I guess I just suck. But I tried a simple skirmish on a small map (I think it's the first one on the list alphabetically), just me (orcs) and one computer player (human). I created some peons, built a barracks, hired a hero, created maybe 10 grunts and 4 of the headhunters, and was starting on a second tower, when I ran into the human army, which was staffed by 7 rifleman, 2 of those mortar units, 3 (!) water elemental creatures, a priest, lots of footmen. Okay, I give up. How can I build an army any faster, and -- if I am able to learn how -- does that qualify as fun?
I was just commenting on that yesterday at the office. The AI is ruthless in skirmish mode. I consider myslef a good RTS player (not great), but I was only starting 2nd level buildings and had a 2nd-level hero when my base gets nailed by 2nd level units and a huge army led by two heroes, one at 4th level!
Even using the cheat to give you extra 500 wood and gold didn't help. I wish there was a way to tweak the AI's level of difficulty.
It is unbelievably difficult!
Yeah, I just got wasted in skirmish by a level 4 and level 2 hero-led force. It's tough.
I actually like the hard skirmish AI. Kohan's skirmish AI seemed just as hard at first, but then you played the game more, learned better strategies and tactics, and eventually could whup the AI's ass. The same will probably happen with the WC3 skirmish AI once everyone gets more experience with the system. Of course, it would have helped immensely if Blizzard used the Kohan system of multiple skirmish AIs, each with their own specialties, difficulty, and strategies.
- Balut, who asks, "When's Kohan II coming out?"
The skirmish AI is way tougher than the campaign on normal. Even after you've finished the campaign, the skirmish AI will probably stomp you for a while. I've found the best way to learn the game is to team up with the AI and watch what it does (shared vision on). You'll see what it does in terms of build order, when it goes off to gain experience or expand its base, and so on. Great way to learn how to play competitively, as then you can take those skills to Battle.net. The computer doesn't cheat--it's just ruthlessly efficient. You can tell they balanced the skirmish AI to put up a good fight against Blizzard's beta testers. On Battle.net, you see a lot of games like "three humans vs. two CPUs". It's pretty fun to play against the computer co-op, especially with shared unit control.
"The computer doesn't cheat--it's just ruthlessly efficient."
I don't think you can say that yet. The game could still be like SC were it new the map from the start and where everything is(bldgs and units are) all the time.
This is a *big* obstacle for me. I have no interest in plowing through the single player game (yeah, yeah, great story, a mysterious prophet comes to Thrall, Prince Arithra betrays his lineage, blah blah blah, what is this, an RPG?), I can't play multiplayer without having a virtual boot lodged in my ass, and there's no way to get the friggin' skirmish AI to ease the hell up. Sheesh, what's a guy supposed to do?
And if I'm having trouble with it, I can only imagine how all those millions of Casual Gamers who bought WC3 must feel.
More on this later, but here's the drum I'm going to be beating from now on:
Warcraft III is the weakest game Blizzard has ever done. Italics mine.
-Tom
> can only imagine how all those millions of Casual Gamers who bought WC3 must feel
They're doing the same thing they did with StarCraft and Warcraft 2 - playing the single player game, or hacking around a bit with friends who are equally inept.
Stop being a jackass? Singleplayer is why 98% of the audience buys a game.This is a *big* obstacle for me. I have no interest in plowing through the single player game (yeah, yeah, great story, a mysterious prophet comes to Thrall, Prince Arithra betrays his lineage, blah blah blah, what is this, an RPG?), I can't play multiplayer without having a virtual boot lodged in my ass, and there's no way to get the friggin' skirmish AI to ease the hell up. Sheesh, what's a guy supposed to do?
This bot fixation you have is growing very tedious. First, it's Halo, then you make snarky comments about RTCW multiplayer because it doesn't meet your narrow definition of what makes multiplayer fun. Hand me a mirror and I'll show you the problem.
If we had .sigs on this board, this would be my new one.Originally Posted by TomChick
Good think Warcraft III isn't a violent game like Tony Hawk! Give it some credit!
I like Warcraft III's single player so far, the non-base stuff is really a lot more creative, but yeah, it's easy. Maybe because I played through both StarCraft and BroodWar. The heroes just make WC3 easier, in my opinion of course.
Im sure in multiplayer I would get my butt handed to me, but WC3 isn't the kind of game I wanna play Multiplayer anymore. Not that it's terrible, but as refined as this traditional rts formula is, im friggin tired of it.
I'd just like to point out that both stories in WC3 and the already-beatified NWN feature the groundbreaking literary device of a mysterious plague. Except that WC3 eventually gets over it and lets you kill things, while NWN does everything except force you to re-read Camus. So if you're going to use this mocking-of-story tactic to sink WC3, you're blowing holes in your own boat.
I'd love to chit-chat about this, but I have to go read twenty more screens full of dialogue boxes about science. And might yadda yadda and magic the end.
As long as I have you both here, I just want to say that the strategy article in Computer Gaming World where you two face off is pure fucking genius (Chick vs Geryk that is). I loved the Battlecry one, and I just got the NWN issue with the Freedom Force AAR. I'm guessing that Jeff Green came up with this idea (just so I don't fill either of your heads with false modesty as it appears that you are just about to do a WC3 vs. NWN battle-o-tunda). Nice work guys.
What kind of a numskull drops $60 on a game and only wants to skirmish? I'm not sure any "casual" gamer would ever spend $60 on any game, even one that says "Sim" on the box.
Someone who loves skirmish, obviously!
* Bots increase longevity after the single player part of the game."This bot fixation you have is growing very tedious."
* Bots or skirmish modes are a great way to flex all the elements of a game without being shunted through the way single player games dole out a few weapons or units at a time.
* Bots are especially important for first person shooters with weak single player (RtCW) or a focus on multiplayer (TRIBES2).
* Bots particulary important for training for the multiplayer aspects of a game, whether it's learning maps or exploring build trees.
* Everybody's doing it. Except Halo, Gore, Strifeshadow, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Having said all that, I'm well aware that most people just plink around with the single player elements of a game. Cool. But I'm talking about my own personal gripes here. Which I had thought was allowed, although I haven't read the Qt3 Message Board Charter in a while.
-Tom
Hey, Bruce, glad to see back you on the boards!
I might agree but for the very simple fact that RPGs are a valid milieu for storytelling. I would argue that RTSs are not.I'd just like to point out that both stories in WC3 and the already-beatified NWN feature the groundbreaking literary device of a mysterious plague. Except that WC3 eventually gets over it and lets you kill things, while NWN does everything except force you to re-read Camus. So if you're going to use this mocking-of-story tactic to sink WC3, you're blowing holes in your own boat.
In fact, some people might say that to be great, an RPG requires a good story. Unless you're talking about Diablo, which mucks up the whole idea of what an RPG is, I would agree.
An RTS, on the other hand, has no such requirement. Just let me build a bunch of stuff and stategerize my way to victory. I don't give two hoots about the fate of Thrall's good buddy. Gorm Hellshriek. Which is one reason the campaign in Warlords Battlecry II is so good. No story. Provinces, races, heroes, resources, victory. That's your narrative, blessedly free of text about kings, evil wizards, and demons.
-Tom
Thanks for the compliments, Rob, but Bruce and I came up with the idea ourselves and we pitched it to CGW. In fact, since Bruce is off doing some kind of science stuff and probably won't be back for a while, I'll just go ahead and take credit myself.I'm guessing that Jeff Green came up with this idea (just so I don't fill either of your heads with false modesty as it appears that you are just about to do a WC3 vs. NWN battle-o-tunda).
So the official story is that it was my idea.
-Tom
"An RTS, on the other hand, has no such requirement. Just let me build a bunch of stuff and stategerize my way to victory. I don't give two hoots about the fate of Thrall's good buddy. Gorm Hellshriek. Which is one reason the campaign in Warlords Battlecry II is so good. No story. Provinces, races, heroes, resources, victory. That's your narrative, blessedly free of text about kings, evil wizards, and demons."
Seems like a close-minded view. Shooters don't need stories either, but Half-Life was much the better for one.
The story in Battlecry is good because it's a non-story? Hey, why settle for good? Remove all story whatsoever. In fact, remove campaigns, which are a narrative of sorts. Just put a bunch of scenarios in the box.
Blizzard has done a fabulous job of using the game engine to advance the narrative and using the narrative to make the boneheadly simple task of RTS games -- build stuff fast and overwhelm the enemy -- more interesting. I've got some issues with the multiplayer game, but the single player game so far is great.
Contrast that with the single player game in Battlecry, which is just a refinement and rehash of RTS games that have come before it. It's a game that should be great but is instead as dull as black and white TV.
All right, Asher, that's it! I'm now going to use message board kung fu to kick your ass.
Get off the 'Half-Life had a great story' bandwagon. Half-Life had a dopey story: lab accident + monsters run amok + govt troops. What it has was great mise-en-scene. I can use French words like that because I'm half French. Not really. But I can't think of a better way to explain it and using message board kung fu involves seeming smarter than your opponent.Seems like a close-minded view. Shooters don't need stories either, but Half-Life was much the better for one.
Seriously, though: Half-Life story = dopey. Half-Life mise-en-scene = great.
The point is there's no story in Battlecry II. There's plenty of narrative, but it's not dependent on some backstory crap someone at SSG thought up.The story in Battlecry is good because it's a non-story? Hey, why settle for good? Remove all story whatsoever. In fact, remove campaigns, which are a narrative of sorts. Just put a bunch of scenarios in the box.
Now you've really got me angry, Asher. I can barely type. 'Dull as black and white TV'? Since when are you a graduate of the Bub School of Fast n' Loose Hyperbole? Well, I'll counter your hyperbole with a little of my own: Battlecry II is the Most Fun Thing in the World. Ha! Take that!Contrast that with the single player game in Battlecry, which is just a refinement and rehash of RTS games that have come before it. It's a game that should be great but is instead as dull as black and white TV.
Seriously, though, I do think Battlecry II is the definitive RTS. Also, I read that somewhere, so it's true.
Oh, wait, maybe you're trolling and me kicking your ass with message board kung fu was instead me being baited. Damn you, Asher!
-Tom[/quote]
I like Kohan a lot. Tho I think it drifts pretty close to the 'bearded-man strategy' realm that I fear so very much. It does present some actual tactics n such. Pretty light on the story tho, but its multiplayer is so good I dont NEED to play single player to validate my purchase.
I think Tom is just trying to make everyone forget about his Deus Ex hatred by saying something even more outrageous. :P
That being said, from what I've played so far I agree with Tom. The SP isn't grabbing me (although it is better than MP), and the ruthlessly efficient computer AI in skirmish just ain't fun. All the new rules/tweaks that make multiplayer different from other RTSs penalize you when you're playing against the ultimate micromanager.
Mise-en-scene? Is that some French cinema award? "Now, for zee most wonderful mise-in-scene performance, we award the National Baguette to...Jerry Lewis!"
You can call it a story or invent some more French words, but you can't deny that the narrative parts of Half-Life, however hammy, washed over the gamey parts of the game and made them more meaningful in a completely fake way.
The same is true of Warcraft III. The in-game cinematics not only serve as a change-of-pace to the otherwise somewhat frantic action, like a soulful bridge in a Marvin Gaye song (my only gay reference in this post), but they make me interested in killing those orcs in the corner of the screen so I can see what happens next. Maybe a female elf with big breasts will appear. It's a wonderful mystery, all enabled by the magic of storytelling, and I'm eager to turn the page.
Asher: The story in Battlecry is good because it's a non-story? Hey, why settle for good? Remove all story whatsoever. In fact, remove campaigns, which are a narrative of sorts. Just put a bunch of scenarios in the box.So now we reward the lack of SSG's storytelling ability with our admiration? When I play a game, even a strategy game, I'm not training to be the next Rommel or von Clauswitz. I want to forget about my stack of unpaid bills and the rest of the unsavory quotidian I have to deal with. The better the story, the better I'm swept off my feet like a giggling teenage girl.Chick: The point is there's no story in Battlecry II. There's plenty of narrative, but it's not dependent on some backstory crap someone at SSG thought up.
Asher: Contrast that with the single player game in Battlecry, which is just a refinement and rehash of RTS games that have come before it. It's a game that should be great but is instead as dull as black and white TV.Hey Chick, I tried to like Battlecry, I really did. Me and about 12 others. I think Flying Heroes outsold it. You ever have a crush on girl and have her dust you off? I'm sure you have. They try to soften the blow after you've swallowed your heart and stammered out some weak exhortation of your feelings and they tell you they like you but only as a friend. That's how I feel about Battlecry -- I like it as a friend but there's no passion there.Chick: Now you've really got me angry, Asher. I can barely type. 'Dull as black and white TV'? Since when are you a graduate of the Bub School of Fast n' Loose Hyperbole? Well, I'll counter your hyperbole with a little of my own: Battlecry II is the Most Fun Thing in the World. Ha! Take that!
Seriously, though, I do think Battlecry II is the definitive RTS. Also, I read that somewhere, so it's true.
And no, I'm no graduate of any kind of writer's correspondance course, thank you.
Sometimes you troll with loose nets and sometimes you drop in a hook baited with nothing but the unadorned truth. Never can predict what you'll catch.Oh, wait, maybe you're trolling and me kicking your ass with message board kung fu was instead me being baited. Damn you, Asher!
I might agree but for the very simple fact that there already is a very popular (and valid) "milieu for storytelling" with words that you read, and it is called books. Although considering how much I had to read when I was playing NWN, I'm not sure which milieu for storytelling it actually falls into.
But NWN had a good story? Or are you saying that because NWN is an RPG, it has license to tell you a bad story and you'll like it anyway? No computer game story is any better than a bad fantasy novel, or George R.R. Martin's A Singular-Noun Preposition Plural-Noun series. And yes, that includes the dead talking skull game. But as you point out, if a game can create a good mise-en-scene, it can turn what would otherwise be workmanlike mechanics into something more engaging. Which the running "story" in Warcraft III manages to do, at least a little. I'm getting bored with Warcraft III, but I think that just has to do with the fact that I'm getting tired of computer games in general. However, never once did Warcraft III make me feel like giving up on computer games completely, which NWN almost managed to do. So I uninstalled it and now I feel better.
-B
P.S. Rob, I'm glad you like the Chick vs. Geryk thing. I really had no idea if it was readable or not. And while I'm glad Tom has forgotten how it all started and is giving me half of the credit, I think it actually was his idea. Although it's also his idea that bad stories are OK as long as you have to read them while clicking on dialog boxes.
"No computer game story is any better than a bad fantasy novel,"
"And yes, that includes the dead talking skull game."
Wrong.
"Bots particulary important for training for the multiplayer aspects of a game, whether it's learning maps or exploring build trees."
You could do those things in the SP game too. I think the people that get frustrated with RTS MP are the ones that do think bots will help them out. Just to let you guys know they don't.
Fine, but realize that your personal gripes may not be relevant to your audience. Who fires up a game in the hope of playing.. bots? That's like getting a brand new deck of cards and exclaiming "I can't wait to rush home and play solitaire!" Solitaire has its place in the pantheon of card games, to be sure, but who the hell wants it to be the design focus of a game? It's downright pathological.Having said all that, I'm well aware that most people just plink around with the single player elements of a game. Cool. But I'm talking about my own personal gripes here. Which I had thought was allowed, although I haven't read the Qt3 Message Board Charter in a while.
What gamers want is a single-player narrative with smart, interesting AI in the context of the story. And by the way, I was very impressed with the article on NOLF2 in CGW this month-- that's exactly the kind of AI design I'm talking about. That's what we want. That's what we need. What we don't need is a bunch of dimwitted bots who play capture the flag with a mindless efficiency. I don't know whose idea of fun that is, but it sure as heck isn't mine.
And beware, because bots are criminally easy to screw up, and devilishly hard to do correctly (eg: resemble human play in the slightest). Just fire up some Global Ops bot matches, for example. It's complete crap! But put a bunch of competent people in the game, and the game is completely transformed into this incredibly compelling teamplay.
"Mise-en-scene" is used to describe a film with alot of mise in it, like "Stuart Little","The Secret of NIMH" or "An American Tail: Fievel Goes West". The French like these kinds of movies, perhaps because they love cheese so much, and mise enjoy cheese as well. Du moins, c'est possible.
'No computer game story is any better than a bad fantasy novel.'
'And yes, that includes the dead talking skull game.'
I agree with the other Jason: wrong. Unless by 'bad' you mean 'good', so you're comparing Torment to LOTR.
The blatherings of Robert Jordan: better than Torment?????
And Aliens v. Predator 2 and Medal of Honor and Soldier of Fortune 2. Global Ops has bots, but they suck so much that I'm gonna count it too.* Everybody's doing it. Except Halo, Gore, Strifeshadow, and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.
Well, maybe in the sense that The Nameless One lived for several hundred years, at the least, and Robert Jordan will finish the Wheel of Time in at least thrice that timespan, somewhere around book 6.022x10^23. So, if you're grading by longevity, Jordan wins, because you just can't beat an Avogadro's series of books.
- Balut
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote