Posted April 11, 2015
l0rdtr3k: I thought Starcraft was always more twich than strategy.
Just rush the opponent with not a care in the world and win instead of,you know,planning a strategy in a strategy game.
My thoughts exactly. The main argument I've seen in favor of these kinds of games is that battlefield decisions need to be made quickly, and quick reflexes are very important on the battlefield; if you don't like it play TBS. Just rush the opponent with not a care in the world and win instead of,you know,planning a strategy in a strategy game.
It appears to me the main focus today is being put on the quick reflexes part, instead of the thinking part. Which I guess is natural with the younger influx of new foolish 12-and-less-year-old-kiddies into the gaming community.
And a noxious development I've also witnessed, most of all in video games and movies, is the need for instant gratification. It appears it no longer suffices to hatch a well thought out battle plan against a largely unaware player over the course of an entire match, improvising along the way. In movies one thick joke follows the other in mere secconds, scenes last no longer than a few minutes at best in most popular movies, and everything is more over the top then ever.
Take supreme commander. The mainstream argument going against it is you just blob stuff across the map and hurl it at your enemy, and that "there is a larger focus on base management than on strategic planning".
If there's one thing that you shouldn't be doing in supcom it's blobbing without a seccond thought. While it's true that huge hordes of robots in massive battle lines make up the core of your force, if your just going to hurl them across the map without adequately managing other branches of your army, your economy or flanking moves, surgical strikes, long range support, etc etc and a decent plan, you'll get obliterated.
that took me 18 minutes to cook up