RTS is "defined" by Total Annihilation, not *craft or Red Alert or any other game/series.
Not one game "defines" an RTS unless it is capable of surviving holes poked by other RTS games.
What really defines "RTS" is a set of games that show examples of how a game should be written. TA is an element of that definition, but the slightly newer games have shown that it is not the only component.
As bad as Red Alert 2 was, it does have a part in defining an RTS - the fact that units don't stand still after they magically realise that their target was destroyed half-way across the map.
In the mean time, if you have been into RTS games for a relatively short period of time, I urge you to go and get hold of Total Annihilation, Red Alert 1 and Red Alert 2. You don't know what you're missing!
Red Alert 1 is hard to manage in comparison to TA. In particular, you are only allowed construction of one item from a set of a unit type (i.e. one infantry, one vehicle and one building.) In addition, the AI player gains its strength solely from the massive buildtime advantage that the player does not have - if you can block attack forces from any direction, you will win as long as you have a way of getting resources (e.g. crates or resource generators.)
Red Alert 2 has a really bad AI player. It's scripted AI is much worse than Starcraft - it cannot detect that it's base is being smashed by three prism tanks until it is too late.
A better recommendataion would have been the TA, Starcraft, and Warcraft III combo. Even if these games aren't the best, they serve as a strong foundation for a modern RTS game - if the best features of each are combined, you will have the greatest RTS ever.
(Alternatives would be the TA, SC, and Dark Reign combo. There are problems with Dark Reign, but they are marginal compared to Red Alert. )
All it needs is a graphics update and it would be the best RTS on the market.
Don't count on it. If a person writes his own RTS from scratch with beautiful 3D graphics, a highly polished interface, and great game balance, it would overcome TA. While the game may have had those three elements at the time it was released, the other RTSs have managed to overcome TA in one aspect (and therefore poked holes.)
For its time, 3D graphics were impressive. TAK surpassed that but required a powerful computer to run.
The interface was polished - you could easily configure how you want your units to engage. However, it does have problems where your units realise that their designated target gets destroyed and stop instantly in their tracks where they stand (resulting in your units not advancing towards the battle like they should.) TA units also don't try to keep formations. In addition, it's impossible to transport all of your 100 units across a river without having to micromanage your transports.
As for game balance - it is passable but not perfect. TA 1.0 had air units that could dominate all the time. It was fixed in TA 3.0 with the addition of flak cannons - however, the other problem of 40 Advanced Construction Planes allowing "instant-build" is still present.
I still don't see why everyone thinks WC is some kind of RTS benchmark. Don't get me wrong. It is fun, but limited. Warlords Battlecry is a superior fantasy RTS.
Warcraft III is a game that is designed to focus around smaller groups of units - most other games are either a strict "victory by numbers" or a variation thereof. Not only that, but managing the small groups of units was possible by an interface that was well refined (but not perfect - it took until TFT before the most major interface problems were removed, such as inability to chain research and units in the same building queue.)
In my opinion, WBC3 still has game balance issues - for example, the high elves have a building that can cast map-wide healing for 400 crystals (and also have units that generate one crystal per second.) In this case, it's quite easy to have a single tough unit wipe out an enemy base when it is supported by the instant healing.
Also, WBC3 appears to have buildings a bit too resistant to siege weapons - the Manticore/Scorpion shoots multiple ballistas at a building, which only takes 1 or 2 damage. While I expect this to be fixed, the first impressions of the game are generally a bit more significant for game balance.
Hell on forums troughout the net most americans will tell you they've been the most cheered country during the countries announcement when, actually, they were boo'ed.
I watched the opening ceremonies, and it was hard to explicitly distinguish any "Booing" from the audience. (The CBC commentator was mentioning that there was going to be an interesting response from the audience, whatever it was going to be.)
If "Whistling" is considered to be the international equivalent of Boo, then the Americans probably assumed that they were being cheered - when combined with cheering, the whistle is a sign of favour for the Americans. As a result, the crowd sounded like they were being very favourable even when they didn't want to.
Certain levels had certain tracks. I remember certain levels specifically for their music.
That's static music. It is a single music track that simply plays with no intervention.
Just because there is more than one track doesn't mean that it is dynamic. It could be a situational style of music, but it doesn't change enough to receive the dynamic tag.
If you dont break the law, you have nothing to worry about.
Is that really true?
While it may work if Section 1.3.1 was by itself, it's not the only thing in the document. Section 6.2 describes the Governing Law under the "agreement", being either New Jersey or appropriate Canadian law. As a result, you can't exactly be sure whether or not Vonage will forward the information to authorities when you break some obscure New Jersey law. (Note that the critical Section 1.3.1 also includes Civil liability as well, and as you know, that is much easier to obtain as well. )
This terms of service is posted in a fashion where it is supposed to be read by a layman. If the language is unclear or supposedly restrictive, you will get reports that the company has an unfair Terms of Service - regardless of whether or not they are accurrate. This fuss is spawned by a person having to worry about breaking some obscure law in another country, which is something that requires hiring a lawyer.
1. With classical FTP from an official server, if your MD5 is incorrect, you have to restart the download entirely. THere doesn't yet seem to be an implementation that helps ensure that a downloaded file is perfectly accurrate (even if there is, it's either not noticable or doesn't work for corrupted segmented downloads.) 2. With either FTP or BitTorrent from a 3rd-party server, the MD5 could be incorrect - but in that case, it's already too late: you've been infected. 3. With bittorrent from an official server, checking the MD5 is redundant.
game is a buggy piece of shit, and I read a lot to make sure it just isn't the reviewer's machine. I started doing this after ST: Armada, anyone ever play it?
I did, and only came up with three problems:
1. Sound distortions - which can be worked around by setting sound acceleration to Basic (mentioned on support site.) 2. Lockups in some cutscenes under Windows XP after installing drivers/updates/software. No fix yet, but I've sighted similar things on other games as well. 3. Misc Alt-Tab issues that were present in all other games released around that time.
If you provide the description of the crash, along with your version number (should be 1.2 or later), you might just get some help from people who managed to work around it.
Also, reading the review still doesn't tell you if a game is buggy or not - there have been reports (a.k.a. rumours) where it was obvious that the reviewer had driver issues but blamed the game instead.
There are also games that appear to work fine the reviews but have the bugs become appearent in the field - C&C Generals is one example, when you are trying to wait for the cutscenes to finish on a computer with a Riva TNT2 (you can't skip them, and they are slower than realtime because of the frame-by-frame rendering.)
Take Doom III and Quake I for instance. It's the best in-game music ever! Why? Because it got it's desired effect like few other games ever has.
The music for Quake I has one major disadvantage - you don't know it's there unless you have the CD in your drive. (e.g. you're playing the downloaded shareware version.) Also, it was static music - whether you were just standing still on one area or in a 15-player fragfest, it was always the same. Can't comment on Doom III yet...
Games that implement dynamic music are much better at putting the player in the desired effect than games with static music - provided that it is done properly. Deus Ex and Serious sam are examples of good dynamic music (keeps you in the current mood with a minor or illusionary transition), while Deadly Dozen is an example of dynamic music (the combat music breaks the mood as it is different from the ambient music - also, there is no transition.)
It is intresting that this type of music has stopped being used. The way they did it was with midi (midi files are like sheet music to a synthesizer wich requires powerfull hardware BUT is extremely small and very low on the cpu usage). Because of midi they could have several themes in memory and load between them quickly even have crossover music so you don't get a clear switch.
The problem with MIDI is that it will sound different on different sound cards or computers. Thus, if you play Tie Fighter (or some other game using MIDI) now, you will notice that the music is much different than what you remember it was like.
However, there are replacements to MIDI that can be used, such as the Impulse Tracker "*.IT" or Scream Tracker "*.S3M" format used in the older Unreal engine. In Unreal, the system was used to keep music within one file so that it's easier to manage, but it is possible to use a dynamic music system (such as one used in Deus Ex.)
Another point, a remarkable game that broke grounds with music was Jedi Knight (not sure if 1 or 2), depending on whats happening (or about to) the music tone would change from being peacefull minuet to a violent orchestral explosions.
Actually, LucasArts was successfully doing dynamic music in X-Wing, one of the games released before Windows 95. The dynamic music could also have been present in Dark Forces, although it might not have been as noticable.
Dynamic music was removed in Jedi Knight I as it ws replaced with Redbook. Somehow, the developers realized that redbook audio wasn't the best route to go and switched back in Jedi Knight II.
In any case, the dynamic music systems are a bit harder to extract from the game, as they aren't exactly independant ".WAV" or ".MP3" files - it usually needs some editing to grab all of the tracks (Unreal's.IT and.S3M files are good examples - they aren't dynamic, but have multiple tracks interweaved in one music file.)
Btw, Dragon's Lair for the C64 was a completely different game. It was actually more playable than the arcade (but no fancy graphics).
Disagree there. The arcade version, being LaserDisc FMV, could at least give you clues in the animations so that you could make a logical move. Even if the move wasn't obvious before it was requires, you should have been able to determine the correct move from the death sequence.
The C64 version did not have such clues because if the less advanced graphics. Sometimgs, you were up against the same attack, but had to use a different dodge or action to survive. (BTW, I made it to the final level of Dragon's Lair, using saved game snaphots. Haven't been able to finish the game, though.) Also, the sequence with the night on the chess board was extremely difficult to finish - there wasn't enough time for the player to reach the knight before he became invulnerable.
Warcraft III was one of those games that took a hit from high expectations and low patience. Most people who got it were expecting the larger-scale battles of Total Annihilation and even Starcraft, but were disappointed when they experienced a game that centered around 8-16 units.
Those players obviously don't really know how to play Warcraft III - they are generally used to clicking on the "Build Dwarf" button 40 times, and throwing the Dwarf army into the enemy base.
It's also easy to make Warcraft III to support the massive army battles - although the interface isn't designed to handle that (you can only select 12 units at a time or 120 units through hotkeys - not enough for the maximum amount of units that could appear.) In the editor, you need to set the Supply Cost of each unit to zero - you can build an large number of units (limited by resources and space only) and disables upkeep.
Personally, I prefer with a unit limit - the game is designed around it, and removing it will cause problems.
TA:Kingdoms just doesn't have any of this. It had so much potential. I'm a fan of "sword and sorcery", and of RTSes in general, and was eagerly awaiting it. And then what did I get? I got a cannon tower with all the punching power of a five year old to guard my castle, armies full of units who couldn't fight unless they could get on top of the other guy, and an interesting spell system that somehow never quite worked.
I haven't really noticed this problem with TAK. After playing with it, most players really found the defences (such as the cannon towers) to be overpowered rather than weak.
Although the argument about melee units can be valid, it's not as much of a problem post-patch where the Move-Fight command was implemented (something that should have been in from the start). Personally, I don't find it a problem at all, since I place my focus on long-range units.
They seemed to be on the right lines, as magical units could to some extent have their automatic behaviour coded in, but they just weren't smart enough and if you left one in the wrong place for a couple of seconds, a baby would come and eat it. These magical units are really support units - they aren't designed to be in battle as they get crushed easily. Even if you were omniscient and could multitask infinitly, these support units would fall to a single heavy combat unit. (I learned the hard way when I tried defending against a Swamp Beast with Archers - never expected splash damage in a melee attack.)
I want serious formation/grouping control, so I can actually use some strategy and combinations of units that make a difference. The original TA wasn't bad in this respect -- you could group units, and so on -- but it was naive when it came to, for example, sending heavy tanks in with lightweight escorts.
Actually, TA was average in this respect. The only reason it seemed to look better is becuase of the other features in the game, such as the configurable engagement orders. A detailed analysis wil prove my point, although the interface in TA/TAK was relativly strong for its time (and debatably, is considered still strong now).
However, there is a problem with the system you mentioned - if units need to stick together for the entire journey, the entire group moves very slowly. Most games I've seen don't include an option to change this behaviour. However, it's easily implemented: a single action click will cause the formation to stick together during movement, while a double-click will cause the units to move at their own speed.
And here's the killer, that no-one's done yet: I want genuine configurability for the unit orders -- if a FPS can use scripting, why on earth can't we have simple scripts to determine target priorities, weapon selection, etc. in a RTS?
Personally, I find scripting to be excessive in terms of an RTS. Why? In an RTS, you are relying on multiple AIs rather than just yourself - the fixes must be made so that the AIs are easier to manage rather than making them faster to manage.
All that's really needed is to make the most common tasks easily accessable without too much depth, as well as having the units engage enemies in the most optimal manner. (e.g. AT units targetting tanks rather than sticking on infantry.) Earth 2150 is relativly close to what is needed with the "Advanced battle unit", where you have a set of individual paramters which affect how the unit will target and move around, as well as orders on when to retreat. A game that copies this form of unit orders (and enhance it with unit tactical awareness) would really begin to shine.
If an RTS is properly written, there will be no need to write scripts, as most actions would be relativly easy to perform. In fact, it's probably better to rewrite the RTS paradim from scratch - most developers are repeating the exact same flaws from game to game. From what I can tell, these developers aren't designing with the interface in mind - a lot of problems can be fixed if this was worked on first.
I think most RTS games have aged very well and have become more fun to play.
Personally, I have the complete opposite opinion. I find that there are very few RTS games that have a properly written interface - one of the most important featrues that is above computer AI and multiplayer.
In particular, a lot of games seem to be missing the following: - Ability to set a proper zoom level (where the longest ranged non-artillery attack should cross 35-45% of the screen.) - Ability to order unit repair easily. (Most games require you to do fancy orders, such as clicking on the unit, and clicking directly on the repair pad. The only game that fixed this problem was Star Trek: Armada II, where you select ths unit, and use the "Repair" button/hotkey - or "Priority Repair" to prevent group orders from messing things up.) - Ability to keep units together after an order is completed. (Most games have units standing behind when an attack order is complete because the designated unit is destroyed - even though they are on the other side of the map). - Ability to play without sound. (There are still games that announce "Base under attack", but don't print the message.) - Ability to use the minimap effectivly. (Many games make it "Useful" by flashing combat activity, but in some games, the flash isn't long enough for you to identify where the problem is.) - Ability to play without a scattered interface. (Some games have messages appear in the bottom of the screen, but have a short minimap flash in the top-left.) - Ability to see hotkeys without having to move the mouse over the icon. (I play many RTS games, and it can be difficult to remember all hotkeys for all games.)
Command and Conquer 2
Even though C&C:TS has interface problems, it's one of the only games where unit groups try to keep together after a successful attack.
The lack of this feature in the other RTS games has annoyed me to no end. In fact, it's encouraging me to write my own.
I wish that I could have been taught touch typing in school so that I didn't have so much frustration today.
Touch typing is easily learned. First, you start by having your left hand on the 'asdf' keyser, and your right hand on the 'jkl;' keyset. Memorize the position of these keys.
Next, you learn the 'g' and 'h' keys. Now, you will have the whole home row memorized. The next steps involve learning the upper row, starting at the index finger and moving outward. Repeat the same for the lower row.
This is the same technique used in commercial software packages that teach typing. The only difference is that these commercial packages can also help you increase your typing speed by measuring your typing rate and setting appropriate goals.
Perhaps you don't know that Quake started with the tradition of 'W','A','S','D' (because some people didn't like the default config), where your hand is one set of the keys to the left of your standard typing position.
In this case, learning to type isn't the problem - adjusting your hands to the sandard typing position ('A' 'S' 'D' 'F') and back again will be. Also, don't get me started on having to use your right-hand to use the keypad to enter those number codes - you'll lift your hand right off the mouse and strain your eyes looking for it.
Close the blinds.
I've already tried something similar by hanging a blanket infront of the curtains (espectually when my previous curtains were wearing thin because of sunlight.) There was still ambient light coming through.
Even when it does become dark out, I find that I have to turn on the light, because it comes very hard to look at the computer screen, even with toned down brightness.
People used to say the same thing about Quake 1. However, if you got rid of all ambient light and played, you could see everything you were supposed to and without the washed out-ness that comes from upping your gamma too far.
As much as I would like that to be an option, it really isn't.
When you turn off ambient light, it becomes slightly harder to do certain tasks, such as typing (critical when chatting in multiplayer.)
It also restricts you to playing the game at night-time, which is also needed for sleeping. This cuts out your weekend play.
Actually in DOOM the grunts (pistol, shotgun and machine gun dudes) and lost souls would fight their own kind (actually lost souls would only get one hit on the other lost soul before returning to you,) though the imps, cacodemons, pinkies, Mancubuses, etc wouldn't hurt their own kind.
There's another exception to the rule you posted.
If a monster damages another monster with a barrel explosion, the injured monster will become hostile - even if they are of the same species (e.g. Baron of Hell vs. Baron of Hell.) This gets exploited in some Tyson runs of Doom.
When this happens, the monster will try to attack with the missile attack. Since this doesn't work, the monster will eventually close inand use the melee scratches - this will cause the two-way combat to occurr.
The obvious question that's non-PC to ask, WTF are you doing having a family when you haven't made the investment of time in obtaining a marketable skill or trade?
You can't just blindly learn some random skill - otherwise your marketable skill is completely useless.
Even if you do have a target when you develop your skill, you can still be stuck without a job - the Dot Com burst is the great example of this.
Personal responsibility anyone?
As much as some people like to improve their skill set, developing a marketable skill costs money - most skills generally require a certain amount of time at a trade school or college of some sort.
How do you get money? You need to get a job. To get a job, you need a marketable skill which costs money to obtain. Repeat ad infinitum.
After a quick glance at the article, I noticed that there was information missing (a feeling I had before I opened the page.)
The reasons within the article are technological reasons about why games fail - pertaining to how the code is designed. It doesn't explain more pratical reasons, such as insufficient experience with programming or mathematics (e.g. you don't yet know how to divide a shape in two efficiently.)
This sort of stuff needs to be written over a period of time - you can't just write a single small article and say that it's done. That's also why there are books on the subject rather than one section in a periodical.
The Windows 95 versions of X-Wing and Tie Fighter was when they converted the games to the X-Wing vs Tie Fighter game engine (with some extra tweaks) and called it the X-Wing Collector Series (which came with a semi-demo for XvT). By converted, I mean they converted the missions as everything else was the same from the original games
From what I could tell, the mission files seemed to be identical between the Windows version and the Dos version (aside from the "rebalanced" mission set). While I do know that there are changes in the engine of the game, it seems that the missions were the only thing that remained the same - movies and ship models were different because of differences between the Dos and Windows version.
BTW, X-Wing (Windows version) was the first game that I had that didn't give any indication on why it wouldn't start. It would flash the screen black, make a beep, and return to the desktop. Trying to relaunch the game a couple of times allowed it to run, but it is the first of many games that would crash mysteriously.
Of course, the conversion means you can't sit in a Star Destroyer's blind spot behind its engines and just blast away anymore since engine wash was introduced.
Actually, engine wash was only included in XvT (along with the jamming beam that appeared when you were too close to the ship.) The X-Wing games and Tie Fighter games still allowed you to use the blind-spot tactic, either by the engines or by another point on the hull (where the enemys had trouble maneuvering to attack because of a lack of pathfinding AI in this kind of game). Not only that, but Tie Fighter allows you to blast the front missile launcher off the Star Destroyer and fly *INTO* the vessel, and attack from there.
A better sysmtem would be to extend the shield a bit from the hull - it can cause complains in some cases, but players shouldn't be that close to a capital ship anyway.
One thing I noticed: engine wash didn't seem to affect AI players. There were also other oddities where certain effects affected the player but didn't harm AIs in any way, such as the damage to components within the cockpit.
Old text adventures had mazes. As a rule of thumb, the bigger the maze, the more boring the adventure. Later on adventure makers caught on, and either delivered games without a maze, or put in "a maze with a twist".
While I can tolerate mazes within text adventures (technically, the entire map is a maze), pushing things to the extreme will get annoying, such as the infamous "You are in a maze of twisty passages, all alike."
Not only that, but some of those text adventure games (such as Adventure) also had a time limit on how long you could play, by either having a limited amount of battery power for your lamp, or by some other limitiation.
I stopped playing "Myst" when I got in the underground maze, came to a dead end, and realised I had to track back for at least 10 minutes to get to the right path again. Can't say Myst is a boring game on the whole, but in the maze it sank to the pits.
There is a solution for a maze - when you enter a node for the maze, you hear an audio sound that gives a hint on the direction you are supposed to go. It's possible to learn the sounds from the world with gears, but can be learned through "trial and error" within the maze.
However, this maze is still annoying due to the long transition times, especially since there is no indication on whether or not you are on the right track at any point. (The audio alert that I mentioned doesn't count, since it incorrectly assumes that the player is always capable of hearing such information.)
Strangely, some games that were fun to play 15-20 years ago are terribly boring nowadays. Who remembers "The Bard's Tale"? Who enjoyed it? And who would loathe to play it today?
I wouldn't exactly loathe that particular game, but I tend to prefer other game genres over RPGs because of the amount of time spent levelling up your characters to ensure that they can defeat the end-game boss. The only issue would be the lack of map and the encounters that pop-up randonly, but that is not too much of an issue considering the maximum complexity of the engine at the time.
(BTW, I heard that one player managed to get an unlimited number of songs from his bard. Don't know how it happened or how to reproduce it, but the infinite healing songs basically made his party invulnerable.)
I wouldn't loathe other old games, provided that there aren't any annoying puzzles or mazes. As long as the game is designed properly, there is no problem playing it at all.
Ken calls Barbie, asks, "Would you like to go to dinner?". She says "sure", and he replies, "Great! Pick you up in an hour." So she drives around and goes shopping for clothes for dinner, gets her hair done, etc.
Ken calls back, "Barbie, plans have changed! Would you like to go to the prom? Pick you up in an hour." She drives, shops, Barbisizes some more.
IIRC, you had to return home on the hour to proceed to the next step. It's one of the more obscure things that I might recall from the game (don't ask). If you return too early, you get the change in plans (but the game might eventually give up with early returns and let you finish anyway), and if you return too late, the game ends.
I haven't played that game in 15 years (and that's a good thing). Thus, details are naturally very sketchy.
Not only is this the worst game, but what does this teach our children? To be ready for whatever demands Ken makes, not having any input for the decision, and making unreallistic demands like getting ready for "a Prom" in an hour?!?
Well, it is a perfect emulation of a standard Barbie doll - frequent changes in clothing done very rapidly, along with the Ken doll appearing after the final change...
Then again, Barbie dolls aren't that interesting anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Not one game "defines" an RTS unless it is capable of surviving holes poked by other RTS games.
What really defines "RTS" is a set of games that show examples of how a game should be written. TA is an element of that definition, but the slightly newer games have shown that it is not the only component.
As bad as Red Alert 2 was, it does have a part in defining an RTS - the fact that units don't stand still after they magically realise that their target was destroyed half-way across the map.
Red Alert 2 has a really bad AI player. It's scripted AI is much worse than Starcraft - it cannot detect that it's base is being smashed by three prism tanks until it is too late.
A better recommendataion would have been the TA, Starcraft, and Warcraft III combo. Even if these games aren't the best, they serve as a strong foundation for a modern RTS game - if the best features of each are combined, you will have the greatest RTS ever.
(Alternatives would be the TA, SC, and Dark Reign combo. There are problems with Dark Reign, but they are marginal compared to Red Alert. )
Don't count on it. If a person writes his own RTS from scratch with beautiful 3D graphics, a highly polished interface, and great game balance, it would overcome TA. While the game may have had those three elements at the time it was released, the other RTSs have managed to overcome TA in one aspect (and therefore poked holes.)
For its time, 3D graphics were impressive. TAK surpassed that but required a powerful computer to run.
The interface was polished - you could easily configure how you want your units to engage. However, it does have problems where your units realise that their designated target gets destroyed and stop instantly in their tracks where they stand (resulting in your units not advancing towards the battle like they should.) TA units also don't try to keep formations. In addition, it's impossible to transport all of your 100 units across a river without having to micromanage your transports.
As for game balance - it is passable but not perfect. TA 1.0 had air units that could dominate all the time. It was fixed in TA 3.0 with the addition of flak cannons - however, the other problem of 40 Advanced Construction Planes allowing "instant-build" is still present.
Warcraft III is a game that is designed to focus around smaller groups of units - most other games are either a strict "victory by numbers" or a variation thereof. Not only that, but managing the small groups of units was possible by an interface that was well refined (but not perfect - it took until TFT before the most major interface problems were removed, such as inability to chain research and units in the same building queue.)
In my opinion, WBC3 still has game balance issues - for example, the high elves have a building that can cast map-wide healing for 400 crystals (and also have units that generate one crystal per second.) In this case, it's quite easy to have a single tough unit wipe out an enemy base when it is supported by the instant healing.
Also, WBC3 appears to have buildings a bit too resistant to siege weapons - the Manticore/Scorpion shoots multiple ballistas at a building, which only takes 1 or 2 damage. While I expect this to be fixed, the first impressions of the game are generally a bit more significant for game balance.
If "Whistling" is considered to be the international equivalent of Boo, then the Americans probably assumed that they were being cheered - when combined with cheering, the whistle is a sign of favour for the Americans. As a result, the crowd sounded like they were being very favourable even when they didn't want to.
Just because there is more than one track doesn't mean that it is dynamic. It could be a situational style of music, but it doesn't change enough to receive the dynamic tag.
While it may work if Section 1.3.1 was by itself, it's not the only thing in the document. Section 6.2 describes the Governing Law under the "agreement", being either New Jersey or appropriate Canadian law. As a result, you can't exactly be sure whether or not Vonage will forward the information to authorities when you break some obscure New Jersey law. (Note that the critical Section 1.3.1 also includes Civil liability as well, and as you know, that is much easier to obtain as well. )
This terms of service is posted in a fashion where it is supposed to be read by a layman. If the language is unclear or supposedly restrictive, you will get reports that the company has an unfair Terms of Service - regardless of whether or not they are accurrate. This fuss is spawned by a person having to worry about breaking some obscure law in another country, which is something that requires hiring a lawyer.
1. With classical FTP from an official server, if your MD5 is incorrect, you have to restart the download entirely. THere doesn't yet seem to be an implementation that helps ensure that a downloaded file is perfectly accurrate (even if there is, it's either not noticable or doesn't work for corrupted segmented downloads.)
2. With either FTP or BitTorrent from a 3rd-party server, the MD5 could be incorrect - but in that case, it's already too late: you've been infected.
3. With bittorrent from an official server, checking the MD5 is redundant.
1. Sound distortions - which can be worked around by setting sound acceleration to Basic (mentioned on support site.)
2. Lockups in some cutscenes under Windows XP after installing drivers/updates/software. No fix yet, but I've sighted similar things on other games as well.
3. Misc Alt-Tab issues that were present in all other games released around that time.
If you provide the description of the crash, along with your version number (should be 1.2 or later), you might just get some help from people who managed to work around it.
Also, reading the review still doesn't tell you if a game is buggy or not - there have been reports (a.k.a. rumours) where it was obvious that the reviewer had driver issues but blamed the game instead.
There are also games that appear to work fine the reviews but have the bugs become appearent in the field - C&C Generals is one example, when you are trying to wait for the cutscenes to finish on a computer with a Riva TNT2 (you can't skip them, and they are slower than realtime because of the frame-by-frame rendering.)
Games that implement dynamic music are much better at putting the player in the desired effect than games with static music - provided that it is done properly. Deus Ex and Serious sam are examples of good dynamic music (keeps you in the current mood with a minor or illusionary transition), while Deadly Dozen is an example of dynamic music (the combat music breaks the mood as it is different from the ambient music - also, there is no transition.)
However, there are replacements to MIDI that can be used, such as the Impulse Tracker "*.IT" or Scream Tracker "*.S3M" format used in the older Unreal engine. In Unreal, the system was used to keep music within one file so that it's easier to manage, but it is possible to use a dynamic music system (such as one used in Deus Ex.)
Dynamic music was removed in Jedi Knight I as it ws replaced with Redbook. Somehow, the developers realized that redbook audio wasn't the best route to go and switched back in Jedi Knight II.
In any case, the dynamic music systems are a bit harder to extract from the game, as they aren't exactly independant ".WAV" or ".MP3" files - it usually needs some editing to grab all of the tracks (Unreal's
The C64 version did not have such clues because if the less advanced graphics. Sometimgs, you were up against the same attack, but had to use a different dodge or action to survive. (BTW, I made it to the final level of Dragon's Lair, using saved game snaphots. Haven't been able to finish the game, though.) Also, the sequence with the night on the chess board was extremely difficult to finish - there wasn't enough time for the player to reach the knight before he became invulnerable.
It's also easy to make Warcraft III to support the massive army battles - although the interface isn't designed to handle that (you can only select 12 units at a time or 120 units through hotkeys - not enough for the maximum amount of units that could appear.) In the editor, you need to set the Supply Cost of each unit to zero - you can build an large number of units (limited by resources and space only) and disables upkeep.
Personally, I prefer with a unit limit - the game is designed around it, and removing it will cause problems.
Although the argument about melee units can be valid, it's not as much of a problem post-patch where the Move-Fight command was implemented (something that should have been in from the start). Personally, I don't find it a problem at all, since I place my focus on long-range units.
Personally, I have the complete opposite opinion. I find that there are very few RTS games that have a properly written interface - one of the most important featrues that is above computer AI and multiplayer.
In particular, a lot of games seem to be missing the following:
- Ability to set a proper zoom level (where the longest ranged non-artillery attack should cross 35-45% of the screen.)
- Ability to order unit repair easily. (Most games require you to do fancy orders, such as clicking on the unit, and clicking directly on the repair pad. The only game that fixed this problem was Star Trek: Armada II, where you select ths unit, and use the "Repair" button/hotkey - or "Priority Repair" to prevent group orders from messing things up.)
- Ability to keep units together after an order is completed. (Most games have units standing behind when an attack order is complete because the designated unit is destroyed - even though they are on the other side of the map).
- Ability to play without sound. (There are still games that announce "Base under attack", but don't print the message.)
- Ability to use the minimap effectivly. (Many games make it "Useful" by flashing combat activity, but in some games, the flash isn't long enough for you to identify where the problem is.)
- Ability to play without a scattered interface. (Some games have messages appear in the bottom of the screen, but have a short minimap flash in the top-left.)
- Ability to see hotkeys without having to move the mouse over the icon. (I play many RTS games, and it can be difficult to remember all hotkeys for all games.)
Even though C&C:TS has interface problems, it's one of the only games where unit groups try to keep together after a successful attack.
The lack of this feature in the other RTS games has annoyed me to no end. In fact, it's encouraging me to write my own.
Next, you learn the 'g' and 'h' keys. Now, you will have the whole home row memorized. The next steps involve learning the upper row, starting at the index finger and moving outward. Repeat the same for the lower row.
This is the same technique used in commercial software packages that teach typing. The only difference is that these commercial packages can also help you increase your typing speed by measuring your typing rate and setting appropriate goals.
In this case, learning to type isn't the problem - adjusting your hands to the sandard typing position ('A' 'S' 'D' 'F') and back again will be. Also, don't get me started on having to use your right-hand to use the keypad to enter those number codes - you'll lift your hand right off the mouse and strain your eyes looking for it.
I've already tried something similar by hanging a blanket infront of the curtains (espectually when my previous curtains were wearing thin because of sunlight.) There was still ambient light coming through.
Even when it does become dark out, I find that I have to turn on the light, because it comes very hard to look at the computer screen, even with toned down brightness.
When you turn off ambient light, it becomes slightly harder to do certain tasks, such as typing (critical when chatting in multiplayer.)
It also restricts you to playing the game at night-time, which is also needed for sleeping. This cuts out your weekend play.
If a monster damages another monster with a barrel explosion, the injured monster will become hostile - even if they are of the same species (e.g. Baron of Hell vs. Baron of Hell.) This gets exploited in some Tyson runs of Doom.
When this happens, the monster will try to attack with the missile attack. Since this doesn't work, the monster will eventually close inand use the melee scratches - this will cause the two-way combat to occurr.
Even if you do have a target when you develop your skill, you can still be stuck without a job - the Dot Com burst is the great example of this.
As much as some people like to improve their skill set, developing a marketable skill costs money - most skills generally require a certain amount of time at a trade school or college of some sort.
How do you get money? You need to get a job. To get a job, you need a marketable skill which costs money to obtain. Repeat ad infinitum.
After a quick glance at the article, I noticed that there was information missing (a feeling I had before I opened the page.)
The reasons within the article are technological reasons about why games fail - pertaining to how the code is designed. It doesn't explain more pratical reasons, such as insufficient experience with programming or mathematics (e.g. you don't yet know how to divide a shape in two efficiently.)
This sort of stuff needs to be written over a period of time - you can't just write a single small article and say that it's done. That's also why there are books on the subject rather than one section in a periodical.
Of course, forgetting to mention the scope would mean the later games don't have it. And as you know, that's obviously incorrect.
From what I could tell, the mission files seemed to be identical between the Windows version and the Dos version (aside from the "rebalanced" mission set). While I do know that there are changes in the engine of the game, it seems that the missions were the only thing that remained the same - movies and ship models were different because of differences between the Dos and Windows version.
BTW, X-Wing (Windows version) was the first game that I had that didn't give any indication on why it wouldn't start. It would flash the screen black, make a beep, and return to the desktop. Trying to relaunch the game a couple of times allowed it to run, but it is the first of many games that would crash mysteriously.
Actually, engine wash was only included in XvT (along with the jamming beam that appeared when you were too close to the ship.) The X-Wing games and Tie Fighter games still allowed you to use the blind-spot tactic, either by the engines or by another point on the hull (where the enemys had trouble maneuvering to attack because of a lack of pathfinding AI in this kind of game). Not only that, but Tie Fighter allows you to blast the front missile launcher off the Star Destroyer and fly *INTO* the vessel, and attack from there.
A better sysmtem would be to extend the shield a bit from the hull - it can cause complains in some cases, but players shouldn't be that close to a capital ship anyway.
One thing I noticed: engine wash didn't seem to affect AI players. There were also other oddities where certain effects affected the player but didn't harm AIs in any way, such as the damage to components within the cockpit.
Not only that, but some of those text adventure games (such as Adventure) also had a time limit on how long you could play, by either having a limited amount of battery power for your lamp, or by some other limitiation.
There is a solution for a maze - when you enter a node for the maze, you hear an audio sound that gives a hint on the direction you are supposed to go. It's possible to learn the sounds from the world with gears, but can be learned through "trial and error" within the maze.
However, this maze is still annoying due to the long transition times, especially since there is no indication on whether or not you are on the right track at any point. (The audio alert that I mentioned doesn't count, since it incorrectly assumes that the player is always capable of hearing such information.)
I wouldn't exactly loathe that particular game, but I tend to prefer other game genres over RPGs because of the amount of time spent levelling up your characters to ensure that they can defeat the end-game boss. The only issue would be the lack of map and the encounters that pop-up randonly, but that is not too much of an issue considering the maximum complexity of the engine at the time.
(BTW, I heard that one player managed to get an unlimited number of songs from his bard. Don't know how it happened or how to reproduce it, but the infinite healing songs basically made his party invulnerable.)
I wouldn't loathe other old games, provided that there aren't any annoying puzzles or mazes. As long as the game is designed properly, there is no problem playing it at all.
IIRC, you had to return home on the hour to proceed to the next step. It's one of the more obscure things that I might recall from the game (don't ask). If you return too early, you get the change in plans (but the game might eventually give up with early returns and let you finish anyway), and if you return too late, the game ends.
I haven't played that game in 15 years (and that's a good thing). Thus, details are naturally very sketchy.
Well, it is a perfect emulation of a standard Barbie doll - frequent changes in clothing done very rapidly, along with the Ken doll appearing after the final change...
Then again, Barbie dolls aren't that interesting anyway.