Forum Overview :: Gamerasutra :: Re: My response to Monty still stands

[quote name="FABIO"][quote name="Senor Barborito"]Any game in which rushing is the only viable method of winning is not a real-time strategy game, because the strategy never differs - there were plenty of ways in the original C&C to turtle and retort to a rush with a variation on 'the enemy's gate is down.' [/quote] I'm telling you, go buy Tiberian Sun for $0.50. That game's a turtler's and sim base paradise. After spending 15 hours playing the multiplayer with friends, we <i>still</i> couldn't find a way to break a competent base defense. Please though, stop holding up the original C&C as a model for RTS balance. That game had style up the wahzoo, but perfectly balanced it wasn't. [quote]Starcraft does not have viable strategies outside of 'rush' [/quote] Teching? Expanding? You have not played any mid to high level starcraft, <i>at all</i>. Your quick zergling rush meets my barracaded photon cannons. As the carcasses fade, a reaver drops into your zergling only base. YOU LOSE [quote] For some reason Monty missed that in his second response in that conversation and thought that people having different conceptions of 'min/max' was the same as having viable <i>strategies</i> outside of 'rush rush rush.' Frenzied clicking and tweaked build orders does not a game make, and I've long hated Blizzard RTSes for this reason. C&C fell victim in further incarnations. [/quote] You could easily defeat an opponent with more units than you in SC if you knew what you were doing, unlike any of the AoE type games. SC has oodles of sneaky tricks you can pull like your TA example. [quote]Much like Everquest, mindlessness apparently sells quite handsomely. --SB[/quote] Maybe you should get into Adventure games....[/quote]