Source Dorks is a pop culture blog written by a circle of friends who frequently meet to play games and geek out at Source Comics and Games in the suburbs of Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(161)
-
▼
February
(14)
- FotC TRANCE REMIX - yeahhhhhh
- Barn Again
- Louis CK: My Kind of Grumpy
- Another Rock Band Request
- Stench Kow
- Escape From City 17 - Part One
- OMG
- Welcome Tim, to tonight's episode of This is Your ...
- The debate over "real" RTS'
- Why Apple Sucks
- LEGO knows what they're doing.
- EVE Online - without the boring parts.
- A Visual Thesaurus
- Obama's stimulation as it relates to testicles on ...
-
▼
February
(14)
8 comments:
I played the first level of Halo Wars last night and was not into it. I could tell exactly where the game was going and wasn't too thrilled about the prospect of "Oh, hey. Guys are attacking my base. Better go back there and fight them off even though I'd rather be pushing forward."
So you aren't too thrilled about the most basic tension in any RTS?
That might be it. It's like trying to take a piss in the woods with a mosquito biting you on the back of the neck.
Tim, you clearly haven't played Company of Heroes, or you wouldn't call that the "basic tension in any RTS."
AVK, from Wiki:
"Players must take control of certain points on the map. The more of these points a player controls, the more resources they acquire. This concept demands constant expansion of a player's territory. These points are connected like supply lines, and so, during the course of a battle a player can capture one point in the supply line, isolating the rest which had been connected to the base through it, therefore severely reducing the enemy's resource intake."
In other words if a "supply line" is cut you are faced with the basic tension of any RTS. Do I continue offensive expansion? Or do I go back and shore up my supply lines? Or some from of both?
As admirable as your research skills are, we'll talk about it after you've played it.
Or, at the very least, we'll talk about it in some forum less tedious than blog comments. I can explain why CoH plays differently than other RTS games despite the surface similarities, but I can't do so both well and tersely.
Sounds good; let's do it. I am just as certain that you can tell me the other aspects of said game as I am that the basics are there as well.
Oh-oh, let's invite Andy and 60%/40% too.
...but I can make a colorful analogy.
Company of Heroes is actual sex. All its predecessors are masturbation. Sometimes good, sometimes great. Sometimes it just gets the job done. Now, after I play Dawn of War II and Starcraft II, I'll be able to tell you if we're moving forward into something other than the missionary position (there are others!) or backwards into spanking it.
Imagine explaining sex to someone who has only ever masturbated and you'll understand where I'm coming from.
(Note: My analogy is somewhat more intense than what it represents. I would rather have sex than play CoH at any given moment. Well, almost any given moment.)
Post a Comment