nemppu wrote: also warcraft III is teh awesomeness, i lolled @ the that guy on first page of this topic ranting about wc3 taking all the new innovative features of wcIII and saying its the worst becuz of them:D:D:D:D:D:D the innovation of bringing the heroes and making the hero experience sort of out of the box new resource and disencouradging turtling & shit with upkeep, good stuff. graet sp, great mp.
Look i don├óÔé¼Ôäót like the hero thing, but I can see how some people might, I├óÔé¼Ôäóm not a big rpg fan, and putting something like that in a rts undermines the hole army/strategy thing. if somebody├óÔé¼Ôäós a higher level and Isn├óÔé¼Ôäót a retard. You lose. basically makes the game a big race to see who can kill boars quicker to get to the next level. and the tactics are replaced with skill of clicking the right spell at the right time├óÔé¼Ôäós . Guess it would really appeal to people who get a kick out of WoW. if it would have beensome thing new like war craft rpg or something I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think I would mind it as much. But for me it killed a series I loved and that got me into rts in the first place.
On the other hand, the upkeep is fucking stupid, and your stupid if you don├óÔé¼Ôäót think so. Just because blizzard makes good things doesn├óÔé¼Ôäót mean everything blizzard makes is good. Mine's are a limited resource, if your miners just got 3 gold instead ,of getting 10 gold pocketing 7 and giving you 3 it would be better, as It is, it fucks you over for having the audacity for trying to build an army in a fucking WAR GAME. instead you run around with you 20ft hero and 15 of his little bitches.
I haven├óÔé¼Ôäót played red alert 3 yet, so I don├óÔé¼Ôäót think its fare for me to say it├óÔé¼Ôäós a bad game. I├óÔé¼Ôäóm going to try it, if just for old time├óÔé¼Ôäós sake. hell maybe the stupid new Japan faction will end up being cool, and not way to powerful( Screen, Yuri, yeah I doubt that├óÔé¼Ôäós going to happen) maybe the quick as shit base building and units dieing before you even know your under attack will turn out strategic and fun somehow. But it wouldn├óÔé¼Ôäót excuse it for completely changing how the game works.
I don├óÔé¼Ôäót understand why they do that. If you├óÔé¼Ôäóre making a brand new game, experiment, do something new, see how it works out. You might break the mold and make something great.
But if you├óÔé¼Ôäóre making a sequel to a tremendous successes. Don├óÔé¼Ôäót fucking change it. Just add more, and make it look better. C&C's new series [generals] feels a hell of a lot more like the old C&C games than the new C&C3, in C&C 3 the stupid build menus are the same, but that├óÔé¼Ôäós it. The pace and scale, and what little strategy it had have been completely changed or removed. I blame them trying to develop the thing for consoles and pc's. Fuck consoles. If you want to play rts's, get a fucking computer.
I forgot rise of nations, thats a really good one. now my whole new games suck argument is mute.
Praising supcom on the spring forum
Praising Mohammad in a jewish church