Duke nuken released

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Demon767]

+1 Spartan M

[brn4meplz]

Most RTS games are filled with high levels of Play. SC/SC2 are the most famous and they have amazing levels of depth.

I played alot of Supreme Commander when it came out and it had good levels of depth to it(some balance issues but what doesn't) and the game play was definitely back and forth and strategic.


Some games just get more coverage then others. No one can sit there and say one game has more depth then another or takes less skill because it isn't true(unless it's clearly a time discrepancy or a different genre)

[Demon767]

i disagree brn on the grounds that, sc sucks.

much like mw2 hype

[Killer344]

SC2 is on a class of its own, you can't compare it to any other RTS.

[spinn72]

Because it took 8 years to re-release the same game?

[Demon767]

Because it took 8 years to re-release the same game?

lololl

[DarkSoldierX]

Because it took 8 years to re-release the same game?

Thats basicly what duke nukem, BF, CoD, have been doing.......

[brn4meplz]

Actually the more you play it the more you realise how complex and varied it is. Micro is just as important in SC as macro is.

Sort of like chess, relatively simple rules yet a complex and advanced game.

Macro in Starcraft is actually more important. Micro only matters if it will actually make a difference(At high level play both are required) but at low levels there's no sense microing to miracles a unit when your enemy just builds ten more

[spinn72]

Thats basicly what duke nukem, BF, CoD, have been doing.......

With the exception of Duke Nukem, which has had monetary struggles, CoD comes out every year, BF every couple of years. BF1 = 1942, BF2 = modern, BF1943 - well.., BFBC2 - console, but new maps and different guns/class system.

[DarkSoldierX]

With the exception of Duke Nukem, which has had monetary struggles, CoD comes out every year, BF every couple of years. BF1 = 1942, BF2 = modern, BF1943 - well.., BFBC2 - console, but new maps and different guns/class system.

Yeah but starcraft hasn't been developing all those years.

In CoD terms, you are getting the same game every year, compared to starcraft, you get the same game after 8 years, so not that bad seeing as you payed ALOT less to keep up with the multiplayer database.

The biggest CoD jump was first modern warfare, that was good and new, all after that had slight differences in gameplay, and actually lessens in skill with each game.

BF games I havn't been playing much. I only still play BF2 mods (project reality, forgoten hope 2) and I used to play battlefield play4free for a bit. I havn't played battlefield bad company other than a bit of singleplayer so i cant say much, but it really felt somewhat similer to the other games.

So personaly as I see it, it comes down to - Pay 60$ every year to keep up with huge multiplayer database that all your friends are in.

Or pay 60$ every 2 years to keep up with the database.

Or pay 60$ 10 years later to keep up with the database.

Lots of people still play the older games, like CoD4, WaW, BF2, and starcraft 1, but if I go to my friends and ask them weither they play those games, they will be like "WTF u no have blackops and BFbadcompany yet? Are u poor? I havn't played those in a few years!"

[Sachaztan]

Macro in Starcraft is actually more important. Micro only matters if it will actually make a difference(At high level play both are required) but at low levels there's no sense microing to miracles a unit when your enemy just builds ten more

Micro is what gives you more resources in SC, not macro. Also in SC 2 micro can make you win against 10x more units due to some of the new units (zerg are x-tra good at this), you could not do this in SC 1 tho.

[skaffa]

COD1 was revolutionairy, that game was awsm, dont see how anyone could hate on that.

Bad Company 2 is also a good game, great graphics for those who want that, destructable envirement, good hitreg, game shines when you play with couple friends on vent, I cant say I ever play it alone, dont like playing it alone, but with people you know its awsm.

[deadbolt]

http://www.boob-tube.eu/duke-nudem/

u guys can play this in the meantime whilst you wait for it to come out, lolz

[Sachaztan]

http://www.boob-tube.eu/duke-nudem/

u guys can play this in the meantime whilst you wait for it to come out, lolz

I came, I saw...I kicked ass!

[Poppi]

lol bf3 meh just another mw2 pathetic hype.

yes and no.
BF 1 rocked. BF2 meh.
Bad Company by DICE was amazing.

Im sure DICEs BF 3 will be awesome. But these ex COD fanboys bragging about how awesome the BF 3 trailer and graphics are, are missing the whole point of BF. Wheres the multiplayer?

Plus find it weird. Bad Company 1 was awesome. But in BC 2 they copied alot of COD gameplay. And thats the one that got the tards attention.