PDA

View Full Version : MS to buy Vivendi's game division (Blizzard, Sierra, etc)


Asher
24-01-2003, 20:57:32
oh poor shining. ;)

Microsoft, Vivendi in video game talks - analyst
Friday January 24, 12:30 pm ET


LOS ANGELES, Jan 24 (Reuters) - Investment bank Investec said on Friday that it believed Microsoft Corp. (NasdaqNM:MSFT - News) was in talks with French media conglomerate Vivendi Universal (NYSE:V - News) about buying Vivendi's video game business for as much as $2 billion.
ADVERTISEMENT


A spokeswoman for Vivendi Universal's game unit declined to comment. A Microsoft spokeswoman could not be immediately reached for comment.

Jeff Van Rhee, Investec's director of enterprise software research, told Reuters he had received indications a deal was in the works. "There was some pretty actionable data that said something had just happened and things were heating up pretty quickly," he said.

Speculation has been rampant for months on the fate of Vivendi Universal Games, which publishes well-known PC titles like "WarCraft" and "Diablo" and games based on J.R.R. Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" books.

The division, which is strongest in PC games but also has significant console game operations, has been reported at various times in the last year to be either up for sale or in preparations for an initial public offering.

Sources told Reuters in mid-December that Vivendi had had at least preliminary conversations about the potential for a deal with Microsoft, Sony Corp. (Tokyo:6758.T - News) and Electronic Arts Inc. (NasdaqNM:ERTS - News).

Van Rhee, in his note, reiterated past speculation that Vivendi has been seeking a price of anywhere from $1 billion to $2 billion for the games unit. Most financial analysts have characterized the lower end of that range as more likely.

Microsoft, which bought British games developer Rare for $375 million cash in September, has said it would be most interested in acquiring game developers that could add to its internal product efforts rather than a full-fledged publisher.

One of the main criticisms of the company's Xbox video game console has been the lack of internally produced hit titles, though the company did find success with the military action game "Halo" in 2001 and 2002.

A number of video game companies have warned that their results for the December quarter would be weaker than previously expected as retailers became more conservative in their ordering, only taking large quantities of titles with proven hit potential.

computerandvideogames.com:
MICROSOFT TO BUY VIVENDI?

Fevered speculation points to a shock swoop by Bill Gates's company, with an announcement imminent

19:25 If insider speculation is to be believed, Microsoft has bought US publisher Vivendi, with an announcement to that effect due soon. Take a deep breath and reflect on the implications of that, if true.
Half-Life 2, Warcraft, Counter-Strike, Crash, Spyro, Lord of the Rings... Vivendi has an enormous portfolio boasting some of the biggest titles on all formats, and it would be an ultra-smart move on Microsoft's part to snap them up. Such a buyout, of course, would come at a terrifically high price, making the 365 million acquisition of Rare look like peanuts. But if anyone has the necessary funds, it's Microsoft.

Rumours regarding potential buyout targets for Microsoft are nothing new, of course, and have been spreading for months, with the likes of Sega and Capcom both mentioned in dispatches. However, talk of the Microsoft/Vivendi deal seems far more serious, with one insider suggesting the buyout could be confirmed as early as Friday.

Furthermore, an email from Universal was accidentally sent out to developers last week stating that all work on GBA titles should be suspended. The email was promptly recalled and branded an error, but could it be that this was in some way tied in with this alleged deal?

We contacted Vivendi for comment and a spokesperson told us: "We've heard all sorts of rumours over the past months - Activision, EA and many more. They'd all like to get their hands on Blizzard. I guess Microsoft are one of the few companies that has enough money."

A Microsoft spokesperson would only state: "This is a rumour and we do not comment on rumours."

If the rumours prove true, this will be a huge boost for Microsoft's soaring Xbox console, providing it with a broad spectrum of big-name games that would either appear as Xbox lead or as Xbox exclusives outright.

Scabrous Birdseed
25-01-2003, 01:51:28
Oh bollocks, I missed this thread.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 03:39:35
What does my state of poverty have to do with this?

(Other than that I can't afford to buy Blizzard myself...:))

Asher
25-01-2003, 03:42:36
Err...that isn't a comment about a state of poverty, it's a figure of speech...

All of the Blizzard fanboys I know are crying because they insist MS is going to dumb down Blizzard games. Which utterly confuses me, because they can't get much more dumbed-down in my not-so-humble-opinion, and MS' games tend to be more deep anyway. ;)

Shining1
25-01-2003, 03:54:44
Purely your not so humble opinion.

Dungeon Siege is the anti-thesis to that arguement. Even the original Diablo had infinitely more depth.

As for WarIII vs. AoM, it's castercraft vs. horseology. They're both incredibly deep, but both prone to balance flaws that negate 90% of the careful balancing in favour of a few tactics. Anyway, WarcraftIII beat AoM by a good third or so in the Gamespy grudge between the two:). And Blizzard got WarcraftIII to work with Win98, which is more than Microsoft managed with Age of Mythology:mad:.

The only other MS games I know of are MechWarrior4 and MechAssault. MechWarrior4 is a wonderful sim, if a little samely in single player, and MechAssault is more or less the same thing but dumbed down and spiced up for the Xbox. Hard to compare that to any Blizzard title unless you want to drag the Lost Vikings into it...

I know 'poor shining' is a figure of speech, hence my amused response (and I know you feel better just explaining yourself again than rising to the occasion). You could learn to use captials too, perhaps, but that's about as offended as I was there.

And I'm surprised you know any Blizzard fanboys, they don't seem your type:). Besides, note the 'Evil' in my title.

Asher
25-01-2003, 04:01:22
Dungeon Siege is a Chris Taylor game, MS never told him to dumb it down, it was part of his original design.

MS Flight Sim is the counterexample (is that the word you were looking for?) to the "MS makes you dumb down" argument. ;)

I strongly disagree about WC3 being as deep as AoM. It's no contest...

And MechAssault is certainly not "more or less the same thing as MechWarrior dumbed down for Xbox". They're completely different games. MechAssault is closer to Unreal Tournament than MechWarrior, the only thing they share is the license.

MS is the one publish games like Rise of Nations, Impossible Creatures, MechWarrior, Asheron's Call, Age of Mythology, Flight Sim, Combat Flight Sim, Age of Empires, Train Simulator, Midtown Madness, etc.

They don't require companies they own to dumb down games, I have no idea where they got that basis for their argument. In fact I still think games like AoM and RoN are many times more complex than WC3.

WC3 and D2 are both incredibly simple games that can give the illusion to being deep to people who want to believe they are...it's the secret to Blizzard's success.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 04:11:05
You'd better explain your take on Aom > War3 with more than one line. The gamespy respondants also thought it was no contest - War3 >> AoM.

Ash, they're giant robot games. Ones a sim, ones an action game. An action game is a dumbed down sim. It's not hard to see what I meant by that.

All of which I can live without.

Again, you'd better explain how AoM is any deeper than War3. You give general statements with NO backup at all, which are barely worth replying to, let along arguing against.

LadyRachel
25-01-2003, 04:17:11
You two just can't keep your hands off each other, can you.

Asher
25-01-2003, 04:21:06
Originally posted by Shining1
You'd better explain your take on Aom > War3 with more than one line. The gamespy respondants also thought it was no contest - War3 >> AoM.
Yes, and the top two movies at the box office in the US are Kangaroo Jack and Just Married... ;)

Ash, they're giant robot games. Ones a sim, ones an action game. An action game is a dumbed down sim. It's not hard to see what I meant by that.

All of which I can live without.
Oh, by this logic The Sims and GTA3 are the same. They're human games? GTA3 being a dummed down The Sims, I guess...

Again, you'd better explain how AoM is any deeper than War3. You give general statements with NO backup at all, which are barely worth replying to, let along arguing against.
I'm going to ditch this argument before it starts, because I think they're both crap games that aren't any fun to begin with and I know you're a fanboy for Blizzard.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 04:28:55
I'm going to ditch this argument before it starts, because I think they're both crap games that aren't any fun to begin with and I know you're a fanboy for Blizzard.

vs.

I strongly disagree about WC3 being as deep as AoM. It's no contest...


I'm also going to ditch this arguement before it starts, because I think they're both great games and I know your a fanboy for Microsoft:lol:.

(If only you could play the Sims like GTA3 - now THAT's a winning concept!:))

Asher
25-01-2003, 04:32:44
Please, Microsoft makes crap games sometimes and so does Blizzard.

Warcraft 1 & 2 are fantastic. Starcraft is fantastic. Diablo I and II are fantastic. Warcraft 3 is shite.

It's an embarassment to Blizzard's name. It's obvious all of the talented developers have went off to form their own companies.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 06:05:49
But, again, what specifically is wrong with it?!?

Asher
25-01-2003, 06:07:52
You mean, aside from the half-assed RPG elements, pathetic unit limits, annoying view that's way too zoomed in, for some reason you can't fully rotate the camera, the combat AI, the lack of simple options like "repeat builds" standard in almost all other modern RTS games...

It's just very half-assed to me. Which is amazing, considering how long it's been in development.

It just plain ain't fun to play.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 06:25:04
The half assed RPG element is about the best thing in it, and it adds a huge breath of fresh air to an otherwise pretty stilted genre.

The unit limits are a bit of a personal thing, but they do help balance the game more towards the small aggressive mode instead of the large defensive mode, which helps immensely in speeding up multiplayer matches.

No arguement about the view, but then everyone has to suffer the same thing there.

Rotating the camera is almost redundant in an RTS - it's not sim city.

What's wrong with the combat A.I?

Repeat builds and queueing up improvements are a real pain. Blizzard is kinda dumb when it comes to base management for some reason, even though the economic management is massively streamlined compared to the Age of Empires games.

Half ass is your judgement, and obviously I can't make it fun for you to play just by talking to you. But you seem to have dismissed the important innovations (fewer units, experience for heroes) outright and then expected the game to play like Starcraft when those innovations are essential to the whole gameplay. Hell, they've already made starcraft, and it has the benefit of 3 years of balancing work and an expansion. If you want to play starcraft, play starcraft. War3 is a different game, not just the same game rebuilt with better graphics (ala Unreal Tournament 2003).

Asher
25-01-2003, 06:32:04
Originally posted by Shining1
The half assed RPG element is about the best thing in it, and it adds a huge breath of fresh air to an otherwise pretty stilted genre.
They would be a fresh breath if they weren't done already in Warlords: Battlecry or even Kingdom Under Fire.

Rotating the camera is almost redundant in an RTS - it's not sim city.
So? Why why why why why why do they have it set up so you can temporarily pan the camera, then it snaps back? Why can't I rotate it any of the 360 degrees and keep it there?

What's wrong with the combat A.I?
I'll tell my whole group to go attack, the front line will attack their combat guys and get slaughtered, the group in the back smacks away at farms instead of the things SHOOTING at them. Requires intense micromanagement.

Half ass is your judgement, and obviously I can't make it fun for you to play just by talking to you. But you seem to have dismissed the important innovations (fewer units, experience for heroes) outright and then expected the game to play like Starcraft when those innovations are essential to the whole gameplay.
Those aren't innovations. There's fewer units because it's 3D and Blizzard are craptacular graphics programmers (but have good artists). The heroes XP is stupid as hell to me because, during things like the campaign your hero must re-learn all his skills and gain XP again once he completes one of the campaigns. The bastards.

War3 is a different game, not just the same game rebuilt with better graphics (ala Unreal Tournament 2003).
War3 is a different game, and it's much worse for it. They should have improved on the strengths of Starcraft

Asher
25-01-2003, 06:32:47
Did I mention I hate games that revolve around one simple strategy in 99% of all the games (Rush)?

Asher
25-01-2003, 06:33:51
And for fuck sake, WHY DID THEY GET RID OF NAVAL UNITS?

Why are there so few air units??

Argh.

Deacon
25-01-2003, 06:45:36
I think MS's first act should be to tell Blizzard how much money they'd make in Korea alone with another Starcraft. :)

Deacon
25-01-2003, 06:49:24
I agree about Naval units. But it seems to be in fashion not to have them, since they were dropped in the C&C games as well. My all-time naval favorite would be the cruiser from Red Alert.

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 06:59:56
Why does Asher never mention Zoo Tycoon? He mentions Train Sim, but not Zoo? How odd. ;)

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:00:34
I hate Zoo Tycoon.

Train Sim is surprisingly good.

Zoo Tycoon is aimed at the mass market, and it worked...

Shining1
25-01-2003, 07:03:36
Yes, If I was Bill Gates, I'd buy them and order them to start work on Starcraft2 this instant:).

In explaination to Asher's points:

The camera angle is kept constant so that people don't rotate it randomly and get lost doing it. Only a very few situations require a different camera view, it was decided that including it would do more harm than good. This is about the first complaint I've heard about camera rotation, even.

With attack move, first up it works way better than AoM, which barely even has an attack move. This is pretty much just something you have to live with in all RTS games - controlling your units. You can't just attack move into someone's base and expect your troops to do everything for you. This is analogus to asking why your battlemech in mechwarrior won't lock it's guns onto a target and keep firing at it, hitting it perfectly every shot. Some player effort (and skill) are required.

Fewer units has nothing to do with graphics or 3D. It was a design choice, based on the idea that "have a single unit that can do what five weaker units could do is easier to control and requires only one barracks instead of five to rebuild." Seems to work.

No idea what you mean about XP in the campaigns. You don't get the same heroes in each of the four campaigns, and they don't carry through to multiplayer. It works VERY well in multiplayer, and adds a whole new aspect to the game.

All RTS games have their own rush strategies. Practically all games have this (or stuff like camping, etc). Deal with it.

I miss naval units too.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:09:46
Originally posted by Shining1
The camera angle is kept constant so that people don't rotate it randomly and get lost doing it. Only a very few situations require a different camera view, it was decided that including it would do more harm than good. This is about the first complaint I've heard about camera rotation, even.
So? Would it KILL them to have it as an option? Most people I know IRL hate the camera system, they wanna control it. It'd 3D -- why can't we utilize that??

This is analogus to asking why your battlemech in mechwarrior won't lock it's guns onto a target and keep firing at it, hitting it perfectly every shot. Some player effort (and skill) are required.
Not at all. When you tell the AI to go "attack" and you click on a bunch of men, it should NOT, under ANY circumstances, start attacking *BUILDINGS* that aren't even shooting at you while your men are being slaughtered. It's simply pathetic AI. It's not a design choice, it's just bad AI.

MechWarrior is all about controlling your individual mech, having it shoot for you would be stupid. Warcraft is about the strategy from an overhead view, your units shouldn't be puppets, but AIs that you can issue commands to...

Fewer units has nothing to do with graphics or 3D. It was a design choice, based on the idea that "have a single unit that can do what five weaker units could do is easier to control and requires only one barracks instead of five to rebuild." Seems to work.
It was both. When you do it in 3D, you HAVE to cut back on the unitcount to keep an acceptable framerate. They knew this, they designed the game around that limitation. It was a dumb move, IMO. They don't even utilize the 3D engine properly, they should have made it 2D sprite-based and saved the computer-load.

No idea what you mean about XP in the campaigns. You don't get the same heroes in each of the four campaigns, and they don't carry through to multiplayer.
Oh, that's right, when your Hero is "converted" he's suddenly a new hero and forgot ALL he learned. ;)

It works VERY well in multiplayer, and adds a whole new aspect to the game.
Wouldn't know, multiplayer sucked ass more than singleplayer did. Rush rush rush rush, snore snore snore snore

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:11:35
Zoo Tycoon is a nice little economic builder. I like such things. It also will probably never leave the top 10 list of sellers on the PC, until its sequel is released.

You just like sucky games, don't you Ash? ;)

I actually haven't heard very much about Train Sim, so I'm waiting on it to hit bargain bin prices before I pick it up. I'd hoped to have heard more about it by now, but... so far, all I've heard is it is effectively a screen saver, with scenery sliding by.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:14:29
If you want a nice economic builder, you should pick up a game called Entrepreneur

It was made by some noname company a while ago

I loved that game

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:15:26
All the games are like that, Ash. Locked in 3D. Saves them cycles... lots of cycles. Means it can all be effectively pre-renedered, letting them use cycles on other things. Hell, most of the RTS games I've played could have just as easily been 2D and used sprites as well. You get that effect when the camera is locked. And if it isn't, it's a fucking pain in the ass to deal with, except for when you really need fine control, which is rare, but just enough... GR!

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:17:58
It's not locked in 3D though. You can still move the camera, in a limited fasion.

It doesn't save them any cycles how they did it. As I said, their graphics programmers aren't that bright...

When it's always a fixed perspective you can do all kinds of spiffy clipping problems and effectively totally eliminate overdraw...the way they did it, we didn't even get that

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:18:47
Got it. Bored the hell out of me.
I'd already played that game, under it's original title, A-Train. Then it's expansion, CEO. And it's sequel, also suprisingly titled CEO. Fun fun. I don't like pure re-runs.

Or did you mean the Entrepreneur that is just a retitled Corporation?

Or did you mean the Entrepreneur that is just the "gold" edition of Galaxy Bucks?

I've got a total of 6 games by that name, but I can only recall those 3 right now.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:19:49
Stardock made Enterpreneur that I played

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:20:17
Well then, you make it sound like they screwed up Ash.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:21:56
You can move WC3's camera, it's just that it's about 30 degrees in any given direction total, then it snaps back into place

It's to help the retards who find 3D difficult.

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:23:23
Ah. Galaxy Bucks then. You speculate on cargo, and go between star ports? Yeah, that one really bored me. It was too easy to maximize profits in many of the replays... That always spoils the game for me.

If you liked that kind of thing though... you really should try Mucky Foot's StarTopia. You run the star port, and can trade with passing merchants.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:24:41
Ah. Galaxy Bucks then. You speculate on cargo, and go between star ports? Yeah, that one really bored me. It was too easy to maximize profits in many of the replays... That always spoils the game for me.

Nope. The default market for Entrepreur was computer hardware...you could R&D specific components, market, package them, sell them globally, etc. other shit was available as a download

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:26:56
Hummm... Don't recall that one. I might have to go digging to see... too damn many games with that title.

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:27:48
http://www.stardock.com/products/ent/ent.html

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:29:16
Wait, is that the prequel to *Big Business*? The game with the Japanation graphics, where you have to train your manager in things like 'aerobic class' and 'golfing', and you build the office like an Office Sim?

Or was it the prequel to Factory Tycoon?

Asher
25-01-2003, 07:30:18
I don't know. I don't think so... :)

(PS: I love you! Everyone should gtake notes and reply as quickly as you do my love)

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 07:35:15
They have to be online to respond so quick Ash.

Ah. No, I actually haven't played that one. I'll suppose I'll have to put Corporate Machine on my list of 'to be acquired' games and give it a try.

If you can find it though, Big Business is a bit fun. It's more of a manufactoring sim with sidelines in Office Sim and R&D and Marketting. Very Japanese culturally.

If you can find Tom Clancy's Ruthless.Com, I'd suggest you check it out. Sounds like it might have inspired a bit of Corporate Machine. It was TBS, rather then RTS, but other then that...

Shining1
25-01-2003, 08:09:40
Not at all. When you tell the AI to go "attack" and you click on a bunch of men, it should NOT, under ANY circumstances, start attacking *BUILDINGS* that aren't even shooting at you while your men are being slaughtered. It's simply pathetic AI. It's not a design choice, it's just bad AI.

Or bad unit control. I haven't watched you play, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. If your guys are being attacked, it's best to give specific directions to attack whatever is attacking them, instead of just issuing the general 'attack anything you see' attack move command. Attack move is designed mainly as a starter for open battles or for moving around the map where you want units to attack stuff instead of just moving past it as it hacks at you.

Oh, that's right, when your Hero is "converted" he's suddenly a new hero and forgot ALL he learned.

Eh? Have you played the game? Doesn't sound like it.

Wouldn't know, multiplayer sucked ass more than singleplayer did. Rush rush rush rush, snore snore snore snore

Poor slow Asher. How on earth did you ever survive in Starcraft for more than 5 minutes?

Asher
25-01-2003, 08:31:42
Or bad unit control. I haven't watched you play, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. If your guys are being attacked, it's best to give specific directions to attack whatever is attacking them, instead of just issuing the general 'attack anything you see' attack move command. Attack move is designed mainly as a starter for open battles or for moving around the map where you want units to attack stuff instead of just moving past it as it hacks at you.
I hate one-battle things. In almost all strategy games I work with specific groups that move independently and do different things.

I found in Warcraft the AI was so poor I needed to hold their hands to do everything. But I didn't want to, I wanted to have four different groups manuever from different directions and attack different types of targets.

Warcraft III absolutely fucking sucks unless you're one of those players who basically pushes one big mob in random directions until you win.

Eh? Have you played the game? Doesn't sound like it.
What the hell? After the first campaign...your unit switches to THE DARK SIDE... :)

Have *YOU* played the single player campaign?

Poor slow Asher. How on earth did you ever survive in Starcraft for more than 5 minutes?
Starcraft allowed for far more than rushing. I always defended against the people who rushed. WC3 tries to be much more fast paced, to the point where it loses alot of its strategic appeal and becomes are boring clickfest...

WC3 is the game that requires the least amount of tactics and strategy out of any blizzard game. Even Diablo II requires more.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.

Even more funny are the "hardc0re" WC3 junkies who insist it's all strategy. It's not. The people who are "good" at WC3 are good because they memorize specific sets of moves and work with that.

It's actually *A LOT* like Chess, only simpler.

And we all know Go is a far superior game to Chess, because it's not based around memorizing opening moves and the like like WC3 and Chess are.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 09:31:47
I hate one-battle things. In almost all strategy games I work with specific groups that move independently and do different things.

'Defeat in detail' has been an RTS concept since the days of C&C. It's when you take one big army and beat up two small armies of the same total size one at a time, winning because you can inflict twice the damage and recover after each. Sorry that real combat doesn't reflect your hit and run approach.

I found in Warcraft the AI was so poor I needed to hold their hands to do everything. But I didn't want to, I wanted to have four different groups manuever from different directions and attack different types of targets.

Perhaps you should learn to use the controls a bit better? That doesn't sound difficult, just very easy to counter. Again, because any small group that runs into a larger group can be outgunned.

Warcraft III absolutely fucking sucks unless you're one of those players who basically pushes one big mob in random directions until you win.

There is no defending the sheer ignorance of that comment.

What the hell? After the first campaign...your unit switches to THE DARK SIDE...

Have *YOU* played the single player campaign?

Yes, and wanders through the icy wastes, goes crazy, and becomes a death knight. You are saying that a level 10 paladin should automatically upgrade to a level 10 death knight? Your logic is more twisted than Arthas, Asher.


Starcraft allowed for far more than rushing. I always defended against the people who rushed. WC3 tries to be much more fast paced, to the point where it loses alot of its strategic appeal and becomes are boring clickfest...

So does WarcraftIII, but you have to be able to defend yourself at the start, just like Starcraft. When SC first came out, it was a case of whether your zergling/mutalisk rush would hit before their reaver rush got going. In Warcraft, the static defenses you being with make it much easier to defend against rush tactics than anything you got in Starcraft.

WC3 is the game that requires the least amount of tactics and strategy out of any blizzard game. Even Diablo II requires more.

Given that your strategy has to include creeping, early defense, teching, scouting, managing your heroes so they survive battles, expanding quickly and early, and many many more things (what to do for instance if your 'big mob' is away when an Archmage and 6 Steam Tanks teleport into your base, say), I think your attitude is more a reflection of you being no good at the game instead of there being a problem with the game.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.

Sure that's not just your War3 skillz?:)

Even more funny are the "hardc0re" WC3 junkies who insist it's all strategy. It's not. The people who are "good" at WC3 are good because they memorize specific sets of moves and work with that.

I haven't met an RTS anywhere before where this wasn't true. Learning a build order and planning for the map have always been the key to playing an RTS. That doesn't mean there's no strategy in it. Massed Sorceresses is fairly easy to win against if you scout it and prepare for it properly. This would also explain why you're so easy to rush, if you sit around strategising for the first five minutes instead of rapidly building up your base and actually putting a plan into motion.

It's actually *A LOT* like Chess, only simpler.

Most games are.

And we all know Go is a far superior game to Chess, because it's not based around memorizing opening moves and the like like WC3 and Chess are.

You really shouldn't use like twice in a row like that. Looks bad.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 09:32:16
Opps. That came out a bit longer than I was expecting.

Mightytree
25-01-2003, 09:33:30
Damn you, Shining. So many words. :clueless:

Asher
25-01-2003, 09:45:21
Originally posted by Shining1
'Defeat in detail' has been an RTS concept since the days of C&C. It's when you take one big army and beat up two small armies of the same total size one at a time, winning because you can inflict twice the damage and recover after each. Sorry that real combat doesn't reflect your hit and run approach.
I'm a General, not a footsoldier.

Perhaps you should learn to use the controls a bit better? That doesn't sound difficult, just very easy to counter. Again, because any small group that runs into a larger group can be outgunned.
Must I use smaller words?
The problem isn't the controls, it's the AI isn't doing its job. When you tell the fuckers to attack, they should do what they tell you to do. It's just incredibly stupid to tell them to do an attack movement up into a group of people, then see the fuckers shoot at farms on the way.

That's not a control problem, it's an AI problem. Sure, if I cared enough I could limit how many groups I have and micromanage every single unit so they do what they should do automatically, but I'm not going out of my way to fix an obvious flaw for them...

Yes, and wanders through the icy wastes, goes crazy, and becomes a death knight. You are saying that a level 10 paladin should automatically upgrade to a level 10 death knight? Your logic is more twisted than Arthas, Asher.
I'm saying that it's kinda stupid for a level 10 paladin to suddenly forget everything he's learned and can't use those skills anymore...I don't know why this is twisted logic, help me out?

Given that your strategy has to include creeping, early defense, teching, scouting, managing your heroes so they survive battles, expanding quickly and early, and many many more things (what to do for instance if your 'big mob' is away when an Archmage and 6 Steam Tanks teleport into your base, say), I think your attitude is more a reflection of you being no good at the game instead of there being a problem with the game.
That's a crap argument. And everyone always uses it whenever I say I don't like a game "Well you're just not good at it".

Warcraft III is an arcade game masquerading as a strategy game. It really is.

If you want a real strategy game play Combat Mission or EU or hell, Civ2. Or even Age of Empires.

The game is flawed on many levels. I'm not the only one who thinks this, TONS of people have been supremely disappointed with WC3. Perhaps our standards are too high.

Warlords Battlecry is a better game than Warcraft III. And WB came first.

I haven't met an RTS anywhere before where this wasn't true. Learning a build order and planning for the map have always been the key to playing an RTS. That doesn't mean there's no strategy in it.
Oh, I'm sorry, there still is strategy in it. There's also a strategy on the order I put my clothes on in the morning. When I'm feeling particularly daring I'll spruce things up and put my socks on before anything else.

Games like that which is based upon memorization aren't really strategy in my books. They reward constant playing (what Blizzard aims for) and people with good memorization skills. Strategizing takes a huge backseat.

Most games are.
Chess happens to be fun because it is more basic. WC3 is like a spruce up version with cartoony graphics and a shoddy 3D engine and fantasy units.

You really shouldn't use like twice in a row like that. Looks bad.
You really shouldn't correct other people's grammar. Especially when it's completely correct. :)

Asher
25-01-2003, 09:46:36
The main problem with Warcraft III is scale.

By reducing the units to such pathetically small quantities much of the strategy is gone.

The strategic aspect of the game is at an all-time low for an RTS game, and micromanagement is at a high.

Masochists and fanboys may enjoy it, others most likely do not.

Asher
25-01-2003, 09:47:41
And for fuck sake, rule #1 in making a plot: Make the main character LIKEABLE

I found it painful to play the first campaign because I wanted to KILL Arthas. He annoyed the hell out of me.

Mightytree
25-01-2003, 09:47:42
That's a crap argument. And everyone always uses it whenever I say I don't like a game "Well you're just not good at it".

What a strange coincidence ...

Asher
25-01-2003, 09:50:36
Originally posted by Mightytree
What a strange coincidence ...
Isn't it? It's part of the elitist culture those kind of games provide for.

Because they're designed to reward people who play a lot since the game is focused on memorization rather than strategy, which means the people who've played a lot will always do better than the people who haven't. And when people criticize the game they want to defend their miraculous achievement at being good at such a trivial game that they insist the other people don't think it's good because they're not good at it.

I think Britney Spear's Dance Beat sucks too, and I have no idea if I'm good at it. I don't need to be good at a game to determine where they screwed up.

Asher
25-01-2003, 09:55:49
There is more strategy involved in your average game of NHL 2K3 than there is in your average game of WC3.

Asher
25-01-2003, 10:02:25
One more for the road:
Why is it that everyone I've played WC3 with on battle.net is about 13 years old?

Obviously this is a game of tact and intellect.

Mightytree
25-01-2003, 10:04:15
Actually that's not how my post was meant, Asher ... :D :lol:

Originally posted by Asher
..., which means the people who've played a lot will always do better than the people who haven't.

Isn't that the case with every game? I don't understand your point. Of course people who are good and play the game a lot have a better understanding of where a game has its flaws. It's called experience.

I've been playing D2 for 2.5 years now, and I think I can judge it a lot better than someone who's only been playing for a couple of weeks. It's obvious.

Asher
25-01-2003, 10:11:49
Right, but do you go and brand D2 as a game of strategy. ;)

Good strategy games don't require you memorize everything to be good at it. It should take you a couple games to get in the swing of things, then let you go at it.

Even Civ3 does this.

Warcraft III boils down to a very, very systematic game. There's very little variety in how the games turn out. Maybe it's different these days with all of the stupid patches Blizzard does to nerf the game, but when it launched all of the games were decided within the first 10 minutes, even though they could last far longer.

The game is just poorly designed and the implementation is mediocre. Without Blizzard's name this game would have flopped.

Darkstar
25-01-2003, 11:33:34
Humm... most games are set in the first 10 minutes Ash. Especially resource harvesting/production games.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 12:19:37
I think I've said my bit. Sorry MT. I suck.

Shining1
25-01-2003, 12:23:25
Oh, except for:

"Warlords Battlecry is a better game than Warcraft III."

:lol::lol::lol:

Warlords Battlecry is the most lamentably bad, utterly shit game I have ever played. That is one of the very few games I truely felt ashamed to have spent money on. Heavy Gear II probably be the other one.

Mightytree
25-01-2003, 12:32:05
You truly suck, Ned.

:-P~~

Shining1
25-01-2003, 12:33:51
Yeah, at least I know kinda how you feel when you were discussing the merits of D2X with me:p.

Asher
25-01-2003, 21:33:19
Originally posted by Darkstar
Humm... most games are set in the first 10 minutes Ash. Especially resource harvesting/production games.
Most games suck, too. :beer:

Which reminds me, another thing which is crap about WC3: RESOURCES ARE TOO SCARCE!

Sure it speeds the game up and causes more movement, but it's ANNOYING as hell.

Darkstar
26-01-2003, 05:17:05
Ash, different strokes for different folks.

Hell, different strokes for yourself as well. You'll find that those games you love now won't be as interesting to you in say, 4 years. Your tastes and interests will change. You may then find WC3 a great game. Or even worse. :)

Asher
26-01-2003, 06:48:49
Nah, I tend to love games now that I loved back then.

I got into MOO2 last week again. It's still brilliant.
I prefer Civ2 to Civ3.
There has yet to be a version of CTF that beats the CTF shareware I had.
Canon Fodder remains one of my favorite games.
ST: 25th Anniversary remains the best trek game.

Darkstar
26-01-2003, 07:09:53
MoO2 is brilliant? You must have never played MoO1. It's a much better game. MoO2 is only a decent game. It has too much of Civ's 'Build a city shopping list' to it. It has no real balance between small and large ships... you always want the largest hull you can build. Blah blah blah.

And it's a no brainer... Civ2 is way better then Civ3. Civ3 is only so so at best...

Asher
26-01-2003, 07:13:01
I've played MOO1, MOO2 is better.

Darkstar
26-01-2003, 07:52:32
Now you are just being silly, Ash. ;)

Seriously, how can you prefer MoO2 over #1? Did you play MoO2 first? MoO1 is a better game. It's pacing is better, it aliens differences are better, all size ships are useful.

#1 is lacking a few of the refinements of #2, but overall, I think the original is a better strategic game.

Shining1
27-01-2003, 04:31:44
Ahser you sound like a BGH Starcraft player all up:).

Asher
27-01-2003, 05:09:26
Can I get a translation?

Deacon
27-01-2003, 22:46:29
Big Game Hunters. When I used to play on battle.net, it was the most-used map. Everybody knew where everything was and what points to close off. Resources were slow to run out. It therefore made a great map for playing lopsided 5-on-3 games against computer players. Send a scout to each corner, and rush in when you have enough troops. :)

Shining1
28-01-2003, 07:39:05
It had massive resources compared to any other map, and the game tended to revolve far more around building 12 Carriers and sending them on attack move to hit the enemy base while you built another 12 Carriers than actually ever controlling your units.

The BGH players eventually specialised so much in BGH that they couldn't play any other kind of map competitively, creating a schism in the Starcraft community, and the resulting verbal fights that went along with it (BGH has no skill requirement, BGH is not Starcraft, BGH IS starcraft because everyone plays it, etc etc).

Certainly, I'm pretty sure BLIZZARD didn't like what had become of their game. Fewer units, more unit control, special abilities for everything, etc, all happened more or less because of BGH instead of any design or 3D restrictions (for the record, Ash, the game that still takes the record for most simultaineous units is TA, a 3Desque RTS from 1997, so I don't think your graphics arguement really holds any water.)

While I'm not going to judge whether BGH was better than 'Starcraft', if you were part of the crowd that preferred the mucho-minerals + shared bases maps, I can see you might have a few issues with WarcraftIII;).

(Another note: 'Starcraft', i.e not BGH, pretty much consisted of Hunters and Lost Temple. There wasn't a huge amount of variety there, either.)

Asher
28-01-2003, 09:29:10
Ash, the game that still takes the record for most simultaineous units is TA, a 3Desque RTS from 1997, so I don't think your graphics arguement really holds any water.
1. Chris Taylor's a far more competent graphics programmer than Blizzard's team.
2. TA was a completely fixed perspective.*
3. The detail was intentionally much lower on the TA games so they could fit more on the screen a once.

The units were restricted because of the 3D engine, and Blizzard designed around that. Hell, even their 2D games can't even keep a decent framerate.

Blizzard tends to have great game designers and atrocious programmers.

And now I think their great game designers have fled too. Warcraft III isn't nearly as popular on battle.net as Starcraft or Diablo II are. It sold a lot, of course, because people had huge expectations for it, but almost everyone I know who got it played it for a bit and got bored of it far faster than the other Blizzard games...

* I'm well aware of the mods which allowed you to unlock the perspective, and take note how much the framerate drops when you do so!

Shining1
28-01-2003, 10:52:07
So, all that means is that the chunky, cartoonish graphics of warcraft would be in a slightly slower or lower resolution than before. There's no inherent problem with adding more units to the initial game - to say that anything was restricted by the engine instead of the design is silly, not to mention arrogant.

Diablo2 (Blizzard North, take note) is the only game that's failed to run perfectly on any computer I've used. I've never had a problem with any other game of theirs, including WarcraftIII (unlike Age of Myth, which runs so poorly I don't play it).

And I have no idea what you are talking about wrt Warcraft being unpopular online, there's regularly 50000 or so games occuring at once, which is about average for Blizzard stuff.

WarcraftIII is certainly the biggest risk Blizzard has taken on a project. A 3D engine (when no-one else had made a really good 3D RTS beforehand), a heavily revised design concept (KILL BGH, KILL BGH, KILL BGH), and an infinitely improved matchmaking service online (something that AoM still suffers from). It's not terribly surprising that some people still prefer Starcraft - it's now version 1.09 and is much simpler to get to grips with.

As for Blizzard's staff, Metzen, Roper, Morhaime, Schaffer et al are all still there.

Asher
29-01-2003, 01:00:54
when no-one else had made a really good 3D RTS beforehand

Total Annihilation remains the best 3D RTS ever. And it came out way before WC3.

Shining1
29-01-2003, 03:14:03
Erm, I was going on what you posted above:).

TA was 3D for unit construction purposes mainly. It's not really comparable to Emperor, AoM, WarcraftIII or Battle Realms.

The best RTS ever? Quite possibly, although not really the best balanced. Land games became a match of 'survive vs. the Arm mini-tank rush then survive vs. the Core Goliath finish. Arm had too much firepower early on and not nearly enough at the end, or Core was too slow at the start and too strong at the finish. Generally speaking, I really don't like that balancing arguement - it essentially means that everything revolves around whether the Arm rush hits early and hard enough to win, and if it fails, then the game is all but decided.

But I would buy TA2 in a second, if Taylor stops messing around with this silly RPG business and goes back to making real mens games;).

Deacon
29-01-2003, 03:54:50
I thought real men played shooters. :)

Shining1
29-01-2003, 04:06:27
It's rare to meet one, then.

Darkstar
29-01-2003, 06:56:18
A shooter or a man?

Shining1
29-01-2003, 09:36:14
Um?