And, perhaps, so will Conan.

Oh really? Bleh. The little bits I have read boast this huge amount of character custom faces, looks etc. That was one of the things that got me interested, so that you don't look like Warrior_1029812039

Easy there, killer. I didn't insult your mother. I just thought those two reviews were funny, I wasn't saying that your beloved TA was a bad game.

That being said, I played TA on Kali a number of times and just couldn't get into it. The gameplay felt bland where it felt like too much emphasis was placed on graphics rather than strategy. I'm not sure how you get off declaring that TA contained more potential for strategy than SC, that's just disingenuous. TA was a good game, it just didn't have the depth that SC did.

But I have to admit that just looking at your posted awards in comparison to SC's awards, it's absolutely silly. GAME.EXE from Russia? Meanwhile you have many more respected magazines giving SC a higher rating.

From doing a random youtube search -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqtmRYJ7Bj4

Like I said earlier, 40+ different things you can change around.

There's still things no one but RPers would likely do, like make a butch buff fat woman with small breasts and a sunken forehead/droopy eyes.

You cant get this face any longer.
This was my Lady Elaine Fairchilde PvP beta server character.

They cut the level of customization down by I'd say over HALF of what you used to be able to.

Only like 4 hairstyles to choose from also. Kind of bland. I'll make one on live and post the closest I can get to that extreme, but last I tried, it looked nothing like the origional.

Haha, Bland? SC had what 16 different units you could build?

With over 250 different units you could build and several hundred maps to play and Cavedog releasing units every week that could completely change the way the game was played how could that be bland?

Oh, I know, because it didn't have purple alien bugs on the screen! Or was it because you just couldn't win a game on Kali?

SC was so one dimensional it shouldn't even be called an RTS. Hell, people very rarely got past making the lvl 1 zergs in a game and most were over in 4min. At Least with TA you actually got to play the game and use the units available to you. You had to THINK about your plan vs trying to build as many zergs as fast as you could.

Just admit you weren't mature enough back then to handle more than 16 units at one time and call it a day.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Chess has six 'units'.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Yes, and all of them are used. That's what makes it glorious.

People only use 1 in SC...

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Obviously Chess is the best RTS then... Oh wait... Chess is a Turn Based Strategy Game not a Real Time Strategy Game. Silly me i tought we were talking about RTS's.

The only way you could get zerg rushed is if you were an absolute pure newb and had no idea how to counter it properly. Each race had methods for countering it provided you weren't slower than shit at building up. You could quite easily get to the point where you force the game to drag out to utilize all of your units, so your claim is pretty much false. Sounds to me like you're the one who kept getting owned if you believe this.

As far as using 16 units at a time - I'll settle for using 16 dynamic, well-defined units over 250 units that call themselves individual units because of a few slight stat changes rather than having each other actually integral to overarching strategy. There's plenty of opportunity for countless strategies with either number of units. 16 units just indicates there was more thought put into what they actually do in the grand scheme(about 16 units per race btw, so more like 16x3 with some similar functionality between races but defining strategies with their differences nonetheless).

I really believe, if VG stays the course and Conan meets expectations, that will be an interesting choice for me. WoW is a great game but right now it is a little bland for me. I hate that EQ2 didn't capitalize on their PvP as well. I may just be tired of games but, I really want something new. I want struggle and learn, join groups and get wiped, and all that good stuff. I don't know.. I believe it's time for me to take a break from MMO's, it's just been a waste of money jumping around.


Just keep posting VG stuff and maybe i'll run into something fun on WoW (in regards to PvP). Hopefully something fun will come up soon. RL is always busy but, it's good to have something fun to escape every now and again.

Take care,
Muli

Yeah you're right, obviously the two games share no similarities whatsoever and should not be compared in any way, shape or form.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Uh huh. That statement there shows me you never played the game at all. If you had then you would know better than to say something like that. Your only problem was that you couldn't think beyond one dimensional or it was too hard for you to actually come up with a strategy. Playing money maps on battlenet hardly counts as using strategy.

Developing a strategy using infantry, armor, Air and sea units along with Long range cannons, Nuclear missiles and pulse bombs is hard. Add in the advanced units for each of the classes that were completely different than the base units and it gets tougher. And lets not forget to mention building a viable defense using Anti-air anti-armor anti nuke and artillary.

But yeah, please tell me how with a Max 6 offensive land units and 5 air units per race that SC is much more strategic?

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Alright list me all those similarities other than the word "strategy".

Sorry but the burden of proof is on you seeing as how you were the one touting that they're drastically different based solely on the fact that one is turn based and the other is in real time.

Does a book read differently if you do it in chapters or straight through? No, I didn't think so.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I think anyone with a once of a brain here know the gameplay of a turn based strategy game like Panzer General is a lot different than a real time strategy game like Command and Conquer for instance. Let alone a simple game like "chess".

And I think anyone with an ounce of brains would also agree that they share a great many similarities.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I think me and Khan asked you first and we are still waiting.

Both games employ units of varying strength, both are predominantly/exclusively skill based, both require careful planning and management, both take extensive amounts of time to master.

The very premise of both games are identical and the only actual difference is the medium they're played in.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

In chess all the pieces have the same strength. They all have 1 Hit Point and do 1 Hit Point of damage. The only difference is how many spaces they can move at a time. (wich I know is what you are referring to btw so lets apply that to Total Annihilation shall we?)

In TA a AH-309 "Smasher" attack helicopter will NEVER be able to defeat a Krogoth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krogoth) by itself no mater how good you are with the attack copter and the opposing player is with the Krogoth. All that even if the movement of the attack copter is much greater.




Being an architect qualify too then. So I vote "being an architect" the best real time strategy game of all time... Or is it turn based? Hmmmmm.

the only similarity between real time strategy games and turn based strategy games is... they both utilize strategy in order to win. outside of that, they are so polar opposites it is not funny.

i can spend 45 minutes in one civ4 turn micro managing my entire civilization, each intricate detail for every city, and not worry about my opponents at all. however, i spend 45 minutes planning and deciding what to do with my starcraft/total annihilation base.... and i am wiped out 35 minutes earlier.

now, i have never played total annihilation. so i really cannot join the soapbox debate of starcraft vs ta. however, i did hear from multiple people who have played ta that the 250+ units were not really legitimate. color differences and size of unit does not equate to different strategy decisions. also, one of the best things about starcraft was that even though there were only a dozen or so units to create on each side... those units had definitive strengths and weaknesses.

zerg rush me? as a terran, a few well placed bunkers filled with firebats wiped them out very effectively. a couple siege tanks as well, with them upgraded up to the max, essentially provided an unpenetrable defense to my base. you had to be quick with your reflexes/hands to get the build system done right and quickly, and you had to know what priorities you had to do. but zerg rushes did not equate to 5 minute games against good, quick players...

i heard that in total annihilation, there were about 2-4 units that if you created them, you basically won the game. it was more of a race to see who could create that one 'super unit' first and then attack the opponent's base more than anything else. in starcraft, there is no such thing as a super unit, and because all units had a corresponding weakness that could be exploited by the opponent... good starcraft players could nearly cancel each other out.

now again, i have nothing against total annihilation. nor am i a blizzard fanboi, as evident by the fact that i did not get wowarcraft. however, i did play starcraft back in the day, and to say it was for immature, unintelligent players is not the most accurate comment of the week. i really should give total annihilation a try, because for the negative comments i have heard about the game.... i have also heard a LOT of good things too. always good to formulate your own opinion

-cc

You guys are fucking idiots. The chess comparison was legitimate. Deal with it. The idea that "more units" automatically = "more strategy" as was implied is ludicrous at best, and the chess illustration made that point perfectly.

Now get back on topic. TA is better because it's got more units! Please.

There was a substantial difference between each and every offensive unit in the game. Not just color and size, but armor rating, weapon fired and rate of fire. For example, the T1 light infantry was lightly armored and fired a very fast weapon the T2 unit Was heavily armored, moved faster and fired a much slower weapon but with a substantial punch. If you got to a game where you were building T2 units then the entire landscape and strategy changed for the battle.




Those units cost so much resources and time to build, no one ever built them unless they were so far ahead of their opponent they were just having fun and toying with them. No one ever built a krogoth to win a game.



That statement right there proves what I was saying. In TA there was no impenetrable defense due to the different types of units you could build. You had to constantly change your strategy and adapt to the situation.

Look, I played SC all the way back in it's beta stages thru about the 2nd month of release and went beck to TA, along with all the other folks who were ranked players at TA. SC just didn't provide the depth, strategy or decision making that TA did. Period. You can argue the point all you want, but I played both, extensively, and unless you did the same then all you are doing is stating and un-informed opinion.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

No, Fribur, once again, you're the fucking idiot. More units DOES = more strategy when comparing SC and TA. Which is exactly what we were doing. There were no 2 units on a side in TA that did even remotely the same thing, unless you want to say tanks firing rounds thru their turrets makes them the same or air units are the same since they all fly.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

The point of Argrax's chess comparison was that you can have a HIGHLY strategic game while still having relatively few different units. The number of units is not an end-all be-all of strategic potential, particularly when you weigh the rock/paper/scissors aspects of each unit against other units. I see that Cicely says pretty much the same thing about the units being fairly similar, so I don't think I was just imagining it.



There were counters to every defense and offense in SC, and you had to adapt to the situation. Siege tanks + bunkers was not a purely impenetrable defense by any means.



I'm not sure what you were doing during those months playing SC, but the fact that you claim that people rarely got past level 1 zergs and people only used 1 unit in SC proves that you must not have played against many competent players. The zerg tactic was only good for one thing - killing newbies who built too slow.

If you're going to claim SC sucked in comparison to TA at least get your facts straight on that.

That, or post more awards from no-name overseas magazines for us to giggle at.

I should note that I actually think TA was a pretty awesome game(particularly for its time). Great graphics, great gameplay, decent diversity. But to say it was far and away better than SC is nothing more than a gesture of "Look at me I'm different and picked a niche game that fewer people played and I'm part of the cool crew".

Hell just managing your energy/matter income/storage limits while building huge or lot of buildings/units to make sure you don't lose all power to be able to fire with your defenses or your mega weapons is almost more strategic than a game of starcraft.

One of the things I remember about TA was that you could take your initial supreme commander straight to the enemy base in the beginning of the game and blow it up or some such right on top of them. Pretty sure they fixed that in a post-launch patch but that was just hilarious.

Starcraft is a better RTS in the same way World of Warcraft is a better MMORPG.

I win the game of analogies.

Wrong this is the best MMORPG duh! Can you imagine how powerful the bosses will be?! Hehehe too bad it's for Japan / South Korea Only.

http://www.clubic.com/actualite-71409-d ... oules.html

That looks cool to an extent, until you get Gokuxxxx, Gookuu, Gokuu, etc etc.

Mr.Satan FTW!

But then that would seemingly imply giving TA credit for trailblazing the genre, something it certainly did not do.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Nope, you can stiull do it but it was pointless because most games were played on Com dies/game ends.

The funniest thing was to build a transport and send it over to the other guys base and capture his commander and fly him away and blow up the transport.



Actually it did trailblaze the genre. From the Gamespy #1 RTS of all time posting.

In any given Internet popularity contest, StarCraft would win hands down. But a full year before StarCraft, the first "modern" RTS was unleashed to the world, and it was years ahead of its time. The name of the game was Total Annihilation, and to this day no game has duplicated its contribution to the genre. Six years, and other games are still playing catch-up!

Technology: Total Annihilation was the first true-3D real-time strategy game, with 3D terrain and 3D rendered units walking, flying, sailing, or even roaming underwater. Hundreds of units could be seen on the screen at once, a remarkable feat for its day. As computers grew faster, TA was able to scale with them, allowing players to crank up their resolution and crank up the unit limits with virtually no top end. Years after its release, the game was still cutting edge.

Gameplay: TA took a "Magic: The Gathering" approach to units and gameplay balance, allowing for (literally) hundreds of units without throwing off the game. That is to say, each unit was balanced on its own: accuracy, speed, range, cost, armor, damage, time to build etc. were all factored in, so no one unit could dominate a strategy. As a result, players had dozens of tactics to choose from thanks to the unit mix. (Some might complain that TA had too many units, but this game was known for gratuitous excess.)

Interface Innovation: While most games shackled players with unit limits and queue limits and a very basic AI, Total Annihilation was years ahead of its time. With just a few clicks you could start executing very complex strategies. You could queue up hundreds of units, order a constructor to build hundreds of different buildings, or order a factory to build planes that would automatically patrol a route as they rolled off the assembly line. In fact, those planes would automatically break off of a patrol to attack an enemy, then circle around to land at a repair station, then zip back into their patrol route -- automatically! The interface allowed gamers to build up obscene armies and bases with such ease that the player was free to concentrate on actual tactics and strategy. In the years since few games have even come close to this level of control.

Leveraging the Internet: We call Total Annihilation the first "modern" RTS because it really took advantage of the online environment, way back in '97, to enhance the game. Each week, the developers released a new unit onto the Internet. That's right! The game subtly changed, week to week, keeping the game completely fresh and opening up (or closing off) strategies all the time. The mapping and modification scene was also encouraged. Even today the massive TA community is still cranking out new units and total conversions.

Pure Style: Total Annihilation is the perfect name for the game. It was TOTAL. Nothing about this game is half-ass: it's like a videogame apocalypse. You don't just order an attack -- you send in a WAVE of hundreds of units, a wall of steel death that will fill the screen with awesome-looking explosions for minutes on end. You can build a nuclear missile capable of destroying a screen full of units, but it's worthless to build just one: Typically, you send them over in batches of a dozen or more. Obscene? YES. That's Total Annihilation! Every game was non-stop action, carnage, and brutality at a level never seen before or since.

If you look back and try to identify the key games that stood out the most in the ten-year history of the genre, it's clear that for its time Total Annihilation was an incredible leap. Unfortunately, its contributions have rarely been duplicated. Perhaps its unfettered gameplay and incredible developer support were just too difficult for other developers to pull off. Rumors stir that TA designer Chris Taylor is cooking up a sequel of sorts... keep your fingers crossed!

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Are you sucking this game's dick or something?

Venen, you are an Idiot. TA won the same and more awards in 1997 that SC won in 1998. From the same "Reputable" magazines and online mags. But I guess mags like Duelist which lasted a whole 41 issues and Milia awards and mags that even Wiki doesn't list like PCfan are reputable? Please.


If Cavedog hadn't gone under when Chris Taylor left, it would have continued to change and advance, but it didn't. So no one is going to give awards to a company 8-10 yrs later that isn't around anymore to spend $ on advertising in their magazine...

Magazines giving awards to SC and essentially licking Blizzards balls for advertising dollars 10 yrs after the game was released is pretty pathetic.

_________________

_____
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -Henry Louis Mencken
_____
VEGETARIAN -Noun (vej-i-tair-ee-uhn): Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot who can't hunt, fish or ride.

Total Annihilation is serious business.

Starcraft, eh not so much.

_________________

Dune II, Warcraft, Command and Conquer and Warcraft II all came before TA; to try and say that TA had the same impact on the RTS genre that EQ had on MMOs is laughable.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I would play Dragonball Online just so I could become SSJ one time after someone killing my healer or something.

haha... I bet it would be fun though. However, the Gokuuu, Gokku, Gokuxx and such would be pretty gay. People would have to help out and be willing to be somewhat creative and not lame.

Muli