[quote]And something in between RTS and TBS......... something like Total War? But TW is mostly a hybrid, almost two games in one. I don't even think Sins have any elements of TBS, a slow RTS is nothing alike to a TBS. So please explain what you mean by something in between, and some examples also please.[/quote] I simply meant something slower/larger than the standard RTS fare that allows for little more than twitch play. SupComm had it with the enormous maps that took minutes for grou
Not a counterpoint per se, and I do see your side of the argument better now; but I think the main problem main like myself have is not that we want RTS to be TBS, but that we want something in between. In most cases, RTS aren't really real time, they're greatly compressed time. (Technically even TBS are greatly compressed unless people only play one turn a day/week/month/year whatever a turn represents.) So currently, the choices out there boil down to Turn-Based or Real(Twitch)-Time. <br/
[quote]RTS games merely take this further by placing additional emphasis on dexterity and quick thinking. There is nothing wrong in the notion that these attributes decide games, even games of strategy, and the success of Starcraft and other real-time games and sports would strongly seem to indicate otherwise.[/quote] Placing too much emphasis on dexterity must necessarily remove emphasis from the other, inherently strategic, aspects of the game. I am all for RTSes not being so slow that the
[quote]Still, SC's grand achievement for me was its excellent atmosphere and storytelling. No other RTS beat it to this day, IMO.[/quote] I'd say Homeworld's story did a pretty good job, but it is hard to say as StarCraft's story couldn't keep interested long enough to finish one campaign. In general I would agree though, most RTSes I don't even notice or pay attention to what they try to pass off as a story.
[quote]I thought it was.[/quote] I could have sworn it was also. I knew the weapons calculations were 3d and the units collision areas may have been; but what little I looked at modding seemed to suggest the units where graphically represented by sets of sprites, not 3d models.
[quote]Best is not subjective[/quote] It absolutely is, you are just deciding to stick with an account's use of it, i.e. as a synonym for "profitable". It is profitable and popular, and a whole lot of fun to a whole lot of people, but like fun, "best" is subjective, quit trying to make it some absolute that it is not. [quote]how terrible to have a game that requires micromanagement ... The whole damn point is so that the faster you are, the more efficient you are, the better you are
[quote]...find different reasons why Starcraft was a flop and Blizzard is a cigar-filled building of semi-professional developers who use their media connections to sell games...or something like that. Problem with finding reasons why Starcraft really wasn't good?[/quote] No one is saying Starcraft was a flop, or that it was built on hype alone. Merely that it is grossly overrated and nowhere near as perfect or innovative as many of its fans would like to believe.
[quote]Total Annihilation's UI wasn't much of an improvement at the time, only adding the ability of shooting-and-moving.[/quote] That is hardly the limits of Total Annihilations improvements. Try units intelligent enough to feed themselves (i.e. aircraft going to landing pads near there patrol routes when in need of repair) and fulfill their roles while on patrols (constructors repairing buildings and units and reclaiming debris and military units attacking enemies encountered in accordance
[quote]No developers decisions here?[/quote] I make no claims that it is the developers' decision(s), I just wish those squeaky wheels wanting another StarCraft clone wouldn't get the oil. [quote]It really seems that all the hate here are just because that Starcraft is popular...not much else...I mean, are there any basis of arguments in all the Blizzard bashers here? From what I read, no...[/quote] Apparently you overlooked the points about clunky interfaces, the inability for
[quote]How is it all objects in existence can be defined?[/quote] They can? Even the ones we haven't even discovered yet? How will we know we what we don't know? [quote]What allows for all the wonderment in the universe?[/quote] Speaking of defining things...."wonderment"? [quote]Physics is the reason things CAN exist, but why does it act the way it does?[/quote] Actually, physics is the "how" things exist, and maybe the why they exist the way they do, but we really
[quote]...to clarify my last post for SetarcosNous...[/quote] I can see we most likely agree 100%; however, you are not scientifically proving the non-existence of god(s). You are logically denying that there is proof of god. As the friend you quoted said, "If I believed in God because there is no way to disprove him then I would have to believe in unicorns...". This can be taken a step further. If I believe in one religion's god(s) due to lack of disproof, I must believe in all religio
[quote]I disbelieve in evolution for many reasons, but my main one is: it puts creatures with completely different biologies in each other's "lines of decent." For example, some evolutionists believe our four-chambered heart goes back to a small reptile of the Carboniferous Period. EXCUSE ME?! the Delapodasaur was a REPTILE, humans are MAMMALS. Going from one species to another is one thing, but from CLASSIFICATION of animal to another?[/quote] There are creatures with "complet
[quote]I know that I'll most likely get torn to shreds and insulted for posting this,...[/quote] Well, I won't tear you to shreds, just argue that your incredulity is not an argument for intelligent design. Many of us see what you believe to be God as too complex (not to mention to anthropomorphic) to have come about by random chance, so using your logic (or lack thereof) he must have been designed (most likely by us). Don't forget, the large amount of complexity you perceive around you in t
[quote]Saying we have no explanation does not mean there is one, that is known in formal logic as an "argument from ignorance".[/quote] I meant "Saying we have no explanation does not mean there is not one." And while we're at it, isn't saying god(s) or whatever did it explaining the unexplained with something unexplainable?
[quote]"Scientists make no claims about gods, at least no scientific ones." I did.[/quote] I only saw you making claims about religions, maybe a book, did you make some about gods that I missed? [I]And for clarification to all, I mean no scientific claims, not scientific scientists nor scientific gods.[/I]
[quote]...something was lost because over time the meaning of words change...[/quote] Hmm, did they mean hell was extremely high temperature, or sexy...maybe stolen? ;p
[quote]You might want to read up on documented cases of exorcisms in which such phenomena as defenestration, teleporting of objects,the victim/demon knowing intimate details of the priests life without ever having previous contact.This is repeated, documented observable evidence something which defies a physical explanation.Unless you can explain these in a limited physical universe.[/quote] Show me repeat[B]able[/B] experiments that display these things, and documents observing these things
[quote]But to try and suggest a difference between success and good? What world do these people fucking live in.[/quote] A world where "success" and "good" are not equivalent. "Success" is success and it may be "better" for the developers and publishers, and even more popular to its target audience; but that does not make it "good" in the sense of having a quality interface. We live in a world where shows like "American Idol" and professional wrestling are successful and popular, that d
[quote]Seems hate blizzard bandwagon is full swing on these forums already.[/quote] Though you may not believe it, I am sure a number of us don't hate Blizzard. What we hate is how Blizzard fanboys for the past decade have tried, and often succeeded, at turning many games we were hopeful for into nothing but a clone of StarCraft...a game we thought was mediocre and clunky at best. If you like StarCraft fine, a lot of people do; we just want those people to actually let some diversity develop
[quote]The heavens declare the glory of God; And the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, And night unto night reveals knowledge. Psalm 19:1-2 Where would science be if it were not for the declaring and uttering of the universe. The Bible sure does seem to know that the universe is a noisy place![/quote] Too bad that when other parts of the Bible (or at least the current interpretations of those parts) contradict what the "firmament [is showing]", "[days a
[quote]here is the answer you seek...[/quote] Yep, supposedly god created us to be a bunch of mindless worshipers and then gave us free will to screw it all up, what a glorious existence we have. It kinda reminds me of a Simpsons episode were Homer is painting all the electrical outlets with pink bunny faces to "child proof" them. [quote]Marge: But Homer, Maggie likes bunnies. Homer: Oh, she'll learn. She'll learn.[/quote]
[quote]Computer Science myself...[/quote] [I]Yeah, I am quoting myself, but I am doing it to try to get back on track.[/I] I actually met a couple people in my courses that picked CS because it wouldn't require them to accept those pesky facts the sciences like biology would teach them. (Of course, they didn't use those exact words.) I chose it because I've never been particularly fond of rote memorization. While they got by in CS, they were never exceptional students, and usua
[quote]By the way, I majored in history.[/quote] Computer Science myself, but I spent the first three semesters (leading up to a 5-year hiatus) thinking I would dual-major in Philosophy and Physics. I've never lost my existential epistemological bent though.
[quote]Are supporters of ID campaigning to get this taught in Science classes or just in school?[/quote] The supporters "we" are worried about are the ones that want it taught along side evolution (i.e. in science class), and given equal credibility. As far as teaching it in philosophy class, I know of no grade school that has such curriculum.
