Gamespot trying to get into this whole video essay thing is sort of a bit sad.
They picked a weird game to do it with too, an early access game that has been super seeded by multiple RTS mods and criticised by veteran RTS professionals. Everything this dude is describing seems like just default RTS design, also with zombie tower defence. It doesn't help at all that this video has literally no personality or pace to it at all, and it sparingly uses video essay tropes (like that Shaun of the Dead cut) to the wrong effect. At least they don't just randomly use a VHS or CRT effect...
Odd to see him herald StarCraft 2 as perfecting the formula when a majority of the professional scene (and fans too) would disagree.
Brilliant design if you enjoy spending an hour+ meticulously but aggressively expanding your base only for a single banshee to jump your walls and fuck it all up
[QUOTE=Foogooman;53199769]Brilliant design if you enjoy spending an hour+ meticulously but aggressively expanding your base only for a single banshee to jump your walls and fuck it all up[/QUOTE]
something easily prevented by placing snipers around your perimeter, or layering up your defenses and spamming ballistas.
[QUOTE=DBFT;53199770]something easily prevented by placing snipers around your perimeter, or layering up your defenses and spamming ballistas.[/QUOTE]
Good luck finding the economy to have a ballista at every wall on any map but the first one. The minute you pull your units away to defend from a horde wave is the exact minute that banshee is gonna hop the wall. The game is so unforgiving that the smallest mistake will ruin you, and opportunities to make mistakes are constant.
[QUOTE=Foogooman;53199776]Good luck finding the economy to have a ballista at every wall on any map but the first one. The minute you pull your units away to defend from a horde wave is the exact minute that banshee is gonna hop the wall. The game is so unforgiving that the smallest mistake will ruin you, and opportunities to make mistakes are constant.[/QUOTE]
That's why it's so satisfying to win.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53199371]Gamespot trying to get into this whole video essay thing is sort of a bit sad.[/QUOTE]
GameSpot DID have video essays for quite a while, it's just that the guy who did them went on to do his own higher production value project. He also did it way better than the person in this video.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRUdlWZz_o[/media]
[QUOTE=DBFT;53199770]something easily prevented by placing snipers around your perimeter, or layering up your defenses and spamming ballistas.[/QUOTE]
At the end of the day, you need to spend an hour doing unfun meticulous shit before you can get to the fun part and if you miss one zombie during the fun part you're back to square one. All because the elitist [I]hardcore gamer™[/I] mentality of the devs and their fans won't allow them to add a proper save system to the game.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;53199371]Gamespot trying to get into this whole video essay thing is sort of a bit sad.[/QUOTE]
Doesn't help that it starts off with a bit of bad history.
The Maginot Line was intended to funnel Germany through Belgium, not to hold off the Germans as long as possible so they could mount a "massive counterattack". What the French and British did not count on was the Germans going through the Ardennes.
[QUOTE=Fish_poke;53199798]GameSpot DID have video essays for quite a while, it's just that the guy who did them went on to do his own higher production value project. He also did it way better than the person in this video.
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZRUdlWZz_o[/media][/QUOTE]
Oh I fucking loved The Point enough to still be following Danny's work to this day. It was excellent. It was such a shame GameSpot didn't give a shit about it and canceled it, was clearly Danny's passion project.
If you want something like that today you should check out Eurogamer's Here's a Thing.
[QUOTE=The Aussie;53199784]That's why it's so satisfying to win.[/QUOTE]
That's not really what that is. Its more like relief. Like the relief after being waterboarded for an hour and finally passing out because you're so exhausted from the sleep deprivation and the fact they feed you bug once a day as a meal.
I don't know. I don't really mind losing over and over, even when it comes to something so simple as a single zombie.
I've learned a lot playing on easier difficulties, and for me it's fun to watch my colony utterly collapse thanks to a mistake that I made. Each playthrough I learn something new, then I make it to the final wave and see whether or not I've learned enough.
But that's just survival mode. The campaign mode sounds like it'll be a lot of fun.
This video really doesn't even tell why the design is great. It scratches the surface and makes a bunch of rather irrelevant comparisons, They are Billions is a single player asymmetrical RTS. It feels like a waste of time.
talking about the conception of the RTS genre without even mentioning Dune.
yeah.
[QUOTE=DBFT;53199770]something easily prevented by placing snipers around your perimeter, or layering up your defenses and spamming ballistas.[/QUOTE]
Ah yes, snipers, the literally only good unit in the game besides Thals. Dude, as someone who even likes the game, it's honestly a poorly designed piece of early access that is unfortunately being run into the ground by retarded ass "[B]HARD[/B][I][I]CORE[/I][/I] [U][I][B]GAMERS[/B][/I][/U]" who don't understand that hard =/= good. And this is coming from someone who actually grew up playing games that are leagues harder than a lot of modern games not by really all design but by the limitations of hardware/controls/programmers/etc. I generally play games on hard, I remember playing original strategy and RTS games with hardest AI and shit, but there's a very big difference between those games ideas of hard and They Are Billions where half the shit is fucking unreasonably punishing, all but two of the units are literally fucking worthless, and there's no reason to actually build anything but ballistae until the final wave where you're just spam upgrading them to chainguns. Trust me, I've played the game, it's shit right now, I like the concept, I want it to be good, but the facts don't change. It is in no way shape or form an example of "brilliant" game design.
Unless your idea of brilliant game design is forcing players to grind for an hour or more in an unsatisfying payout of tower defense. At least when I solo against a full complement of hardest AI in AOE2 I can see my decisions fucking me over and have the chance to make good decisions to win. There's some actual tactical decision making to do, it isn't just "opss 1 specific enemy didn't get targeted by the AI of my units and they now have literally single handedly fucked up an entire sector of my colony, game over I guess GG nothing I can do."
Shit sometimes on the harder maps in TOB you can actually partially attribute your RNG mayor selection to your failure, because if all you get is bad mayors you're just more behind the very tight curve that is the fine line between winning and just absolutely losing. Brilliant game design right there my dude.
[QUOTE=Novangel;53199757]Odd to see him herald StarCraft 2 as perfecting the formula when a majority of the professional scene (and fans too) would disagree.[/QUOTE]
As a long time RTS fan who fell off after WiC; what makes SC2 so sorta hated?
[QUOTE=Metaru;53202843]talking about the conception of the RTS genre without even mentioning Dune.
yeah.[/QUOTE]
I think that might be a symptom of somebody in the Gamespot office going "hey we should be doing that video essay thing all the kids are doing nowadays!" and somebody responding "yeah but what on?" and the first guy replying "idk, I guess I've been playing They are Billions lately?"
[QUOTE=F.X Clampazzo;53202928]Ah yes, snipers, the literally only good unit in the game besides Thals. Dude, as someone who even likes the game, it's honestly a poorly designed piece of early access that is unfortunately being run into the ground by retarded ass "[B]HARD[/B][I][I]CORE[/I][/I] [U][I][B]GAMERS[/B][/I][/U]" who don't understand that hard =/= good. And this is coming from someone who actually grew up playing games that are leagues harder than a lot of modern games not by really all design but by the limitations of hardware/controls/programmers/etc. I generally play games on hard, I remember playing original strategy and RTS games with hardest AI and shit, but there's a very big difference between those games ideas of hard and They Are Billions where half the shit is fucking unreasonably punishing, all but two of the units are literally fucking worthless, and there's no reason to actually build anything but ballistae until the final wave where you're just spam upgrading them to chainguns. Trust me, I've played the game, it's shit right now, I like the concept, I want it to be good, but the facts don't change. It is in no way shape or form an example of "brilliant" game design.
Unless your idea of brilliant game design is forcing players to grind for an hour or more in an unsatisfying payout of tower defense. At least when I solo against a full complement of hardest AI in AOE2 I can see my decisions fucking me over and have the chance to make good decisions to win. There's some actual tactical decision making to do, it isn't just "opss 1 specific enemy didn't get targeted by the AI of my units and they now have literally single handedly fucked up an entire sector of my colony, game over I guess GG nothing I can do."
Shit sometimes on the harder maps in TOB you can actually partially attribute your RNG mayor selection to your failure, because if all you get is bad mayors you're just more behind the very tight curve that is the fine line between winning and just absolutely losing. Brilliant game design right there my dude.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say the game design is good. It works for me as it stands, but I can agree that the way a lot of the stuff is handled doesn't do the game any favors. Hopefully as time passes, they'll add and balance units/defenses until the optimal build isn't just sniper deathballs backed by ballistae spam.
I dunno I found it pretty enjoyable. I liked the random maps and replayability, and every time I lost it felt like it was my fault.
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53203070]As a long time RTS fan who fell off after WiC; what makes SC2 so sorta hated?[/QUOTE]
I'm not an expert in these things but mainly balance issues and such I think.
[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53203070]As a long time RTS fan who fell off after WiC; what makes SC2 so sorta hated?[/QUOTE]
They basically turned StarCraft into a spam fest where good APM is the only thing that matters. I'll try to find a good video on it if I can find it again.
The issue is the asinine no saves "feature". Very few people want to spend an hour building a base only for one wave to wipe it out. game could have been load of fun but the RNG around mayors and the persistent "git gud" mentality ruins it. Its the same issue i had with darkest dungeon, build a team for an hour or two only for the game to throw you a shit pair of dice and you have to start all the way back to the beginning with no real way to speed back to where you are. Some people like the idea of rebuilding but most are extremely annoyed by it.
Also, why in the hell is there no fast forward option to speed building while in between waves?
If Starcraft 2 hasn't, then what has?
Nothing. There is no perfect strategy game, just as there is no perfect shooter. There are plenty of games that are great because of the things that make them unique and how they implement them.
Ah alright, so my watching of said games was correct in that I most saw rapid clicking with hulks of varied units being moved around. It was fairly reminsecant of C&C's games but anytime I made the comparison someone would try to correct me.
I never really understood the rapid clicking to be honest, I used to be on the same dorm floor as a dude who played SC2 competitively and he spent like, a good 15 minutes warming up by just clicking rapidly on his mouse.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
