the game takes place in a real time as opposed to turn-based environment, it is a Real Time Strategy Game.

You stand corrected.

by Worm » Sat Mar 20, 2004 12:15 pm

Well, I lost my huge reply due to the motherfucking BBS caca that Straw burst all over this thread in the form of a Google image search flood and under the guise of a point. If your images fuck up a thread in 1024 x 768 just take them out. Don't even pretend that you meant for me to read this thread well I am doing two things for school and have to switch my resolution then when trying to close the full screen thread listing that was still lined up for a 1280 x 768 size screen and have me accidently close my post. Just be less stupid with the images, k?
ICJ:
I'm not going to have any quotes but here it goes.
Myst and Riven were prerended 3d environments that you clicked there wasn't any perspective (maybe first person I don't know) Gothic II is third person. Just say third person next time.
Debase: Tropico is a simulation game, for fuck's sake.

As for RTS, Starcraft was far ahead of games like Age of Empires and Warcraft. Starcraft could be won by building shitloads of units with a script, it was by no means perfect. Though you could be strategic in what units you used, where, and when. The only evolution that RTS has is to more strategic gameplay.

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 4:42 pm

That was the greatest post in the history of this BBS.

Debaser is God!

by Debaser » Fri Mar 19, 2004 3:29 pm

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:Plus, I really, really wanna go back and finish Red Alert right now.
Either you're sick of the very concept of RTS or you're not. If you are, then you wouldn't want to play any of them. If you're not, then why wouldn't you want to play the best and most advanced the genre has to offer?

Your unrepentant luddism sickens me.

EDIT: I have no idea if "luddism" is the correct form of the word "luddite", but it sounded better in my head then any of the alternative constructs I could form.

DOUBLE EDIT: And all this talk about a lack of progress in a specific genre from a guy who is (allegedly) writing a text adventure is just shameful.

TRIPLE EDIT MY GOD WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END: Homeworld, Homeworld II, Tropico, Tropico II: Pirate Cove, Majesty, Europa Universalis, Europa Universalis II. Just to be argumentative.

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:36 pm

Jonsey, we (you and I) were not talking about whether or not you LIKE RTS anymore, or whether or not you find the genre "PLAYED" or "UN-INNOVATIVE" anymore. That would make for an interesting discussion, but it's not one I'm qualified to enter into.

We (you and I) were discussed whether or not the graphics in WC3 are better than those of its predecessor, and every time we come back to the question of whether you can honestly say WC2 has the superior graphics -- EVEN FROM THE TOP DOWN PERSPECTIVE -- you begin to dodge and weave and change the subject.

This is because you are a terrible person, who I hate.

by Ice Cream Jonsey » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:28 pm

RTS sucks now because there's absolutely no innovation whatsoever.

Whoa! I gotta start completely over and MINE GOLD and shit from this level?

Whoa! I gotta do that again?

Whoa! I was thrown into a map and everything I did previously is ignored and I gotta start from scratch!? WHOA, MOFO, WHOA!

Whoa!!!! Dammit, I gotta defend this dude for 60 minutes, but at 58:20 precisely it becomes really tough to do so, whoa!!!

Fucking repetitive maggot shit.

I did ALL of that in WC2 and C&C:RA.

Never again.

"How about giving us something new?" -- Every fan of Steve Howe, after hearing Clap for the 69,105th time.

by Jack Straw » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:13 pm

pinback wrote:You should start a new "RTS SUX" thread if you want to talk about the relative demerits of RTS vs. other genres.
That would assume I care enough about the subject to do more than slap "RTS sucks" into an image in Paint and post 4 words. Everything's not a debate, that's what's been pissing me off about Groucho lately.

(l)user 1: I think blahahahahababab ababahash
(l)user 2: well *I* think that blahahaahahaahaahaha
(l)user 3: While I agree with points 1 and 6 of user 1, bllalaisghahyagagasgsdhshasdfhds

I was just giving you shit about complaining about changing the resolution, it ain't gonna turn into a poll or something.

DO U THINK RTS SUX??
1 - Y
2 - N

DISCUSS

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:00 pm

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. But if you're going to pollute a thread with contrarian bullcrap, please try to keep it to ONE opinion.

If you had stuck with your original opinion ("LOL PC GAMES SUX"), then that would have been fine. There was even a hint of merit to your console loyalty, as there are definitely a lot more problems getting PC games to work.

But then you tried to warp the conversation to your OTHER opinion ("RTS SUX"), which is an unfair and dishonest method of debating (not to mention a dumbass opinion to begin with). You should start a new "RTS SUX" thread if you want to talk about the relative demerits of RTS vs. other genres.

by Jack Straw » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:55 am

Sure. Of course if I had just said to self "Straw, RTS sucks. Respect Ben and do not post in this thread" it would just be another piece of shit thread with no content in it.

Right?

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:46 am

Jack Straw wrote:What looks more fun?
This:

(RTS SUX!!)
So, you don't like RTS. We get it, Jack. We GOT YA DOWN for not liking RTS. Now go away.

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:42 am

Ice Cream Jonsey wrote:
pinback wrote:Well yeah, see, if you don't LIKE RTS, then it's fine having a gaming platform that you can't PLAY RTS with. You DICK.

What an idiot.
I'd like to see a little less name calling out of you.
You're gonna start giving me flak now? You, the Sysop who "honors" us with your beatific presence every couple days to lock a few threads and tell the users they're not "bringing the funny" enough, while I slave here hour after hour, trying to keep the place alive? Are you sure that's the way you want to play this one?

My point remains, however: your pretty pretty screenshots of WC3 are worthless, because nobody fuckin' plays the game from that Myst / Riven / Gothic II perspective.
If you had bothered to reply to my original reply to that message, then we'd know if you really think WC2's TOP-DOWN perspective is "better" than WC3's TOP-DOWN perspective. Of course, I think we can all guess that your answer would be "yes", to which we can only reply, "HAhahahahaha. That Jonsey. You so CRAAAAZAY!"
And you KNOW it, too. Like I said: Madden 2K4 has nice graphics. Lookit the closeup of phenom Michael Vick! Nobody ever plays it that way, though.
You're delving into the realm of the pathetic now. Do you really want me to go scrounge up a TOP-DOWN WC3 screenshot for you to compare, like the graphics are magically going to turn from rich, sharp, vivid beauty into four-color EGA blocks by raising the perspective 30 or 40 feet?

by Jack Straw » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:39 am

What looks more fun?
This:
Image
Image
Image
Or this?
Image
Image
Image
Image

by Ice Cream Jonsey » Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:35 am

pinback wrote:Well yeah, see, if you don't LIKE RTS, then it's fine having a gaming platform that you can't PLAY RTS with. You DICK.

What an idiot.
I'd like to see a little less name calling out of you.

Plus, I really, really wanna go back and finish Red Alert right now.

For what it's worth, no, I don't think that the screen is too cluttered in Generals. You could almost actually play the game like that.

My point remains, however: your pretty pretty screenshots of WC3 are worthless, because nobody fuckin' plays the game from that Myst / Riven / Gothic II perspective. And you KNOW it, too. Like I said: Madden 2K4 has nice graphics. Lookit the closeup of phenom Michael Vick! Nobody ever plays it that way, though.

(Freedom Force had a camera like WC3. But at least with Freedom Force there's a point to getting up close and in somebody's shit like that. I should mention that Freedom Force is a much better game than WC2 *and* WC3 combined.)

by pinback » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:44 am

Well yeah, see, if you don't LIKE RTS, then it's fine having a gaming platform that you can't PLAY RTS with. You DICK.

What an idiot.

by Jack Straw » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:42 am

these, for example, are $20 this week.. PS2 and Xbox.

by Jack Straw » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:31 am

Yeah I can see how RTS would suck with a controller.
That's why we get Starcraft: Ghost instead of a top down, dated and generally un-fun interface.
You could get one of those LCD screens that sit on top of the console!

by Ice Cream Jonsey » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:14 am

Jack Straw wrote:Hey man, I *hate* to be "that guy". Honestly. Once you people stop bitching about configuration, patches, lost savegames and shit generally just not working right in PC games then I'll cease to be that guy.
Yeah, but there are hardly any RTS games for consoles, and even when there are, the controls are dodgy.

Plus, Ben doesn't own a TV right now, I don't think, because he's sort of homeless, and he homelessly plays C&C Generals on the beach.

Top