Again, innovation is not a bad thing. Do not put words in my mouth. Innovation is a good thing as a rule of thumb. But innovation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of a game, which must be objectively judged on its own merits. This especially holds true with sequels, which most people would want to be refined versions of what came before - polishing what works, fixing what doesn't. If EA made Mirror's Edge 2 and instead decided to make it a brawler or some other "innovation" (make a hypothetical innovation up in your head), people would be upset because they had a cool idea in the first game that they just didn't execute well - shouldn't they try on refining an already cool idea to make it something good? Sometimes it works (DoW2), but most of the time it'd be bizarre.TB_Infidel said:So what is the purpose of the phoenix? Counter AA. Siege tank? Counter large numbers of light armour. In a game with air, light armour and heavy armour, counter units are very apparent.Excludos said:
And you say mass counter counters, but work out the price equivalent and this theory is very flawed. I also have never advocated ignoring troops and expansion for pure teching as that would be nothing but suicidal.
If you want to discuss or learn strategy, go to SC2 forums or go to youtube and look and the almost set tactics eg there is only one way to defend from an early Terran marine/Marauder if you are Protoss.
It is a network IP address, I'm surprised your IT dept. did not realise this. If you want to really be sure then check the MAC address'.John Funk said:No, it's identical. As in, an IP check on either one of your accounts returns the other one. And "not meant to leak things like that"? I wasn't leaking anything; I was calling you out on trolling on multiple accounts, both of which are against our terms of use, though one carries with it the weight of a ban. (And really, this is just a fun fact that our IT staff informed me of.) And please, I WISH I was a sellout. Sleeping on a pile of money would be nice, don't you think?
Really, I'm being nice here. Would you rather have a simple ban without so much of an explanation? Which one of your accounts would you rather get nuked?
Oh, and now you're adding "Directly insulting staff" to the list of offenses piling up against you. You really ought to quit while you're not so far behind, you know. But I'll humor you one more time: Innovation does not make for a good game. It CAN make for a good game (see Super Mario Galaxy 1), but then you also get games like Mirror's Edge. Great new concept, awesome ideas, wonderful art style, but it was a pain to play and had serious flaws. In the end, we need to judge a game on how good it is - and while we can forgive some roughness for a cool new idea, that's the bottom line.
But the inverse is also true. Just because a game isn't innovative doesn't mean it isn't great. SMG1 did all the innovation; SMG2 was the same game, but used the freedom of not having to innovate to just do absolutely spectacular level design and rock-solid gameplay. That's a game that I would whole-heartedly recommend to anyone (aka a five-star game), as is StarCraft 2.
But really, this is pointless and this "argument" is at an end. You are willfully refusing to even acknowledge that you are considering any of the many, many points made against you, and have crossed the line to blatantly breaking our forum guidelines with alternate accounts, flame-baiting, and insulting staff.
It's up to you how you want this to end.
The thing with innovation is that it leads to progression eg Mirror's Edge. The only thing it had going for it was that it was different and not yet another fps, RPG, or RTS clone. With how SC2 is I wonder what else they will do in the next 2 games to come bar throw in some more, yet unneeded units. Without innovation games would not progress, and if everyone stuck to praising games for staying the same then we would be on Pong 3000.
What I do not understand is how you claim that a game which is a refined version of the original is not tedious and repetitive as you have done this all before because even though you claim it is very tactical, it would not take long to get extremely good at it, and not much sooner after that to get bored of playing the same game. You said previously that I was a fool for thinking that playing the same computer game for 10 years was grinding. How is it not? If you spent your time equally spread across other games, then you would actually have a basis to form an opinion on, where as most people on this thread have just played demo's or a few minutes of other RTS' (never giving them a chance), and just stuck to what they knew and loved from their childhood.
A great game is a great game, even if it doesn't innovate. A bad game is a bad game, even if it innovates. There is no inherent correlation between the two.
You can play StarCraft for years because, like chess, no two games are the same. And that's why it isn't tedious, and that's why people still like watching televised sports for decades (or hell, why people in Korea liked watching televised StarCraft. Do you really think it would have flourished if every game went the same way?)
But now, I'm done responding to both accounts and will only respond to one.
