alexmatusiak's forum posts

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#1 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

"Homeworld for story" lol, I get it.

Sins is a better game overall. A few visual mods help it out, especially making the combat more dramatic. And Sins uses 3 dimensions as well - you can command your ships on the tactical overlay to move vertically - so that argument is moot (doubled by the fact that, just like in Homeworld, movement on this axis is largely useless).

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#2 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

Thats a tough one ... they're almost identical pairings.

(Even more so now with Andy on the Blizz team?)

Marines > Terran ... Marines are essentially built from the bone out to be nothing but elite fighters, compared to the Terran's pack of bottom dwellers and rednecks (gotta love those SCI cut scenes). Marines also have psyker Librarians with some command over the warp, and your initial theory grants that Warp spaces exists in the SC universe as well.

Protoss > Eldar ... 'cuz I hate Eldar (kidding ... sorta) even though they were my first 40K army. It would be a close match, with matching warping, psyker/magic and technologies ... but in the end, the Protoss have a slight numbers advantage, and righteous zeal which has gotta count for something.

Tyranids > Zerg ... Zerg are starting to catch up to 'Nids in terms of evolution, but they're just not there yet. Also, we saw at the end of SCI that one suicide bomber could take out the Hive Mind ... well .. GG. Tyranid synapse can't be broken quite as easily, and even in the destruction of Hiveships doesn't break the will of an invasion force. (My Blood Angels on the other hand ...)

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#3 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

I'm big on WW2 history and games so I would vote for another CoH expansion (hopefully one that works at release, thanks!).

But I could see the merit in a new DoW game as well.

Adding more gameplay to CoH would be interesting - I always kinda wished a medics would come in and serve the wounded for example. But rather than CoH2 that adds all these gameplay extras, I would rather it be an option that you can toggle, because while the merits in a single player campaign and even casual skirmishes would be great, I can see how it would be difficult to implement in to multiplayer.

No auto throwing grenades though ... while it would be fun to just attack-move with your force and watch the AI do crazy things and activate abilities all on its own, it becomes less like a game and more like a cinematic IMO.

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#4 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

I disagree. WIC MP is very competitve there are many leagues out there for it and ingame support for it is really great. I dont understand why you reccomend it for somebody with a short attention span. If you actually play it competively you need a lot of situtional awarness and most importanly being able to work effectively with others. The game isn't lacking depth at all. bignice12

Not short attention span ... meaning if you have a short attention span that you'll like the game more. But I know a lot of people who buy games and play then for maybe a week or two at most - any lasting appeal of a game is lost on them. Its not a bad thing ... they just buy new games every week or so. My experience with WiC is that I simply started to lose interest after about 3 weeks which is why I voted it lower than CoH. If I moved on from WiC sooner, I would have never noticed it getting stale.

I will, however, agree with you 100% that if you want to pick a single RTS game and play it competitively, and decide you want to go for WiC, that you should make an effort to get involved in the community and get friends with whom you can learn to work efficiently and effectively with. Of course, if you prefer playing say 2v2 (or more) matches in general, then this suggestion is universal really.

I give all new RTS games an even and equal shot. WiC was the best RTS game I played since CoH was released, but it just didn't have enough overall effect to outshine it. Even if bignice12 above did defunk my point about multiplayer depth to you, it still isn't enough in my mind to pick WiC over CoH.

If I were to sum up WiC to me, it would be...

WiC: "Hey you like RTS games? How about if they had gameplay like this!"

Me: "Wow thats pretty neat ... novelty is running off ... hey cool explosions and effects though - glad I got DX10 ... ... novelty gone"

It seems that most RTS games now are moving "towards the battle line" .. that is, with more emphasis on combat management than the typical mix. WiC, however, just takes it too far from what I like about the balance in RTS (which I believe is nearly perfected in CoH).

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#5 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

If you have a short attention span with computer games, you'll probably perfer WiC. I say this not because its a bad game or a bad purchase, but because it takes only about 3 weeks for you to realize that the game is missing a lot of depth, especially in terms of competitive multiplayer. I don't regret playing it, but I'm already back to playing CoH.

I've found that it boils down to a simple question. Do you REALLY like RTS games? If so, then you'll love CoH because it takes basic ideas and streamlines them (namely base building and resource gathering), and then brings in great new features like a fully interactive battlefield.

WiC is great for people who like the idea of RTS game but hate managing a base and micromanaging combat at the same time (or simply want a break from it). AND THIS IS FINE - this is where the game finds a great coss section of fans. It does a fairly good job of keeping you in the heat of combat, although I find that there's always more fighting being done in CoH than in WiC. WiC gives you a fair few number of units and you tend to keep them together, but you will still run in to situations where you lose units and are waiting around for credits to renew. In CoH you have more units, controlling multiple battlefield objectives and assaulting enemy positions all at once. This is one reason I never really got the argument for WiC being more fast paced - I personally found just as much, if not more downtime during the course of a match.

SC is a game of truely epic proportions but I find the visuals lacking, and the overall sense of immersion fairly nonexistant. To me, SC feels like you're playing with a bunch of little toys with little regard to battle or "objectives." The SP campaing in SC got tedious about half way through, and although I can't speak for the expansion directly ... the fact that I didn't bother picking it up at all (compared with waiting by the phone to hear the "CoH expansion is in stock" call) should say enough.

People can say whatever they will but at the end of the day, I find what makes a game really great is something you can't exactly put in to words. Its just a feel ... an overall blend of graphics and effects, gameplay and tactics, immersion and feel, singleplayer campaign and multiplayer community and diversity and even interface ... and when I sit down and feel like playing an RTS game, there is for me only one option.

(Literally ... all other RTS games have been erased from my HD last time I cleaned up my system)

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#6 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

Wow we really are due for a new, good combat flight simulator.

il-2 as mentioned is a classic ... and the following year saw Warbirds 3 which I also really enjoyed.

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#7 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

Was that on your first go at Hard difficulty?

I only through it once on hard but I forgot how long it took ... longer than that, though. I'm still not 100% sure if it was worth the price tag though (given that I dislike its multiplayer compared to UT and it has since been uninstalled and given to a friend) but it was probably the best FPS SP campaign I've played since F.E.A.R.

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#8 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

Didn't COD4 just win Best Shooter and Best Military game at the Spike VGAs? That would be recognition I guess ... and I'm sure it'll win its fair share of awards on Gamespot and IGN soon.

Personally I dislike its multiplayer but it was one of the better FPS SP experiences I've had in a while (although I think I'm one of the few who prefer WW2 and sort of sad when it was announced they were moving away from it).

Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#9 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts
CoH is the kind of RTS you keep going back to. WiC was a fun adrenaline rush for two weeks, but after that you realize its pretty thin. The only thing WiC has going for it after its gameplay and 'tactics' has exhausted, is some pretty spectacular explosions and effects (go go DX10). CoH hasn't left my system since the day it came out. WiC has already been removed.
Avatar image for alexmatusiak
alexmatusiak

61

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

1

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#10 alexmatusiak
Member since 2006 • 61 Posts

Oh ... sorry that was rude of me to forget something.

Wasdie ... it was a very good video. Well edited with the pace of music and would make a very good game trailer.

Maybe you can hope to pull a Nick Haley from it :D