|
Pages: [1]
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: So this is an "Asteroids" type game (Read 2724 times)
|
Alva Xar
Zebranky food
 Offline
Posts: 2
|
The reputation SC2 has acquired appears to be due to its plot, writing, non-linearity, and pressing sequence of events that the player has to pull through to win. I never played it when it was on the market, but recently tried UQM. And so I see that its style of combat is the ultimate in oldness, the "Asteroids" type spinning cruise, nothing at all like a modern first-person shooter or even a good old combat airplane simulator. I am older than this form of combat, and shrunk from it when it first came out. It seems a shame to have to go through with this to find out what the game is.
Recently there has been developed the "VALVE" system of game timing, in which how one performs in an early part of the game determines the speed or pressure of subsequent assaults. If that isn't applied to this remake, the time will come when the people who played this game when it first came out will no longer be able to.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cronos
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 170
Shofixti Scoutmaster
|
Perhaps you should play the game a little more. The melee can be surprisingly deep despite it's arcade roots.
If you want a simulator, you're barking up the wrong tree. You're last paragraph isnt very clear, mind rephrasing?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shiver
Guest
|
It feels much less clumsy when you get some extra jets installed into the flagship.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Novus
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1938
Fot or not?
|
The reputation SC2 has acquired appears to be due to its plot, writing, non-linearity, and pressing sequence of events that the player has to pull through to win.
Yes, these factors contribute strongly to SC2's (and therefore UQM's) popularity. However, many are also great fans of, for example, the music or the combat.
I never played it when it was on the market, but recently tried UQM. And so I see that its style of combat is the ultimate in oldness, the "Asteroids" type spinning cruise, nothing at all like a modern first-person shooter or even a good old combat airplane simulator. I am older than this form of combat, and shrunk from it when it first came out. It seems a shame to have to go through with this to find out what the game is.
You're right about the "ultimate in oldness" part, but for the wrong reasons. Asteroids (1979) is a lot newer than the game from which Star Control derives, Spacewar (1962). Calling the first-person shooter concept "modern" is slightly misleading, as it has roots in Battlezone (1980), which is almost as old as Asteroids. Similarly, combat flight simulators have been around since 1982 or earlier. There's nothing wrong with a concept just because it's almost 30 years old, although Star Control is based on an even older game.
I also fail to see what is so inherently wrong with the Spacewar combat model as to cause such a strong reaction. Judging by your examples of more preferable styles, you seem to feel that the 2D aspect is a problem. Comparing 2D and 3D games is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, but, as both are edible fruits, some comparison is still possible. Star Control relies heavily on the additional situational awareness allowed by top-down 2D gameplay; the player has to be able to perceive the entire battle at the same time. A full 360 degrees view is almost impossible (or at least very confusing) in 3D first-person perspective. Furthermore, the 2D view adapts well to a two-player single-computer setting, which was one of the selling points of Star Control at a time where home networking and even modem play was uncommon. Furthermore, the use of prerendered 2D graphics allowed high frame rates and pretty graphics even on the 286s of the time. In a game like this, smooth movement is critical.
Also, you should take into account the fact that Spacewar-based games were uncommon at the time Star Control was written despite the potential of the genre demonstrated by Spacewar. Why write another Wing Commander when you can do something that appeals to a different group of people in different ways?
Anyway, if the combat system is so distasteful to you, I suggest you activate cyborg mode with quick combat resolution, in which case you will see practically no combat at all.
Recently there has been developed the "VALVE" system of game timing, in which how one performs in an early part of the game determines the speed or pressure of subsequent assaults.
The problem with automatically adjusting the difficulty level based on the player's initial prowess is that the difficulty level of much of the game is determined by how quick a learner the player is, not his final skill. Also, the difficulty level can vary unexpectedly and unpredictably due to variations in the player's skill. If the difficulty level is continually adjusted, the game can becomes easier to complete if one plays badly. In many contexts, adjusting the difficulty level to match the player makes no sense from the plot's point of view. For these reasons, I strongly prefer manual selection of difficulty level.
If that isn't applied to this remake, the time will come when the people who played this game when it first came out will no longer be able to.
You're making the assumption that gamers' capabilities will decrease with time. I have one word for you: practice. I was 12 when SC2 was released, but my Super Melee skills did not really mature until 5 years later or so. In my experience, the computer-controlled enemies are too easy for the experienced player, not too hard. Loss of hand/eye co-ordination and such around the age of 65 or so (give or take a decade or two for different people) will, of course, make the game harder to play, but what sort of action game takes geriatrics into account anyway? Again, you can skip combat completely if you like.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Captain_Smith
Guest
|
If that isn't applied to this remake, the time will come when the people who played this game when it first came out will no longer be able to.
You're making the assumption that gamers' capabilities will decrease with time. I have one word for you: practice. I was 12 when SC2 was released, but my Super Melee skills did not really mature until 5 years later or so. In my experience, the computer-controlled enemies are too easy for the experienced player, not too hard. Loss of hand/eye co-ordination and such around the age of 65 or so (give or take a decade or two for different people) will, of course, make the game harder to play, but what sort of action game takes geriatrics into account anyway? Again, you can skip combat completely if you like.
Exactly...the original quote is pretty much lunacy. I can't say I've ever seen a game where you get worse with time under normal conditions (now *abnormal conditions*, I can think of a few), you always get better. And from playing it from near the beginning I find I can push around almost any ship with any other ship. And my average margin of victory is around 150 or so with the Awesome AI. The melee is not a hard game. Now granted, most of today's games have gotten *easier* than SC2, IMO. But that's not our fault or BR & PRIII's fault, especially if it's not super-easy or if it's not eye-candy (what gaming's seem to gone to over playability and FUN).
Games are supposed to be challenges to be overcome, not things where the difficulty comes down to meet whatever hapless and sorry skills the player brings to the table.
If SC2 is "too hard" for you, then I can think of a few games I've played that would be nightmares (including the one I'm trying to beat now, and have been at for about a year and a half off and on).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 07:01:53 am by Captain Smith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1]
|
|
|
|
|
Well, SC2 (UQM) is meant to be tough, and so it is.