Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Brent Lillibridge channels inner ‘nerd’

On the eve of what can be described as a do-or-die series against the Minnesota Twins, Chicago White Sox second baseman Brent Lillibridge was so excited he sounded like a kid in a candy store.

Or a video game geek in line for the latest version of “Halo.”

“Most important night of the year Halo coming out at 12 tonight and yes I’m in a line to get it… Jokes please,” Lillibridge tweeted at approximately 11 p.m. (CT) Monday.

Lillibridge, 26, even tweeted a picture of the line he was standing in, but his enthusiasm was not shared by teammate Mark Teahen.

“Brent, get to bed. Take Gavin, Thornton & Putz with you. Halo will survive the night without you,” Teahen tweeted, referring to pitchers Gavin Floyd, Matt Thornton and J.J. Putz.

The White Sox host the Twins on Tuesday night and are six games behind in the American League Central. Lillibridge, a backup who’s had just one at-bat in the past three games, wanted to make sure Teahen knew he would be well-rested for the game, but he has passions other than baseball.

“I promise I’ll be in bed early 2nite Noone wants to win more than I do. As much as I luv playing bball I have a lot of nerd in me,” Lillibridge tweeted.

ESPN targeting the nerd audience I guess - this story was on the front page.

Zipperholes Posted: September 14, 2010 at 05:52 PM | 221 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: baseball geeks, white sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 
   1. Nasty Nate Posted: September 14, 2010 at 06:56 PM (#3640374)
... this story was on the front page.


completely unrelated, I'm sure, to the all the Halo ads I saw during ESPN's monday night football broadcast.
   2. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:08 PM (#3640386)
completely unrelated, I'm sure, to the all the Halo ads I saw during ESPN's monday night football broadcast.

That's some good synergy, right there!
   3. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:10 PM (#3640388)
My son returns from a fancy Midwest baseball team and I'm horrified to find he's a nerd.
   4. The District Attorney Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:11 PM (#3640390)
Hahaha... I'm laughing already!
   5. zachtoma Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:12 PM (#3640393)
EDIT: Too slow!

It is not a comedy.
   6. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:14 PM (#3640395)
Imagine how hyped up he'd be for a GOOD FPS game. Halo is for spastics with lousy reflexes.
   7. Neal Traven Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:23 PM (#3640406)
Oh, so this isn't about Lillibridge being dealt to the Angels.

Never mind...
   8. My Grate Friend Peason's pants are rankled Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:29 PM (#3640415)
Most important night of the year Halo coming out at 12 tonight and yes I’m in a line to get it

Punctuation is optional not a problem everyone doing it these days
   9. JJ1986 Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:33 PM (#3640418)
Imagine how hyped up he'd be for a GOOD FPS game. Halo is for spastics with lousy reflexes.


I played Halo for a few hours once. It made me want a new Timesplitters game. I don't get why it blew up.
   10. Hello Rusty Kuntz, Goodbye Rusty Cars Posted: September 14, 2010 at 07:38 PM (#3640422)
completely unrelated, I'm sure, to the all the Halo ads I saw during ESPN's monday night football broadcast.


They're just trying to get the page-count bump that Brent Lillibridge news always brings.
   11. Barnaby Jones Posted: September 14, 2010 at 08:03 PM (#3640453)
   12. Famous Original Joe C Posted: September 14, 2010 at 08:15 PM (#3640469)
Imagine how hyped up he'd be for a GOOD FPS game. Halo is for spastics with lousy reflexes.

I was really hoping you'd be able to spin this into something about the Yankees and revenue sharing.
   13. Dewey, Soupuss Not Doomed to Succeed Posted: September 14, 2010 at 08:20 PM (#3640477)
Lillibridge actually seems like a decent guy. One of the White Sox blogs I read photoshopped his head onto Eddie Gaedel's body and posted it. Lillibridge found it and used it as his Twitter avatar for a while (might still be, for all I know).
   14. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 14, 2010 at 08:25 PM (#3640480)
I was really hoping you'd be able to spin this into something about the Yankees and revenue sharing.


Hmmm...

It really isn't fair that the most talented players tend to do better at Halo than less-talented players who nonetheless try hard and want to win. I mean, without opponents those talented players wouldn't have anybody to play against and wouldn't have any fun! In the interest of fairness I think less-skilled players should be given better weapons and more talented players should have extra latency inserted into their connections. For fairness, of course.

(Of course, all Halo players are essentially minor-leaguers to the mouse-and-keyboard FPS crowd. Try taking off the training wheels and giving a real FPS a go, you wimps)
   15. Dale H. Posted: September 14, 2010 at 09:07 PM (#3640532)
At least he luvs baseball.
   16. Gamingboy Posted: September 14, 2010 at 09:31 PM (#3640557)
Halo gets too much credit. Goldeneye is the true mother of all console FPS. The only reason Halo gets such buzz is because it was the first halfway decent game to come to the Xbox.

Also, let it be noted that although the White Sox seem to have the Xbox in their corner, the Twins still have Nintendo (Carl Pavano's mustache) and Sony ("Well Played, Mauer.") in their corner in this AL central matchup.
   17. Eddo Posted: September 14, 2010 at 09:41 PM (#3640568)
Punctuation is optional not a problem everyone doing it these days

To be fair, Twitter has a character limit.

I despise the lack of punctuation in general, but don't blame Lillibridge or any other Twitter users for simply adhering to the rules laid out by the site.
   18. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 14, 2010 at 10:17 PM (#3640593)
Halo is mainstream enough that I don't think playing it makes you a nerd.

Goldeneye is the true mother of all console FPS.

True, but I liked Perfect Dark even better.

(Of course, all Halo players are essentially minor-leaguers to the mouse-and-keyboard FPS crowd. Try taking off the training wheels and giving a real FPS a go, you wimps)

I used to play a bunch of CounterStrike. It took me a while to get any good at it, and even then I was decent at best.
   19. My Grate Friend Peason's pants are rankled Posted: September 14, 2010 at 10:51 PM (#3640610)
To be fair, Twitter has a character limit.

I despise the lack of punctuation in general, but don't blame Lillibridge or any other Twitter users for simply adhering to the rules laid out by the site.


Sorry, I missed that the comment was tweeted. I thought the author of the article had just decided to omit punctuation. Previous comment retracted.
   20. Blackadder Posted: September 14, 2010 at 11:36 PM (#3640635)
True, but I liked Perfect Dark even better.


Hmmm, I was actually pretty disappointed with Perfect Dark. Some great ideas, but it was a complete technical mess, which to me pretty much killed it.

While I agree that of course Halo games are pretty over-hyped, I don't quite understood the extreme keyboard-mouse preference some people display. I mean, sure, it is obviously preferable, but dual-analog ain't that bad. Some things, such as circle-strafing, seem if anything more natural with dual-analog, although I concede that with a high enough sensitivity and enough practice there won't be much of a difference.

I also suppose I should mention that, despite having played them quite a bit, the jerkier motion of PC FPS still gives me motion sickness after about an hour of play, so that may be coloring my opinion.
   21. flournoy Posted: September 15, 2010 at 12:33 AM (#3640667)
I played Halo once. I hated it. I felt like my character was underwater; I couldn't control anything. I wound up just camping out near my guys' base and teamkilling, since if I wasn't going to kill enemies, I might as well kill teammates. Thankfully I wasn't invited to play again.

To be fair, I dislike FPSs in general, so it's probably not anything to do with Halo specifically.
   22. Select Storage Device Posted: September 15, 2010 at 12:48 AM (#3640668)
Halo just suffers from its own hype. It's better than "pretty good," but obviously it's not the greatest FPS, let alone game, of all time. Still, it was the first killer app the console world had seen since Sonic. I'm not sure the Xbox survives without it. And it really has produced a good stable of games. As a baseball player, it's less Mantle and more Maris.

The keyboard/mouse vs. controller debate is a completely arbitrary argument, and is solely used by PC-heads desperate to put something on a pedestal to feel better about their dying platform. I don't really care. I would never play Quake with a controller. I would never play COD with a mouse/keyboard. It's preference.
   23. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 12:55 AM (#3640670)
The keyboard/mouse vs. controller debate is a completely arbitrary argument, and is solely used by PC-heads desperate to put something on a pedestal to feel better about their dying platform.


This is totally wrong. I've played lots of PC FPS games with a KB & M. I've also played the first three Halo games, Combat Evolved on PC and the others on XBOX. Using analog stick for control is so much weaker and less precise than using a mouse. I have yet to find a PC FPS gamer who thinks the controller setup isn't awful compared to a KB & M. In fact, it's so bad that "good" console FPS games have to incorporate auto-aiming to give the player the impression of skill. The setup is empirically inferior.
   24. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 01:50 AM (#3640697)
Possibly a biased sampling of respondents there.


Well, sure, but who else should they be compared against?

EDIT: Especially since some of them are console gamers too.
   25. Select Storage Device Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:13 AM (#3640708)
The setup is empirically inferior.


Yeah, but my point is: So what?

Have you ever, like, ever, heard someone contend that a controller in hand is more precise than a k/m? No? Neither have I. It just doesn't matter except to a relatively small percentage of gamers -- mainly the gamers that constantly make this argument. It's a theoretical debate; as a measure of skill it means nothing because the method of input is radically different enough that they might as well be different genres, and competition is always 99% one or the other: k/m vs. k/m or controller vs. controller.

The only thing that's left is to argue that there is some sort of "truth" to playing an FPS on a PC, which is just ludicrous.
   26. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:00 AM (#3640732)
What level are you, Dan? I had the same problem with BC2 until I unlocked enough weapons and upgrades. They really do help.
   27. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:13 AM (#3640740)
So saying "all the PC gamers prefer the PC control system" is kind of tautological.


I suppose so. But I had to defend myself from the notion that I like my KB & M setup because it's the last thing a PC gamer can cling to--instead of liking the setup on its merits.
   28. Accent Shallow Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:49 AM (#3640753)
I would never play Quake with a controller.

Done it. Quake is clearly better on the PC, but the N64 version had at least one nice touch -- jumping in lava triggered "You visit the Volcano Maker" which is more poetic than the PC version's "Volcano God."

I don't remember if I ever beat the N64 version. Hmmm. Maybe I'll have to dig that out sometime.
   29. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:52 AM (#3640755)
Microsoft announced cross-platform play for Halo2, where PC and Xbox could meet on the battlefield and fight for supremacy. It never happened. Microsoft testing showed even the best console players were at the mercy of their keyboard and mouse-wielding PC opponents.

An FPS on a console is simply a slower game that requires less skill and reaction time than a PC FPS. Being great at Halo is like being great at beer league softball. Swell that you're having fun and all, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're just a fair shot away from playing in the bigs.
   30. Blackadder Posted: September 15, 2010 at 04:13 AM (#3640764)
Microsoft announced cross-platform play for Halo2, where PC and Xbox could meet on the battlefield and fight for supremacy. It never happened. Microsoft testing showed even the best console players were at the mercy of their keyboard and mouse-wielding PC opponents.

An FPS on a console is simply a slower game that requires less skill and reaction time than a PC FPS. Being great at Halo is like being great at beer league softball. Swell that you're having fun and all, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're just a fair shot away from playing in the bigs.


The first paragraph may well be true (it is certainly plausible), but it doesn't imply the second. In particular, the analogy to beer league softball is a bit silly. A major league player could step into a beer league softball game and wipe the floor with everyone, whereas someone who only played k&m is not going to do very well against a skilled Halo player. It is also not obvious how the fact that k&m wins head to head implies that being (very) good at dual-analog requires less skill.
   31. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:00 AM (#3640782)
An FPS on a console is simply a slower game that requires less skill and reaction time than a PC FPS. Being great at Halo is like being great at beer league softball. Swell that you're having fun and all, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're just a fair shot away from playing in the bigs.


I'm not a huge FPS guy but this is so completely true that it baffles me how anyone could disagree. Halo is fun on it's own, but in terms of accuracy and precision and maneuverability a console is like piloting a cow and PC an F-22.

If you play console games and feel some sort of inferiority over this, then THAT'S the issue we need to delve into and explore.
   32. Xander Posted: September 15, 2010 at 07:22 AM (#3640796)
Halo has its place in history and it's a fairly significant place.

Golden Eye paved the way for console FPS's, but Halo offered something which actually resembled an FPS to PC Gamers. Thus, the XBOX is born as sort of a poor man's PC and till this day it's still the "shooter" console.

That said, I never much cared for the game. And now that Bungie has passed the torch to 343, MS will assuredly tarnish the brand by flooding the market with yearly installments, COD-style.
   33. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:23 PM (#3640887)
If you play console games and feel some sort of inferiority over this, then THAT'S the issue we need to delve into and explore.


I think console gamers are perfectly happy with their inferior platform and simplistic gameplay. They can play Madden and Halo on their circa-2006 hardware and have a perfectly fine experience with their pals on the couch. I doubt most console players would even *want* to try something as sophisticated as Civilization V or something from the Total War series - even a good RTS would probably overwhelm a gamer whose idea of resource management is keeping their bong filled with clean water. Halo is really just the tip of their inferiority iceberg, obviously their FPS games are sluggish junk but even worse, I've heard tell that some console gamers actually have to PAY EXTRA MONEY just for the privilege of online multiplayer! I wouldn't be able to show my face in public if I were such a sucker, that's like paying extra for table salt at a restaurant.
   34. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:36 PM (#3640904)
I think console gamers are perfectly happy with their inferior platform and simplistic gameplay. They can play Madden and Halo on their circa-2006 hardware and have a perfectly fine experience with their pals on the couch. I doubt most console players would even *want* to try something as sophisticated as Civilization V or something from the Total War series - even a good RTS would probably overwhelm a gamer whose idea of resource management is keeping their bong filled with clean water.

The tendency in the video game world to stick to your system and hate all others continually confounds me. My favourite games are Civ4, Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun, Europa Universalis. But you know what I also really enjoy? Playing sports games (mostly FIFA) on Xbox and having people over for big games of Halo or Call of Duty (admittedly I haven't done that in a while). People get different things out of playing different games. You may as well tell me that I'm an idiot for liking cheerios, everyone knows pears are better.
   35. Juan V Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:37 PM (#3640909)
I find it very amusing that people use the Total War series as an example of PC sophistication against the consoles.
   36. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:44 PM (#3640915)
The tendency in the video game world to stick to your system and hate all others continually confounds me. My favourite games are Civ4, Victoria: An Empire Under the Sun, Europa Universalis. But you know what I also really enjoy? Playing sports games (mostly FIFA) on Xbox and having people over for big games of Halo or Call of Duty (admittedly I haven't done that in a while).


That's hunky-dory, playing sports games on the couch is really what consoles excel at. You know what I like doing? Having friends over and firing up my MAME cabinet. We have a few drinks, crank up some 80s music, and play Ms. Pac Man and Defender and Robotron and Front Line and Centipede and Donkey Kong until the wee hours. Like you, I'm enjoying the community aspects of the gaming and aren't put off by the inferior hardware and limited gameplay. All that matters is that everyone is having fun.

Better yet for me, we had a new neighbor move in last month and he, as a hobby, collects and restores vintage pinball machines. He has 6 in his basement and 6 in storage - now we're talking some serious fun!
   37. Juan V Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:45 PM (#3640920)
You know what I also like to play (or used to, when I had it) to effectively kill time? Tennis or bowling on Wii Sports. Feel free to tell me how inferior I am.
   38. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:46 PM (#3640921)
I find it very amusing that people use the Total War series as an example of PC sophistication against the consoles.

I was about to say that as well, though I didn't because I'm not that familiar with Total War. The strategy map gameplay seems pretty simple...though I've never been able to handle the combat system, since I am a poor multi-tasker, not a very good visual thinker and very slow to make decisions.

Hence my affinity for Civ, or Victoria, which I can slow down to a day every 10 seconds, to determine whether I should subsidize the import of paper products for my lower middle class.
   39. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:50 PM (#3640924)
Wii is awesome. Only console I would buy if I weren't so sure it would end my social life.
   40. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:53 PM (#3640928)
I find it very amusing that people use the Total War series as an example of PC sophistication against the consoles.


Console controls aren't up to the task of managing a game like Total War. Look, everyone knows that console games outsell PC exclusives, if there was any way you could bring a complex multi-front management game like Starcraft2 or Empire: Total War to the consolers and have it be a fun and playable experience you'd have to think the beancounters at Blizzard and Creative Assembly would be doing it posthaste.

I was about to say that as well, though I didn't because I'm not that familiar with Total War. The strategy map gameplay seems pretty simple...though I've never been able to handle the combat system, since I am a poor multi-tasker, not a very good visual thinker and very slow to make decisions.


The combat system is the hard part of the game. The campaign map is just Civ-lite.
   41. Juan V Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:54 PM (#3640931)
Probably because I'm really bad at the Warcraft/C&C/Age of Empires style of games, but I've never found RTS appealing except for the Total War series and Paradox games. TW's split of turn-based strategy/real-time tactics works very well IMO, but the battles are by far the most appealing thing about the game.

Have you checked out Vicky 2? With some modding, it's very very good.
   42. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 02:59 PM (#3640939)
Maybe I'm missing your point because we view video games differently. To me, a video game's inferiority/superiority is 100% tied to how much enjoyment I get out of it. I realize MLB 2k9 is technically a better game than Baseball Stars...but I still prefer the old boy.

I can see the argument that more complex, more challenging = better. But to me, if the complexity doesn't bring with it added entertainment, what's the point? Where's the pay off? It's not literature, where maybe you feel if you read Ulysses or Proust you might gain some understanding of humanity or become a more rounded person...it's just entertainment.

Which is not to say that complex can't be rewarding. Some of my favourite games are quite complex. I've been playing Victoria for over a year now and am still learning new things about the game. But complexity, better graphics, overall sophistication of gameplay...they don't really have any inherent value to me. They only matter to me if they add up to a fun game.

EDIT: I guess what's most confusing of all for me is the notion that there are "console gamers" and "PC gamers". Maybe I'm just not in the loop enough in the video game world, but most people I know play both.
   43. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:00 PM (#3640941)
Pears are way better than Cheerios.

Only games I've really spent any significant time playing since I was a kid are the text-based sports sims of the world - and even those ultimately frustrate me as they're too easy to "game" (and house rules kinda suck).
   44. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:01 PM (#3640943)
Have you checked out Vicky 2? With some modding, it's very very good.

I probably should, but my computer can barely handle the first one. Which means I am going to be sadly deprived of Civ5.

You have no idea how depressed this makes me.
   45. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:10 PM (#3640955)
Maybe I'm missing your point because we view video games differently. To me, a video game's inferiority/superiority is 100% tied to how much enjoyment I get out of it. I realize MLB 2k9 is technically a better game than Baseball Stars...but I still prefer the old boy.


Sure, nobody is arguing that the primary purpose of a game is to entertain the person playing it. But that subjectivity has its practical limits - you can tout "Baseball Stars" and all you'll do is bring some Intellivision Baseball geezer out of the woodwork to bemoan the long slide downhill since his preferred game reached the apex of all baseball games. At some point you're just shaking your fist and telling all the kiddies to get off your Atari 2600.

I can see the argument that more complex, more challenging = better. But to me, if the complexity doesn't bring with it added entertainment, what's the point?


Complexity for its own sake isn't any fun, at least not to most people, but when done right it certainly does add to the experience. The use of actual battlefield tactics in the Total War series is what makes it a step above, say, Starcraft with its unorganized waves of mobbed pawns flailing around at anything in their path. Total War's complexity is part of what makes it less popular than Starcraft, just like Civilization's historic complexity is what made it less popular than, say, Myst. You winnow out the casual gamers by adding features that require more concentration and focus, but when done right it seems an easy call to make.
   46. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:14 PM (#3640959)
I probably should, but my computer can barely handle the first one. Which means I am going to be sadly deprived of Civ5.


You have a fat stipend now, time to crack open the case and upgrade! Here,
this will get you halfway there!
   47. J. Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:19 PM (#3640963)
You may as well tell me that I'm an idiot for liking cheerios, everyone knows pears are better.

Greg, come on, you've been here at BTF/Primer for years. I know you know the drill by now.
   48. J. Lowenstein Apathy Club Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3640969)
Goldeneye is the true mother of all console FPS.

It was a wonderful, wonderful game, and I have never come across a FPS that I enjoyed half as much. But then I don't play much anymore and never played the keyboard+mouse ones.
   49. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:25 PM (#3640973)
$160!
Who am I? Scrooge McDuck?

I guess I'm more on your side than it seems. Since Total War is really fun when I play (which isn't often, as I said I suck at the combat) and Starcraft seems mind-numbingly repetitive to me.

But we're talking about totally different genres of game. It is possible to be a fan of Civ4, and be a fan of the latest Xbox soccer game. Sure Civ4 is more sophisticated...but if I want to play a nice game of soccer, all its sophistication isn't going to help me.
Or for a better example. I also really enjoy Football Manager. It's one of the more sophisticated sports simulation games out there...but once again if I want to play a nice game of soccer, I turn to the Xbox (I suppose FIFA is on PC too, but they're essentially the same aren't they?)

PC and console do different things. PC handles complex simulation better, consoles do sports games and...well I'm not well versed enough in consoles to know what else they do well, but sports are surely better with a controller. I lean to PC because I prefer historical simulation games...but that doesn't somehow make me superior to someone who does all their gaming playing Madden and MLB and NHL games. We're just interested in different gameplay
   50. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:27 PM (#3640975)
Greg, come on, you've been here at BTF/Primer for years. I know you know the drill by now.

I know it's idealistic of me
But if I don't speak out against the mindless pro-pear agenda of this site, who will?
   51. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:30 PM (#3640978)
Starcraft with its unorganized waves of mobbed pawns flailing around at anything in their path.


I know you know better Y_R. I'm not a SC player at all, not even in the tiniest bit (I've played maybe 5 games of online SC1 in my life and have no intention of buying or downloading SC2), but I'm well aware of the fact that there's an intense amount of strategy in SC. SC is all about those exact war tactics you tout, namely knowing how to pick off your opponent with small and quick strikes that distract and give you slight edges in tempo and resource advantage. When played at the highest level SC is about a transcendent understanding of the game's pathing engines and how you can turn small advantages into large ones. That's pretty much the definition of War (well, not the pathing engines).

It's like saying a rushdown-based fighter is less complex than a game like SF4 where turtling is heavily encouraged.
   52. RJ in TO Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:33 PM (#3640981)
$160!
Who am I? Scrooge McDuck?


Since you're not willing to pay it, you very well could be Scrooge McDuck.
   53. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:37 PM (#3640985)
$160!
Who am I? Scrooge McDuck?


That made me laff.

PC and console do different things. PC handles complex simulation better, consoles do sports games and...well I'm not well versed enough in consoles to know what else they do well, but sports are surely better with a controller.


It's the controller. You can actually plug your Xbox360 controller into a PC and it works just fine. The bigger problem with the PC for sports fans is that many publishers just ignore the platform and head straight for the low-hanging fruit of the console market. You can't get Madden on a PC, for example, although I'm pretty sure the new FIFA soccer game is available. I'm eager to check out the upcoming EA Sports MMA game when it arrives on the consoles though, I can see that being a heap of fun.

I lean to PC because I prefer historical simulation games...but that doesn't somehow make me superior to someone who does all their gaming playing Madden and MLB and NHL games.


That's fair enough, but remember that this hijack got started when I mentioned the obvious fact that FPS games on consoles are sluggish crap compared to FPS games on a PC. There's really nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better in terms of gaming, the only real chance the console junkies have is preferential treatment from publishers.
   54. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:37 PM (#3640987)
Since you're not willing to pay it, you very well could be Scrooge McDuck.

Touchez
I really need to work on my pop culture references.
Who's a notorious spendthrift everyone's familiar with?

Ah
$160!
Who am I? Phillip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke?

EDIT: whoa, need to brush up on my noblemen, almost made myself look quite the fool there
   55. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:38 PM (#3640988)
You people need to get out of your mother's basements and get some fresh air. Take a walk or something.
   56. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:41 PM (#3640991)
I know you know better Y_R. I'm not a SC player at all, not even in the tiniest bit (I've played maybe 5 games of online SC1 in my life and have no intention of buying or downloading SC2), but I'm well aware of the fact that there's an intense amount of strategy in SC.


The major strategy is in the economy, and to a lesser extent in the upgrade trees. The actual tactics on the battlefield are less than primitive. There's no real battlefield equivalent to a Zerg rush unless you're the Soviets in WW2.

When played at the highest level SC is about a transcendent understanding of the game's pathing engines and how you can turn small advantages into large ones. That's pretty much the definition of War (well, not the pathing engines).


And yet you still don't get any sort of attack bonus for flanking, enfilade fire, or holding the high ground. Starcraft is a fun game (I prefer the Age of Empires series myself) but it's really just rock, paper, scissors tacked on to an economy model.
   57. Lassus Posted: September 15, 2010 at 03:49 PM (#3640996)
You want to talk nerd? That standard controller you're all debating about? I've never used one - I think I'm the only male in my age bracket for whom this is true.
   58. Paul D(uda) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 04:01 PM (#3641007)
I can't imagine a game like Heavy Rain on the PC. I've also always found 3rd person action much much better on a console. Meanwhile, I find that Western RPGs (Fallout, Mass Effect) are more enjoyable on the PC. Despite the overlpa, PCs and consoles do different things, and I find it strange to suggest that one is superior in all forms of gaming than the other.
   59. Nineto Lezcano needs to get his shit together (CW) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 04:08 PM (#3641013)
That's fair enough, but remember that this hijack got started when I mentioned the obvious fact that FPS games on consoles are sluggish crap compared to FPS games on a PC. There's really nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better in terms of gaming, the only real chance the console junkies have is preferential treatment from publishers.


It's not that consoles necessarily get "preferential treatment," it's that they're easier to develop for, because everyone's Xbox 360 is functionally identical from a developer's point of view. I don't have to worry about whether or not someone is using an Nvidia or Radeon card, whether or not they support Shader Model 3.0 or just 2.1 or whatever, etc. From a consumer point of view, that's certainly a positive in some regards as well - don't have to worry about figuring out if my PC can run a game, don't have to sink hundreds into updgrades annually (there's turnover in the console world as well, but on a much longer time span).
   60. Spivey Posted: September 15, 2010 at 04:44 PM (#3641063)
It's not a surprise that if you have someone on ignore for their views on one topic, that tends to hold true for other topics as well.
   61. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 04:56 PM (#3641079)
It's not that consoles necessarily get "preferential treatment," it's that they're easier to develop for, because everyone's Xbox 360 is functionally identical from a developer's point of view. I don't have to worry about whether or not someone is using an Nvidia or Radeon card, whether or not they support Shader Model 3.0 or just 2.1 or whatever, etc.


John Carmack (the guy behind DOOM and Quake) once said in an interview the bigger problem with programming for PCs is you have to take in to account the guy with the 7 year-old system who still expects a playable experience without all the bells and whistles so everything has to scale down, whereas nobody with a PS1 has any expectations of playing a PS3 game. Meanwhile we're 3 years out from the release of Crysis and not only is there nothing on a console of that graphic complexity, but most PCs still can't run it properly.

From a consumer point of view, that's certainly a positive in some regards as well - don't have to worry about figuring out if my PC can run a game, don't have to sink hundreds into updgrades annually


I think unless you're an absolute fiend about early adoption this issue is overstated. I built my current system in November of 2007 with an Intel Core2 Duo (which I overclocked), a GeForce8800 graphics card, and 2GB of DDR2 memory, and it still runs nearly everything just fine without a single upgrade since then. Not everyone is willing to put some thought into their PC and built it themselves, so your overall point is probably valid when you think about the average consumer just buying a Dell at Best Buy, but it doesn't have to be that way. That's not even considering the fact that my PC does plenty more than gaming of course, that horsepower comes in handy when I'm editing musty old boxing footage.

Still, if you're talking about the Xbox console you can't discount the fact that while a PC gamer might spend some money every few years to add hardware, the Xbox gamer has to pay $50/year just for the privilege of going online for multiplayer games, plus all that nickel-and-dime microtransaction baloney for stuff that even the developers want to offer for free but aren't allowed by Microsoft (like Left 4 Dead maps, free for PC'ers, $7 for Xbox). That's an awful scam IMO, I'm sure there are plenty of PS3s sold just based on that.
   62. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:10 PM (#3641093)

And yet you still don't get any sort of attack bonus for flanking, enfilade fire, or holding the high ground. Starcraft is a fun game (I prefer the Age of Empires series myself) but it's really just rock, paper, scissors tacked on to an economy model.


Um, this is false to such a degree that it's clear that you have never seriously approached Starcraft. For one, there is specifically an advantage for holding the high ground, which varies depending on whether you mean SC1 or SC2, and while the engine does not arbitrarily decide that you do more damage if you flank, flanking attacks are critical to combating certain kinds of unit compositions. If the opposing army has both range and speed superiority, which happens sometimes, effective flanks are the only way to guarantee a full engagement.

At the highest levels, tactical management is incredibly important to success in Starcraft, and the rock-paper-scissors analogy is just totally false for SC1 and is just mostly false for SC2. If you like, I can recommend some games played in the Korean mega-tournament over the last couple of weeks that demonstrate the point.

Here's a point you might be trying to make. I don't know too much about actual military tactics, but I bet that the scifi universe combined with certain decisions made in game design make SC a bad model for actual warfare. So be it; it's not a model for actual warfare. But that's just to say that one shouldn't apply the tactics that win in SC2 to real warfare, not that there are no tactics necessary to be good at SC.

Edit: One last point about flanking: I guess I prefer a game where the reasons to flank are that you can guide or prevent retreats and gain more units firing on the enemy than would be possible if you only engaged on one side, to a game where units get +5 when they are flanking. Just because units don't get +5 to attack when flanking doesn't mean that there are no reasons to flank.
   63. Select Storage Device Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:19 PM (#3641108)
And the LIVE prices are going up in November. Gonna be $60.

BUT, I am willing to pay a premium to play multiplayer games with my friends, since 90% of them play on 360, and I have more fun playing my "sluggish crap" with friends than on PC with a bunch of Rando Calrissian's. Microsoft knows this. It's frustrating, but not enough for me to dismiss the 360 out of hand. It's just part of my monthly entertainment budget.

There's plenty of content that is pushed as free DLC on the 360 (Mass Effect 2/Red Dead). That Valve case is the exception, and most developers absolutely don't want their DLC to be free, since they are trying re-coup what they feel is lost money from used game sales. DLC ain't a scam. You don't have to buy it, and developers don't hinder users that don't purchase the DLC.

And of course, the real reason consoles are typically the lead development platform isn't because its easier (the PS3 certainly not), it's the install base, and the relative difficulty in pirating software for consoles vs. PC's. You just make more money making console games, and PC developers have yet to figure out how to mandate purchase of their game to play it (other than the most draconian of DRM protections, which just pisses off PC users to no end).
   64. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:21 PM (#3641112)
but I'm well aware of the fact that there's an intense amount of strategy in SC. SC is all about those exact war tactics you tout,


RTS are all about fast-clicking. Click fast. Fast click. Click faster. Winner clicks fastest. Fastest clicker wins first.

At the highest levels, tactical management is incredibly important to success in Starcraft,


From this article:

top level StarCraft is often decided by APM - Actions Per Minute, and the best players are able to top 300.

As these Korean StarCraft players will explain, and show you with their insane, almost mesmerisingly fast play, the micro management required to succeed in high level RTS games such as StarCraft 2 is borderline ridiculous. Every worker, every individual unit, is being given unique commands, with the player aware of where all his units are on the map and what they're doing at any given time.


Is that a skill? Sure. Mapping keys to units and clicking like a mad man is a skill. You know the game. But it's not anything resembling tactical ability or management.

Check that video for an especially impressive demonstration of selecting and ordering units and buildings to build more units to select and order. It's war!

Personally, I've always disliked RTS just because of how it takes you out of the story.
   65. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:29 PM (#3641121)
If you want somewhat realistic tactical level unit management, here's the Combat Mission WW2 series. These games are great, immersive, and I've never had to worry about mining Vesuvian gas.
   66. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:32 PM (#3641124)
Yeah, that's overblown. One of the top ten SC2 players in the world has APM less than mine (he sits 120-130, I sit ~150), and while I am very good at SC2 in an absolute sense, it would be a major-leaguer vs a career A-baller if we played. Moreover, the highest APM Korean player ever, known as JulyZerg, who standardly had APM in the 400-450 range and maxed out (over a very small time sample) at 818, has been a mediocre A-teamer for years. (edit: to be clear, what I mean by 'a-teamer' here is that he played on the A-team, the major league squad, he just wasn't all that good as SC major-leaguers go)

APM is like fastball speed: it's really easy to say that 'pitching is just about who can throw the ball the hardest,' but that's just false. Lots of high-90s fireballers can't keep a spot, and mid-high 80s junkballers who are relatively successful are all over the place. APM helps, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Certainly, the game is an RTS and the 'real-time' aspect means that it requires a degree of mechanical aptitude in order to compete. But the speed at which events occur means that decision-making, both tactical and strategic, is extremely difficult and those who do it well are demonstrating no trivial mental ability; mechanical aptitude is not enough at the highest levels.
   67. CWS Keith plans to boo your show at the Apollo Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:33 PM (#3641127)
I've got a few questions/comments, most of which will come off as newbish (which makes me sad, because about five or six years ago I was an obsessive gamer):

- I've never played Civilization but would like to get into a new game. How does it compare to, say, Age of Empires? My sense is that it's much, much deeper than AoE -- is that right? The other game I was looking to get into is the new Starcraft -- any thoughts on that? It's only a short-term issue, as I'm am awaiting next year's release of...

- Diablo 3! I can't tell you how much fun I had with the first two, particularly going into battle with a couple of my buddies, only to turn on one of them when we got particularly deep into a 'level' (for lack of a better term). I haven't gotten into any video game (outside of the NHL and FIFA series') in quite a while -- the last one I spent any decent amount of time on was Oblivion for 360 -- but D3 may force me back to the computer.

- Speaking of which, I hear that most computer games require top-of-the-line equipment. I'm not that much of a tech junky -- any comments on whether it's better (or, rather, cost-efficient) to just tweak your existing laptop or get a more 'game-oriented' one?
   68. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:33 PM (#3641128)
Again, someone who has clearly never played the game or known someone who plays the game.

You're clicking incredibly fast so that you can execute tactics at a faster speed than your opponent. In real life, an army doesn't get a +5 bonus to their hit points or strength dice roll or whatever when they emerge out of a field and flank the opponent. They get the benefit of being the aggressor, having the element of surprise, and being able to retreat back from where they came. In a high level Starcraft match you see them clicking extremely fast to move units around in battle so that they can constantly be striking and weaving. It's like a combination of Y_R's two favorite things in one: boxing and outmaneuvering larger things with smaller ones! Elite SC players are, yes, clicking very fast when running the so called "economic model" side of things but that's small fries. With a good bit of practice even someone as terrible at RTS as me can learn to get a good economy up and humming (I was doing Feudal Rushes in AOE2 in 10:30 and I was horrible at that game). The real skill comes in warmongering, and with that comes the strategy of choosing the right battles, knowing what angles to strike from, knowing when to run, knowing when to deceive your opponent with false alarms, and knowing how to disrupt the other person's economy. Again, you not liking/understanding a genre =/= it not involving strategy.
   69. Blackadder Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:34 PM (#3641131)
Y_R, on a (very slight) side note, which PC FPS do you tend to play? I get the sense that the most popular games are still TF 2 and CS Source. Did Crysis multiplayer ever really take off?
   70. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:37 PM (#3641138)
And of course, the real reason consoles are typically the lead development platform isn't because its easier (the PS3 certainly not), it's the install base, and the relative difficulty in pirating software for consoles vs. PC's. You just make more money making console games, and PC developers have yet to figure out how to mandate purchase of their game to play it (other than the most draconian of DRM protections, which just pisses off PC users to no end).


Valve is making a mint with Steam, which is not only a distribution service but also a central hub for multiplayer gaming that requires item-specific keys. That's the same Valve that gives away free DLC for top PC games like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead but was forced by Microsoft to charge Xbox users for the same items. Lords knows those damnable SIMS games sold well enough, something like 50 million copies including expansions and whatnot. I don't think any console game has made as much money as World of Warcraft, but I don't know much of anything about MMORPGs.

Still, I never said consoles weren't more lucrative, that's an easy enough statement to verify with published sales figures. And they're going to sell even more in the future as the industry is now taking a hardline stance against the sale of USED console games which I suppose will boost sales of new games. Consoles certainly sell more games, but there's nothing a console does that a PC can't do as well or better. That's why Microsoft had to protect their poor little Xboxy Halo noobs from those big bad PC'ers, after all :)
   71. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:39 PM (#3641139)
Again, someone who has clearly never played the game or known someone who plays the game. Again, you not liking/understanding a genre =/= it not involving strategy.


Some of my best friends flunked out of college because they played too much StarCraft. I've looked into the abyss.

You say again a lot.

EDIT: Also, I played a good deal of Warcrafts I and II back in the day. Liked the visuals, liked the story and mythology, disliked the gameplay. Really liked poking the peasants until they swore at me.
   72. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:41 PM (#3641144)
re: 71: Civ and AoE are radically different games, though it's been a long time since I played any AoE. Civ being turn-based is a big part, but also Civ has a much larger scope for each game; each AoE game is about a battle between specific groups on a specific battlefield, whereas Civ takes place over an entire world.

As far as depth goes, SC2 is probably not as deep as SC1, but SC1 is probably the deepest video game of all time, so that's not saying much. SC2 is still deep enough to sustain about as many distinctions in skill as baseball does.
   73. Daunte Vicknabbit! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:42 PM (#3641145)
It was only twice :(

I also meant plays the game as in "at a highly competitive level." To trivialize SC to APM would be like saying you can tell everything about a baseball player by looking at their WAR.

Oh wait, that happens every day.
   74. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:45 PM (#3641148)
I've never played Civilization but would like to get into a new game. How does it compare to, say, Age of Empires? My sense is that it's much, much deeper than AoE -- is that right? The other game I was looking to get into is the new Starcraft -- any thoughts on that? It's only a short-term issue, as I'm am awaiting next year's release of...

The biggest thing about Civ (for me since I'm a very slow thinker) is that its turn based. You can always stop and think about what you're doing. There's also several different ways to go about winning the game, not necessarily just beating your opponent into the ground...though that strategy works fairly well.

The best thing about Civ for me is I can play a planet of 20 or so nations where I control all of them. So the fact that I'm not very good at the game doesn't matter. Also I'm free to not play the game to win, but kind of treat it as a role playing game. Making decisions based on "what would the King of France do in this situation?" rather than "what would a player trying to win Civ4 do in this situation?"

Probably none of that was helpful...but also the scope is vastly greater. Both in terms of geography (and entire planet) and time (4000 BC to whenever)
   75. Spivey Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:47 PM (#3641152)
As far as depth goes, SC2 is probably not as deep as SC1, but SC1 is probably the deepest video game of all time, so that's not saying much. SC2 is still deep enough to sustain about as many distinctions in skill as baseball does.

In which parts is SC2 less in depth? I own both but I haven't really played SC2 much because my computer recently crapped out.
   76. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:50 PM (#3641153)
You're clicking incredibly fast so that you can execute tactics at a faster speed than your opponent. In real life, an army doesn't get a +5 bonus to their hit points or strength dice roll or whatever when they emerge out of a field and flank the opponent.


There's a clear tactical advantage in flanking a line that doesn't reduce to "+5 bonus"; flanked units can't defend enfilade fire no matter what they "defensive rating" is, and there's a clear morale effect to being surrounded and flanked which doesn't matter one bit in a RTS game where every unit will happily flog away at an overwhelming horde until dead.

RTS games are fun, I liked the Age of Empire games plenty, but in terms of actual battlefield tactics they're simply not very sophisticated. What passed for "elevation advantage" in Starcraft is actually a "point of power" where you get a bonus for standing in a certain spot - it's a 2D game, the advantages of elevation like being able to have multiple stacked lines firing over each other never come into play. Where's your momentum bonus for charging from height? All Starcraft units fire to a fixed circular radius no matter how "high" you're standing, because the "elevation effect" is just a "+5 bonus" after all.
   77. Paul D(uda) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:52 PM (#3641156)
Has anyoen played the Dawn of War games? Are they any good?
   78. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:54 PM (#3641159)
Also I'm free to not play the game to win, but kind of treat it as a role playing game. Making decisions based on "what would the King of France do in this situation?" rather than "what would a player trying to win Civ4 do in this situation?"


This is my favorite thing about Civ and other turn-based 4X (that term can apply to non-space games too, right?). Sometimes it's fun to play in a way that's not necessarily the most effective for the game's victory conditions.

I was a huge MoO2 guy. I very heartily recommend Galactic Civilizations II. Amazing game, including a non-time intensive way of designing the look of your ships from scratch.

My favorites are sandbox trading games. Port Royale 2 is great but time-intensive. Pirates! is fun but repetitive and feature-lite. Freelancer and its mods make for the best game in the world, IMO.

EDIT: Btw, if anyone can recommend good trading games, I'm all ears. Or eyes.
   79. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3641163)
Did anyone ever played "Spaceward Ho!"?
I used to love that game
   80. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3641165)
In which parts is SC2 less in depth?


I mostly make that claim on the basis of regression to the mean. SC1 has sustained professional leagues for 8 years or so, with dramatic improvements in strategy occurring regularly during that time, so it's just really unlikely that Blizzard made something that great again.

Now, many of the top SC1 players do think that because SC2 is actually less mechanically intensive, the skill cap is lower. In SC2, you can select multiple production facilities at once and select as many units at once as there exist. In SC1, you could only select one production facility at once, and a maximum of 12 units. That meant you had to give many more commands in SC1, because you couldn't tell your entire army to do something all at once, you had to chop it up into 12 unit chunks, and you couldn't tell all your production facilities to produce a certain unit at once. Both of those things you can do in SC2. Of course, these are differences that generally make the game more enjoyable for lower-skill players, and moreover the top SC1 players have financial and self-interested motivations to prefer SC1, because they have dumped larger sections of their lives into learning the crazy intricacies of modern SC1 play, so I don't know how seriously to take those claims.
   81. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 05:56 PM (#3641166)
Y_R, on a (very slight) side note, which PC FPS do you tend to play? I get the sense that the most popular games are still TF 2 and CS Source. Did Crysis multiplayer ever really take off?


I really don't know what is popular overall. I still play TF2, although I actually think all of the extensive add-ons and rebalancing of the units have made the game less fun for me. I like Left 4 Dead 2 also, the small-unit co-op play against 4 opposing players is really good stuff when you have a decent team on both sides.

From Steam statistics, Counter Strike is still king, which is sort of understandable - huge install base, the game was free with HL2 which costs about $7 now, it runs great on almost any system built since 2000 and has a heap of maps. I know the Battlefield games and the Call of Duty games are popular online too, although I've never played either one. I think Crysis multiplayer is a non-starter for most people because the game is so resource-intensive.

A few years ago an online game company was working on a baseball game where each team would be comprised of 9 real people, each playing one player, and playing the game from their own first-person perspective. I would LOVE to try something like that with persistent teams. I think development pooped out at some point, I can't recall the last time I heard about this game.
   82. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3641170)
Freelancer and its mods make for the best game in the world, IMO.


Yep. <$10 well-spent, for anyone interested.

EDIT: Btw, if anyone can recommend good trading games, I'm all ears. Or eyes.


I hear the kids are really into this M.U.L.E. game.
   83. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:00 PM (#3641171)
Did anyone ever played "Spaceward Ho!"?
I used to love that game
   84. with Glavinesque control and Madduxian poise Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:02 PM (#3641172)
Where's your momentum bonus for charging from height? All Starcraft units fire to a fixed circular radius no matter how "high" you're standing, because the "elevation effect" is just a "+5 bonus" after all.


Sure, that's right. Starcraft does not handle all such issues in a properly realistic way, but that does not mean that the game is simple. It just means that it lacks that particular complexity. But there is plenty of complexity in Starcraft, even without a realistic handling of that issue. And moreover, because the range is fixed to a specific circle, there are other complexities that arise in the interactions of various units; mobility, for example, becomes more important in some contexts. These aren't the complexities that arise in real life, but I'm not particularly tied to those.
   85. RJ in TO Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:02 PM (#3641173)
RTS games are fun, I liked the Age of Empire games plenty, but in terms of actual battlefield tactics they're simply not very sophisticated. What passed for "elevation advantage" in Starcraft is actually a "point of power" where you get a bonus for standing in a certain spot - it's a 2D game, the advantages of elevation like being able to have multiple stacked lines firing over each other never come into play. Where's your momentum bonus for charging from height? All Starcraft units fire to a fixed circular radius no matter how "high" you're standing, because the "elevation effect" is just a "+5 bonus" after all.


Have you tried Sid Meier's Civil War games? There was Gettysburg, and possibly a couple others. They claimed to provide advantages for a lot of the stuff you're talking about, through the incorporation of flanking, elevation, and morale, among other things.
   86. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:04 PM (#3641176)
Btw, if anyone can recommend good trading games, I'm all ears. Or eyes.

It's not really a trading game, but Escape Velocity has a lot of trading involved in it, if you choose to follow that career. It's an old Mac game so I don't know if it's still around. You essentially start as a lone trader with a dinky little ship, and you travel from planet to planet buying goods cheap and selling them high some place else. You can build up a fearsome armada, or a massive fleet of barges to carry bulk cargo, or get involved with governments through main-story campaigns. Or even go rogue and conquer a planet.

It was also infintely mod-able. I remember one guy did a Star Wars mod that made the whole universe the Star Wars universe.
   87. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:08 PM (#3641182)
Have you tried Sid Meier's Civil War games? There was Gettysburg, and possibly a couple others. They claimed to provide advantages for a lot of the stuff you're talking about, through the incorporation of flanking, elevation, and morale, among other things.

I have Gettysburg and his Waterloo campaign. I find them very enjoyable, mostly because it can move quite slowly if you want it to.
There's also a bayonet charge function, which I sadly do not know when to use, because it always ends up in my guys running back from whence they came.
   88. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:11 PM (#3641187)
ave you tried Sid Meier's Civil War games?


Yep, loads of fun. Sufficiently complex battle model to make tactical decisions worth seriously thinking about, but a simple and accessible interface that almost anybody could pick up with just the barest of tutorials. I'd love to see a remake with a more robust engine that included physics and a 3D terrain.
   89. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:16 PM (#3641191)
I just torrented Spaceward Ho!, Greg. Looks fun. I like simple.
   90. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:21 PM (#3641197)
Yep. <$10 well-spent, for anyone interested.


One of my favorite things about Freelancer is how clever it is with making you feel like you're in a persistent world. I never get tired of hearing, "Freelancer Alpha-1, this is Cryer 2. I'm from the Cortez system. I'm going to Planet Manhattan." etc.

In my last tour through the game I got really into piracy. Shooting down the trade gates and pirating the interdicted freighters is time-consuming, dangerous, and not entirely profitable. But that's how real piracy worked back in the 17th century, so all's fair.

Escape Velocity sounds just like Privateer/Freelancer.
   91. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:25 PM (#3641202)
Escape Velocity sounds just like Privateer/Freelancer.

It might be, our family had a Mac back in the early-mid 90s when everyone else I knew had PCs
So I played all these weird games no one else had heard of

like Medieval Empires
That was a GREAT game, but I can barely even get a sniff of it on google.
   92. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:39 PM (#3641218)
I hear that Halo was a sequel to some Mac game that was lightyears ahead of Doom, it's PC competitor, when it first came out.
   93. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:43 PM (#3641222)
Starcraft with its unorganized waves of mobbed pawns flailing around at anything in their path.

Except when you see the Korean professionals play.

(EDIT: I guess I should read the topic before I rush to post my displeasure, since others have addressed this.)
   94. sardonic Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:49 PM (#3641226)
Yeah, Y_R is off his ####### rocker with regards to SC2.

Even at a medium level, SC/SC2 are great blends of tactics(micro) and strategy(macro). The tactics of the game may not map to real world military tactics, but it's height of ignorance to say that there aren't tactics in the game, when you are literally controlling every aspect of what route your units take, which units they attack, what order they attack in, when they push and when they run, and when they use special abilities (blink, cloak, etc.)

At a strategy level, what it gets better than Civ (and believe me, you will not find a bigger Civ fan) is a very tight balance between units and their counters, which puts a huge premium on continuous recon. Because there are effective counters for every unit in the game, knowing what the opponent is up to at any given time is key. At the highest levels (way above what I play), that makes subterfuge key as well.

In SC/SC2, you are constantly deciding whether to invest more in current units or whether to expand for a long term gain but at the cost of short term weakness. You're constantly deciding whether or not you have enough units to attack, or whether you should build more defenses, which unit mix to build based on your recon.

It does put a premium on attention/multitasking skills, but that's one of the things that's cool about the game -- in fact, it's often optimal use an economically suboptimal strategy that allows you to harass your opponent effectively and knock them off their game.

It does also mean that there's a learning curve which can be daunting, and it may seem like bullshit if you get Zergling rushed in a few games at first. But any player should be able to identify and counter a Zergling rush with a little practice.
   95. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:52 PM (#3641228)
An FPS on a console is simply a slower game that requires less skill and reaction time than a PC FPS. Being great at Halo is like being great at beer league softball. Swell that you're having fun and all, but don't delude yourself into thinking you're just a fair shot away from playing in the bigs.

I'm not a huge FPS guy but this is so completely true that it baffles me how anyone could disagree. Halo is fun on it's own, but in terms of accuracy and precision and maneuverability a console is like piloting a cow and PC an F-22.

If you play console games and feel some sort of inferiority over this, then THAT'S the issue we need to delve into and explore.


Couldn't agree more on all points.

What drives me crazy is that PC gaming *is* in trouble, and it's in trouble thanks to piracy. All the people who pirate PC games are killing the market. And PC is the best platform to view games on, because the graphics can almost always be tailored to look much, much better than a game's console counterpart. As a result, no console game, even ones that are coming up, has graphics that impress me. Textures are lower-res. Anti-aliasing is either nonexistent or not high enough, leading to jaggies. I realize this is fine for many people, but it's not fine for me. I have to choose my console games very carefully to make sure I'm not annoyed by how they look. It results in me buying only console exclusives. If there is a choice, I always choose PC.

Don't pirate games, if you want to keep playing them on PC, because otherwise there won't be PC games anymore.
   96. Greg K Posted: September 15, 2010 at 06:53 PM (#3641230)
I hear that Halo was a sequel to some Mac game that was lightyears ahead of Doom, it's PC competitor, when it first came out.

It's possible you're referring to "Marathon" developed by Bungie. I'm not sure...did that comapny do Halo as well?

It was a pretty awesome game. It had much more of a "real" feel to it than the cartoony Doom. Graphics were much better and it had a lot of the suspense that Half Life has. Where you don't really see any enemies, but you know they're lurking somewhere.

Ah old Mac games, nothing like Wednesday night nostlagia
   97. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: September 15, 2010 at 07:09 PM (#3641245)
Moreover, the highest APM Korean player ever, known as JulyZerg, who standardly had APM in the 400-450 range and maxed out (over a very small time sample) at 818, has been a mediocre A-teamer for years. (edit: to be clear, what I mean by 'a-teamer' here is that he played on the A-team, the major league squad, he just wasn't all that good as SC major-leaguers go)

Well, July didn't always do the greatest in Proleague, but he did win three individual league titles, which puts him right near the top in that category...
   98. Home Run Teal & Black Black Black Gone! Posted: September 15, 2010 at 07:09 PM (#3641246)
It's possible you're referring to "Marathon" developed by Bungie. I'm not sure...did that comapny do Halo as well?


Yep, that's it.
   99. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: September 15, 2010 at 07:10 PM (#3641249)
Yeah, that's the thing--if you don't have a high-end graphics card, console graphics will look just as good or better.

And Marathon is correct. Both games were developed by Bungie. There were (I think) two sequels, but the first one was the best. If they decided to remake the game for PC, I would probably #### myself.
   100. base ball chick Posted: September 15, 2010 at 07:22 PM (#3641261)
sometimes when i am on this here board i start wondering why theres 3 females and 20,000 males - but at least i KNOW i am not the only die-hard female baseball fan

but i have briefly tried playing some of the computer warcraft kind of stuff - can't do it - too bored, too uncoordinated (same with the console stuff)

just curious - anyone have any stats about how many females are serious gamers of stuff like civ or sc?
Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4128 - 11:26am, Nov 22)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(15 - 11:24am, Nov 22)
Last: GregD

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(2 - 11:23am, Nov 22)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(63 - 11:23am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(10 - 11:21am, Nov 22)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(3 - 11:20am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(370 - 11:18am, Nov 22)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(12 - 10:47am, Nov 22)
Last: BDC

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(1 - 10:43am, Nov 22)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(1 - 10:26am, Nov 22)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogRed Sox offer for Pablo Sandoval might be in the lead - Sports - The Boston Globe
(1 - 10:13am, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(130 - 9:17am, Nov 22)
Last: bob gee

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(34 - 8:31am, Nov 22)
Last: Eric J can SABER all he wants to

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(1 - 8:31am, Nov 22)
Last: akrasian

NewsblogJosh Lueke and the Ways of Anger
(8 - 7:56am, Nov 22)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

Page rendered in 1.2857 seconds
53 querie(s) executed