Planetary Annihilation (Incoming Moon Drops!)

[Mr. Bob]

Never said the oposite, and im glad it is that way. What i meant was, i still feel theres that weird place for games to use stories/lore just to give it a simple vibe or a soul. It has to have something, even if its just the units themselves having cool command voices.

I'm down for lore. That's doable. Story is a different ordeal. Specifically story in a campaign.

Yeah sure, gameplay first...

I am by no means advocating gameplay first. Some of my favorite games (some aren't even games by classical definitions) are Dear Esther, Penumbra, etc. Games where gameplay is essentially a moot point. Especially in the case of Dear Esther, where there is no gameplay. Yet its probably my favorite experience in a game world yet.

I was saying that despite the lack of a story to hold games like sc2 up, they survive and survive quite well. Notice my disclaimer at the end. Some games should be about gameplay, some should subordinate it to story/art etc. Whatever the experience you're looking for is, shoot for it.

And, of course a major component of what made TA/SupCom/TotalWar etc great and still great is the "epicness" associated with the whole game. The ambiance of it. And, of course you want to shoot for that in PA. PA is basically built around that idea in the first place. One could almost say that it comes first over gameplay. (Which, again, is perfectly fine.)

That's an aesthetic choice that you can accomplish in lore, gameplay, and art. A linear traditional story with a linear traditional campaign isn't necessary.

[hoijui]

:D :D
you basically called the spring community a bunch of (unimaginative) porn fanatics! :D

aehm, aehm... i mean.... how could you even think of that...
never!
and i concur... TA story was epic!
remember... 4000 years of war!
4000!!!! imagine! 4 * 10^3 years!!!
beat that!
no porn can go there!

[Anarchid]

no porn can go there!

Derailgun engaged: WH40k / Rule34
Don't ever question the lengths and places porn can go, unless it's a surprise that you covet.

[Mr. Bob]

:D :D
you basically called the spring community a bunch of (unimaginative) porn fanatics! :D

Blame John Carmack. The bane and cause of my video gaming existence. He's basically an abusive dad.

~ Never Forget - Never Forgive ~

[PauloMorfeo]

...
I come from a background on the internet (and in general) where everyone argues about everything. I enjoy it. ..., I just view arguing/debate as a competition the same way anyone views chess as competition.

That's a wonderfull stance into ending up following wrong ideas just because a specific idea was the one which "won" an arguement, instead of the one which was the best idea.

You just rant and rant and rant trying to "impose" your ideas, seemingly regardless of they actually being the best idea or not. You appear to do it just because they're the ideas you've taken to be your's (and that are different from others' so you can have something to argue). Don't take it personally, but I hardly read your posts anymore (no, I'm not joking and it's not sarcasm: it's not personal. It's just that it's tiring and pointless).


Example of (probable) useless discussion:

...
And, as much as you could argue that PA is a game for the people of that old era, there's not enough of you to justify adding it in to slightly appease you, ... (you can't just take any random artist and say HURRR MAKE ME A STORY) ...

Am I missing something? I didn't perceived this forum, or even this thread, as full of people demanding and screaming for a campaign. Sounds like you're reading PA's forums and replying to those forums' posts in this thread...

[Mr. Bob]

That's a wonderfull stance into ending up following wrong ideas just because a specific idea was the one which "won" an arguement, instead of the one which was the best idea.

Isn't argumentation based on competing ideas? If the ideas I'm presenting are wrong, just tell me why. I've changed my opinion and my notions a lot based on whether or not an argument is solid or not. If an idea wins out in an argument, then either the other side hasn't given a more defensible idea, hasn't even tried defending it, or has failed in the process. If you're not interested in discussing it or debating the issue with me that's perfectly respectable. But, I don't see how its not respectable to want to actively discuss/debate/argue.

You just rant and rant and rant trying to "impose" your ideas, seemingly regardless of they actually being the best idea or not. You appear to do it just because they're the ideas you've taken to be your's (and that are different from others' so you can have something to argue).

I thought I was arguing, not ranting. I don't feel like I've imposed anything in the two arguments I've ever had on this site. (The other one you're probably referencing was the DRM debate.) And, in both I feel like I've presented fairly solid arguments.

And, as far as my reason for even arguing, I'm doing it because I legitimately care about the subject. I like video games. EDIT: And arguing, ofc. :D

Don't take it personally, but I hardly read your posts anymore (no, I'm not joking and it's not sarcasm: it's not personal. It's just that it's tiring and pointless).

I don't see why you read any of them at all if it bothers you. Again, if you don't want to discuss it with me, you're free to just not do so. I'm pretty ridiculously long winded, I'm aware. And, I'm sorry about that. But, no one is forcing you to read any of it.

The whole point of a forum is to discuss. When sides of a discussion disagree, they argue. They debate. They compete with each other's ideas and everyone benefits.

Example of (probable) useless discussion:

I wasn't aware that posing an argument as to why it isn't exactly sound marketing strategy was useless in this context, but thanks!

I'm really sorry if my argumentative nature offends you. If you don't want me to argue, just ignore me. If no one engages in an argument then I won't argue because clearly no one is interested. If someone responds to my arguments with their arguments, then I'm not going to just arbitrarily stop talking even though I feel like I have more to say/clarify/respond-to/retort/etc.

If you disagree with what I argue and you feel like you have a better argument, get in there! Let's hash it out! As long as neither of us have anything personal against each other, there's no reason not to debate it all out and hopefully get better understandings of everyone's positions.

[Johannes]

Its not a route I'm taking, its just what the industry has taken. Stories are simply held to a much much higher standard than they have been in the past.

Mmh I don't think so, video game story lines tend to suck horribly. They are firstly usually bad storylines to start with, and secondly not implemented interestingly ie. you just run forward to receive new bits of voiced dialogue, that's usually not interesting even if the storyline is ok. If I want a game with a good story I'll pick say, Betrayal of Krondor or Azraels Tear over the current industry standards any day, games where the storyline is very much integral to the gameplay, even if the production values are obviously lower.

Or look at difference between Starcraft 1 and 2 stories.

The aim of a campaign is to bring a constant stream of good, single player content to the player in an engaging context. Straightforwardly genociding a competing robot faction can be totally fine as it doesn't waste my time with contrived plots, and the missions are interesting and not just skirmish map after another (like TA was mostly, for example). A campaign doesn't need a detailed storyline, many games invest way too much time on talking heads the player does not ultimately care about.

I'm not saying though singleplayer content should be a priority in PA though. They've got a tight enough schedule to get multiplayer working in time anyway. But a good way to do it would be to do something similar to Worms: Armageddon had (or another Worms game, but I think it was that one) - a ton of different training missions with highscores (super sheep use, ninja rope, etc.), ladder against increasingly hard and numerous AI opponents, something akin to "missions" too, with obviously ridiculous briefings. But that too takes time of course to make.

I'm not sure if there's any really coherent point here, but hey.

[CopyyyCattt]

You agreed with what i wrote first. +1 for me.

[Mr. Bob]

(I think both Starcraft storylines were awful, but to each his own.)

Mmh I don't think so, video game story lines tend to suck horribly..

You don't see any general quality jump in storylines post 2002 or so whatsoever?

Half Life 2/Bioshock 1 and especially 3/Braid/Dead Space/Dear Esther/Dishonored/Last Light/The Void/Amnesia/Penumbra/Last of Us/Uncharted/Red Dead Redemption/Max Payne 3 (in a noire cliche sense)/The Witcher 2/Mass Effect 1 and 2/Deus Ex HR/Alan Wake/Mafia 2/Later Metal Gear games (arguably)/Call of Cthulhu...

And, of course, when people currently try to incorporate story and end up with simple nonsense, they get essentially beaten to death with negative public opinion: CoD/Medal of Honor/Battlefield/SupCom 2/Crysis 2/Mass Effect 3...

The only games pre-2002 that I can think of that are on the same level as the first list are Systemshock 2/Earthbound (arguably)/Homeworld/Deus Ex/Max Payne (arguably)/Grim Fandango/Half Life.. But they're only barely making the cut, with the exception of the first Deus Ex, Half Life and Systemshock 2, which were surprisingly good for their time.

The aim of a campaign...

A campaign without a story is fine, just be aware that its basically just a list of scenarios. Even if sed scenarios somehow offer something that MP doesn't. My original point is just that making a good linear story in this context (not lore, as lore is fine and doable) would be essentially impossible and would probably result in a bad story that would hurt your longevity and waste a bunch of production resources. It's possible that I'm entirely wrong, of course, but I can't find any examples of RTS games that are macro intensive, have a very cartoony art style, are based around no humans whatsoever, and have no real faction distinction that have had a linear story in a campaign that is both good and justified in production.

And, no, in response to PauloMorfeo's last bit, I don't perceive this thread as "full of people demanding and screaming for a campaign." I just kind of felt like discussing the issue.

[Jazcash]

Just got into the Beta, gotta say I'm quite disappointed. The planet stuff just feels like an annoyance more than a cool niche thing. The UI and stuff seem to get super laggy too when the game gets going and graphics are turned up which is strange considering the game looks hella ugly a lot of the time.

Ofc it's in Beta so I'll be back to check it out properly when it's released but I don't know if I'm ever going to like the planet mechanism.

[Beherith]

I feel the same as Jazcash, I probably set my expectations too high, but at the moment BAR not only performs better, it looks better too.

[luckywaldo7]

I think the planet mechanism is awesome; it forces you to think very differently as you can attack and be attacked from many more different directions, and you can't help protect something by building up right against the map edge or corner. And zooming out all the way to a solar system feels like using the strategic zoom for the first time again, but even way better.

I found the RTS part very underwhelming though. Defenses are insanely good, and everything mobile feels made out of paper, so any kind of micro seems fairly useless and encounters in equal numbers feel like a die roll of who shoots first. And some controls feel very odd, like after you shift-queue build commands the build command still hangs around on your cursor until you press esc. And I know there is the ability to set build hotkeys but I would really prefer some sane, decent hotkeys built right in.

But there is still time, especially for the modders. If this game gets a a fraction of the modding community that TA had there should be a lot of possibilities.

[scifi]

Just got into the Beta, gotta say I'm quite disappointed. The planet stuff just feels like an annoyance more than a cool niche thing. The UI and stuff seem to get super laggy too when the game gets going and graphics are turned up which is strange considering the game looks hella ugly a lot of the time.

Ofc it's in Beta so I'll be back to check it out properly when it's released but I don't know if I'm ever going to like the planet mechanism.

gladly i made my mind to not buy it before release when i looked at alpha screenshots and videos.

Planet mechanic is nice, but the games engine optimization, graphics, and gameplay are 100x times worse than spring atm.

Why should i buy a game when i have one for free thats better, beats the point tbh.

But there is still time, especially for the modders. If this game gets a a fraction of the modding community that TA had there should be a lot of possibilities.

Supcom was moddable, and we know how that turned out. Im afraid to say this but atm, supcom and even supcom2 are superior products. Why dont you go mod that game???

[KDR_11k]

A campaign wouldn't be too useful IMO, most RTS campaigns are pretty much throwaway things you look at once before going skirmish or multiplayer and most are fairly shit. Of course there are campaigns like SC2 or DoW2 but that's practically a second game and completely out of scope for PA.

Yeah, there's value in giving players a "click here to play now" button but that could probably be done in a more cost efficient manner than a full campaign.

Right now PA feels pretty hard to control but then again it probably cannot be as easy to control as AI War (e.g. automatic con assist where you just plonk down build orders and the cons automatically spread between construction sites and factory assisting).

As a kid I played TA for the carnage. I wasn't good at it but there were so many ways to make things go boom and against the AI that was good enough. Playing PA now feels more like an econ planning game, you do the economy and build the units, the fighting is so low on involvement that it might as well be automatic. So all the hassle of TA with none of the fun bits...

[luckywaldo7]

Supcom was moddable, and we know how that turned out. Im afraid to say this but atm, supcom and even supcom2 are superior products. Why dont you go mod that game???

Hmm, depends. Do you think adding planets to supcom will be easier than doing balance number tweaks to PA?

[Caydr]

I've been following this game for a while and recently bought early access. It looked pretty, seemed like it took a lot of ideas from TA, and it was "on sale", so why not?

At present, PA is not a game I'd recommend buying early access for. I'm confident the developers have their hearts in the right place and certainly there are some things I find impressive (at least on a technical level) but in my opinion the core game design is broken, maybe beyond the point of salvaging. There's a very good reason that the only videos they've released are montages of explosions and weaponized asteroids: the game falls apart once you're actually playing it, and the problems are related to its core mechanics rather than things that could be tweaked easily or even modded post-release.

All of that said, in light of their recent announcement that they're delaying the game's release date "until it's done", I'm cautiously hopeful they might make some great strides in the months ahead and, if not a successor to TA, at least put together a solid game. But judging by their progress so far, if this game is TA's successor then Smoth is a magical girl and I'm her unborn lovechild with the Pope.

[smoth]

Wait until I tell your father!

[REVENGE]

I've been following this game for a while and recently bought early access. It looked pretty, seemed like it took a lot of ideas from TA, and it was "on sale", so why not?

At present, PA is not a game I'd recommend buying early access for. I'm confident the developers have their hearts in the right place and certainly there are some things I find impressive (at least on a technical level) but in my opinion the core game design is broken, maybe beyond the point of salvaging. There's a very good reason that the only videos they've released are montages of explosions and weaponized asteroids: the game falls apart once you're actually playing it, and the problems are related to its core mechanics rather than things that could be tweaked easily or even modded post-release.

All of that said, in light of their recent announcement that they're delaying the game's release date "until it's done", I'm cautiously hopeful they might make some great strides in the months ahead and, if not a successor to TA, at least put together a solid game. But judging by their progress so far, if this game is TA's successor then Smoth is a magical girl and I'm her unborn lovechild with the Pope.

Nice avatar, thanks for reminding us why AA went down the toilet.

Also, the "problems related to its core mechanics" are that they have none. It's basically a techdemo of working planet generator + asteroids, there are no weapon or unit physics.

[klapmongool]

Also, the "problems related to its core mechanics" are that they have none. It's basically a techdemo of working planet generator + asteroids, there are no weapon or unit physics.

Yea. They need to do a lot more to make this into a proper engine, and game.

I hope that they do that and hopefully someone will try and make an *A mod for it :D

[BaNa]

I looked into a game and:

globe maps are interesting gameplay-wise, but am i correct in my assumption that basically all of them are CC redux, hueg open maps with tons of metal? I dunno if that is good.

The units and eco are very direct rips of TA (totally not a bad thing, they did set out to do this so its fine), BUT: as someone said, the units seem to made out of paper, its really wierd, it feels like they have very quantized HP (like a tank has 5 hp and if it gets hit it loses 1). There are also less units which can be an ok thing but coupled with the fact that they are the TA units more or less you are very aware of the stuff thats not there.