What game are you playing while you wait for PS?

[Saint]

... Generals for me.

[Navaron]

Battlefield, and I just reinstalled MOH.....

[Hamma]

SoF2

[Saint]

Doh, I knew I forgot a game, I wanted to put SoF2 in there, Hamma edit my poll and put it in there. Sorry all you SoF2 fans.

[ABRAXAAS]

Im gonna go pick up c&c generals and im also playing ut2k3

[Incompetent]

Mostly Desert Combat

[Saint]

AB, you won't be disappointed, Generals is by the far the most advanced RTS ever. It is 3 times better than WCIII.

[Arshune]

I'm playing through Castlevania: Symphony of the Night right now. I recently found it in one of those trashy warehouse shopping outlets for 10 bucks, and the only other place I'd seen it for sale before then was on eBay for like 80 bucks (and I think that was for a friggin used copy, too). Not a bad deal considering I had enough change left over for a five pound bag of gummi bears.

[MrVulcan]

Generals, and UT2003

[Hellsfire123]

Wait! Forum spamming is up there..... and what is this life you speak of?

[Venom]

I'm playing Diablo. Yes, Diablo 1, not 2. It is far better.

[Fire_Monkey]

old skool baby

[KeviN]

Is PSU a game? :p Prolly been on The Sims Online most lately. Trying to pull through the utter boredom and get one more month outta it.

[Dyganth]

SoF2, BF1942/RtR, Freelancer, Tribes 2, Battle at Procyon, I know i'm leaving some out too.

[�io]

Raven shield :)

[Lexington_Steele]

Originally posted by KeviN
Is PSU a game? :p Prolly been on The Sims Online most lately. Trying to pull through the utter boredom and get one more month outta it.
So you broke down and got that game? I have no intention of buying that game, but this is a unique oppurtunity for me as I don't know anyone who plays the sims online.

What is it like? Is it a big A/S/L/pics fest? Are their interesting features that are not in the regular sims? Is it mainly kids or adults? Are people going hardcore with the RP? Are people pretty serious about RPing relationships. What is the equivalent of leveling? Do you have any controll over time? Are there gay sims? Are their sims with generally deviant behaviors?

I am just curious. This sims online thing is an odd phenonmina.

[Fire_Monkey]

:lol: I can't believe someone bought that...no offense kevin.

[Subliminal]

Americas army on PC and Ghost Recon on Xbox live.

[mistled]

SoF2


- I'm also oddly curious about that abomination that is Sims Online, so someone answer Lex's questions. :)

[CDaws]

I'm conquering all of Europe in Medieval Total War. :D

[Doobz]

saying that generals is 3 times as advanced as WCIII is like saying YOUR WRONG.

WCIII has much more intricate combat system, where you really do have to rely on skill, you can't throw human wave attacks at the enemy.

each unit has it's specific purpose in WCIII, and if you try and use it in some way it's not ment too, it's going to get owned. knowing exactly what units you're enemy is building in WCIII is far more important than any other game. this puts a great emphasis on a very important strategic element that most RTS games give a passing glance to: scouting

say for example im playing as night elves, my oppenent is human. i dont bother to see what my enemy is building, i dont scout, so i go for a bunch of archers right off the bat, like most NE players would do. well, he comes in with footsoldiers that have the defend ability, makes my NE archer ranged attacks virtually useless. my archers are owned.
but say i had used my Priestess of the Moon to scout them, and see what building's he's erected, and guess he's most likely to use alot of footmen. so i know to counter his footmen with huntresses that have the moon glaive ability. i win
in most other games, you don't have to know what your enemy is building. you just have to have alot of stuff
i played C&C some at a friend's house. the game basically has a bunch of glitzy explosions and big battles where you just throw massive waves of forces at your enemy and hope your guys are stronger. no strategy at all
WCIII looks absolutely great, has far deeper strategy, a very good and involving story (don't even get me started on the general's story: there isn't one) with characters that you'll remember, and it has it's own sense of artistic and atmospheric style that no other game could attempt to have anything on. when you play in WCIII, you'll see that an entire world has been created, that these thing's are taking place in. It's not simply some backdrop for what's happening. it's an indepth world with a story all on its own

if you didn't read all that above, you can read this short summary:
Generals blows compared to WCIII

[Doobz]

geh, in my resonse to Saint's claim that Generals is better than WCIII, i forgot to list my games

BF:RtR, WCIII, EVE beta (getting very rapidly better and better to all those ppl who said it sucked)

[MrVulcan]

{BOHICA}Ranger, I played that for a bit, but the AI for Britton cheated, I lost 23 ships and it didnt even have a fleet!!! then i took its last bit of land and it still had its color!!! argh.... skirmish/multi is fun now and then though :D

[CDaws]

The AI for MTW can get a bit tricky like that. I haven't run across any major flaws like that yet. I general like the game because of the scale of everything, althought most of the time I just let the comp auto calculate the outcome instead of commanding the battle myself. Who says turn based games stink, I like to be able to plan out things on a huge scale. I guess that's why I like it so much.

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by Doobz
saying that generals is 3 times as advanced as WCIII is like saying YOUR WRONG.

WCIII has much more intricate combat system, where you really do have to rely on skill, you can't throw human wave attacks at the enemy.

each unit has it's specific purpose in WCIII, and if you try and use it in some way it's not ment too, it's going to get owned. knowing exactly what units you're enemy is building in WCIII is far more important than any other game. this puts a great emphasis on a very important strategic element that most RTS games give a passing glance to: scouting

say for example im playing as night elves, my oppenent is human. i dont bother to see what my enemy is building, i dont scout, so i go for a bunch of archers right off the bat, like most NE players would do. well, he comes in with footsoldiers that have the defend ability, makes my NE archer ranged attacks virtually useless. my archers are owned.
but say i had used my Priestess of the Moon to scout them, and see what building's he's erected, and guess he's most likely to use alot of footmen. so i know to counter his footmen with huntresses that have the moon glaive ability. i win
in most other games, you don't have to know what your enemy is building. you just have to have alot of stuff
i played C&C some at a friend's house. the game basically has a bunch of glitzy explosions and big battles where you just throw massive waves of forces at your enemy and hope your guys are stronger. no strategy at all
WCIII looks absolutely great, has far deeper strategy, a very good and involving story (don't even get me started on the general's story: there isn't one) with characters that you'll remember, and it has it's own sense of artistic and atmospheric style that no other game could attempt to have anything on. when you play in WCIII, you'll see that an entire world has been created, that these thing's are taking place in. It's not simply some backdrop for what's happening. it's an indepth world with a story all on its own

if you didn't read all that above, you can read this short summary:
Generals blows compared to WCIII


I have to *indirectly* disagree with that.... please consider this:

I played WCIII since it came out until the time SCFIII came out,
(and just so that you don�t think that this is whining, I am quite good),

(Keep in mind that I am just a multi player gamer, so I can not speak about the single player aspect, I know that Generals does have a story line that is similar to what is going on in RL with the terrorist organization challenging the US and China, but as I do not play single player I can not compare the two)

Strategy (generals) VS Tactics (WC3) is what it comes down to, do you like to be dealing primarily with strategy, or tactics. Nothing is wrong with either one, it is just scale, and if you are controlling a front a battle.

WC3: Scale:
I find that the limited options given as far as units go, truly is a major downfall IMHO. It can be argued that the limited choices forces you to play with a base strategy in mind and not �unit pumping�, thus it is counter and counter, however I do not care for counter games. Just not my style. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just as I said not my style. I do not want to be countering every unit on a unit to unit base, instead I like a battle on a much larger scale. And that is one of the big differences. WC3 forces you to be involves with each unit, and not a placement of massed troops, but of each individual unit. Thus it is Strategy vs. Tactics. Strategy is what a 5 star general does. Tactics is what a Colonel or 1 star general does. It is just what role you like best.

Heroes:
The biggest thing that I found that I did not like is probably the reason that WCIII is unique in the 1st place. The entire way that the heroes worked. If I play a strategy game, I want to play a strategy game, not an rpg. Having to run around killing npcs with a small band before you take on your enemy is not what I enjoy to do. If I did, then I would be a big Diablo/SWG fan, but I am not.

Generals, is much different than any other westwood game. If we were talking about RA2, etc I would agree that WC3 is much better, however the way generals plays is much more like starcraft than any other game out there, that is if you took away any way to have a good defense in starcraft. Generals is about offence, and that is it. There is no defense, at all. You defend, or you let your attack slip, your dead. I like that, it isnt counter, but who can attack the best and still not let their guard down. Generals also is on a larger scale than WC3, instead of 7-8 units you have 20-30. Thus it is more about strategy than tactics.

This is all just personal opinion of course. That is why both games are a success as far as sales go. thus I think that we should all go play the best game we can find, and be happy :D

:cheers: To the best game out there, whatever it may be :)

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by {BOHICA}Ranger
The AI for MTW can get a bit tricky like that. I haven't run across any major flaws like that yet. I general like the game because of the scale of everything, althought most of the time I just let the comp auto calculate the outcome instead of commanding the battle myself. Who says turn based games stink, I like to be able to plan out things on a huge scale. I guess that's why I like it so much.

Oh yes dont get me wrong, I love the risk style to it. Takeing each piece of land, building up your forces, the movement of a massive scale, it is all very fun. I just ran into some odd bugs with it :D I did play several singel player games though, and it is very fun :D

[CDaws]

Naugh, I didn't mean to imply that you were saying turn based games stink, Vulcan. :love: Sorry for the mix up. :cheers:

[Saint]

Sorry that I said C&CG was 3 times better than WCIII, that was an opinion. :p And next time Doobz read more carefully, I never said it was 3 times more advanced, I said three times better, it was an opinion.

[powdahound]

Splinter Cell!!! :D

[Doobz]

advanced can be used in the same context of better :D

and vulcan, you claim the scale is too small for you in WC. Heheh, have you ever played a game where even just 24 units on each side clash with some heroes mixed im? It looks like the battle of the century! with VERY little performance loss mind you
forgot to mention that: the performance of WCIII, especially considering how nice it looks, the spell effects, and number of units that can fight at once, is absolutely incredible

[Dire_Wolf]

I play mostly MOH and the expansion, or Dungeon Siege.

[MrVulcan]

Originally posted by Doobz
advanced can be used in the same context of better :D

and vulcan, you claim the scale is too small for you in WC. Heheh, have you ever played a game where even just 24 units on each side clash with some heroes mixed im? It looks like the battle of the century! with VERY little performance loss mind you
forgot to mention that: the performance of WCIII, especially considering how nice it looks, the spell effects, and number of units that can fight at once, is absolutely incredible

:lol: actually I remember this one game where it was me some other good player, and 2 poor players. We let everyone build up for a long time, and I took out 1 player, and he took out 1 player. We then sat back for a min B4 hitting each other, I was night elves ( i am always night elves lol), and decided that I would just end it, and uprooted everything but my basics, and went after him. He was orc, and had a huge army as well. It was the battle of the century, I cant tell you how many units I had total, but with the ents, it must have been up there (had as many ents as units lol). I eventually was able to get past his defenses (just had too many ents move in) but it was a large battle.

On the other hand though, yesterday, I was china in C&C Gen, and I had 100 inf, and 20ish tanks, with 8 jets as air cover, vs more F-22s than you can shake a missile at. Now that was a large battle :p

Then again, I rushed with 6 guys one time in C&C gen, and killed his constructor B4 he build anything to produce units :lol: now that was funny.

Yep... very good times with both games :D