No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Well then whats the point of buying the 2nd and 3rd games? I mean, if Blizzard is putting that much variety into 30 mission, how can you tell me we'll have another 60 missions that will provide just as much variety.
And how can that be just plain wrong? Its actually pretty simple. 3 very distinct races, 10 levels each. Vs 1 race with 30 levels and promise of "oh don't worry, they'll be different"
The fact of the matter is that you don't know anything about how varied the SCII singleplayer campaign will be. But because no one does you use that as basis for the idea that it will be worse. Based simply on the "fact" that 3 things are more different than one. Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. Three is more than one, but does not mean 3 is greater than one. You have to be pants-on-head retarded to believe fundamentally 3 paintings are better than 1 simply by the fact that 3 is more than 1.
I can take this exact statement and switch 3s with 1s and 1s with 3s, to counter this point.
No one's really forcing you to buy the game. We don't have an official word on if they're stand alone or not, and if they are, you don't have to buy the Terran portion of the story. You could just skip to Zerg.
And be confused as hell because they're referencing events that you haven't played through, but hey.
I haven't been saying that three races aren't going to be as varied as one race, I'm saying that one race can be as varied as three races.
No it can't.
We can keep going around like this though, but 3 races with 3 mission types is more varied than 1 race with 3 mission types. If each race has to approach a different mission type with particular strengths and weaknesses, it's more varied than a single race.
What about 3 races with one mission type versus 1 race with 5 mission types? What if my earlier hypothetical only had three races? Would it still be more varied?
Sure, how many games can you think of that have multiple races have one mission type?
Oh yes, I do know one now I think of it. Dark Crusade and man that game was awful for it. Of course, I did play it through once with all the games races. You know how I could? Because they still played differently enough I could tolerate it. Also I am aware Dark Crusade has the occasional different mission. It really doesn't salvage it being "Build X, kill Y" every mission, usually with your starting units. If it wasn't for the fact I wanted to hear what each race had to say on disposing of another I couldn't do it.
But then again, this is actually proving my point.
Hmmm.
I just can't believe you are so set in this one factor that you can't see just how dumb it is to assume that it is the only factor.
I never said that. You seem oblivious to the fact the real situation will be more similar to a few kinds of basic missions with 1 race, as opposed to that same number of basic missions with multiple races. Your strawmanning aside, that's the actual argument.
No. I've put it perfectly simple from the first argument.
Why nobody can fundamentally understand that playing 1 race is NEVER going to be equivalent to playing 3 different ones and that maybe, MAYBE people find that disappointing on an entirely justified and legitimate level is just truly amazing.
Equivalent on what level? Because if you're trying to say that playing 1 race is never going to be as varied as playing 3 races then you're just plain wrong.
Well then whats the point of buying the 2nd and 3rd games? I mean, if Blizzard is putting that much variety into 30 mission, how can you tell me we'll have another 60 missions that will provide just as much variety.
And how can that be just plain wrong? Its actually pretty simple. 3 very distinct races, 10 levels each. Vs 1 race with 30 levels and promise of "oh don't worry, they'll be different"
The fact of the matter is that you don't know anything about how varied the SCII singleplayer campaign will be. But because no one does you use that as basis for the idea that it will be worse. Based simply on the "fact" that 3 things are more different than one. Your entire argument is based on a fallacy. Three is more than one, but does not mean 3 is greater than one. You have to be pants-on-head retarded to believe fundamentally 3 paintings are better than 1 simply by the fact that 3 is more than 1.
I can take this exact statement and switch 3s with 1s and 1s with 3s, to counter this point.
I pointed that out to him earlier and he came back with cereal, for some reason.
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
Perhaps you should have made an example that wasn't so obviously a false dichotomy then that can be shot down with simple logic?
Tell me, if you have 5 races and 9 types of missions, do you get more or less variety than 1 race with 9 types of mission. You curiously dodge that argument, because part of the problem with RTS games is they have relatively few actual mission types. This isn't too bad, because RTS games solved this a long time ago with things like "commando" missions, limited resource missions and by, wait for this, having multiple sides with different ways of playing.
Ultimately, they will be relying on their story to carry the game 30 missions. But I'm not interested in 30 missions of Terran story. I've explained this over and over and if we can't cease arguing past one another on this there can't be any way of going forward.
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
When did I dodge the argument? What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something. A game with 100000 races and 40000000000 mission types will be more varied than a game with 1 race and 1 mission type, but having 3 races with 1 mission type is less varied than 1 race with 50 mission types.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
Khavall isn't making any absolute statements like Aegeri is. Khavall is saying it's POSSIBLE for fewer races to be ultimately more varied, while Aegeri is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for fewer races to have more variety. I think the problem is that Aegeri thinks Khavall is saying that fewer races will always be more varied, which also isn't true. Generally, absolute statements are dumb.
I never said that. You seem oblivious to the fact the real situation will be more similar to a few kinds of basic missions with 1 race, as opposed to that same number of basic missions with multiple races. Your strawmanning aside, that's the actual argument.
You said that a game with one race is necessarily less varied than a game with three races, and will never be able to be as varied as a game with three races
That is exactly assuming that the number of races is the sole determining factor in variation.
That is not a strawman. I know it seems like it should be one, because it seems like the dumbest position in the world, and maybe that's why I'm so incredulous that you so fervently defend it.
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
Perhaps you should have made an example that wasn't so obviously a false dichotomy then that can be shot down with simple logic?
Tell me, if you have 5 races and 9 types of missions, do you get more or less variety than 1 race with 9 types of mission. You curiously dodge that argument, because part of the problem with RTS games is they have relatively few actual mission types. This isn't too bad, because RTS games solved this a long time ago with things like "commando" missions, limited resource missions and by, wait for this, having multiple sides with different ways of playing.
Ultimately, they will be relying on their story to carry the game 30 missions. But I'm not interested in 30 missions of Terran story. I've explained this over and over and if we can't cease arguing past one another on this there can't be any way of going forward.
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
When did I dodge the argument? What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something. A game with 100000 races and 40000000000 mission types will be more varied than a game with 1 race and 1 mission type, but having 3 races with 1 mission type is less varied than 1 race with 50 mission types.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
But, again speaking for myself, I'd much rather play a 30-mission game spread across three races than a 50-mission game with one race, regardless of how diverse the missions are.
It has nothing to do with bias here. I just can't fathom playing 50 missions with one race. I just don't want to. These missions would have to be hypnotically different to engage me for that amount of time.
I mean, yes, there are different ways to vary your game up, but not all of them weigh out in equal measure.
I'm providing an example, not saying that there are only two ways of going about things, how thick are you?
Perhaps you should have made an example that wasn't so obviously a false dichotomy then that can be shot down with simple logic?
Tell me, if you have 5 races and 9 types of missions, do you get more or less variety than 1 race with 9 types of mission. You curiously dodge that argument, because part of the problem with RTS games is they have relatively few actual mission types. This isn't too bad, because RTS games solved this a long time ago with things like "commando" missions, limited resource missions and by, wait for this, having multiple sides with different ways of playing.
Ultimately, they will be relying on their story to carry the game 30 missions. But I'm not interested in 30 missions of Terran story. I've explained this over and over and if we can't cease arguing past one another on this there can't be any way of going forward.
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
When did I dodge the argument? What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something. A game with 100000 races and 40000000000 mission types will be more varied than a game with 1 race and 1 mission type, but having 3 races with 1 mission type is less varied than 1 race with 50 mission types.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
But, again speaking for myself, I'd much rather play a 30-mission game spread across three races than a 50-mission game with one race, regardless of how diverse the missions are.
It has nothing to do with bias here. I just can't fathom playing 50 missions with one race. I just don't want to. These missions would have to be hypnotically different to engage me for that amount of time.
I mean, yes, there are different ways to vary your game up, but not all of them weigh out in equal measure.
See this I'm fine with.
With only one race, yeah, for 50 missions they would have to have some pretty damn impressive differences to make it as varied as switching mechanics of race.
But that doesn't mean that such is impossible.
Khavall on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
Except it was still a false dichotomy.
Even the only relevant example I can think of, Dark Crusade, has at minimum a handful of mission types (I think about 5 IIRC). There is a stronghold assault, taking over enemy territory (skirmish), a specific map trigger mission with a huge (but limited) army and a defensive mission (which is the reverse of the above skirmish mission).
Even so, your example still provides as much variety. Different races to make the game feel and play differently. I couldn't have taken 30 missions of ANY race in the original starcraft. I would have gone bonkers! But 10 missions of the same maybe, 4 (?) different kinds of missions was fine because you got something entirely new.
A race isn't just a new unit or coat of paint or "lol I build Wraiths instead of mans", it's an entirely new outlook on the game storywise (if done well, which is exactly what Starcraft was) and gameplay wise.
Again, if we can't get past this there is no point.
When did I dodge the argument?
Because your only answer is to make repetitive ridiculous strawmans.
What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something.
No. I'm fundamentally aware that RTS games have relatively limited mission types. Keeping an RTS game going for a long time requires new units, a good story and often switching up the sides to keep gameplay fresh. Multiple races do this much better in the context of reality, which has few individual actual mission types than one race with a really long campaign.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
Wow, that's all you've got? I suppose with this you've run out of strawmans and can't actually answer the core argument anymore.
HI LEMMING HI S?! REMEMEBER WHEN WE USED TO ENJOY STARCRAFT TOGETHER?
NOT LIKE THIS THREAD OH GOD NEVER LIKE THIS NOOOOOOOOOOO!
I can't play Starcraft from my dorm but I can play Theorycraft and Pointlessspeculationcraft
How come you can't play SC in your dorm? Did the announcement of the SC2 trilogy trigger a blanket ban on STarcraft in your dorm?!?!
It's because the way the internet is setup is dumb; it's supplied to the whole building on one connection, so not only is it slow and lame, but it means that I can't forward the right ports to my computer, and the guys in the computer center said no when I asked them.
Lemming on
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Khavall isn't making any absolute statements like Aegeri is.
Actually he is. He's claiming that 1 race can be as varied as multiple races, which is just plain not true.
He then comes out with ridiculous false dichotomies to attempt to prove this.
Khavall is saying it's POSSIBLE for fewer races to be ultimately more varied, while Aegeri is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for fewer races to have more variety.
Fewer races can have more variety is the races don't have substantial differences.
This is why we're talking in the context of starcraft however.
Also, my statement had two factors:
Gameplay.
Story.
Gameplay wise, there are few mission types in an RTS game and storywise, getting only one side isn't the same as the original. So no, you cannot get as much variety in terms of both gameplay and story from 1 race as you can with 3 in Starcraft. If Khavall thinks that the Terrans will get 30 mission types each and the protoss and zerg only 1, then he's being plain ridiculous. Yet, this is inherently what his argument has to have to make any sense in the context of this discussion.
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
Except it was still a false dichotomy.
Even the only relevant example I can think of, Dark Crusade, has at minimum a handful of mission types (I think about 5 IIRC). There is a stronghold assault, taking over enemy territory (skirmish), a specific map trigger mission with a huge (but limited) army and a defensive mission (which is the reverse of the above skirmish mission).
Even so, your example still provides as much variety. Different races to make the game feel and play differently. I couldn't have taken 30 missions of ANY race in the original starcraft. I would have gone bonkers! But 10 missions of the same maybe, 4 (?) different kinds of missions was fine because you got something entirely new.
A race isn't just a new unit or coat of paint or "lol I build Wraiths instead of mans", it's an entirely new outlook on the game storywise (if done well, which is exactly what Starcraft was) and gameplay wise.
Again, if we can't get past this there is no point.
When did I dodge the argument?
Because your only answer is to make repetitive ridiculous strawmans.
What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something.
No. I'm fundamentally aware that RTS games have relatively limited mission types. Keeping an RTS game going for a long time requires new units, a good story and often switching up the sides to keep gameplay fresh. Multiple races do this much better in the context of reality, which has few individual actual mission types than one race with a really long campaign.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
Wow, that's all you've got? I suppose with this you've run out of strawmans and can't actually answer the core argument anymore.
Good going.
A: I don't think you know what a strawman is, as I made my point as clear as possible and you said it was absolutely,100% wrong. And I am repeating my point.
b: I don't think you know what a false dichotomy is, as providing two hypothetical situations, even if they're shuffling a binary system, isn't one.
c: I'm not saying that 30 missions from Starcraft would be great with one race. I'm saying that it's possible to design missions in such a way with a single race that it would provide more variety than missions designed in another way with multiple races.
RTSs [have historically had limited numbers of mission types. There is nothing to say that it is impossible for the number of mission types to be expanded, or for the mission types to be interpreted in a different enough way to give variety.
Now if you will get past this stupid wall of absolutism and stop yelling "STRAWMAN" to make yourself seem like you have even close to a logical leg to stand on, we can move on.
Khavall isn't making any absolute statements like Aegeri is. Khavall is saying it's POSSIBLE for fewer races to be ultimately more varied, while Aegeri is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for fewer races to have more variety. I think the problem is that Aegeri thinks Khavall is saying that fewer races will always be more varied, which also isn't true. Generally, absolute statements are dumb.
I don't think Aegeri is really saying that. I think we've gone off track a bit. I think Aegeri is saying that he prefers diversity through races over diversity through mission type. That to him, a game with three vastly-different races with vastly-different mechanics is more interesting than a game with one race and three vastly-different missions.
What, exactly, is wrong with such a preference? And why is it wrong to assert this preference?
Take a game like Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Three races, five levels each, and each race had a VERY different method of play. Like as different as they come. The levels for the second race was basically like an RTS/FPS. Ultimately it was a shooter though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the missions were as diverse but you could only play as one of the races.
Let's look at Khavall's example. Let's say instead of Terran, Zerg, Protoss we had Terran, Grumplykins, and Bozwots.
The game has six missions: (1) Defend your base, (2) Assault the enemy base. That's it. Six missions.
But the Terrans Defend and Assault in the normal way. Grumplykins Defend and Assault by possessing the spirit of their buildings and morphing them into soldiers, other buildings, fortifications, and magic as need be. And the Bozwots Assault and Defend through a text parser, like Zork. Or through math tests. Or something else really weird.
Now your other game just has Bozwots - no other playable races - but instead of Assault/Defend it has six very interesting vastly-different missions.
Let's, for argument's sake, agree that they are roughly equal in "diversity" based on the variance of race mechanics and variance of mission types.
Now while I am not going to say the latter is not as good as the former, I can say that I would prefer the former. A lot of the heartache in this thread stems from misunderstanding that preferences of this kind are just dandy.
I feel compelled to point out that this isn't some hypothetical game you're talking about.
It's starcraft. There are three races, and those three races will play differently. Unless they plan to change the multiplayer into a bland tapioca of directly parallel units, playing as one race will not be as varied as playing three.
The final product may be a rollercoaster of titgasms all the way through its three iterations - or it may not - but arguing so far off the point about something we already know about how the series works is just so goddamned retarded.
Khavall isn't making any absolute statements like Aegeri is. Khavall is saying it's POSSIBLE for fewer races to be ultimately more varied, while Aegeri is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for fewer races to have more variety. I think the problem is that Aegeri thinks Khavall is saying that fewer races will always be more varied, which also isn't true. Generally, absolute statements are dumb.
I don't think Aegeri is really saying that. I think we've gone off track a bit. I think Aegeri is saying that he prefers diversity through races over diversity through mission type. That to him, a game with three vastly-different races with vastly-different mechanics is more interesting than a game with one race and three vastly-different missions.
What, exactly, is wrong with such a preference? And why is it wrong to assert this preference?
Take a game like Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Three races, five levels each, and each race had a VERY different method of play. Like as different as they come. The levels for the second race was basically like an RTS/FPS. Ultimately it was a shooter though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the missions were as diverse but you could only play as one of the races.
Let's look at Khavall's example. Let's say instead of Terran, Zerg, Protoss we had Terran, Grumplykins, and Bozwots.
The game has six missions: (1) Defend your base, (2) Assault the enemy base. That's it. Six missions.
But the Terrans Defend and Assault in the normal way. Grumplykins Defend and Assault by possessing the spirit of their buildings and morphing them into soldiers, other buildings, fortifications, and magic as need be. And the Bozwots Assault and Defend through a text parser, like Zork. Or through math tests. Or something else really weird.
Now your other game just has Bozwots - no other playable races - but instead of Assault/Defend it has six very interesting vastly-different missions.
Let's, for argument's sake, agree that they are roughly equal in "diversity" based on the variance of race mechanics and variance of mission types.
Now while I am not going to say the latter is not as good as the former, I can say that I would prefer the former. A lot of the heartache in this thread stems from misunderstanding that preferences of this kind are just dandy.
Oh, definitely, and I can see your point. It's just kind of silly because Aegeri is getting stuck on the point that there is no way to have a game be as varied overall if it has one race than if it had three races. Going back to Starcraft, I'm pretty sure Starcraft 2 will have a more varied single player than Starcraft, even though the main game is only going to have Terran missions, because of things like the mission branching and unique customization/research, while Starcraft was basically two or three different types of missions played over and over, and then again with the races switched.
I feel compelled to point out that this isn't some hypothetical game you're talking about.
It's starcraft. There are three races, and those three races will play differently. Unless they plan to change the multiplayer into a bland tapioca of directly parallel units, playing as one race will not be as varied as playing three.
Jesus fuck.
Except that in each part of the game you are getting one race.
And people are complaining because one race means less variety. When if on focusing with one race per game they are thinking about how to vary the gameplay for that specific race, thought which would not be going into the game if there were three races all at the same time, assumedly, it is entirely possible that one race will have just as much variety in its playstyle, especially with the upgrading and player choice that has been talked about in the game.
s_86 is actually insane, feel free to ignore him. Also if you can stop him from pushing out with tanks and then contain him, you can pretty much beat him every time, but then sometimes he'll drop your base
I'd like to extend an open invitation for everyone to log on to Starcraft so I can show you how fucking bad you are at this game.
SC2 will be no different you newbs.
Hahahaha, this is the Dangerisk we know and love <3<3.
If you don't understand the humour in this thread, watch this video and you will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr8oqcFqs_Y
AND STOP ARGUING YOU TWO, geez.
You can't really tell from this video,
but this is actually a bunch of Koreans playing Starcraft.
Khavall isn't making any absolute statements like Aegeri is. Khavall is saying it's POSSIBLE for fewer races to be ultimately more varied, while Aegeri is saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for fewer races to have more variety. I think the problem is that Aegeri thinks Khavall is saying that fewer races will always be more varied, which also isn't true. Generally, absolute statements are dumb.
I don't think Aegeri is really saying that. I think we've gone off track a bit. I think Aegeri is saying that he prefers diversity through races over diversity through mission type. That to him, a game with three vastly-different races with vastly-different mechanics is more interesting than a game with one race and three vastly-different missions.
What, exactly, is wrong with such a preference? And why is it wrong to assert this preference?
Take a game like Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Three races, five levels each, and each race had a VERY different method of play. Like as different as they come. The levels for the second race was basically like an RTS/FPS. Ultimately it was a shooter though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the missions were as diverse but you could only play as one of the races.
Let's look at Khavall's example. Let's say instead of Terran, Zerg, Protoss we had Terran, Grumplykins, and Bozwots.
The game has six missions: (1) Defend your base, (2) Assault the enemy base. That's it. Six missions.
But the Terrans Defend and Assault in the normal way. Grumplykins Defend and Assault by possessing the spirit of their buildings and morphing them into soldiers, other buildings, fortifications, and magic as need be. And the Bozwots Assault and Defend through a text parser, like Zork. Or through math tests. Or something else really weird.
Now your other game just has Bozwots - no other playable races - but instead of Assault/Defend it has six very interesting vastly-different missions.
Let's, for argument's sake, agree that they are roughly equal in "diversity" based on the variance of race mechanics and variance of mission types.
Now while I am not going to say the latter is not as good as the former, I can say that I would prefer the former. A lot of the heartache in this thread stems from misunderstanding that preferences of this kind are just dandy.
Unfortunately, he has not said "I feel differently" or "I prefer", he has said that it is wrong that it is possible to have more variety.
Personal choice is fine.
Refusing to admit the possibility of something that is very clearly possible is just astounding though.
A: I don't think you know what a strawman is, as I made my point as clear as possible and you said it was absolutely,100% wrong. And I am repeating my point.
Yes, I did indeed say it was 100% wrong.
Your strawman then proved my point.
b: I don't think you know what a false dichotomy is, as providing two hypothetical situations, even if they're shuffling a binary system, isn't one.
It is.
Because in reality it would be 5 different races on a minimum of about 4 different mission types, vs. how it would compare against one race with say 8 mission types. That could be a more realistic reality than what you presented.
c: I'm not saying that 30 missions from Starcraft would be great with one race. I'm saying that it's possible to design missions in such a way with a single race that it would provide more variety than missions designed in another way with multiple races.
Not in the context of this discussion. 3 races with the same basic missions available is always more varied. I will happily state this and be sure in that statement being correct. Your strawmans all have to automatically assume something ridiculous, like five races that are constantly on defense. Even then, in your specific example, I still would prefer 5 races to 1. Especially if they did indeed play differently, that's how I keep playing RTS games since command and conquer. Despite every fucking one of them being the same thing inherently.
We have 3 races in SC2. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how I would prefer to play Terran for 30 missions instead of being able to play Zerg and Protoss. In fact I can't.
You've also repeatedly ignored the point my original argument was also about story. You've ignored this statement every time:
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
You can't get a races point of view, as said and performed by them, without being able to play them as in the original Starcraft.
RTSs [have historically had limited numbers of mission types. There is nothing to say that it is impossible for the number of mission types to be expanded, or for the mission types to be interpreted in a different enough way to give variety.
You came up with 5 examples. Looking at them you've done nothing I haven't heard of before in an RTS game. This sounds a little bit like reaching to me. I can definitely think of many RTS games that had nice mission structure and variety, but nothing that ever kept this up for 30 missions with just one single race or army. So they now have to come up with 30 missions for 1 race to do and also don't forget that you're not able to give me the perspective of the other two sides, from their point of view as I can't play them while doing that.
Edit:
Also, bear in mind this Terran only campaign needs to keep up variety for THIRTY missions. 1 race with 10 missions could be more varied than playing a second race where all you're doing is defending all game. Why someone who isn't a complete retard would design a game like that, I don't know, but the reality of the matter is that RTS games use multiple races to keep up variety. This is because there is not, as much as Khavall want's it to be true so very much, that much inherent variety in "blow this up", "defend this", "escort this" and "use a limited amount of units to X". What keeps me playing these games is always story and similar. The problem with RTS games for me is that playing one race always ends up with me thinking "man I'd like to play one of these other sides and see what they think".
You cannot do that in a game with only one race. Period. This is why my statement is absolute.
I want Starcrafts way of doing things, where I get to see everyones perspective in the war from playing as them (not secondhand or similar). That's what I liked about the original games narrative and playing 30 missions as Terran sounds as exciting as watching paint dry.
I feel compelled to point out that this isn't some hypothetical game you're talking about.
It's starcraft. There are three races, and those three races will play differently. Unless they plan to change the multiplayer into a bland tapioca of directly parallel units, playing as one race will not be as varied as playing three.
Jesus fuck.
Except that in each part of the game you are getting one race.
And people are complaining because one race means less variety. When if on focusing with one race per game they are thinking about how to vary the gameplay for that specific race, thought which would not be going into the game if there were three races all at the same time, assumedly, it is entirely possible that one race will have just as much variety in its playstyle, especially with the upgrading and player choice that has been talked about in the game.
Yes, it all comes down to a "wait and see." And yet somehow you've been ebattling for hours without getting anywhere. This isn't a discussion anymore. It stopped being a discussion pages ago.
I'm pretty sure he doesn't really know what a false dichotomy is, considering he's never used the word "dichotomy" before, let alone discussed a false one.
Posts
I can take this exact statement and switch 3s with 1s and 1s with 3s, to counter this point.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
No one's really forcing you to buy the game. We don't have an official word on if they're stand alone or not, and if they are, you don't have to buy the Terran portion of the story. You could just skip to Zerg.
And be confused as hell because they're referencing events that you haven't played through, but hey.
Like leaving a crime scene. Hell, he probably made the OP devoid of information and vague as can be on purpose.
Sure, how many games can you think of that have multiple races have one mission type?
Oh yes, I do know one now I think of it. Dark Crusade and man that game was awful for it. Of course, I did play it through once with all the games races. You know how I could? Because they still played differently enough I could tolerate it. Also I am aware Dark Crusade has the occasional different mission. It really doesn't salvage it being "Build X, kill Y" every mission, usually with your starting units. If it wasn't for the fact I wanted to hear what each race had to say on disposing of another I couldn't do it.
But then again, this is actually proving my point.
Hmmm.
I never said that. You seem oblivious to the fact the real situation will be more similar to a few kinds of basic missions with 1 race, as opposed to that same number of basic missions with multiple races. Your strawmanning aside, that's the actual argument.
I pointed that out to him earlier and he came back with cereal, for some reason.
:P
I smell a conspiracy.
How was I presenting a false dichotomy? Did I say that only one of those could happen? No, I was providing two examples.
When did I dodge the argument? What you're doing, to try to prove your point that there is only one variable, is replacing another variable with a constant for no reason other than that it almost seems like you are on to something. A game with 100000 races and 40000000000 mission types will be more varied than a game with 1 race and 1 mission type, but having 3 races with 1 mission type is less varied than 1 race with 50 mission types.
Honestly, I can't even tell if you're just trying to be a troll now.
You said that a game with one race is necessarily less varied than a game with three races, and will never be able to be as varied as a game with three races
That is exactly assuming that the number of races is the sole determining factor in variation.
That is not a strawman. I know it seems like it should be one, because it seems like the dumbest position in the world, and maybe that's why I'm so incredulous that you so fervently defend it.
But, again speaking for myself, I'd much rather play a 30-mission game spread across three races than a 50-mission game with one race, regardless of how diverse the missions are.
It has nothing to do with bias here. I just can't fathom playing 50 missions with one race. I just don't want to. These missions would have to be hypnotically different to engage me for that amount of time.
I mean, yes, there are different ways to vary your game up, but not all of them weigh out in equal measure.
NOT LIKE THIS THREAD OH GOD NEVER LIKE THIS NOOOOOOOOOOO!
I can't play Starcraft from my dorm but I can play Theorycraft and Pointlessspeculationcraft
With only one race, yeah, for 50 missions they would have to have some pretty damn impressive differences to make it as varied as switching mechanics of race.
But that doesn't mean that such is impossible.
Except it was still a false dichotomy.
Even the only relevant example I can think of, Dark Crusade, has at minimum a handful of mission types (I think about 5 IIRC). There is a stronghold assault, taking over enemy territory (skirmish), a specific map trigger mission with a huge (but limited) army and a defensive mission (which is the reverse of the above skirmish mission).
Even so, your example still provides as much variety. Different races to make the game feel and play differently. I couldn't have taken 30 missions of ANY race in the original starcraft. I would have gone bonkers! But 10 missions of the same maybe, 4 (?) different kinds of missions was fine because you got something entirely new.
A race isn't just a new unit or coat of paint or "lol I build Wraiths instead of mans", it's an entirely new outlook on the game storywise (if done well, which is exactly what Starcraft was) and gameplay wise.
Again, if we can't get past this there is no point.
Because your only answer is to make repetitive ridiculous strawmans.
No. I'm fundamentally aware that RTS games have relatively limited mission types. Keeping an RTS game going for a long time requires new units, a good story and often switching up the sides to keep gameplay fresh. Multiple races do this much better in the context of reality, which has few individual actual mission types than one race with a really long campaign.
Wow, that's all you've got? I suppose with this you've run out of strawmans and can't actually answer the core argument anymore.
Good going.
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
How come you can't play SC in your dorm? Did the announcement of the SC2 trilogy trigger a blanket ban on STarcraft in your dorm?!?!
It's because the way the internet is setup is dumb; it's supplied to the whole building on one connection, so not only is it slow and lame, but it means that I can't forward the right ports to my computer, and the guys in the computer center said no when I asked them.
Actually he is. He's claiming that 1 race can be as varied as multiple races, which is just plain not true.
He then comes out with ridiculous false dichotomies to attempt to prove this.
Fewer races can have more variety is the races don't have substantial differences.
This is why we're talking in the context of starcraft however.
Also, my statement had two factors:
Gameplay.
Story.
Gameplay wise, there are few mission types in an RTS game and storywise, getting only one side isn't the same as the original. So no, you cannot get as much variety in terms of both gameplay and story from 1 race as you can with 3 in Starcraft. If Khavall thinks that the Terrans will get 30 mission types each and the protoss and zerg only 1, then he's being plain ridiculous. Yet, this is inherently what his argument has to have to make any sense in the context of this discussion.
A: I don't think you know what a strawman is, as I made my point as clear as possible and you said it was absolutely,100% wrong. And I am repeating my point.
b: I don't think you know what a false dichotomy is, as providing two hypothetical situations, even if they're shuffling a binary system, isn't one.
c: I'm not saying that 30 missions from Starcraft would be great with one race. I'm saying that it's possible to design missions in such a way with a single race that it would provide more variety than missions designed in another way with multiple races.
RTSs [have historically had limited numbers of mission types. There is nothing to say that it is impossible for the number of mission types to be expanded, or for the mission types to be interpreted in a different enough way to give variety.
Now if you will get past this stupid wall of absolutism and stop yelling "STRAWMAN" to make yourself seem like you have even close to a logical leg to stand on, we can move on.
SC2 will be no different you newbs.
I don't think Aegeri is really saying that. I think we've gone off track a bit. I think Aegeri is saying that he prefers diversity through races over diversity through mission type. That to him, a game with three vastly-different races with vastly-different mechanics is more interesting than a game with one race and three vastly-different missions.
What, exactly, is wrong with such a preference? And why is it wrong to assert this preference?
Take a game like Giants: Citizen Kabuto. Three races, five levels each, and each race had a VERY different method of play. Like as different as they come. The levels for the second race was basically like an RTS/FPS. Ultimately it was a shooter though. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much if the missions were as diverse but you could only play as one of the races.
Let's look at Khavall's example. Let's say instead of Terran, Zerg, Protoss we had Terran, Grumplykins, and Bozwots.
The game has six missions: (1) Defend your base, (2) Assault the enemy base. That's it. Six missions.
But the Terrans Defend and Assault in the normal way. Grumplykins Defend and Assault by possessing the spirit of their buildings and morphing them into soldiers, other buildings, fortifications, and magic as need be. And the Bozwots Assault and Defend through a text parser, like Zork. Or through math tests. Or something else really weird.
Now your other game just has Bozwots - no other playable races - but instead of Assault/Defend it has six very interesting vastly-different missions.
Let's, for argument's sake, agree that they are roughly equal in "diversity" based on the variance of race mechanics and variance of mission types.
Now while I am not going to say the latter is not as good as the former, I can say that I would prefer the former. A lot of the heartache in this thread stems from misunderstanding that preferences of this kind are just dandy.
It's starcraft. There are three races, and those three races will play differently. Unless they plan to change the multiplayer into a bland tapioca of directly parallel units, playing as one race will not be as varied as playing three.
The final product may be a rollercoaster of titgasms all the way through its three iterations - or it may not - but arguing so far off the point about something we already know about how the series works is just so goddamned retarded.
Oh, definitely, and I can see your point. It's just kind of silly because Aegeri is getting stuck on the point that there is no way to have a game be as varied overall if it has one race than if it had three races. Going back to Starcraft, I'm pretty sure Starcraft 2 will have a more varied single player than Starcraft, even though the main game is only going to have Terran missions, because of things like the mission branching and unique customization/research, while Starcraft was basically two or three different types of missions played over and over, and then again with the races switched.
Except that in each part of the game you are getting one race.
And people are complaining because one race means less variety. When if on focusing with one race per game they are thinking about how to vary the gameplay for that specific race, thought which would not be going into the game if there were three races all at the same time, assumedly, it is entirely possible that one race will have just as much variety in its playstyle, especially with the upgrading and player choice that has been talked about in the game.
You can't really tell from this video,
but this is actually a bunch of Koreans playing Starcraft.
Unfortunately, he has not said "I feel differently" or "I prefer", he has said that it is wrong that it is possible to have more variety.
Personal choice is fine.
Refusing to admit the possibility of something that is very clearly possible is just astounding though.
Really?!
This thread is a priceless jewel. Each post is like one perfectly-cut facet.
Yes, I did indeed say it was 100% wrong.
Your strawman then proved my point.
It is.
Because in reality it would be 5 different races on a minimum of about 4 different mission types, vs. how it would compare against one race with say 8 mission types. That could be a more realistic reality than what you presented.
Not in the context of this discussion. 3 races with the same basic missions available is always more varied. I will happily state this and be sure in that statement being correct. Your strawmans all have to automatically assume something ridiculous, like five races that are constantly on defense. Even then, in your specific example, I still would prefer 5 races to 1. Especially if they did indeed play differently, that's how I keep playing RTS games since command and conquer. Despite every fucking one of them being the same thing inherently.
We have 3 races in SC2. I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing how I would prefer to play Terran for 30 missions instead of being able to play Zerg and Protoss. In fact I can't.
You've also repeatedly ignored the point my original argument was also about story. You've ignored this statement every time:
Actually no I'm not. For one thing, you wouldn't get the same variety in the games story like you would in the original game. The Zerg/Protoss/Terran also fundamentally play differently to one another, so there is another part where you are again wrong.
You can't get a races point of view, as said and performed by them, without being able to play them as in the original Starcraft.
You came up with 5 examples. Looking at them you've done nothing I haven't heard of before in an RTS game. This sounds a little bit like reaching to me. I can definitely think of many RTS games that had nice mission structure and variety, but nothing that ever kept this up for 30 missions with just one single race or army. So they now have to come up with 30 missions for 1 race to do and also don't forget that you're not able to give me the perspective of the other two sides, from their point of view as I can't play them while doing that.
Edit:
Also, bear in mind this Terran only campaign needs to keep up variety for THIRTY missions. 1 race with 10 missions could be more varied than playing a second race where all you're doing is defending all game. Why someone who isn't a complete retard would design a game like that, I don't know, but the reality of the matter is that RTS games use multiple races to keep up variety. This is because there is not, as much as Khavall want's it to be true so very much, that much inherent variety in "blow this up", "defend this", "escort this" and "use a limited amount of units to X". What keeps me playing these games is always story and similar. The problem with RTS games for me is that playing one race always ends up with me thinking "man I'd like to play one of these other sides and see what they think".
You cannot do that in a game with only one race. Period. This is why my statement is absolute.
I want Starcrafts way of doing things, where I get to see everyones perspective in the war from playing as them (not secondhand or similar). That's what I liked about the original games narrative and playing 30 missions as Terran sounds as exciting as watching paint dry.
These people need to know what Starcraft progamers do in their spare time.
That video explains nothing, you lied!
And let's stop kidding ourselves, no one here has the willpower to *not* buy a Blizzard game. Unless it's WoW.
FFBE: 898,311,440
Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/dElementalor
Yes, it all comes down to a "wait and see." And yet somehow you've been ebattling for hours without getting anywhere. This isn't a discussion anymore. It stopped being a discussion pages ago.
or a false dichotomy.
And refuse to admit anything other than an absurdly narrow absolute point of view.
Cool, you know what, go ahead and continue to think that, you're obviously not going to be able to figure this one out.
PLAYGUUUUUUU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpuv7VPb2rA
Bitch.
Please.