Darqraven, you're wrong. The WoW you're talking about is the WoW back in classic days and early The Burning Crusade. Things have changed, getting okay gear is easier now and it's easier to get a quick game of whatever. Still I can't deny, that WoW is an MMORPG, and like most other MMORPGs, it requires some dedication.
Looking for a non-FPS game suggestion
- Thread starter randyannie
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Well RPG Shooter wasn't the term in question. You quoted randyannie saying "I would absolutely not like another shooter", to which you replied "That includes FO3". It does not, by your own definition.
And for the sake of argument, why would it "fall under the shooter category"? Why couldn't it fall under the "RPG category"?
An example of an RPG Shooter that might fall more squarely into the Shooter category would be STALKER. You can play FO3 entirely with a baseball bat if you really wanted to and VATS can be used for most shooting in the game.
I think that's an important distinction to make. Otherwise it might leave the OP with the impression that it's a traditional shooter.
It's not "resource control" per se, it's that you are forced to move out of your "safety zone" to get more resources or else you will run out. The games don't let you turtle, you have to expand or you will kill yourself. It's just a poor concept.
In TA/SupCom you can turtle the whole game and you won't run yourself dry by running out of resources. Because of this, you can focus on other, more interesting aspects of the gameplay.
...Like building a pretty base or having your supply depots form a smiley face?
The concept of having to expand in order to survive is a core part of RTS games. If not expansion, thus good economy, thus unit production, exactly how are you competing with your opponent?
Being able to turtle in your base all day long and still pull off a win is a sign of either of two things:
1) Your opponent was **** and didn't know the counter.
2) The game has been reduced to a sleek, graphical version of rock paper scissors.
If picking a build order and building ****tons of units with it is all you do, where is the strategy part of the game? You don't have any more risk vs. reward assessments to make, only a 'build units' button to click.
Now, it's been a while since I last played SupCom, but from what I remember you had to cap matter points or w/e. How is this not expanding?
Why not just save players the hassle of having to build their own base and just give it to them from the get-go? If it's all about the units anyway, why bother with the base at all?
Hell, following the idea of not having to leave your safe zone, how about an RTS where you don't actually have enemies and instead only allies. After all, attacking is dangerous. Then you'd build a base and then people would quit because they get bored and the last person still in the server wins. Sounds exciting huh?
An RTS without expanding is like an FPS without movement. It simply doesn't make sense to remove it, because with it, you remove most of the tactical aspects of the game.
The concept of having to expand in order to survive is a core part of RTS games. If not expansion, thus good economy, thus unit production, exactly how are you competing with your opponent?
Being able to turtle in your base all day long and still pull off a win is a sign of either of two things:
1) Your opponent was **** and didn't know the counter.
2) The game has been reduced to a sleek, graphical version of rock paper scissors.
If picking a build order and building ****tons of units with it is all you do, where is the strategy part of the game? You don't have any more risk vs. reward assessments to make, only a 'build units' button to click.
Now, it's been a while since I last played SupCom, but from what I remember you had to cap matter points or w/e. How is this not expanding?
Why not just save players the hassle of having to build their own base and just give it to them from the get-go? If it's all about the units anyway, why bother with the base at all?
Hell, following the idea of not having to leave your safe zone, how about an RTS where you don't actually have enemies and instead only allies. After all, attacking is dangerous. Then you'd build a base and then people would quit because they get bored and the last person still in the server wins. Sounds exciting huh?
An RTS without expanding is like an FPS without movement. It simply doesn't make sense to remove it, because with it, you remove most of the tactical aspects of the game.
Last edited:
I'd say TA/SupCom is proof that it isn't, it's just a crutch RTS game developers use to force the game into one of a few paths. IMO, this limits what you can do. And, no, most people aren't going to learn that if you move each of your sets of units to the back during a battle you'll die less and win more.
Actually, in those games, you have to have really good build strategies to survive. If you CAN turtle all day long, it's because you have built really good defenses, built in really good formations, and have a good idea of what your opponent is going to attack with. That is a far cry from "doing nothing".
What argument are you trying to make anyway? I find forced expansion to be an extremely boring and lame way to force conflict. I'd much rather let people choose how and when they expand and attack (and, to be fair, expansion is important in SupCom, but it's easier to do it in the background than taking up all your time hunting for it, building around it, defending it, etc).
I like Warcraft 3 (not really Starcraft), but, like so many other RTSs, it makes me feel really claustrophobic and that aspect of the gameplay sucks.
The argument I'm trying to make is that if you even if you remove forced expansion by means of resources that run out, you're going to have forced expansion by means of competition because if you don't do it, your opponent will and you will be outgunned a bit later on in the game.
It's a simple principle really. For any and every game that relies on "resources = buildings+units", it is advantageous to increase your resources, since that will result in an increase in buildings and units that win you the game.
The only real difference in terms of expansion between SupCom and 'traditional' RTS is that SupCom is just a hell of a lot slower.
So if that means that any game with gatherable resources, regardless which game, will feature economy expanding one way or another, what exactly is the problem?
The fact that resources actually run out in games like Starcraft?
Spectate one starcraft match, not even on a pro level, just one, and you'll find that long before the first mineral field is depleted, there will already be 2 or more expansions per side anyway. For most matches, actually, you'll find one side has already won before the mineral field is depleted.
The only reason the depletion is there is to prevent turtling being too effective. If there wasn't such a limit, every single SC match would end in some monstrous battle where both teams were at their 200 unit cap. Boring as hell, in other words.
If having to expand elicits a feeling of claustrophobia in you, that means you either haven't scouted the area properly, haven't got a clue where the enemy is or are simply too fussy about it. Losing one expansion is not always a big deal, especially if you have more than one. You can always cancel if it's still building.
So, in short, the first half hour of the match is going to consist of two players spamming their bases with defense turrets and massproducing units while repeating a canned build order and occasionally sending a scout unit over to the opposite base to find out what's happening? If you compare that to a typical SC match, that might be won in 41 minutes, it might be won in 8 minutes with a rush build, it might be decided by a crucial battle some 10 minutes in, etc... There's just a lot more to the strategies that you can use than just 'building units'. And that's because of the constant fight for resources. If you let your guard down somewhere in the midgame, that could mean you lose out on that crucial expansion near a chokepoint.
It's a simple principle really. For any and every game that relies on "resources = buildings+units", it is advantageous to increase your resources, since that will result in an increase in buildings and units that win you the game.
The only real difference in terms of expansion between SupCom and 'traditional' RTS is that SupCom is just a hell of a lot slower.
So if that means that any game with gatherable resources, regardless which game, will feature economy expanding one way or another, what exactly is the problem?
The fact that resources actually run out in games like Starcraft?
Spectate one starcraft match, not even on a pro level, just one, and you'll find that long before the first mineral field is depleted, there will already be 2 or more expansions per side anyway. For most matches, actually, you'll find one side has already won before the mineral field is depleted.
The only reason the depletion is there is to prevent turtling being too effective. If there wasn't such a limit, every single SC match would end in some monstrous battle where both teams were at their 200 unit cap. Boring as hell, in other words.
If having to expand elicits a feeling of claustrophobia in you, that means you either haven't scouted the area properly, haven't got a clue where the enemy is or are simply too fussy about it. Losing one expansion is not always a big deal, especially if you have more than one. You can always cancel if it's still building.
So, in short, the first half hour of the match is going to consist of two players spamming their bases with defense turrets and massproducing units while repeating a canned build order and occasionally sending a scout unit over to the opposite base to find out what's happening? If you compare that to a typical SC match, that might be won in 41 minutes, it might be won in 8 minutes with a rush build, it might be decided by a crucial battle some 10 minutes in, etc... There's just a lot more to the strategies that you can use than just 'building units'. And that's because of the constant fight for resources. If you let your guard down somewhere in the midgame, that could mean you lose out on that crucial expansion near a chokepoint.
Last edited:
It's an opinion you two. It just depends what you like, and all of them have the possibility of strategies that will enable you to win the game.
To prove it here are some examples:
Empire: Total War
Sim City
Yeah, in Empire: Total War there is campaign mode where you manage stuff, but it would still work with just giving two people the exact same units in battle mode and the one with better strategy wins. I'm sure you can point out something about Sim City too, but you should be able to get the point.
Personally, I don't think resource management is fun.
To prove it here are some examples:
Empire: Total War
Sim City
Yeah, in Empire: Total War there is campaign mode where you manage stuff, but it would still work with just giving two people the exact same units in battle mode and the one with better strategy wins. I'm sure you can point out something about Sim City too, but you should be able to get the point.
Personally, I don't think resource management is fun.
Last edited:
:tup:Personally, I don't think resource management is fun.
Most of what you talked about in your post, DarQraven, simply isn't true of SupCom. Have you played it or watched any replays of people playing it?
Starcraft is a fast, combat focused RTS, and I like that about it a lot. Map control is a huge part of the strategy in it, and it's in no way a crutch. I just don't see it as a severely limiting gameplay mechanic. It's as limiting as being forced to fight in UT instead of hiding in a spawn area. It's just how the game works, it's supposed to be played aggressively.
I'm sure turtling is fine in SupCom, but it's a totally different game with a different focus.
I've not had a lot of experience with SupCom, but at l'm pretty sure that I'd hate it if everyone just turtled in SC2. Nothing against SupCom, I'm not saying it doesn't work. The two games are just so different that they each contain gameplay mechanics unsuited to the other.
I'm sure turtling is fine in SupCom, but it's a totally different game with a different focus.
I find turtling an extremely boring and lame way to force the absence of conflict. I wouldn't mind except that I was playing a game about war for the conflict part. I'd really rather people didn't have the choice to completely ignore me in an online competitive game. If they turtled really effectively, then I suppose I could turtle back... But if I just wanted to build a base in a corner on my own I could do that offline. (Not that I'd want to D: )
I've not had a lot of experience with SupCom, but at l'm pretty sure that I'd hate it if everyone just turtled in SC2. Nothing against SupCom, I'm not saying it doesn't work. The two games are just so different that they each contain gameplay mechanics unsuited to the other.
Turtling doesn't really work competitively in SupCom at all. However, I can just sit in my corner and turtle all I want when playing against the CPU. That's something you can't do in other RTSes, and that's what I find boring about them.
I don't see how forcing conflict is not a crutch to keep the game moving. If two people are turtling in SupCom, there will eventually be a massive, awesome battle that is awesome to watch. If two people turtle in Starcraft, they run out of resources and then run out of units.
I don't see how forcing conflict is not a crutch to keep the game moving. If two people are turtling in SupCom, there will eventually be a massive, awesome battle that is awesome to watch. If two people turtle in Starcraft, they run out of resources and then run out of units.
Ok everyone, a small Hijack here. Many of the games you have suggested want a 2.4 Ghz CPU. If I have a 2.3 Ghz CPU, do you think they might play on my system on lower detail. Or will they just not run at all.
I know some of you techies are gonna know the answer!
Thanks again everyone for the generous feedback! Prozac
I know some of you techies are gonna know the answer!
Thanks again everyone for the generous feedback! Prozac
Ok everyone, a small Hijack here. Many of the games you have suggested want a 2.4 Ghz CPU. If I have a 2.3 Ghz CPU, do you think they might play on my system on lower detail. Or will they just not run at all.
I know some of you techies are gonna know the answer!
Thanks again everyone for the generous feedback! Prozac
Download the demo and find out har har har woof woof
starcraft man, starcraft all the way.. the only other game I can go back to again and again, other then UT (which ill get back into when it saves my settings) for now im playing starcraft.. then I may play Descent freespace 2
I notice the discussion about RTS's. Did any of you try Perimeter? That always struck me as a novel take on the subject. Although since I'm not a big RTS fan I never tried it.
Oh, TrackMania United is awesome. It's one of the few games that I come back to time and time again.
Oh, TrackMania United is awesome. It's one of the few games that I come back to time and time again.
Last edited:
Ok, I want to modify my original post a bit. After playing a bit of Guild Wars, I've come to the conclusion that I wouldn't mind a little shooting, just in a more relaxed manner than UT2k4 or UT3.
A lot of my friends are recommending games like Fallout3 and Bioshock. Evidently they combine some role playing and some shooting and strategy as well. So if I wanted to shoot SOME but also explore and relax some too, which games would you recommend now?
Sorry for my change of direction, but after playing FPS's for so long, I just can't get used to the WoW and Guild Wars thing - I guess I need to shoot a little something after all. LOL
Pro
A lot of my friends are recommending games like Fallout3 and Bioshock. Evidently they combine some role playing and some shooting and strategy as well. So if I wanted to shoot SOME but also explore and relax some too, which games would you recommend now?
Sorry for my change of direction, but after playing FPS's for so long, I just can't get used to the WoW and Guild Wars thing - I guess I need to shoot a little something after all. LOL
Pro