Org Mobile Site
I imagine just about everybody hear has heard of Starcraft. I'd be willing to bet that, since this IS a Total War forum, that many of you have heard of Total Annihilation.
I've had a couple of random encounters over Starcraft and TA. Generally they end with lots of grumpyness and a lot of TA fans being upset at the SC fan. This seems strange since, by all accounts, Starcraft is now worshipped as God in Korea, yet there seem to be far fewer people that find Starcraft to be the better game. I'd like to think this reflects on my choice of associates
Jumping right into things,
I find TA to be the superior game, in virtually every category. TA has 3D units, physics, variety, depth and sheer coolness. SC has a storyline, animated talking heads, and the fact that Blizzard made it.
Simply put, SC is the thing that is so despised in the ETW Parliament right now. Rock-Paper-Scissors strategy. Unit X beats Unit Y beats Unit Z. Unit Y does not beat Unit X, ever. This is not to say that all TA units were equal. You certainly couldn't beat Krogoth with a tier-1 light tank. Maybe ten tier-1 light tanks, though. Further, Starcraft had, what, perhaps a dozen units per side? Compared to TA's (official) fifty or so, then add in all of the ones you downloaded. I remember, back in the day, that I filled up our 500mb hard drive with unit packs.
Ah, the 90's. How far we've come.
Speaking of units, anybody remember the Peewee? That little bastard that jerks would spam over and over again in online games, slowing your computer down horrendously with billions of simultaneously rendered projectiles? Remember your joy when you discovered that Peewees, and spamming them, had a glaring weakness?
Do you remember your joy when your flight of bombers crested the hill before your foes giant peewee blob? Do you remember squealing with delight (assuming you were in my age group and had, therefore, not yet reached puberty at the time. If you had, feel free to replace that with 'did a manly fist pump' or 'looked smug'.) as those peewees were rendered into a billion sad little piles of scrap?
Further, do you remember when, after the addon came out (if your parents weren't jerks and didn't refuse to buy it for you) your sheer euphoria when your first Krogoth marched proudly out of its assembly cage? Do you remember when you discovered that Krogoths, despite being amazingly tough, have the equivalent of throwing a single, very slow, stone for air defense?
In my personal experience, the joy of discovery was absent from Starcraft. Units had specific capabilities. Zergling rushes (kekekeke) were unstoppable until the game was patched to make them less reliable. In SC, if you do not play in certain specific ways, you will lose.
Which leads nicely into my next point, strategy and tactics. SC does have some tactical depth to it, but comparing it to TA in this aspect is like comparing taking a bath to jumping into an olympic-sized swimming pool. TA's variety of units comes in here, as well as the fact that it was not the units themselves that formed your strategy, but how they were used. Generally, mobbing all your units up into a giant furball and hurling them at an enemy would, if that enemy had prepared a decent defense, result in a visually impressive, but very short, battle.
SC, to my experience, does not play to defensive types. You had better have units ready to meet your enemy, otherwise you're in trouble.
TA, on the other hand, featured reliable defenses. You could (and I did once, as a challenge) go an entire game without building a single offensive unit. I won by extending my defensive line right up to my opponents front door, blowing up his anti-nuke buildings and dropping 100 megatons of atomic goodness on his commander.
Graphically, well, I know everybody says "ITS NOT ABOUT GRAPHICS', but SC's 2D sprites are simply inferior. TA, a year before SC came out, gave us 3D units with real animations. If a unit, from the smallest tier-1 k-bot to the largest battleship, wants to turn around, it does not do a military about-face. It bloody well walks. This, of course, gives actual meaning to flank attacks, since a unit actually has to either turn and face, or rotate its turret around to point at, enemies.
I could also go into detail about how TA wasn't a ripoff of Warhammer 40k. I could make extensive mention of how your average Space Marine would beat seven kinds of [expletive deleted] out of any ten 'Terran Marines' and not break a sweat doing it. And even if he did break a sweat, Space Marines sweat acid, so that would just make his headbutts even more devastating. I could go into some detail about superior weapons, comparing a bolter (essentially an automatic mini-rocket launcher), chainsword (exactly what it sounds like) and the ability to spit acid to a silly gauss gun and the ability to smoke while wearing a helmet.
But this isn't about Starcraft ripping off Warhammer, so I wont.
Still, Space Marine's don't smoke. Unless they've been set on fire.
I've had a couple of random encounters over Starcraft and TA. Generally they end with lots of grumpyness and a lot of TA fans being upset at the SC fan. This seems strange since, by all accounts, Starcraft is now worshipped as God in Korea, yet there seem to be far fewer people that find Starcraft to be the better game. I'd like to think this reflects on my choice of associates
Jumping right into things,
I find TA to be the superior game, in virtually every category. TA has 3D units, physics, variety, depth and sheer coolness. SC has a storyline, animated talking heads, and the fact that Blizzard made it.
Simply put, SC is the thing that is so despised in the ETW Parliament right now. Rock-Paper-Scissors strategy. Unit X beats Unit Y beats Unit Z. Unit Y does not beat Unit X, ever. This is not to say that all TA units were equal. You certainly couldn't beat Krogoth with a tier-1 light tank. Maybe ten tier-1 light tanks, though. Further, Starcraft had, what, perhaps a dozen units per side? Compared to TA's (official) fifty or so, then add in all of the ones you downloaded. I remember, back in the day, that I filled up our 500mb hard drive with unit packs.
Ah, the 90's. How far we've come.
Speaking of units, anybody remember the Peewee? That little bastard that jerks would spam over and over again in online games, slowing your computer down horrendously with billions of simultaneously rendered projectiles? Remember your joy when you discovered that Peewees, and spamming them, had a glaring weakness?
Do you remember your joy when your flight of bombers crested the hill before your foes giant peewee blob? Do you remember squealing with delight (assuming you were in my age group and had, therefore, not yet reached puberty at the time. If you had, feel free to replace that with 'did a manly fist pump' or 'looked smug'.) as those peewees were rendered into a billion sad little piles of scrap?
Further, do you remember when, after the addon came out (if your parents weren't jerks and didn't refuse to buy it for you) your sheer euphoria when your first Krogoth marched proudly out of its assembly cage? Do you remember when you discovered that Krogoths, despite being amazingly tough, have the equivalent of throwing a single, very slow, stone for air defense?
In my personal experience, the joy of discovery was absent from Starcraft. Units had specific capabilities. Zergling rushes (kekekeke) were unstoppable until the game was patched to make them less reliable. In SC, if you do not play in certain specific ways, you will lose.
Which leads nicely into my next point, strategy and tactics. SC does have some tactical depth to it, but comparing it to TA in this aspect is like comparing taking a bath to jumping into an olympic-sized swimming pool. TA's variety of units comes in here, as well as the fact that it was not the units themselves that formed your strategy, but how they were used. Generally, mobbing all your units up into a giant furball and hurling them at an enemy would, if that enemy had prepared a decent defense, result in a visually impressive, but very short, battle.
SC, to my experience, does not play to defensive types. You had better have units ready to meet your enemy, otherwise you're in trouble.
TA, on the other hand, featured reliable defenses. You could (and I did once, as a challenge) go an entire game without building a single offensive unit. I won by extending my defensive line right up to my opponents front door, blowing up his anti-nuke buildings and dropping 100 megatons of atomic goodness on his commander.
Graphically, well, I know everybody says "ITS NOT ABOUT GRAPHICS', but SC's 2D sprites are simply inferior. TA, a year before SC came out, gave us 3D units with real animations. If a unit, from the smallest tier-1 k-bot to the largest battleship, wants to turn around, it does not do a military about-face. It bloody well walks. This, of course, gives actual meaning to flank attacks, since a unit actually has to either turn and face, or rotate its turret around to point at, enemies.
I could also go into detail about how TA wasn't a ripoff of Warhammer 40k. I could make extensive mention of how your average Space Marine would beat seven kinds of [expletive deleted] out of any ten 'Terran Marines' and not break a sweat doing it. And even if he did break a sweat, Space Marines sweat acid, so that would just make his headbutts even more devastating. I could go into some detail about superior weapons, comparing a bolter (essentially an automatic mini-rocket launcher), chainsword (exactly what it sounds like) and the ability to spit acid to a silly gauss gun and the ability to smoke while wearing a helmet.
But this isn't about Starcraft ripping off Warhammer, so I wont.
Still, Space Marine's don't smoke. Unless they've been set on fire.
Starcraft is the better competitive game, TA is the better casual game. The reasons are pretty well documented in gaming studies literature so I'm not going to bother going into that.
Graphically, I'd give the edge to Starcraft if only because of superior art direction. True, TA has 3D units, but the backgrounds are static images with heightmaps. The units are rather bland and lack personality, though TA shows its good sides in massive battles where individual units don't really get noticed.
These massive battles and the general design philosophy behind TA also make it the better casual game - TA is very forgiving because resources are infinite, the defenses are very effective and there's no real need to expand much. It's also fun to experiment with the dozens of units and buildings.
Graphically, I'd give the edge to Starcraft if only because of superior art direction. True, TA has 3D units, but the backgrounds are static images with heightmaps. The units are rather bland and lack personality, though TA shows its good sides in massive battles where individual units don't really get noticed.
These massive battles and the general design philosophy behind TA also make it the better casual game - TA is very forgiving because resources are infinite, the defenses are very effective and there's no real need to expand much. It's also fun to experiment with the dozens of units and buildings.
Originally Posted by :
In SC, if you do not play in certain specific ways, you will lose.
At the highest tiers of player skill TA actually has a lesser amount of viable strategies and units than SC. Cavedog was absolutely horrible at balancing; IIRC the closest thing to "competitive TA" were actually fan-made mods.In SC, if you do not play in certain specific ways, you will lose.
TA hands down will whoop sc every day. I loved my stealth bomber big bertha mix. Ohhhh and the naval engagements.... Come to think of it TA has to be one of my all time 3 favorite games. Number one in the RTS catagory with me.
@Cube
No arguments there. In presentation of story, SC wins. TA hasn't got much in the way of characterization. 'This is your commander. He goes 'whrrrrghz'. These are Peewees. They go 'khreee'.
Of course, some of SC's characters just need to shut up...
@Veho
Good to see another fan here.
@Crandaelon
I'm going to pretend you didn't just call TA 'casual'. I'll assume that you meant 'singleplayer'.
TA is more of a strategic game. You have to focus on the overall picture. SC is tactical, even twitch-based. It's all about who can click the fastest and can work their hotkeys.
TA's resources aren't 'infinite'. In fact, I consider TA's system far more realistic than SC's. In TA, you can support a lot of units, but it's not infinite. Almost every unit inflicts some tiny drain on your resources. You have to carefully manage your power consumption. If you don't...well, you might find that your defenses drain all of your energy a few seconds into an attack...at which point, they stop firing.
TA's factions were quite well balanced. There was no 'uber-unit', no unbeatable strategy. The sides were DIFFERENT. You couldn't play the same game as the Arm or try a peewee rush as Core. The Core was good at big, expensive, tough units. The Arm was good at masses and masses of cheap, expendable mooks. It worked quite well.
No arguments there. In presentation of story, SC wins. TA hasn't got much in the way of characterization. 'This is your commander. He goes 'whrrrrghz'. These are Peewees. They go 'khreee'.
Of course, some of SC's characters just need to shut up...
@Veho
Good to see another fan here.
@Crandaelon
I'm going to pretend you didn't just call TA 'casual'. I'll assume that you meant 'singleplayer'.
TA is more of a strategic game. You have to focus on the overall picture. SC is tactical, even twitch-based. It's all about who can click the fastest and can work their hotkeys.
TA's resources aren't 'infinite'. In fact, I consider TA's system far more realistic than SC's. In TA, you can support a lot of units, but it's not infinite. Almost every unit inflicts some tiny drain on your resources. You have to carefully manage your power consumption. If you don't...well, you might find that your defenses drain all of your energy a few seconds into an attack...at which point, they stop firing.
TA's factions were quite well balanced. There was no 'uber-unit', no unbeatable strategy. The sides were DIFFERENT. You couldn't play the same game as the Arm or try a peewee rush as Core. The Core was good at big, expensive, tough units. The Arm was good at masses and masses of cheap, expendable mooks. It worked quite well.
I always played 7 islands. By far one of my more favorite maps. I wonder, is the game free now? I mean its been out so long, and you cant find it in any stores.
TA!!
TA!!
Originally Posted by Veho Nex:
I always played 7 islands. By far one of my more favorite maps. I wonder, is the game free now? I mean its been out so long, and you cant find it in any stores.
TA!!
You can download Spring for free, although they say you have to own the original game first.I always played 7 islands. By far one of my more favorite maps. I wonder, is the game free now? I mean its been out so long, and you cant find it in any stores.
TA!!
Yeah, I was just thinking that. But I don't know where to get the game "legitimately"...
You're making me want to pull out my TA CD's.
Yes I have the original CD's. Take that Veho.
Man Peewee spam was fun. But I loved playing Core.
All the cool units on both sides.
Looked better than supcom IMO.
Yes I have the original CD's. Take that Veho.
Man Peewee spam was fun. But I loved playing Core.
All the cool units on both sides.
Looked better than supcom IMO.
Just rub it in pever... rub it in...
Total Annihilation was awesome, but both sides played exactly the same. Starcraft's gameplay was polished to a mirror shine, the perfect RTS, easy to learn hard to master. I didn't even bother mind you, tried a few online games but was absolutely destroyed each time, but I had loads of fun with the single player. Starcraft so much for the win.
TA has a 'cool factor' that Starcraft doesn't have: planes flying and looping around. Things blowing up all over the map, infinite resources, big bertha, cool nukes and what not.
Too bad the storyline sucked and too bad both factions played the same. I still prefer it over SC.
Too bad the storyline sucked and too bad both factions played the same. I still prefer it over SC.
Originally Posted by :
I'm going to pretend you didn't just call TA 'casual'. I'll assume that you meant 'singleplayer'.
You don't have to pretend; that's exactly what I did. CASUAL. I'm going to pretend you didn't just call TA 'casual'. I'll assume that you meant 'singleplayer'.
IMO TA was also the better game in casual multiplayer, but not in competitive.I'll explain briefly. Starcraft is fast and overwhelming, TA is more sedately paced. And in case someone makes the claim that slower speed means a more strategic game, I'd answer that while there is correlation, causation has not been demonstrated. Obviously, the rules and strategies of chess stay the same whether or not a timer is used. The time element merely applies pressure. SC thus distinguishes player skill better = good for competition.
Originally Posted by :
TA is more of a strategic game. You have to focus on the overall picture. SC is tactical, even twitch-based. It's all about who can click the fastest and can work their hotkeys.
Again, a time element does nothing to affect a game's strategic complexity. Don't make that mistake. All that a time element does, is distinguish faster thinkers from slower ones = good for competition. You'd no doubt meet SC players who use their micro skills to make up for a lack of their strategic skills, but that creates just another tier of players. The best ones make full use of both.TA is more of a strategic game. You have to focus on the overall picture. SC is tactical, even twitch-based. It's all about who can click the fastest and can work their hotkeys.
Originally Posted by :
TA's resources aren't 'infinite'. In fact, I consider TA's system far more realistic than SC's.
First of all, realism has no relevance to how good and / or competitive a game is. Are chess or go realistic games by any measure?TA's resources aren't 'infinite'. In fact, I consider TA's system far more realistic than SC's.
That out of the way, resources in TA are infinite in the manner that they don't run out. In SC they do; that promotes expansion and aggression and also introduces another time element which makes the game better paced = good for competition.
Originally Posted by :
TA's factions were quite well balanced. There was no 'uber-unit', no unbeatable strategy.
As far as I remember, the Flash rush was so powerful that it completely dominated at least two tournaments and the ladder at some point. Quote from wargrounds.com warguide:TA's factions were quite well balanced. There was no 'uber-unit', no unbeatable strategy.
Originally Posted by Warguide:
3.3: Flash Rushing
Face it, the ominous ordeal of the Flash Rusher is a strategy, although it is not highly regarded as an acceptable one. The tactic is simple: start out with a ton of resources and build a ton of Flash tanks, then rush your opponent's base. If you start out with low resources then your top priorities should be tied:
1) Get resources
2) Build Flashes.
Flash rushing can accomplish a win very quickly, but that is all it can do. The Flash Rusher misses out on many important aspects in the game, as well as about 70 units to play with too. I try my best to avoid rushers in general, and obviously do not practice rushing myself. However, if I were on a ladder, the Flash Rush would be a great tactic to rack up the wins and to learn how to defend against too.
This is typical scrub talk. If a game is well balanced, you don't need to "avoid playing with rushers" or "regard a strategy an acceptable one." A competitively minded player is certainly not concerned about "missing out on many important aspects of the game" - he just aims for the most efficient way to win.3.3: Flash Rushing
Face it, the ominous ordeal of the Flash Rusher is a strategy, although it is not highly regarded as an acceptable one. The tactic is simple: start out with a ton of resources and build a ton of Flash tanks, then rush your opponent's base. If you start out with low resources then your top priorities should be tied:
1) Get resources
2) Build Flashes.
Flash rushing can accomplish a win very quickly, but that is all it can do. The Flash Rusher misses out on many important aspects in the game, as well as about 70 units to play with too. I try my best to avoid rushers in general, and obviously do not practice rushing myself. However, if I were on a ladder, the Flash Rush would be a great tactic to rack up the wins and to learn how to defend against too.
Originally Posted by :
The sides were DIFFERENT.
The differences were mostly cosmetic apart from very few key units which got used over and over. Also, when TA was at its most competitive point, the sides had the least amount of differences.The sides were DIFFERENT.
Finally, Starcraft has withstood the test of time for more than 10 years in competitive gaming. TA has not. Proof can't get much harder than that.
anyone that thinks that TA is a better/more stratetgic game than sc is just a total noob.
Was TA given as a course in berkly university ? I don't think so
Was TA given as a course in berkly university ? I don't think so
Could it also be that SC is made by one of the most influential companies in the gaming market? Or that it has massive tournaments and pretty much a country to back it up?
Not too many people have heard of TA or CaveDog entertainment. Most people I game with certainly haven't. How about the fact the total Annihilation came out a year before SC did.
Player created units adds a massive diversity to the game. Now Arm and Core are so different its hard to find a comparison. You can have expensive power house units of the Core, or rapid cheap massive amount of arm troops.
The story thanks to Wikipedia
Not too many people have heard of TA or CaveDog entertainment. Most people I game with certainly haven't. How about the fact the total Annihilation came out a year before SC did.
Player created units adds a massive diversity to the game. Now Arm and Core are so different its hard to find a comparison. You can have expensive power house units of the Core, or rapid cheap massive amount of arm troops.
The story thanks to Wikipedia
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Originally Posted by Crandaeolon:
You don't have to pretend; that's exactly what I did. CASUAL. IMO TA was also the better game in casual multiplayer, but not in competitive.
I'll explain briefly. Starcraft is fast and overwhelming, TA is more sedately paced. And in case someone makes the claim that slower speed means a more strategic game, I'd answer that while there is correlation, causation has not been demonstrated. Obviously, the rules and strategies of chess stay the same whether or not a timer is used. The time element merely applies pressure. SC thus distinguishes player skill better = good for competition.
Again, a time element does nothing to affect a game's strategic complexity. Don't make that mistake. All that a time element does, is distinguish faster thinkers from slower ones = good for competition. You'd no doubt meet SC players who use their micro skills to make up for a lack of their strategic skills, but that creates just another tier of players. The best ones make full use of both.
Oh dear, somebody hasn't played TA. No pressure? You don't have to pretend; that's exactly what I did. CASUAL.
IMO TA was also the better game in casual multiplayer, but not in competitive.I'll explain briefly. Starcraft is fast and overwhelming, TA is more sedately paced. And in case someone makes the claim that slower speed means a more strategic game, I'd answer that while there is correlation, causation has not been demonstrated. Obviously, the rules and strategies of chess stay the same whether or not a timer is used. The time element merely applies pressure. SC thus distinguishes player skill better = good for competition.
Again, a time element does nothing to affect a game's strategic complexity. Don't make that mistake. All that a time element does, is distinguish faster thinkers from slower ones = good for competition. You'd no doubt meet SC players who use their micro skills to make up for a lack of their strategic skills, but that creates just another tier of players. The best ones make full use of both.
I'll talk to you about pressure. Pressure is flying a scout over an enemy base and noticing they suddenly have a nuke silo you didn't see before. Pressure is suddenly having to divert have your workforce to building an nuclear deterrent/defense, or attempting to scrape together a surgical strike. A large scale offensive at that point would be a bad move, generally, because a nuke, properly placed, will render that force somewhat null.
Strategic decision and thinking. That's pressure.
Starcraft, as far as I can tell, is about twitch response and building lots of units.
Build lots of things and hurl them at the enemy. If I wanted that, I could play one of those reverse-tower-defense games.
Originally Posted by :
First of all, realism has no relevance to how good and / or competitive a game is. Are chess or go realistic games by any measure?
That out of the way, resources in TA are infinite in the manner that they don't run out. In SC they do; that promotes expansion and aggression and also introduces another time element which makes the game better paced = good for competition.
First of all, realism has no relevance to how good and / or competitive a game is. Are chess or go realistic games by any measure?
That out of the way, resources in TA are infinite in the manner that they don't run out. In SC they do; that promotes expansion and aggression and also introduces another time element which makes the game better paced = good for competition.
Chess and Go aren't video games, are they? I don't know of any real-time board games. If there was such a thing, then I imagine that, given the small field sizes involved, the person who could move pieces fastest would almost invariably win. Hmm...This sounds familiar...
TA's resource system promotes expansion based on the fact that controlling more resources means you can expand more, build more, and therefore have an advantage. He who controls the metal, controls the map.
As for the time element...Does that mean that you enjoy underwater timed stealth escort missions?
Seriously, though, TA's resource system has its own timing method. If you don't obtain and defend resources, somebody else will.
Originally Posted by :
As far as I remember, the Flash rush was so powerful that it completely dominated at least two tournaments and the ladder at some point. Quote from wargrounds.com warguide:
This is typical scrub talk. If a game is well balanced, you don't need to "avoid playing with rushers" or "regard a strategy an acceptable one." A competitively minded player is certainly not concerned about "missing out on many important aspects of the game" - he just aims for the most efficient way to win.
I can think of, right off the top of my head, two very simple methods for stopping a Flash rush, and I haven't played TA online in years:As far as I remember, the Flash rush was so powerful that it completely dominated at least two tournaments and the ladder at some point. Quote from wargrounds.com warguide:
This is typical scrub talk. If a game is well balanced, you don't need to "avoid playing with rushers" or "regard a strategy an acceptable one." A competitively minded player is certainly not concerned about "missing out on many important aspects of the game" - he just aims for the most efficient way to win.
1. Play on a water map.
2. Dragons teeth. Create a choke point and then bomb the hell out of the little bastards as they try to rush you.
Now, an INTELLIGENT flash rusher could avoid the second one on many maps, assuming they don't have a good choke point, but that would require the rusher to pay attention to his rush, which I find many don't do. 'Attack move' commands and all that. Further, it would also require scouting and planning, which is a bit counter to the traditional 'rush' strategy.
Originally Posted by :
The differences were mostly cosmetic apart from very few key units which got used over and over. Also, when TA was at its most competitive point, the sides had the least amount of differences.
The differences are hard to spot, but important. For example, the Core battleship comes with a heavy laser turret instead of a plasma cannon battery. This means that it's far better at close-up engagement than the Arm ship, which can't hit anything at close range, but gives it half the firepower when dealing with far away targets.The differences were mostly cosmetic apart from very few key units which got used over and over. Also, when TA was at its most competitive point, the sides had the least amount of differences.
Now, the air units, yes, they're pretty much the same on both sides except for the gunships.
I've personally found that the game is best played and most enjoyable with mods which make the factions even more different than they are.
Originally Posted by :
Finally, Starcraft has withstood the test of time for more than 10 years in competitive gaming. TA has not. Proof can't get much harder than that.
http://tazone.tauniverse.com/Finally, Starcraft has withstood the test of time for more than 10 years in competitive gaming. TA has not. Proof can't get much harder than that.
Admittedly, the last post is from 2008, but I imagine if I looked past the first link on a google search for 'Total Annihilation Tournament' I could find some more recent ones.
Further, TA's modding and mapping community is still quite active. And has some excellent mods out.
I never played TA until Spring a few years ago - great game.
I like Starcraft for the story. Couldn't get into multiplayer because I didn't know I was supposed to be memorizing build orders and what not.
I like Starcraft for the story. Couldn't get into multiplayer because I didn't know I was supposed to be memorizing build orders and what not.
Since I dont have TA installed I cant play the TA spring games, but I found a very nice one that suits my taste Spring: 1944
Originally Posted by Sheogorath:
Oh dear, somebody hasn't played TA.
For your information, I played TA almost exclusively for well over a year. I have original discs of TA, BT, CC, SupCom and FA. I'd guess I have spent at the very least a thousand hours on the series, much more than Starcraft. That, however, does not make me incapable of recognizing each game's strengths.Oh dear, somebody hasn't played TA.
I, too, actually prefer TA over SC. TA has a superior interface, years ahead of its time (and in a way still is), and the much larger scale makes the battles feel grander.
Originally Posted by :
Starcraft, as far as I can tell, is about twitch response and building lots of units.
Oh dear, somebody hasn't played SC. Starcraft, as far as I can tell, is about twitch response and building lots of units.
Originally Posted by :
I can think of, right off the top of my head, two very simple methods for stopping a Flash rush, and I haven't played TA online in years:
1. Play on a water map.
2. Dragons teeth. Create a choke point and then bomb the hell out of the little bastards as they try to rush you.
Surrounding LLT's with Dragons Teeth works well if there's no suitable chokepoint. Anyways, just because a tactic can be countered does not mean it's not overpowered.I can think of, right off the top of my head, two very simple methods for stopping a Flash rush, and I haven't played TA online in years:
1. Play on a water map.
2. Dragons teeth. Create a choke point and then bomb the hell out of the little bastards as they try to rush you.
In any case, I feel there isn't much to be gained further from this discussion. I could continue, but it would be a waste of time for both of us. I'll therefore terminate communications in a civil, yet effective, manner.
Well I never played TA, and Starcraft is well generic. So Command and Conquer.
Myth: The Fallen Lords is superior to them both, and was out at the same roughly time. If you didn't play it, you missed out, although it's closer to a RTT (Real Time Tactical) game than an RTS.
Not to diss TA or SC at all, both are excellent games from the golden era of RTS games, before the idiotic hero dynamic became de rigeur, but Myth: TFL was bloody brilliant. Far superior single player experience, and once the modding community developed the multiplayer experience was better as well.
Not to diss TA or SC at all, both are excellent games from the golden era of RTS games, before the idiotic hero dynamic became de rigeur, but Myth: TFL was bloody brilliant. Far superior single player experience, and once the modding community developed the multiplayer experience was better as well.
I played Myth, thought it was decent. I don't really like the 'you get X units for the duration of the mission, then a new set of units' model. It seems to me to make them just as expendable as the units in an RTS game where you could build infinitely.
The Close Combat (3 being the best :P) series is, to my mind, the ideal system for units. You carry over units, they gain experience and become better with time. You don't really feel like units are expendable because a unit that's been through three operations with you is a LOT better than a freshly recruited unit.
For example, I once found myself confronted with a choice. I could trade off my old Panzer III for a shiny new Tiger, an altogether better tank, but one with a green crew.
Of course, the Russians decided that for me in the next battle. It turns out the Panzer III can't do squat against KV-1's :P
The Close Combat (3 being the best :P) series is, to my mind, the ideal system for units. You carry over units, they gain experience and become better with time. You don't really feel like units are expendable because a unit that's been through three operations with you is a LOT better than a freshly recruited unit.
For example, I once found myself confronted with a choice. I could trade off my old Panzer III for a shiny new Tiger, an altogether better tank, but one with a green crew.
Of course, the Russians decided that for me in the next battle. It turns out the Panzer III can't do squat against KV-1's :P
Originally Posted by Sheogorath:
I played Myth, thought it was decent. I don't really like the 'you get X units for the duration of the mission, then a new set of units' model. It seems to me to make them just as expendable as the units in an RTS game where you could build infinitely.
The Close Combat (3 being the best :P) series is, to my mind, the ideal system for units. You carry over units, they gain experience and become better with time. You don't really feel like units are expendable because a unit that's been through three operations with you is a LOT better than a freshly recruited unit.
For example, I once found myself confronted with a choice. I could trade off my old Panzer III for a shiny new Tiger, an altogether better tank, but one with a green crew.
Of course, the Russians decided that for me in the next battle. It turns out the Panzer III can't do squat against KV-1's :P
Mmm, you missed the point in the Myth SP game then, they were the same units. They gained kills and became veterans, at least through the several different series of missions. This was more obvious in Myth II, where you could carry the same units through almost the whole campaign. If you didn't have veterans for some of the missions they could be quite a bit more difficult, although truth be told Myth wasn't a difficult SP experience. Probably about even to SC (Before Brood Wars) and easier than TA's original campaign.I played Myth, thought it was decent. I don't really like the 'you get X units for the duration of the mission, then a new set of units' model. It seems to me to make them just as expendable as the units in an RTS game where you could build infinitely.
The Close Combat (3 being the best :P) series is, to my mind, the ideal system for units. You carry over units, they gain experience and become better with time. You don't really feel like units are expendable because a unit that's been through three operations with you is a LOT better than a freshly recruited unit.
For example, I once found myself confronted with a choice. I could trade off my old Panzer III for a shiny new Tiger, an altogether better tank, but one with a green crew.
Of course, the Russians decided that for me in the next battle. It turns out the Panzer III can't do squat against KV-1's :P
Originally Posted by Ramses II CP:
Mmm, you missed the point in the Myth SP game then, they were the same units. They gained kills and became veterans, at least through the several different series of missions. This was more obvious in Myth II, where you could carry the same units through almost the whole campaign. If you didn't have veterans for some of the missions they could be quite a bit more difficult, although truth be told Myth wasn't a difficult SP experience. Probably about even to SC (Before Brood Wars) and easier than TA's original campaign.
They were?Mmm, you missed the point in the Myth SP game then, they were the same units. They gained kills and became veterans, at least through the several different series of missions. This was more obvious in Myth II, where you could carry the same units through almost the whole campaign. If you didn't have veterans for some of the missions they could be quite a bit more difficult, although truth be told Myth wasn't a difficult SP experience. Probably about even to SC (Before Brood Wars) and easier than TA's original campaign.
Ah, well, I blame not having played the game in forever :P
Myth was fun, but nowhere as good as SC and TA. Seriously, you get 10 different units, 1 playable faction in SP, a storyline even more stupid than TA's one. I went through it once, uninstalled the game and never thought about it again. I'm still playing TA LANs with my bro and I just finished Broodwar campaigns for the first time a month ago.
Edit: Oh, and the 'hero' thingy (with levels, items and skills/spells) was included in some RTS way before Warcraft3, Starcraft or even Total Annihilation. I don't find it stupid either.
Edit: Oh, and the 'hero' thingy (with levels, items and skills/spells) was included in some RTS way before Warcraft3, Starcraft or even Total Annihilation. I don't find it stupid either.
Originally Posted by Meneldil:
Myth was fun, but nowhere as good as SC and TA. Seriously, you get 10 different units, 1 playable faction in SP, a storyline even more stupid than TA's one. I went through it once, uninstalled the game and never thought about it again. I'm still playing TA LANs with my bro and I just finished Broodwar campaigns for the first time a month ago.
Edit: Oh, and the 'hero' thingy (with levels, items and skills/spells) was included in some RTS way before Warcraft3, Starcraft or even Total Annihilation. I don't find it stupid either.
To admit that you played the Myth campaign inattentively once and never tried MP or any mods/maps (Which I point out in specific in my original post) is to invalidate your own opinion of the game. It's like someone who says they tried TA when it first came out, found it too limited, and deleted it without downloading any of the updates or extra content, which are (IMHO) far and away the best part of the game.Myth was fun, but nowhere as good as SC and TA. Seriously, you get 10 different units, 1 playable faction in SP, a storyline even more stupid than TA's one. I went through it once, uninstalled the game and never thought about it again. I'm still playing TA LANs with my bro and I just finished Broodwar campaigns for the first time a month ago.
Edit: Oh, and the 'hero' thingy (with levels, items and skills/spells) was included in some RTS way before Warcraft3, Starcraft or even Total Annihilation. I don't find it stupid either.
I don't believe the hero dynamic was present in SC or TA in any substantial way; all levels could be won with your 'hero' units parked at home, and the hero units didn't have exclusive access to their powers, they just tended to have beefed up versions of the same powers as the base units. After WC3 that was no longer the case, and it compromised what I personally enjoyed about RTS games and pushed them more into the action genre. The hero was the focus and the rest of the units existed only to give him enough time to recharge his uber skill. I know some people enjoy it, but the number of people who still play SC MP compared to the number who have ever played WC3 MP will reveal which is more popular handily.
I almost never used hero units in RTS's anyway. The 'YOU FAIL THE MISSION IF THIS UNIT DIES' mechanic generally made me leave them at home.
Well I think they are both good games that can't be compared. The designers of both games had completely different goals. I think if Cavedog had a successful Battle.net service, TA would have been more popular. Sure there's still people playing online but it's just not as easy as Battle.net.
SC was more mainstream because of the success of Warcraft. Compared to Warcraft it was better in every way. Three races instead of 2. Unique gameplay for each race. Higher quality sprites and animations. Longer campaign. Space theme for people that hate fantasy.
TA was a new idea. It borrowed some things from C&C and 'Craft but many things were new ideas. People were just used to the gameplay in those game series. There are a lot of good games that don't do well because they are before their time or just different somehow.
Psychonauts is an example of this. All the reviews were good but the gameplay was different than people were used to. Most people preferred to go with the tried and true. It's why sequels are so popular. People want to have some security their money spent is going to be worth it.
SC was more mainstream because of the success of Warcraft. Compared to Warcraft it was better in every way. Three races instead of 2. Unique gameplay for each race. Higher quality sprites and animations. Longer campaign. Space theme for people that hate fantasy.
TA was a new idea. It borrowed some things from C&C and 'Craft but many things were new ideas. People were just used to the gameplay in those game series. There are a lot of good games that don't do well because they are before their time or just different somehow.
Psychonauts is an example of this. All the reviews were good but the gameplay was different than people were used to. Most people preferred to go with the tried and true. It's why sequels are so popular. People want to have some security their money spent is going to be worth it.
For me, I would say I liked SC for it's story, but liked TA for it's gameplay. I actually started out playing StarCraft and never heard of Total Annihilation until I was in college and it was already past it's prime. I was a huge fan of SC's soap opera-esque storyline and amazing (for their time) cinematics. After winning finishing BroodWars, I got pretty heavily into Bnet multiplayer as well, but then someone introduced me to TA and it broke my addiction pretty quick. I loved the innovative resource system, the huge variety of units, the indirect firing artillery and the depth of strategy that they all entailed. 
You know... if enough of us own the game and we all have the right versions and matching additions and everything, we could get a game going.
Originally Posted by Veho Nex:
You know... if enough of us own the game and we all have the right versions and matching additions and everything, we could get a game going.
Got Hamachi? I don't think any of the matching services used by TA are still up...in fact, I don't think most people these days even remember/have heard of Kali :PYou know... if enough of us own the game and we all have the right versions and matching additions and everything, we could get a game going.
For addons, I seem to recall TAUIP was a good one:
http://underworld.fortunecity.com/mario/928/tauip.htm
Or perhaps TAUCP?
http://www.planetannihilation.com/taucp/main.htm
Or we could all just play SupCom :P
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO