Time Travel in spring

[Peet]

Ok nevermind guys dont bother discussing it, the Great Creator himself has watched a third of the heretical video and His Divine Truths have decreed that failure will befall the whole concept unless it is implemented with a grid-based unit placer.

[Felix the Cat]

Sounds dumb, to me. Did your opponent rush you on the West? Go back in time, and have your forces placed right to win.

No matter how they balance that... it'll either be a totally useless gimmick, or a game-wrecker. And going forwards in time will be even worse.

Summary: "time travel is bad because you can travel in time and that's no fair".

Personally, I think it's the coolest RTS idea since some Swedish guys got together and made a 3D TA emulator...

[Spawn_Retard]

Sebastian called Wright a very talented developer, but noted that his games tend to take a long time to create. He estimates that "Spore," which took several years, cost somewhere between $30 million and $40 million.

I LOL'D pretty hard when i saw that.

[Gota]

No, I'm saying that I saw the video, that I think that their idea won't work very well when people play it, and proposed what I'd do instead.

Time travel in one direction only, no paradoxes, and it'd work.

That's some nerve...They have been testing this gameplay for several years...
I don't see why this wont be fun...Watch the other 2 demos as well.

[Gota]

Sounds dumb, to me. Did your opponent rush you on the West? Go back in time, and have your forces placed right to win.

No matter how they balance that... it'll either be a totally useless gimmick, or a game-wrecker. And going forwards in time will be even worse.

hmm...than the other guy gives orders for his rush to go to a different location.
Your criticism is absurd...you haven't played the game,you didn't understand nor can you how exactly it will work(cause you need to play it to truly understand how it plays).

IT would be silly of me to be too enthusiastic about this cause I'm not making it nor have i tried it but IT's very original and fresh.
This is probably the coolest gameplay idea iv seen in years when it comes to the rts genre...
I dont know how it will play and how they will implement it but imo it has a lot of potential...
We haven't actually see anything truly new in rts games in years..
I'm a humble gamer so My opinion doesn't count for much....Does yours?

[pharoph]

thats made as much sense as a water proof towel.

[Teutooni]

Argh, you do realize adding time travel as a major gameplay element will change the nature of the rts - you will play against an enemy on many fronts in time. Perhaps not unlike having multiple bases, one in each timewave. You don't just "lol I go back in time and undo his attack". The enemy has to not only predict how the attack goes but also the possibility of you countering it from another point in time, and make plans for it.

[Snipawolf]

Can be much more than merely fighting. You could decide to spring up an unnoticed base 10 minutes ago, instead of focusing on the current base you have.

[REVENGE]

Personally, I think it's the coolest RTS idea since some Swedish guys got together and made a 3D TA emulator...

A rather vague analogy.

[Boirunner]

Sounds dumb, to me. Did your opponent rush you on the West? Go back in time, and have your forces placed right to win.

No matter how they balance that... it'll either be a totally useless gimmick, or a game-wrecker. And going forwards in time will be even worse.

You are one of the most willfully ignorant people I've ever had the misfortune of being aware of.

Did you even try to understand how the game mechanics work in the game mentioned in the OP?

Hint: "Auto-battles" and all-player time jump-backs are not part of it!

[AF]

I think the key is earlier when argh tried to make clear what hes talking about and what your talking about aren't the same. Your talking about the machanics referenced in the starting post of the thread. Argh couldnt see how they would be produced in spring so he proposed an alternative set of mechanics, that he is now talking about. Sadly everyone ignored this for the most part and assumed his subsequent posts where about the original mechanics mentioned.

Sadly he hasnt made this clear enough and should really have split into another thread, and the thread itself was so involved in the original mechanics that people jumped in without reading the thread at all and thus missing arghs original post and assumed he was misguidedly talking about the mechanics of the game referenced.

eurg either way both sides argh and those attacking him are all made of utter epic fail in this thread.

[Argh]

LOL! I've been trolled by boirunner. I must have finally arrived.

Seriously man, don't get yer bowels in an uproar, basically all I had to say was that I don't think their game will be fun and that I think that time-travel backwards would be doable in Spring. And that that would be more likely to be actually fun than what they're doing. But that's just my opinion, and these guys always know what's going to be great and will sell, whereas I'm always wrong. Oh, wait...

[Boirunner]

Seriously?

One guy suggested a feature, Argh degenerated it to something stupid enough for him to understand and then proceded to claim that the resulting feature was dumb. Good job, dude!

[AF]

As I said, the thread was epic fail, move on people, move on

[Boirunner]

As I said, Argh is epic fail, move on people, move on

true, true

And that that would be more likely to be actually fun than what they're doing.

So it would be, as you correctly stated, incredibly stupid and gamebreaking, but still more fun that what they are doing? As in, an incredibly creative and innovative new concept for an RTS that is thought-out and well tested and that most people here found to be pretty fucking clever?

[AF]

Epic fail

[Argh]

LOL. Well, I guess we know who's already preordered it. Let us know if it doesn't stink on ice when released

[Boirunner]

They are stupid. What the market want is not an innovative game with new mind challenging clever mechanics. What the market want is yet another Red Alert clone, only this time Staline is 50m tall and dancing.

I guess zwzsg was right.

[Argh]

I disagree. It's not that the market won't reward innovation. It's just that if you're going to deliver innovation, it needs to be packaged in something that's compelling.

Moreover, innovation isn't what it's cracked up to be. Man, not everybody wants to play games that make your head spin with complex new mechanics. You can hate that if you wanna, but what's the point? There is a market for "nerd games", and it's plenty healthy. Maybe there are enough nerds for Achron. IDK, my guess is no, but it really depends on the sales target Mr. Hazard has to meet to succeed.

But trying to sell ordinary gamers on a feature is like selling your girlfriend on orgy attendance by insisting that well-hung men might show up. Only a few will respond with serious interest, and it's not necessarily a good thing.

I am almost of the opinion that if people around here get super-excited about a game, then it's probably doomed in the wider marketplace, because this is such a hellhole of design nerds who are generally contemptuous of the massive work that's required to even slightly appeal to the rest of the world.

Hate me for pointing it out or not... the basic fact is that a compelling game is not appealing because of its features alone. There's a lot more to it than some clever gamecode or a "new idea", dammit.

Making the features compelling and seem to have something to do with the world people are immersed in... that's what's hard. The main reason why I don't think the time-travel game will go anywhere useful is not because it's a totally terrible idea- it's because it's ugly and there's absolutely nothing compelling about it other than the gimmick it's built around.

At any rate, that's my somewhat-serious take on this. I don't really expect you to get it, and I certainly don't expect you to like me for pointing it out. Moving on now, I wanted to relax today.

[Gota]

I disagree. It's not that the market won't reward innovation. It's just that if you're going to deliver innovation, it needs to be packaged in something that's compelling.

Moreover, innovation isn't what it's cracked up to be. Man, not everybody wants to play games that make your head spin with complex new mechanics. You can hate that if you wanna, but what's the point? There is a market for "nerd games", and it's plenty healthy. Maybe there are enough nerds for Achron. IDK, my guess is no, but it really depends on the sales target Mr. Hazard has to meet to succeed.

But trying to sell ordinary gamers on a feature is like selling your girlfriend on orgy attendance by insisting that well-hung men might show up. Only a few will respond with serious interest, and it's not necessarily a good thing.

I am almost of the opinion that if people around here get super-excited about a game, then it's probably doomed in the wider marketplace, because this is such a hellhole of design nerds who are generally contemptuous of the massive work that's required to even slightly appeal to the rest of the world.

Hate me for pointing it out or not... the basic fact is that a compelling game is not appealing because of its features alone. There's a lot more to it than some clever gamecode or a "new idea", dammit.

Making the features compelling and seem to have something to do with the world people are immersed in... that's what's hard. The main reason why I don't think the time-travel game will go anywhere useful is not because it's a totally terrible idea- it's because it's ugly and there's absolutely nothing compelling about it other than the gimmick it's built around.

At any rate, that's my somewhat-serious take on this. I don't really expect you to get it, and I certainly don't expect you to like me for pointing it out. Moving on now, I wanted to relax today.

yeah but...who cares if it becomes popular?
What are you talking about?are you comparing it to pure?
All i personally need if it will be a "nerd" game as you say(i dont think it is actually that hard to get used to)
Is for it to have a constant player base so you can get games going...I personally,as a semi casual player dont care if it becomes a mega hit...I'd actually prefer it was a bit exclusive...
Yeah i enjoy smart complex games...Why would any of us care if it sells well or not?was anyone actually talking about how it sells?
I was under the impression we were talking about how it has potential to be fun for us...Us,spring players.