icycalm's ape wrote:Now, to be frank, I actually think this is a pretty good game in spite of all the issues, for the simple fact that if you're going to ape the framework for any RTS game, you can't go wrong by taking ideas from Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander.
In English: "I have no idea why icycalm loves this game, so I am just going to give some generic blurby reason for it because I am a casual moron who can't enjoy the game, and therefore can't figure out why icy loves it so much before he explains the reasons to us himself".
icycalm's ape wrote:The game still plays very fast and the game's sense of scope, in terms of the number of units you get and the size of the battlefields to play them on, is pretty much unmatched. When your land/sea/air RTS game's most immediate comparisons are to space epics like Homeworld and Sins of a Solar Empire, you did something right.
In English: "I am too stupid to see that PA has absolutely nothing to do with Homeworld or Sins of the Solar Empire anymore than I can figure out that a planetary system is not the same thing as a galaxy" lol.
icycalm's ape wrote:(In spite of this, Planetary Annihilation is an ugly and disgusting game, and it's like they created some sort of disgusting hybrid between 2D "indie" pixel art 3D modeling.)
In English: "I am too much of a tasteless troglodyte to see that this is the best-looking RTS ever and one of the best-looking games ever, period".
icycalm's ape wrote:But the ideal RTS still allows for smart tactical decisions, and outside of the most basic unit countering concepts, this game absolutely does not have them.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Hear that, Masa? PA has no tactical decisions lol, so I guess you haven't been doing anything in your 180 hours of being our tactical specialist in this game.
icycalm's ape wrote:There's no micromanagement in the game
Whereas in fact there's so much micromanagement in the game that you could devote an ENTIRE PLAYER to a SINGLE UNIT, and see considerable gains out of it. In fact that is one of the aspects in which the game could be, and is obviously already being, improved: the reduction of micromanagement, OF WHICH THERE IS AN ESSENTIALLY UNLIMITED AMOUNT. That's why so much effort is being devoted to advanced actions like area commands and UI development. Uber is blazing new grounds in this area -- but casuals like Mikey are so far from registering any of it (I bet anything you want that he doesn't even know what an area command is) that they can come out and say that there's no micro involved at all lol.
icycalm's ape wrote:and for all the screaming about strategy, Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander have tons of micromanagement—because "STARCLICK IS AN EVIL, EVIL GAEM, ALL MICRO IS BAD".
It's not that "micro" is bad per se, it's just that micro=tactics and macro=strategy, and RTSes are supposed to be strategy games (that's what the S stands for, fyi), hence micro-heavy and macro-light games are simply not RTSes, end of story, and that's why StarCraft is a mediocre RTS. But what would a casual and Blizzard fan know or be able to understand about all this?
icycalm's ape wrote:None of which would be a problem if the maps were generating smart decisions on when to fight and with which units, but the random map generation is actually less complex (and creates less interesting decisions) than the random map generators for Warcraft fucking II. Terrain features are purely cosmetic and there's absolutely no notion of high ground advantage. (And this gets even worse when you start getting into space combat, which is predictably defined by a lack of terrain features, and outside of some specialized structures, lacks any real interplay with the land/sea/air layer.)
Man, he has to be working really hard to come up with this horseshit. If he put half the time it takes to generate all this dribble into actually playing the game, he'd probably even see himself how stupid all this shit is. The space layer does not interact with the other layers? Is he fucking serious? Why am I even bothering to reply to all this dribble?
Fuck it. I am going to stop right here, and just say that EVERY SINGLE LINE in that post is just as stupid as the ones I just analyzed. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Your shit is stupid, mate. Your reviews are stupid, your articles are stupid, your forum members are stupid, and your entire fucking site is stupid.
You lack even the basic decency to admit to yourself that the only reason you started playing the game now is because I did, and the only reason you are trying to invent faults with it now is because I am saying that it's perfect. But it IS perfect, just like Dota IS a decent game, at the very least, AND NO AMOUNT OF INVENTING REASONS WHY THEY ARE NOT CAN CHANGE THIS.
What can you understand about criticism and theory -- much less contribute to them -- if you can't understand this extremely simple thing?
You cannot achieve anything in criticism by making shit up. No one has ever achieved anything that way. You cannot WILL Planetary Annihilation to suck, just because it would be convenient to you at this point in time if it did. Its perfection has nothing to do with your existence -- which perfection you are anyway physiologically incapable of perceiving, since you regard StarCraft as a milestone game in the genre, whereas it barely even belongs to the genre at all (and is a mediocre game even in the genre in which it belongs, never mind in ones in which it doesn't).
How many more pages of this shit will I have to write until a single sentence of it makes its way into your wretched, retarded little excuse of a subhuman trailer trash rat brain?