🚀 go-pugleaf

FooAtari <allie.fraserSP MTRPgooglemail.com> wrote: 

> Recently I decided to take a look back at some of the earlier
> RTS games on the PC. Or at least the RTS games that defined what
> we have now. 
> 
> So first up was Warcraft, didn't go very well. I usually don't
> have any problems playing older games, the dated graphics and 
> sound don't usually bother me if the gameplay is good. 
> 
> But every so often you come across an old game, that due to
> advances in subsequent games in the genre are very hard to play.
> Warcraft: Orcs and Humans might be one of those game. 
> 
> Why? The bloody interface. 

Yup. And then, someday, we will all be doing speech activated
scripting for real-time strategy (RTS). 

You ain't seen nothing yet.
-- 























> Man, it's pretty nasty. Even knowing the 
> hotkeys it's pretty cumbersome and slow to use. For example, I was 
> surprised you couldn't even move without having to select the action 
> first. After a couple of levels I started to get used to having to press 
> the hotkey first for every single action (really missing the pointer 
> changing to the default action depending on what you are holding it 
> over), but still found it pretty clunky and difficult to adapt to.
> Also not being able to queue builds is quite annoying. You constantly 
> have to go back to the base to build a new unit. Of course this results 
> in loosing your grouping of other units you may been using elsewhere on 
> the map. Argh
> 
> Another problem for me personally is that is's a fairly slow game in how 
> long it takes to put an army together.
> You have to get an army of peasants together first to get enough
> resources to start building your real army. Meanwhile there are regular 
> attacks from the enemy (who always start with a fully functioning base, 
> while you start with very little) picking away at the few soldiers you 
> have at the start, and your defenceless peasants. Between gathering 
> enough resources to build your army and replacing dead peasants it can a 
> long time to get enough units together to go on the attack. But I can see 
> the appeal of this for those who enjoy that style.
> 
> I've not completely given up on Orcs and Humans, however I read that 
> Wacraft 2 is a lot more fluid and improves on the first game in many 
> ways. Hopefully I'll get on better with that. 
> 
> 

On 30 Jan 2011 16:56:09 GMT, FooAtari
<allie.fraserSP@MTRPgooglemail.com> wrote:

>I've not completely given up on Orcs and Humans, however I read that 
>Wacraft 2 is a lot more fluid and improves on the first game in many 
>ways. Hopefully I'll get on better with that. 

The interface is definitely lousy in the first game.

The sequel has aged better. Whatever you read is correct. Warcraft 2
makes significant progress where the interface is concerned. The
graphics are a lot nicer to look at as well.

FooAtari <allie.fraserSP@MTRPgooglemail.com> wrote:
>I've not completely given up on Orcs and Humans, however I read that 
>Wacraft 2 is a lot more fluid and improves on the first game in many 
>ways. Hopefully I'll get on better with that. 

Mike S.  <Mike@nowhere.com> wrote:
>The interface is definitely lousy in the first game.
>
>The sequel has aged better. Whatever you read is correct. Warcraft 2
>makes significant progress where the interface is concerned. The
>graphics are a lot nicer to look at as well.

Yah, Warcraft 2, along with Command and Conquer, was where the genre
really took off anyways.  The orginal Warcraft (and Dune 2) were more
just protypes for what followed. 

I find that if I hadn't actually played the game back when it came out,
it can be very hard to get used to the primitive UIs in old games.
Old graphics I can get used to quickly, but better and more consistent
UI design has made modern games so much more playable.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:22:49 -0500, Ross Ridge wrote:

> Yah, Warcraft 2, along with Command and Conquer, was where the genre
> really took off anyways.  The orginal Warcraft (and Dune 2) were more
> just protypes for what followed.

I have just been playing Dune 2. I haven't yet got to a mission, but I 
have read that you can't select more than a single unit which might get 
on my nerves very quickly... :)

> I find that if I hadn't actually played the game back when it came out,
> it can be very hard to get used to the primitive UIs in old games.

Yeah, when a game replies heavily on the use of a UI such as an RTS, it 
can really kill a game when it doesn't work very well. Warcraft and Dune 
2 were two games I missed when growing up, that's why I'm checking them 
out now, if only out of curiousness as to what they were like.


-- 
Organ Donation saves lives. Register Now
www.uktransplant.org
Save a life, give blood
www.scotblood.co.uk
Cancer research saves lives
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/

If you need to write essentially the same here as already in 
alt.games.warcraft could you please stop multiposting?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiposting

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 17:45:12 +0100, Michael wrote:

> If you need to write essentially the same here as already in
> alt.games.warcraft could you please stop multiposting?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiposting

I originally only intended to post it in Warcraft group as it's a Warcraft 
game.  However a day or so later, I decided it might be of interest and 
provoke a good discussion to those who read this group and perhaps not 
the Warcraft group. The post is very relevant to both.  I thought that 
since the Warcraft group has now practically turned in a World of Warcraft 
group, some strategy fans may not longer read it. I'm sure there is a 
large percentage of user who read one or the other or not both.

Also, I posted to each group separately in order to avoid crossposting of 
replies.

Taken from the Wikipedia article

"Crossposting can be helpful if the message is of interest to a larger 
audience. However, crossposting to groups that are irrelevant to the 
message posted could be considered spamming."

Well it was, 'of interest to a larger audience'. It's a _strategy_ game 
(so relevant here) and also a _Warcraft_ game (so relative in 
alt.games.warcraft also).

I was not spamming as I did not post the message to groups that were not 
relevant.

Another quote from the Wiki article:

"Moreover, excessive crossposting is generally considered bad form"

I would hardly call posting the message to two groups excessive.


Cheers
Foo

-- 
Organ and Blood Donation saves lives. Register Now
www.uktransplant.org www.scotblood.co.uk
Cancer research saves lives
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/

On Jan 30, 4:56 pm, FooAtari <allie.frase...@MTRPgooglemail.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jan 2011 16:22:49 -0500, Ross Ridge wrote:
> > Yah, Warcraft 2, along with Command and Conquer, was where the genre
> > really took off anyways.  The orginal Warcraft (and Dune 2) were more
> > just protypes for what followed.
>
> I have just been playing Dune 2. I haven't yet got to a mission, but I
> have read that you can't select more than a single unit which might get
> on my nerves very quickly... :)
>
> > I find that if I hadn't actually played the game back when it came out,
> > it can be very hard to get used to the primitive UIs in old games.
>
> Yeah, when a game replies heavily on the use of a UI such as an RTS,

Its why I no like RTS. Its he who clicks the fastest wins.

FooAtari <allie.fraserSP@mtrpgooglemail.com> wrote:
> I have just been playing Dune 2. I haven't yet got to a mission, but I 
> have read that you can't select more than a single unit which might get 
> on my nerves very quickly... :)

That is correct.  When you wanted to do a rush, you had to click on each 
unit individually, issue the order, then go to the next unit.

On the plus side, these earlier games didn't have much in terms of the 
special powers you had to micromanage like you see in later RTS games, 
like Starcraft.
 

-- 
It's not broken.  It's...advanced.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:47:00 -0600, Doug Jacobs wrote:
 
> That is correct.  When you wanted to do a rush, you had to click on each
> unit individually, issue the order, then go to the next unit.
> 
> On the plus side, these earlier games didn't have much in terms of the
> special powers you had to micromanage like you see in later RTS games,
> like Starcraft.

Yeah there sure is a hell of lot of clicking involved when rushing or in 
battle with loads of units.



-- 
Organ and Blood Donation saves lives. Register Now
www.uktransplant.org www.scotblood.co.uk
Cancer research saves lives
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/