Today, let's talk about base building....
hehe, ofc it can be different to design of SC2, i was using SC2 as a reference of something well executed, but lacking innovation.
My point was, that it wont be the same as SC2, but that it will be the same as the original game (in this case Generals), just like SC2 is polished version of original SC, nothing more. And while that might be enough to sell well, because in case of SC there are perhaps enough people just in Korea to buy it to recoup the development costs for Blizzard, i do not think its enough for the game to leave its mark in the history of the genre and at this point in my life, where i am bored by 9 games out of 10, it is certainly not enough for me.
I love skirmish and singleplayer never really found an RTS base builder online any fun accept the Occasional Art of Defence map now THOSE were fun so many laser turrets and chinese gattling gun things. Thats probably the only thing i found fun about command and conquer multiplayer.
For Battlefield 3's Cover, just because your head is behind cover doesn't mean you're whole body is. An arm sticking out can still be shot at, no matter how close your nose is to the wall.
For RTS, Yea, I'd like good gameplay. But before we can ask for good gameplay AGM we first need to ask ourselves "What's good gameplay?" I suppose good gameplay is told through the empricial. Meaning, how many units has the game sold in a month? That's odd though because Modern Warfare has no different game play than any other FPS. Taking cues from Halo's regen health system then throwing in ironsight aiming. Is that good gameplay?
I have to wonder..playing Modern Warfare's online I noticed that when things die. I do get points. Numbers. Which lead to experience which lead to leveling up which lead to perks So, considering that MW is very popular and we've established that good gameplay is dictated by how many units are sold within a month. Is good gameplayer dictated purely by whatever number is shown? Let's look at World of Warcraft. Purely a numbers game. Everything in it has either a number or a percentage on it and it's EXTREMELY popular, which also has a experience and leveling up system. Hmmm..
So AGM, is it reasonable to assume that..for you..at least.. that RTS's are lacking in numbers? Cos that's what makes good gameplay? Needing a leveling up system makes for good multiplayer? Yes, looking at the evidence. It seems to me AGM that for any game to succeed they need some sort of leveling up system, that goes beyond just a basic "oh you're level 10 good job" but is also coupled with a reward for example "oh you're level 10 good job here's a humvee with a missle launcher attached"..Yes?
But yea, anywho, here's the reasons that I believe people don't multiplay.
1. Don't want to get creamed and called a newb I.E stagefright.
2. Don't want heart beat/ blood pressure to rise.
3. Don't want to deal with twats.
4. Don't see much of a point in it.
Last edited by Skipper3; 02-17-2012 at 01:10 AM.
Also, why the heck is the text all white in the reply box?! I have to make it black to be able to see what I'm typing. This was a stupid idea...
I didn't buy BF3 because of this problem. They should never have released a beta where the hit registration and kill mechanics were so horribly broken.
Victory Games is Electronic Arts' dedicated Strategy Gaming studio. Formed in 2010 under the leadership of Jon Van Caneghem, Victory Games has offices in Los Angeles, CA; Austin, TX; and Shanghai, China and is currently focused on the Command & Conquer franchise.