Grey Goo
Grey Goo > กระดานสนทนาทั่วไป > รายละเอียดกระทู้
How much will this be?
Cant wait to play this, looks awesome! Just wandering how much it will be? Going to spend my GTA V fund on this. :)
แก้ไขล่าสุดโดย Brassmatic™; 14 ม.ค. 2015 @ 6:51am
< >
กำลังแสดง 1-15 จาก 54 ความเห็น
on amazon in germany its in a steelbook case for 40€
แก้ไขล่าสุดโดย Reinlunzen_is_not_a_crime; 14 ม.ค. 2015 @ 7:24am
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Thomas the LOLcomotive:
on amazon in germany its in a steelbook case for 40€
Awesome price!
I think 29.9$ steam version
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lion:
I think 29.9$ steam version
That would be nice, so maybe £24.99.
Gonna be awsome! Wished to be in preview version but nope.
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lion:
I think 29.9$ steam version

Well I would not pay more than $30...to be honest, the game looks, and feels simplistic...I mean coming from supreme commander, skipping the plantetary annihilation junk of a game...and looking for some new /unique units...I only see really the experimentals that interest me, rest feels ...very simple....overly simplistic to be honest....and it feels as if they might add dlc's to expand the unit kinds/structures in teh future, but at the same time it feels like the game is too vanilla....$25 would be a more idela price for this...then I guess it would be a day 1 purchase for me...$30..meh...maybe, over $30...pass...till I watch a lot more reviews/gameplay vids/performance vids..
$30 I hope...
I guess it's going to be 40€. If it's below that, you can already predict the incoming DLC packages. Just guessing!
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kossad:
I guess it's going to be 40€. If it's below that, you can already predict the incoming DLC packages. Just guessing!

The devs already started work on teh dlc..it will be a 4th faction....look up the post I made about it...looks like the name of the faction is also out there...forgot what it was called though.
i dont see dlc as a problem. C&C 3 had an Addon and was great. Many great games had addons. Beginning with Warcraft 3, WoW, Starcraft1 and 2, C&C, Anno. DLC must not be something bad as we can see.
As long as they dont go the Kalypso or EA way of doing it, with pumping out micro DLCs and mappacks everything is good.
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย NemesisZidar:
i dont see dlc as a problem. C&C 3 had an Addon and was great. Many great games had addons. Beginning with Warcraft 3, WoW, Starcraft1 and 2, C&C, Anno. DLC must not be something bad as we can see.
As long as they dont go the Kalypso or EA way of doing it, with pumping out micro DLCs and mappacks everything is good.

well since there will be a map edytor, I doubt theyll sell maps...it surprised me to hear about the 4th faction though...coming froma video from November (if im not mistaken)...but then again if itll be somethign worthy , with a lot of content like FA was in supreme commander..then its not bad, but if its a money cow...that just adds all the cut content that was removed from the original...thats an issue...especially since I heard one of the devs say that after some event they had to remove some things, since they were "too complex", based on the players (at a convention) response....I doubt that is true....the more complex a game is, the more little parts it has the more fun it is, if people dont wnat to use them thy dont need to, but dumbing down games is really annoying....I mean heck I love sup com, but sup com 2 was watered down in itself....because of consoles....
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Devastator:
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย NemesisZidar:
i dont see dlc as a problem. C&C 3 had an Addon and was great. Many great games had addons. Beginning with Warcraft 3, WoW, Starcraft1 and 2, C&C, Anno. DLC must not be something bad as we can see.
As long as they dont go the Kalypso or EA way of doing it, with pumping out micro DLCs and mappacks everything is good.

well since there will be a map edytor, I doubt theyll sell maps...it surprised me to hear about the 4th faction though...coming froma video from November (if im not mistaken)...but then again if itll be somethign worthy , with a lot of content like FA was in supreme commander..then its not bad, but if its a money cow...that just adds all the cut content that was removed from the original...thats an issue...especially since I heard one of the devs say that after some event they had to remove some things, since they were "too complex", based on the players (at a convention) response....I doubt that is true....the more complex a game is, the more little parts it has the more fun it is, if people dont wnat to use them thy dont need to, but dumbing down games is really annoying....I mean heck I love sup com, but sup com 2 was watered down in itself....because of consoles....
nah a more complex game isnt ever better. It can pretty much destroy a whole game. This has nothing to do with watering something down. You can easily overload a game with inserting too much ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t that is not needed. And im sorry but SupCom isnt the definition of a perfect RTS, it was good but not as good so every RTS should try to get into its foodsteps. By far not. The whole C&C franchise did something very right and that was taking basic concept and not overload it with stuff you dont need but spice it up with details. Mostly the rock paper scissor system worked very well for RTS games without making them "watered" down in terms of strategy.
You can still create many great strategies in these games but i think inserting stuff like loads of abilities for every unit, special abilities for commanders and a big tech tree isnt useful and also isnt a good concept. Its taking a tiny bit of these and inserting it that makes it interesting.
The point about games like C&C and even Warcraft 2 was, that you cant take out magic out of your bag when your army is done because the opponent had the better strategy. You couldnt say "well you were the better player but tada, see my commander ability reviving all units and making them super fast". If you lost, you lost. You could upgrade units to get stronger in the first place but without a large techtree. You could add skills to special units but theys were never overloaded.

Grey Goo till now looks as if it has the perfect mixture for an RTS Game. It has one unique unit per faction, has different classes of subunits in a rock paper scissor system and besides that has special buildings like a repair station and makes the factions unique with some minor abilities. They take from everything a bit and spice it up with that instead of just taking every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t out of other games and overload it with that.
แก้ไขล่าสุดโดย King of Thorns; 14 ม.ค. 2015 @ 1:55pm
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย NemesisZidar:
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Devastator:

well since there will be a map edytor, I doubt theyll sell maps...it surprised me to hear about the 4th faction though...coming froma video from November (if im not mistaken)...but then again if itll be somethign worthy , with a lot of content like FA was in supreme commander..then its not bad, but if its a money cow...that just adds all the cut content that was removed from the original...thats an issue...especially since I heard one of the devs say that after some event they had to remove some things, since they were "too complex", based on the players (at a convention) response....I doubt that is true....the more complex a game is, the more little parts it has the more fun it is, if people dont wnat to use them thy dont need to, but dumbing down games is really annoying....I mean heck I love sup com, but sup com 2 was watered down in itself....because of consoles....
nah a more complex game isnt ever better. It can pretty much destroy a whole game. This has nothing to do with watering something down. You can easily overload a game with inserting too much ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t that is not needed. And im sorry but SupCom isnt the definition of a perfect RTS, it was good but not as good so every RTS should try to get into its foodsteps. By far not. The whole C&C franchise did something very right and that was taking basic concept and not overload it with stuff you dont need but spice it up with details. Mostly the rock paper scissor system worked very well for RTS games without making them "watered" down in terms of strategy.
You can still create many great strategies in these games but i think inserting stuff like loads of abilities for every unit, special abilities for commanders and a big tech tree isnt useful and also isnt a good concept. Its taking a tiny bit of these and inserting it that makes it interesting.
The point about games like C&C and even Warcraft 2 was, that you cant take out magic out of your bag when your army is done because the opponent had the better strategy. You couldnt say "well you were the better player but tada, see my commander ability reviving all units and making them super fast". If you lost, you lost. You could upgrade units to get stronger in the first place but without a large techtree. You could add skills to special units but theys were never overloaded.

Grey Goo till now looks as if it has the perfect mixture for an RTS Game. It has one unique unit per faction, has different classes of subunits in a rock paper scissor system and besides that has special buildings like a repair station and makes the factions unique with some minor abilities. They take from everything a bit and spice it up with that instead of just taking every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t out of other games and overload it with that.

Well...some people like mindless rts's....to me supreme commander was the only game in the last...decade or 2.. to offer enough unique units/strutures to play the game the wya I want to...instead of being funneled to play in a way the devs want me to....aka brianlessly..
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Devastator:
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย NemesisZidar:
nah a more complex game isnt ever better. It can pretty much destroy a whole game. This has nothing to do with watering something down. You can easily overload a game with inserting too much ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t that is not needed. And im sorry but SupCom isnt the definition of a perfect RTS, it was good but not as good so every RTS should try to get into its foodsteps. By far not. The whole C&C franchise did something very right and that was taking basic concept and not overload it with stuff you dont need but spice it up with details. Mostly the rock paper scissor system worked very well for RTS games without making them "watered" down in terms of strategy.
You can still create many great strategies in these games but i think inserting stuff like loads of abilities for every unit, special abilities for commanders and a big tech tree isnt useful and also isnt a good concept. Its taking a tiny bit of these and inserting it that makes it interesting.
The point about games like C&C and even Warcraft 2 was, that you cant take out magic out of your bag when your army is done because the opponent had the better strategy. You couldnt say "well you were the better player but tada, see my commander ability reviving all units and making them super fast". If you lost, you lost. You could upgrade units to get stronger in the first place but without a large techtree. You could add skills to special units but theys were never overloaded.

Grey Goo till now looks as if it has the perfect mixture for an RTS Game. It has one unique unit per faction, has different classes of subunits in a rock paper scissor system and besides that has special buildings like a repair station and makes the factions unique with some minor abilities. They take from everything a bit and spice it up with that instead of just taking every ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥t out of other games and overload it with that.

Well...some people like mindless rts's....to me supreme commander was the only game in the last...decade or 2.. to offer enough unique units/strutures to play the game the wya I want to...instead of being funneled to play in a way the devs want me to....aka brianlessly..
but thats scrambling words to places where they dont belong to. Its not brainless because it has nothing to do with depth or strategy or possibilities it is a design choice. Then you simply prefer the design of SupCom over other RTSs which is fine, its YOUR taste. But thats the problem, its your taste and your taste doesnt tell which game is deeper or not. Just because a game doesnt meet your taste in design it can still be a deep strategy game.
Thats what i try to say. You can dislike the setting of a C&C Tiberium Wars and prefer Medieval RTS Games but thats a matter of taste and not of depth. You can dislike the fact that Warcraft 3 got a heavy influence from RPGs getting leveling up and heroes and abilities and items and item shops and stuff but to dislike that is also a matter of taste. Just because the devs chosed to insert these things because they wanted to design their game with that in mind doesnt mean you cant play it with very deep strategies and possibilities. In fact WC3 is one of the deepest RTS Games ive seen (in its first years, later "balance" destroyed quite a large portion of it and favoured players who tend to rush and let them instantly win).

Just because of a design choice of devs it doesnt mean its not a deep strategy game or it is a as you call it "brainless" or "mindless" one. Its like saying "all the SupCom Players play deep strategy games while other players are not" and thats not true. SupCom is not the best RTS its not perfect and it doesnt offer deeper strategy. It DOES offer more variety. But thats then a design choice you can like or not. I personally think it is an o.k. one but nothing more.
A good RTS Player can create Strategies on his/her own in an RTS with the possibilities given. And games like C&C offered a large amount of possibilities and variety with a, compared to SupCom, smaller amount of units and building. I dont need 200 buildings and 400 different units to create a strategy that fits to my playstyle. That has nothing to do with devs wanting you to play a game like they want. A good player can bow the rules to his/her benefit and playstyle and not adapt the playstyle to the rules. BUT thats where good design is needed. A good RTS allows the player to do that, a bad one doesnt because of a meta dominating decisions of the player. SC2 is such a game, i think Planetary Annihilation is such a game aswell but im not entirely sure. But C&C in the old days, wasnt such a game forcing you into a meta.
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย NemesisZidar:
โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Devastator:

Well...some people like mindless rts's....to me supreme commander was the only game in the last...decade or 2.. to offer enough unique units/strutures to play the game the wya I want to...instead of being funneled to play in a way the devs want me to....aka brianlessly..
but thats scrambling words to places where they dont belong to. Its not brainless because it has nothing to do with depth or strategy or possibilities it is a design choice. Then you simply prefer the design of SupCom over other RTSs which is fine, its YOUR taste. But thats the problem, its your taste and your taste doesnt tell which game is deeper or not. Just because a game doesnt meet your taste in design it can still be a deep strategy game.
Thats what i try to say. You can dislike the setting of a C&C Tiberium Wars and prefer Medieval RTS Games but thats a matter of taste and not of depth. You can dislike the fact that Warcraft 3 got a heavy influence from RPGs getting leveling up and heroes and abilities and items and item shops and stuff but to dislike that is also a matter of taste. Just because the devs chosed to insert these things because they wanted to design their game with that in mind doesnt mean you cant play it with very deep strategies and possibilities. In fact WC3 is one of the deepest RTS Games ive seen (in its first years, later "balance" destroyed quite a large portion of it and favoured players who tend to rush and let them instantly win).

Just because of a design choice of devs it doesnt mean its not a deep strategy game or it is a as you call it "brainless" or "mindless" one. Its like saying "all the SupCom Players play deep strategy games while other players are not" and thats not true. SupCom is not the best RTS its not perfect and it doesnt offer deeper strategy. It DOES offer more variety. But thats then a design choice you can like or not. I personally think it is an o.k. one but nothing more.
A good RTS Player can create Strategies on his/her own in an RTS with the possibilities given. And games like C&C offered a large amount of possibilities and variety with a, compared to SupCom, smaller amount of units and building. I dont need 200 buildings and 400 different units to create a strategy that fits to my playstyle. That has nothing to do with devs wanting you to play a game like they want. A good player can bow the rules to his/her benefit and playstyle and not adapt the playstyle to the rules. BUT thats where good design is needed. A good RTS allows the player to do that, a bad one doesnt because of a meta dominating decisions of the player. SC2 is such a game, i think Planetary Annihilation is such a game aswell but im not entirely sure. But C&C in the old days, wasnt such a game forcing you into a meta.


Well I can certianly judge for myself which game is simplistic or not, an dI am not saying that 400 unit types is good either, but the approach to games....sup com was not perfect, but if we were to compare it to any rts game in the last 10 years it offered most freedom, it had land, air, and naval units + well satelites (well one unit, but still), it allowed players to play defencively, stay in their bases if they wantes, with mass fabricators, or go out and expand their resource gathering, it allowed for unit veterancy, defencive structures, vs just a bunch of units battling near my base as "defence"....the tactics/strategies were there, and star C or any other such relatively low scale game doe snto have it not only on account of unit types being low, but also on account of the size of the maps..which were tieny compared to sup com's....and thats where the tactics come in, you could send a navy to bait the land units to chase them half a map away while your satellite could harras shields, then send in an altielry squad to take down shields/ or disruptors, and then go in for an economy wipe, when shields are down go for a commender bombardment (well cheap tactic, but still)....

My point is that atleast besides the unit count/types, and uniqueness (that was actually fun), the game offered a lot of manouverability , the maps were huge, and not cramped...

in adition units/ and some factions felt different (some felt the same, jsut reskinned though)...
< >
กำลังแสดง 1-15 จาก 54 ความเห็น
ต่อหน้า: 15 30 50

Grey Goo > กระดานสนทนาทั่วไป > รายละเอียดกระทู้
วันที่โพสต์: 14 ม.ค. 2015 @ 6:51am
โพสต์: 54