This is true, but it doesn't matter how good your micro manage is if the units aren't in the right place. Simple drop strategies and resource starving are going to beat these types of bots.
I disagree. Starcraft 2 has a lot of different strategies to account for. Sure, the bot should do a better job of being able to micromanage, build efficiently, not screw up on food, etc but a decent human will beat it because it will struggle to account for tricks that a human can come up with. A good human will implement its strategy on the fly. They will scout, see what the bot has and develop a counter. It has a big army? Do some drops in the back of their base. And usually a bot will have a flaw...a weakness it doesn't handle well. Humans are very good at figuring that out.
SC2 is just too complex and there are too many strategies. The harder AI in the game has to cheat to keep up with a human. The simpler the game, the easier it is for AI to win. The more complex it gets, the more it favors humans (well, at least games that are designed for humans...I could design a game for a computer to play that was extremely complex but required parallel actions to be taken very quickly and a human wouldn't have a chance).
Like Defense of the Ancients is more descriptive? Do you still need to spell out IP or TCP? DotA is what the game is called...much more commonly than it is called Defense. On top of that it is in games. If you don't know what it is, google it. And then don't whine about it. DotA is its own genre...pretty much any other person who is half a gamer at least knows what it is.
I don't think you can create a game and have it better than WoW from release. There is just no way. Why? Because WoW was good when it started and has been polished and polished ever sense to be more fun. Sure, people who have played for 3 years are going to quit for some dumb reason. But any MMO that comes out has no way of matching the current level of polish that WoW has. And now with the new expansion, the polish from the newer areas will be in the starting zone. I really can't see anything replacing WoW. I can't even see there be a WoW 2. They just keep updating this one.
It doesn't make sense for them to sell it for cheaper because plenty of people will spend the $60. If you don't want to spend that much, get it used or when they drop the price later. They might get more initial sales if they sold it for $20. But it wouldn't make up for the money they would have made if they sold it at $60. Besides, the same people who wouldn't but if for $60...a lot of them wouldn't buy it for the reduced price and again get it used for even cheaper. The market clearly is doing fine at about the $60 price point. There is no business reason to reduce it the way you suggest.
Once it is configured, then it can be more comfortable than any other mouse and be better for you ergonomically. If you game seriously, it is nice to have a lot of options. Plus it looks cool.
Not possible. Ever actually try to play the games you own from the 90s? Yeah, you have the media still, but it isn't going to run on your OS. What do you do? You just go download an emulator and the game and play it that way. It will be the same with Steam. If Steam goes away, you are going to download the software to be able to run it. People vastly over rate "owning" the media of something. Just having it doesn't mean you are going to be able to play it forever.
No, you are wrong. They made it easier. Now you can download your game to any computer connected to the Internet once it is activated. It is actually quite nice.
I am curious how they will implement battle.net. If they make it so that a game just needs to be set up over battle.net and then it is played over the LAN, I will have no issue with it. Even if it isn't implemented that way, it isn't a big deal to me.
I fail to see what is insightful about asking questions that already have been answered a million times before.
You are much worse than a fanboi to me. You are one of these annoying over-reactors that get karma by repeating the same thing the Slashdot groupthink has said a million times before.
They removed LAN play, if that is important to you today, don't buy the product. I'll have no problem playing my friends online or at a LAN. This is largely a bunch of crying before anyone has even seen how it will be implemented.
Yeah, they sued the cheat company. You know why? Because their customers want them to do that. People who play MMOs hate cheaters, it ruins their experience. You would rather them not sue a company that allowed people to bot? As far as Warden goes, if they didn't have that, then they wouldn't be able to detect who was cheating and who wasn't and there would be a lot more cheaters today. As someone who used to play WoW, I have no problem with this.
bnetd...sigh, what is wrong with you? bnetd was used to bypass key checking so that people could play pirated versions. That was its primary use and purpose. This is typically when the moron arguing with me counters that bnetd offered to do key checking if they could have Blizzard's key algorithms. How stupid can you be? Do you think a company is going to hand over their key generation algorithm to a random third party? No doubt, corporations can be evil. But this isn't BP, this is a company trying to get people to pay for a product they have supported longer than any other game that I know of.
The difference between me and people like you isn't that much. You aren't dumb. You are articulate. But somewhere you bought in to this idea that companies can't do anything to protect their products other than "make great games". Sorry, you aren't being reasonable. Blizzard may have done some awful things. None of the stuff you listed are them though. They have all been reasonable responses to the issues they have faced.
Your argument is terrible. Restrictive can be relative. You are choosing to define it in your own way. The guy was defining it as something that requires a constant Internet connection just to play the game.
They aren't surprising you with anything here. If it is so bad, don't buy the game. But don't freak out about it like it is the Patriot Act of games or something.
That's how things used to be. But look around now, the Wii fit didn't come with the Wii, yet many people got it and there are many games. Rock Band and Guitar Hero have no problem moving peripherals. All it needs is a killer app that sparks the imagination of gamers and it will take off. Can they pull it off? Who knows? 10 years ago you would have been saying Rock Band would fail.
No, the power of the console does limit what you can do with a game. Otherwise, the old 8-bit Nintendo or Atari systems would have been good enough. I mean, you could still play fun games on them, right?
Nintendo's line up is mainly party games and shovelware...that's why the Wii has such a low attach rate (and don't show me bundled games) and most people I know just let the Wii collect dust. The first party titles are all rehashes of the same characters Nintendo has been cashing in on for years. Really, what's new? Another Mario Kart game? Smash Bros? Mario? Metroid.
Nintendo hit on the key to sell consoles and rake in money, but it has lost its soul. The games on the Wii (that are good) are the same that were on the Gamecube. The only difference is that they were cheaper and offered a control scheme that was intuitive to non-gamers. Of course, the control scheme is in most cases inferior to a normal controller since I'd rather push a button than waggle, swing, or whatever else they try to tack on.
Nintendo also decided to make their console lack the power to do anything innovative other than its control scheme. It can't render complex scenes, it can not support advance physics, it has to reduce the ability of its AI, etc etc. This is where everyone says "but that doesn't mean it can't have fun games". Right, but it limits what it is capable of doing. You don't argue that a machine with 5 year old technology is as capable as one with modern technology. Yeah, you can have fun on the 5 year old machine, but it isn't capable of playing a certain class of modern games.
You speak of threat, but who cares about threat? We can use your dumb argument which should apply more for this than anything. Will Natal have fun/innovative games? That is all that matters.
I like Nintendo fine, but you fanboys are ridiculous.
I'd imagine most people on here is familiar with Natal. When it was first introduced, the summaries explained what it was...but we are beyond that now. Should we have to explain to you what DNS is or what a Nintendo Wii is? Where do you draw the line? Do I have to tell you what IP stands for?
It's been talked about for a long time now. If you don't know what it is, look it up or read the article.
I don't really get your argument. I play soccer often, which I would argue is a heck of a lot more exercise than disc golf. I didn't see any real changes in my body until I started doing P90X workouts inside my home. I don't think whether the climate is controlled has anything to do with a workout...it is how hard you push yourself and the quality of the exercise you are doing. I am not trying to put down disc golf, but unless you are actually running after the disc when you throw it, it isn't going to benefit you more than running 3 miles on a treadmill.
I think if Nintendo wants to compete...it needs to go the "App" route. Make it easy to download new cheap games and open it up to developers. Of course, I'd be scared to see what the Nintendo store would look like. I imagine they'd be even more of a pain to deal with than Apple.
It's a bit amazing that it is being so successful. It really isn't that great of a gaming platform considering the battery life and that it is actually an issue if you run out of battery. I'd like to see Apple improve its battery a lot before I would be throwing in the towel with the DS.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, but it doesn't matter how good your micro manage is if the units aren't in the right place. Simple drop strategies and resource starving are going to beat these types of bots.
I disagree. Starcraft 2 has a lot of different strategies to account for. Sure, the bot should do a better job of being able to micromanage, build efficiently, not screw up on food, etc but a decent human will beat it because it will struggle to account for tricks that a human can come up with. A good human will implement its strategy on the fly. They will scout, see what the bot has and develop a counter. It has a big army? Do some drops in the back of their base. And usually a bot will have a flaw...a weakness it doesn't handle well. Humans are very good at figuring that out.
SC2 is just too complex and there are too many strategies. The harder AI in the game has to cheat to keep up with a human. The simpler the game, the easier it is for AI to win. The more complex it gets, the more it favors humans (well, at least games that are designed for humans...I could design a game for a computer to play that was extremely complex but required parallel actions to be taken very quickly and a human wouldn't have a chance).
Like Defense of the Ancients is more descriptive? Do you still need to spell out IP or TCP? DotA is what the game is called...much more commonly than it is called Defense. On top of that it is in games. If you don't know what it is, google it. And then don't whine about it. DotA is its own genre...pretty much any other person who is half a gamer at least knows what it is.
This is a Games article. It doesn't need to.
I don't think you can create a game and have it better than WoW from release. There is just no way. Why? Because WoW was good when it started and has been polished and polished ever sense to be more fun. Sure, people who have played for 3 years are going to quit for some dumb reason. But any MMO that comes out has no way of matching the current level of polish that WoW has. And now with the new expansion, the polish from the newer areas will be in the starting zone. I really can't see anything replacing WoW. I can't even see there be a WoW 2. They just keep updating this one.
Everything seems better when you were 14. I don't know why people haven't figured this out yet.
It doesn't make sense for them to sell it for cheaper because plenty of people will spend the $60. If you don't want to spend that much, get it used or when they drop the price later. They might get more initial sales if they sold it for $20. But it wouldn't make up for the money they would have made if they sold it at $60. Besides, the same people who wouldn't but if for $60...a lot of them wouldn't buy it for the reduced price and again get it used for even cheaper. The market clearly is doing fine at about the $60 price point. There is no business reason to reduce it the way you suggest.
Once it is configured, then it can be more comfortable than any other mouse and be better for you ergonomically. If you game seriously, it is nice to have a lot of options. Plus it looks cool.
And learn the difference between lose and loose.
That might be good for comfort, but I want to game. No way can I use that to game as well as even a cheap mouse.
Not possible. Ever actually try to play the games you own from the 90s? Yeah, you have the media still, but it isn't going to run on your OS. What do you do? You just go download an emulator and the game and play it that way. It will be the same with Steam. If Steam goes away, you are going to download the software to be able to run it. People vastly over rate "owning" the media of something. Just having it doesn't mean you are going to be able to play it forever.
You haven't played space combat since the first Descent...admit it.
When they ask for pointers, refer them to this: http://xkcd.com/138/
Nothing like getting that little coder's high.
His was safer. You are assuming the bool type is supported.
Your definition of DRM: not allowing a certain multi-player game mode.
Uh no, that is not the definition of DRM.
No, you are wrong. They made it easier. Now you can download your game to any computer connected to the Internet once it is activated. It is actually quite nice.
I am curious how they will implement battle.net. If they make it so that a game just needs to be set up over battle.net and then it is played over the LAN, I will have no issue with it. Even if it isn't implemented that way, it isn't a big deal to me.
I fail to see what is insightful about asking questions that already have been answered a million times before.
You are much worse than a fanboi to me. You are one of these annoying over-reactors that get karma by repeating the same thing the Slashdot groupthink has said a million times before.
They removed LAN play, if that is important to you today, don't buy the product. I'll have no problem playing my friends online or at a LAN. This is largely a bunch of crying before anyone has even seen how it will be implemented.
Yeah, they sued the cheat company. You know why? Because their customers want them to do that. People who play MMOs hate cheaters, it ruins their experience. You would rather them not sue a company that allowed people to bot? As far as Warden goes, if they didn't have that, then they wouldn't be able to detect who was cheating and who wasn't and there would be a lot more cheaters today. As someone who used to play WoW, I have no problem with this.
bnetd...sigh, what is wrong with you? bnetd was used to bypass key checking so that people could play pirated versions. That was its primary use and purpose. This is typically when the moron arguing with me counters that bnetd offered to do key checking if they could have Blizzard's key algorithms. How stupid can you be? Do you think a company is going to hand over their key generation algorithm to a random third party? No doubt, corporations can be evil. But this isn't BP, this is a company trying to get people to pay for a product they have supported longer than any other game that I know of.
The difference between me and people like you isn't that much. You aren't dumb. You are articulate. But somewhere you bought in to this idea that companies can't do anything to protect their products other than "make great games". Sorry, you aren't being reasonable. Blizzard may have done some awful things. None of the stuff you listed are them though. They have all been reasonable responses to the issues they have faced.
Your argument is terrible. Restrictive can be relative. You are choosing to define it in your own way. The guy was defining it as something that requires a constant Internet connection just to play the game.
They aren't surprising you with anything here. If it is so bad, don't buy the game. But don't freak out about it like it is the Patriot Act of games or something.
That's how things used to be. But look around now, the Wii fit didn't come with the Wii, yet many people got it and there are many games. Rock Band and Guitar Hero have no problem moving peripherals. All it needs is a killer app that sparks the imagination of gamers and it will take off. Can they pull it off? Who knows? 10 years ago you would have been saying Rock Band would fail.
No, the power of the console does limit what you can do with a game. Otherwise, the old 8-bit Nintendo or Atari systems would have been good enough. I mean, you could still play fun games on them, right?
Nintendo's line up is mainly party games and shovelware...that's why the Wii has such a low attach rate (and don't show me bundled games) and most people I know just let the Wii collect dust. The first party titles are all rehashes of the same characters Nintendo has been cashing in on for years. Really, what's new? Another Mario Kart game? Smash Bros? Mario? Metroid.
Nintendo hit on the key to sell consoles and rake in money, but it has lost its soul. The games on the Wii (that are good) are the same that were on the Gamecube. The only difference is that they were cheaper and offered a control scheme that was intuitive to non-gamers. Of course, the control scheme is in most cases inferior to a normal controller since I'd rather push a button than waggle, swing, or whatever else they try to tack on.
Nintendo also decided to make their console lack the power to do anything innovative other than its control scheme. It can't render complex scenes, it can not support advance physics, it has to reduce the ability of its AI, etc etc. This is where everyone says "but that doesn't mean it can't have fun games". Right, but it limits what it is capable of doing. You don't argue that a machine with 5 year old technology is as capable as one with modern technology. Yeah, you can have fun on the 5 year old machine, but it isn't capable of playing a certain class of modern games.
You speak of threat, but who cares about threat? We can use your dumb argument which should apply more for this than anything. Will Natal have fun/innovative games? That is all that matters.
I like Nintendo fine, but you fanboys are ridiculous.
If you hate technology, you might need to look for another site.
I'd imagine most people on here is familiar with Natal. When it was first introduced, the summaries explained what it was...but we are beyond that now. Should we have to explain to you what DNS is or what a Nintendo Wii is? Where do you draw the line? Do I have to tell you what IP stands for?
It's been talked about for a long time now. If you don't know what it is, look it up or read the article.
I don't really get your argument. I play soccer often, which I would argue is a heck of a lot more exercise than disc golf. I didn't see any real changes in my body until I started doing P90X workouts inside my home. I don't think whether the climate is controlled has anything to do with a workout...it is how hard you push yourself and the quality of the exercise you are doing. I am not trying to put down disc golf, but unless you are actually running after the disc when you throw it, it isn't going to benefit you more than running 3 miles on a treadmill.
I think if Nintendo wants to compete...it needs to go the "App" route. Make it easy to download new cheap games and open it up to developers. Of course, I'd be scared to see what the Nintendo store would look like. I imagine they'd be even more of a pain to deal with than Apple.
It's a bit amazing that it is being so successful. It really isn't that great of a gaming platform considering the battery life and that it is actually an issue if you run out of battery. I'd like to see Apple improve its battery a lot before I would be throwing in the towel with the DS.