u03mja3's forum posts

Avatar image for u03mja3
#1 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

The demo really dissapointed me. I havent bought madden since 08 and have been waiting for a proper physics engine. In short, the infinity engine seems inconsistent and unpolished. It looks like a bad version of the Backbreaker engine.

Considering I havent bought madden in 5 years the game seems to have the exact same problems that it always had:

The run blocking is terrible.

The pass blocking is awful - sometimes two blockers will miss the one huge dude who runs right past them. This forces the QB to scramble way too often.

Punt returns and kick returns have (you guessed it) terrible blocking.

Kickoffs, punting and field goals are still boring and unchallenging.

Screen plays are still inconsistent - with the reciever often charging horizontally out of bounds.

The general running animations look robotic and inhuman, with players turning and changing direction as if momentum and mass do not exist.

DBs still make impossible blind interceptions.

Every year I download the demo thinking, 'this is the year that I will get back into madden - like when I played the 04 and 05 versions for a zillion hours'. And every time, the demo feels rough and clumsy.

Kinda tempted to play ESPN 2k5 again...

Avatar image for u03mja3
#2 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

@Turhaya said:

Steam sales are the only times I've ever fallen to prey to the "sale" tactics. My wallet is still recovering from winter and the summer before that!

I know exactly what you mean. Curse your aggressive consumer friendly marketing steam!!

Avatar image for u03mja3
#3 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

Just picked up Saints Row the Third for £7.49 and downloading it at my max possible download speed. Huzzah!

Avatar image for u03mja3
#4 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

@Spectreman said:

Give a machine gun for a zealot and watch the results.

That's got me pondering actually. Does anyone else agree that perhaps the reason Terran is so strong is that they have possibly the best micro unit in the game (marines) and they have them from early game to late game? Other than early game stalker harrass, which other units in the game can be micro'd in such a cost effecient way as marines?

Avatar image for u03mja3
#5 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

In these scenarios, getting broodlords and corruptors is a good choice. Brood lords have massive range that outranges turrets. This means you can sit your broodlords outside his base and let them constantly chip away at his base. This way every missle turret he builds is wasted resources for him. You Will need some corruptors to help fend off any vikings though.

Probably the biggest tip I can give a new zerg player, is avoid the temptation to build mutas. They are expensive units that require a lot of skill to really be cost effective.

Avatar image for u03mja3
#6 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

Its interesting that you guys are saying that Terran gets harder as the play level increases. Im going to start to focus more on Terran micro next time i watch a pro game. Hopefully I will be able to get an better appreciation of what you mean.

Avatar image for u03mja3
#7 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

@SirPsychoSexy said:

I used to play random, but have since switched over to Terran. Terran is definitely the most challenging race. With that said Terran also has the highest skill cap. The amount of micro Terran needs to win big engagements is pretty insane. Against toss you need to emp the temps, dodge storms, spread from collossus splash, focus fire viking damage, and kite chargelots to come out even or on top. Kiting chargelots alone can be daunting for the average player. Not to mention you take 1 or 2 bad storms during all this and you lose. Toss really only has to a move and throw down storms. As for versing Zerg you really need to know how to split well and can't get caught with tanks out of position or it's over. Again you have to spread for the fungals and try to emp or snipe infestors. The Zerg doesn't have too much micro, just trying to get a good surround and landing the fungals.

Another downside is Terran has to constantly be producing units as they lose them be because they take so much longer to resupply than zerg or toss. Even if you do win a major engagement you have to be ready for 30-40 supply of chargelots trying to clean you up. And zerg can force you to mass up vikings and change their composition on a dime to ultra's making half your army void.

Because Terran has all this micro and macro to do mid battle is why it is such a challenge. Sure top tier pro's can do all this and then some making Terran extremely strong. Terran probably is OP at the very highest of levels. The very best Koreans can do such incredible micro which is where Terran really shines, but for the average player like you and me I would argue Terran is by far the most difficult race. If you get upset about losing to terran and think they are OP in your Bronze - Diamond league think again. the amount of things to do as a Terran to come out on top is much higher than the other races.

Edit: Just realized this was bumped from over a year ago, not sure how people still feel about this, but this is my current thoughts on Terran

You make some good points. I especially agree with your point about Terran being OP at the highest level of the game - obviously its different at the skill level of mere mortals.

However I would disagree completely with your suggestion that Terran is harder for average players. With regards to macro, if I forget to use lots of mules I can quickly dump them all at one base - as opposed to a zerg who forgets to keep up his larvae injects,in which case they must inject as each base that they have. Substancailly more time consuming in the heat of the moment. Also, I find macroing up marine/marauder from barracks to be the easiest macro mechanic in the game. At the lower levels of play, I rarely find that micro plays too big a part. Hit stim - attack move, hope for the best.

The reason that I find this topic interesting, is that many people who say stuff like "OMG WTF TERRAN IMBA ALL TERRAN PLAYERS SHOULD DIEEEEEE!!!" are usually complaining about how Terran have things the other races dont. Like scans for example. However, the coolest thing about sc2 is that each race genuinely plays differently to one another. My main issue with Terran is that early game rushes (especially marine/marauder vs protoss) are very easy for low skill players to execute, but challenging for low skill players to defend. Sure, at the higher levels Protoss players will be much better at holding off these pushes, but for silver leaguers such as me, they are a total coin flip.

Avatar image for u03mja3
#8 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

Was thinking about rekindling this age old debate now that season 7 has started.

Context:I am silver league (10-15) and I play random

So people have been saying that terran are OP for various reasons, scans, marines, turtling,mules yada yada.

My take on the matter is this. When I play Protoss or Zerg, my unspent minerals usually stay very low and my (useful) actions per minute are fairly high. When I play terran I always have tonnes of unspent resources, and I play clumsily. Yet my win rate with Terran is waaaaaay higher than with Protoss or Zerg. Most games I will simply make pure Marine Medivac and still win. Regardless of what my opponent throws at me. Before I make an attack I build a couple of planetary fortresses and an extra orbital - that way if i make a hash of my attack - I can drop loads of mules for free minerals, and my PFs will greatly dent any counter attacks. I dont think that either Protoss or Zerg can recover from a botched attack as cheaply or as easily as this.

So I open the debating forum with this: Is the fact that I am a terrible Terran player, but still winning a sign that Terran might be OP (at silver level at least?).

Avatar image for u03mja3
#9 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

I really, really hope that in 5 years time, The GB crew are not forced to start a new site - and the name Giantbomb acquires the same dirty conotations as the Gamespot name historically has.

Avatar image for u03mja3
#10 Posted by u03mja3 (73 posts) -

@whitespider said:

It allowed me to create my own interpretation of events based on my own emotional and perceptual feedback

I think you summed up the Dear Esther experience perfectly here.

All the people on this forum debating whether they should or should not buy this game, the answer is - i dont know. No one on this forum can tell you.

Why? Because its an art piece. Art pieces are designed to invoke an emotional response, and emotional responses are invoked and experienced very differently by different people.

For me, Dear Esther reminded me of cold hikes through the Isle of Harris when I was a child, and how much it hurts when a friend or family member dies. I found the vagueness of the ending sequence very moving, as I often feel that the answer to a question is rarely as engaging as the answer.

If Dear Esther makes you bored and wish you were playing Call of Duty, then thats also a perfectly valid response. There is probably something you do in life that surges your emotions and memories, that other people would feel bored by doing.

Peoples wildly varying emotional response to art is what makes art interesting in the first place.