I tend to completely disregard Gamespy's editors with the exception of Fargo and Sluggo (who I've met in real life. Cool guy).. The rest of them just seem bent on hyping up as if its the best thing ever the game from the developer paying them the most at the current moment. No journalistic integrity what so ever.
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not trying to be a pessamist, I'm just tired of all the hype that 'this will be the best game EVER' and then it sucks. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> like it has happended so many times before
Where do you see the hype? All they have done is shown us a few screenshots and told us what the game is like. I admit that some games are hyped a bit too much and this game might become one of them (though I doubt it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), but you can't call it hype just because they have shown what they've got a year before release. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 10 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 10 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not trying to be a pessamist, I'm just tired of all the hype that 'this will be the best game EVER' and then it sucks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> like it has happended so many times before <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. It has.
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jul 10 2005, 03:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jul 10 2005, 03:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Metalcat+Jul 10 2005, 02:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Metalcat @ Jul 10 2005, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jul 10 2005, 03:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm not trying to be a pessamist, I'm just tired of all the hype that 'this will be the best game EVER' and then it sucks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> like it has happended so many times before <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. It has. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> well i was just stating that
"Rock paper scissors" seems to be the mantra of most real-time strategy game developers, who seek to balance different units' strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's taken to the extreme (Empire Earth II's 'rock-paper-scissor' pyramid had something like 16 sides and required a slide rule to figure out.) But for Taylor and the team at Gas Powered, they steer clear of artificial balancing mechanisms: Supreme Commander will be pure simulation.
Here's what that means: when a tank rolls over a hill in Supreme Commander and fires its cannon at a moving target, it's not an instant hit. The trajectory of the shell is computed as it whirls through the air. Hitting a moving target from a moving platform is hard -- the AI might not be able to compensate, especially if the target suddenly switches direction or vaults in the air. For this reason, tanks may not be the best choice against fast targets (as opposed to a vehicle that fires lasers or guns.) They also work better when stationary. This isn't because the designers are futzing with numbers behind the scenes: It simply how tanks work.
Similarly, you can build air superiority fighters in the game. These are small, light, fast-moving aircraft with machineguns mounted on the wings. Against ground targets they're relatively useless -- not because the designers say so, but because machinegun strafing at high speeds means not a lot of bullets hit their target. However, these aircraft are perfect for taking on other aircraft, because they can stick to their tails like glue and plaster them with machinegun fire. But why would you build one of these when a full-service fighter that can launch missiles at ground targets is available? For the same reason you would in real-life: they're cheaper! You can have a phalanx of cheap air-superiority jets clear the skies for you before sending in your bigger (and more expensive) fighters and bombers to lay down the heavy scunion. This kind of tactical thinking emerges from a rich simulation with tons of units. That's what Supreme Commander is all about! See our separate features on land, sea, and air combat for more detail.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
"Rock paper scissors" seems to be the mantra of most real-time strategy game developers, who seek to balance different units' strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's taken to the extreme (Empire Earth II's 'rock-paper-scissor' pyramid had something like 16 sides and required a slide rule to figure out.) But for Taylor and the team at Gas Powered, they steer clear of artificial balancing mechanisms: Supreme Commander will be pure simulation.
Here's what that means: when a tank rolls over a hill in Supreme Commander and fires its cannon at a moving target, it's not an instant hit. The trajectory of the shell is computed as it whirls through the air. Hitting a moving target from a moving platform is hard -- the AI might not be able to compensate, especially if the target suddenly switches direction or vaults in the air. For this reason, tanks may not be the best choice against fast targets (as opposed to a vehicle that fires lasers or guns.) They also work better when stationary. This isn't because the designers are futzing with numbers behind the scenes: It simply how tanks work.
Similarly, you can build air superiority fighters in the game. These are small, light, fast-moving aircraft with machineguns mounted on the wings. Against ground targets they're relatively useless -- not because the designers say so, but because machinegun strafing at high speeds means not a lot of bullets hit their target. However, these aircraft are perfect for taking on other aircraft, because they can stick to their tails like glue and plaster them with machinegun fire. But why would you build one of these when a full-service fighter that can launch missiles at ground targets is available? For the same reason you would in real-life: they're cheaper! You can have a phalanx of cheap air-superiority jets clear the skies for you before sending in your bigger (and more expensive) fighters and bombers to lay down the heavy scunion. This kind of tactical thinking emerges from a rich simulation with tons of units. That's what Supreme Commander is all about! See our separate features on land, sea, and air combat for more detail.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pretty much what they did in TA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah... I know. Sort of. They tried to do this in TA, but the end result was "there's no reason to use <i>anything</i> other than masses of guided missile launchers".
QuaunautThe longest seven days in history...Join Date: 2003-03-21Member: 14759Members, Constellation, Reinforced - Shadow
<!--QuoteBegin-DOOManiac+Jul 10 2005, 12:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DOOManiac @ Jul 10 2005, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They said that about Tiberian Sun too. And Red Alert 2. And ... well you get the picture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And so did Gamespot, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, 1up.com, ign.com, oh, wait, AND EVERY SINGLE GAMING NEWS SITE OR MAGAZINE EVER MADE/PUBLISHED. Thanks for focusing on Gamespy for hate just 'cause, DOOM.
Comments
I just want to park that thing next to an enemy base, clear out what I can, then drive my sub-transports up and unload my tanks.
edit: btw doom, what's doing on with espionage?
I might have said it before, but it is only with great difficulty that this could end up as a bad game.
And Red Alert 2.
And ... well you get the picture.
You can be the eternal pessimist, but you don't have the whole side of things.
If it's not out by christmas 2006, i will be one unhappy man
like it has happended so many times before
I admit that some games are hyped a bit too much and this game might become one of them (though I doubt it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ), but you can't call it hype just because they have shown what they've got a year before release. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
like it has happended so many times before <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It has.
like it has happended so many times before <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It has. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
well i was just stating that
"Rock paper scissors" seems to be the mantra of most real-time strategy game developers, who seek to balance different units' strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's taken to the extreme (Empire Earth II's 'rock-paper-scissor' pyramid had something like 16 sides and required a slide rule to figure out.) But for Taylor and the team at Gas Powered, they steer clear of artificial balancing mechanisms: Supreme Commander will be pure simulation.
Here's what that means: when a tank rolls over a hill in Supreme Commander and fires its cannon at a moving target, it's not an instant hit. The trajectory of the shell is computed as it whirls through the air. Hitting a moving target from a moving platform is hard -- the AI might not be able to compensate, especially if the target suddenly switches direction or vaults in the air. For this reason, tanks may not be the best choice against fast targets (as opposed to a vehicle that fires lasers or guns.) They also work better when stationary. This isn't because the designers are futzing with numbers behind the scenes: It simply how tanks work.
Similarly, you can build air superiority fighters in the game. These are small, light, fast-moving aircraft with machineguns mounted on the wings. Against ground targets they're relatively useless -- not because the designers say so, but because machinegun strafing at high speeds means not a lot of bullets hit their target. However, these aircraft are perfect for taking on other aircraft, because they can stick to their tails like glue and plaster them with machinegun fire. But why would you build one of these when a full-service fighter that can launch missiles at ground targets is available? For the same reason you would in real-life: they're cheaper! You can have a phalanx of cheap air-superiority jets clear the skies for you before sending in your bigger (and more expensive) fighters and bombers to lay down the heavy scunion. This kind of tactical thinking emerges from a rich simulation with tons of units. That's what Supreme Commander is all about! See our separate features on land, sea, and air combat for more detail.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's.....
Pretty much what they did in TA.
"Rock paper scissors" seems to be the mantra of most real-time strategy game developers, who seek to balance different units' strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes it's taken to the extreme (Empire Earth II's 'rock-paper-scissor' pyramid had something like 16 sides and required a slide rule to figure out.) But for Taylor and the team at Gas Powered, they steer clear of artificial balancing mechanisms: Supreme Commander will be pure simulation.
Here's what that means: when a tank rolls over a hill in Supreme Commander and fires its cannon at a moving target, it's not an instant hit. The trajectory of the shell is computed as it whirls through the air. Hitting a moving target from a moving platform is hard -- the AI might not be able to compensate, especially if the target suddenly switches direction or vaults in the air. For this reason, tanks may not be the best choice against fast targets (as opposed to a vehicle that fires lasers or guns.) They also work better when stationary. This isn't because the designers are futzing with numbers behind the scenes: It simply how tanks work.
Similarly, you can build air superiority fighters in the game. These are small, light, fast-moving aircraft with machineguns mounted on the wings. Against ground targets they're relatively useless -- not because the designers say so, but because machinegun strafing at high speeds means not a lot of bullets hit their target. However, these aircraft are perfect for taking on other aircraft, because they can stick to their tails like glue and plaster them with machinegun fire. But why would you build one of these when a full-service fighter that can launch missiles at ground targets is available? For the same reason you would in real-life: they're cheaper! You can have a phalanx of cheap air-superiority jets clear the skies for you before sending in your bigger (and more expensive) fighters and bombers to lay down the heavy scunion. This kind of tactical thinking emerges from a rich simulation with tons of units. That's what Supreme Commander is all about! See our separate features on land, sea, and air combat for more detail.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's.....
Pretty much what they did in TA. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah... I know. Sort of. They tried to do this in TA, but the end result was "there's no reason to use <i>anything</i> other than masses of guided missile launchers".
And Red Alert 2.
And ... well you get the picture. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And so did Gamespot, PC Gamer, Computer Gaming World, Electronic Gaming Monthly, 1up.com, ign.com, oh, wait, AND EVERY SINGLE GAMING NEWS SITE OR MAGAZINE EVER MADE/PUBLISHED. Thanks for focusing on Gamespy for hate just 'cause, DOOM.
<img src='http://pcmedia.gamespy.com/pc/image/article/630/630555/AeonLogo_1120180299.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
What does this remind you of?
edit: also Red Alert 2 was good
DOOM is a jerk