Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[itisnotlogical]

Because both Pokemon (via Types, which are like infinity-way rock-paper-scissors) and Starcraft did it, which are both retro nostalgic *bit pixel indie fodder. If an indie game does something that seems familiar, think of a popular or resurging retro game that did it first- that game is probably the reason.

[Sergarr]

Starcraft has rock-paper-scissors?

[Shadowlord]

It definitely doesn't have any lizards or spock.

[Damiac]

Starcraft didn't really have rock/paper/scissors, although it had damage types and armor. 

A good example of rock paper scissors is civilization.  Spearmen kill mounted, mounted kill archers, archers kill spearmen. 

I agree, it's an oversimplification of strategy and tends to cut down on how creative the players can really be.  Built in hard counters generally do that, changing the game from trying to plan the best strategy, to trying to find the best counter for your opponent's strategy.

[Neonivek]

StarCraft 2 on the other hand had outright Rock Paper Scissors.

[i2amroy]

StarCraft 2 on the other hand had outright Rock Paper Scissors.

Really? I can't think of any good direct examples of that. I mean there are plenty of examples where one matchup/strategy might have an advantage over another one, but (at least in anything short of lower level professional play) it's still totally possible to win with a disadvantaged strategy through the use of good micro/etc..

[EnigmaticHat]

Star Craft didn't... exactly have rock/paper/scissors.  At least SCII, which I played.

There was none of that AoM stuff where archers>infantry>cavalry>archers.  But there were obvious advantageous matchups.  Immortals got a shield that took the same damage from every attack so they were good against heavy attackers, anything that could shoot air was generally very good at it barring marines/queen, anything with AoE was good against zerglings/marines, ect.

SCII is more super heavily balanced around each unit and upgrade filling in a specific niche both in terms of play and in terms of when you play it.  It had a very static type of play where there was only really one strategy for each 1v1 matchup and the variations came from small changes to build orders, and being just a *little* better fighting/building/timing your attacks.

[Neonivek]

StarCraft 2 on the other hand had outright Rock Paper Scissors.

Really? I can't think of any good direct examples of that. I mean there are plenty of examples where one matchup/strategy might have an advantage over another one, but (at least in anything short of lower level professional play) it's still totally possible to win with a disadvantaged strategy through the use of good micro/etc..

They probably toned it down through balance updates. Yet if you watch the gameplay trailers for the game they outright state that it is Rock Scissor papper. With each unit essentially existing to counter another.

[Kanil]

Well, I mean Tank>Dragoon>Vulture>Zealot>Tank is kind of a form of rock/paper/scissors, and you can find those kinds of examples a lot in StarCraft...

"... it makes a circle and players will have to buy all of them in relatively equal proportions..."

But we call it good army composition and don't really consider it a flaw.

[Culise]

A good example of rock paper scissors is civilization.  Spearmen kill mounted, mounted kill archers, archers kill spearmen. 

Err, really?  It's been a little while, but I'm pretty sure Civ 1 had nothing like that; it only had a very simple ADM system where offense was compared to defense, regardless of source, and it didn't have archers at all.  Civ 2 gave one spear defensive unit (Pikemen, a medieval unit) a bonus against mounted units, but cavalry and knights had no particular bonuses against archers or other offensive infantry units.  Civ 3 and 4 didn't have an RPS chain, either; in 3, archers' primary advantage over cavalry was being a bit cheaper, for they otherwise had the same offensive ability (ADM, again) as horsemen, but no special bonus (nor horsemen a special weakness) against spearmen.  In 4, cavalry had advantages against siege (I think it was added in an expansion) and spearmen against cavalry, but archers don't really play into either, so I'm not certain if that's what you're referring to either.  I think only 4 and 5 may have something like this, but in addition to failing to form loops in 4, they're both a bit late in the day to be serving as inspirations for much of what's being brought up. 

EDIT: Also, that's a good point by Kanil.  What's the difference between rock-paper-scissors and combined arms? 

[Virtz]

So is Total War a "wannabe"/"indie" strategy now?

[MorleyDev]

Lately a growing pet peeve is open world games with long intros. Like every Elder Scrolls except Morrowind, every Fallout game but 1 and New Vegas.

I get why they do it, the Cinmeatic stuff is neat the 1st time and it's needed for them to be all 'oooh mainstream appeal shiny shiny jingle keys'. But there's a reason for the "Alternative Roleplayers Start" mods for those games, and there's a reason I always wind up installing them.

A good Open World game is heavily focused on replaying and trying different things, those intros are the antithesis of this.

[itisnotlogical]

Unskippable anything is the bane of my existence. You should be able to mash any key and start the game within seconds. No developer credits, no fancy fade-in animations or animated title screen. It should be mash-mash-mash-mash and you're playing.

[miauw62]

Even Undertale sins against this with the game over screen. It's probably a concious decision but nevertheless very annoying when fighting hard bosses.

[Shadowlord]

Why are you fighting a boss on the game over screen?