Eurogamer "reviews" PA

Twitch. Watch the game played. Consider if you want to be playing that game and if you coherently watch that player playing and understand his gameplay. Twitch is usually played on the game, meaning that guy playing got it to work with the same glitches you see him encounter.

Listening to IGN just tells you what you already know, that Titanfall and GTA5 had an advertizing budget and that everyone hates Nintendo. You knew all of that already? Good, save yourself time and don't go looking up IGN reviews then.

I'm ok with turrets being more powerful.

They just need to be expensive. I don't like this aggressive fabricator bull. That's not what defenses are for. They are for DEFENDING. Reset the price.

I am speaking about critical reviews.

It seems too easy for the big studios to get atrociously high reviews for games. And I don't agree with those. There doesn't appear to be critical analysis going on.

There is a beautiful quote in the NZGamer review of ElderScrolls Online - it's an example, not an evolution, of the MMPORG genre.

I feel that is too often the case with video games. Yet often 'examples' of games in a genre, series or developer receive excellent, 10/10 reviews.


Thats my point. It's a critical review. It should not be how the average user is getting to know about a nee title. They should have done that by other means. Now they are reading reviews to figure out if it is worth the money.

Too often, critical video game reviews read like the Public Relations guy of the publisher or the developers wrote the

Thanks, I shouldn't have skim read and replied *embarassed*

Turrets don't negate units because of their price. Remember MDTs used to kill 7 Doxen before being overrun, they cost ~300, and Doxen cost 180 each.

The price needs to be reset. But I absolutely do not understand why turrets ever received the buffs they did. If turrets are still powerful, T1 units need to be buffed so turrets are relatively less powerful, because resetting the cost back to what it was won't solve the problem about turrets invalidating T1 units.

@thetrophysystem
off topic

since when did nintendo take the place of EA?

"It's a game that demands your full attention, a game that will reward dedication and diligence with the cool balm of victory"
That's a pretty nice quote.
Overall I like that it's a positive review while still acknowledging that it's incomplete, and I'm also glad that there's no freaking score because that **** needs to be dropped.

common, of course but admit that the economy is imbalanced and means you must pour too much of your eco into energy building to balance it out and utilize it correctly.

a base should be 50% army 50% building at worse not 80% buildings and 20% army.

Personally I think the game will change dramatically with metal sliders. At the moment the early game plays like a ta metal map- where build power and energy are your main constraints. You need to expand your metal for t2 but at t1 it quickly becomes irrelevant (resulting in a very quick progression up the tech tree).

This style greatly suits players with very high apm. I've never been that competitive on metal, as I'm just not quite fast enough. Once metal sliders are in, and people start playing on low metal maps you'll find the gameplay very different. Each factory will be an important choice, you will be very limited in what you can build or sustain. You will have to use small numbers of fabbers efficiently and clever tactics with small groups becomes more important. The beauty of the slider system means we still keep the other style available as well.

I really want to agree with this, but what we are going to discover soon is that unfair spawns are a lot more common when there is less metal on the planet. We will probably need some mirror planets in order to make low metal density work out for competitive games.

As with all these things it will need tweaking, however unfair spawns withstanding there's no question the game will play very differently. I won a few com boxing matches with only a few metal spots recently, I'm very used to doing allot with very little and pa plays very well under those conditions. Did you know pa supports reclaiming full health structures for their metal...? It's rather handy when you want to tech without much resource to play with...

here's an idea.

Spawn points only appear next to metal clusters and must as a rule : not contain any mass points
then the generation engine, adds 4 mass points inside the spawn zones with only one layout scheme :

guaranteed identical start for 4 first mass points, the rest is for you to adapt to.

It mostly does that already. The problem is that the expansion areas are too important to ignore.

well i dunno what to say, the spread out algorithm should be better/more even.

I agree that such a unified starting position could prove to be rather helpful when it comes to making spawns fairer and allowing for everyone to get a decent start into the game without being distracted by weirdly placed metal spots.

Although this idea is taken straight from SupCom's maps

Ehh maybe I just misread your original post then. Pretty much every game ever has had a "fifth dimension" via save/load if that's how you want to look at it. I "re-write history" all the time in games by jumping off a cliff, dying, and loading a save game from 15 seconds earlier.

When it's all said and done I think rewinding and resuming from an arbitrary point via ChronoCam is pretty damn cool. It will be a lot easier than remembering hit to F5 for quicksave every 60 seconds. But at the end of the day it's still functionally equivalent to save/load. Make as many timelines as you like! Just don't expect them to merge back into one another.

I forget how many save games I had trying to beat the last level of Brood War. It was quite a lot...

I dunno where the hell you got that from

The difference is when we are hosting the game on our own computer, and it crashes/

It's not 'damn it, I didn't save'.

It's 'the chronocam record was corrupted"

Not hating, just that is a limitation

Sadly that would make the spawn points extremely easy to identify. I would like to play around with perfectly evenly distributed metal points and no concentrations at landing zones. Just let the commander generate more on his own. The commander should be producing enough resources to sustain his own build efforts indefinitely.

the way I see this is acceptable sacrifice.

contrary to SupCom you're not using all the spawns on the map so that still leaves acceptable doubt.

I can already tell with 100% accuracy what is a spawn point and what isn't. that doesn't mean a player necessarily spawned there.

But I already have two radically opposed approaches to different looking mass patches.