|
|
|
|
|
by Buttons840
695 days ago
|
|
I have two perspectives on games: 1) Games are meant to trigger the imagination which is fun. In this sense, Planetary Annihilation looks successful. 2) Games are a computer interface that should be fun to interact with. In this sense, Planetary Annihilation looks like an extreme failure. Managing battles on multiple planets in real-time sounds incredibly frustrating and the often overlooked aspect of actually interacting with the game would be horrible. I always found StarCraft limiting, it didn't excite my imagination. I couldn't understand why Starcraft 2 was (and still is?) the most successful RTS game. You fight with 10s of units and you can't zoom out; where's the spectacle to trigger my imagination? Then I realized StarCraft was an game about user interface, and the user interface is pretty good. Select units, click them around, watch and click the mini-map, keep it simple and responsive. It's under appreciated how fun it is to simply select a few units and click them across the screen. StarCraft isn't my favorite, but the subtle user interactions in the game are limited but not frustrating. Whereas Planetary Annihilation always looked like a game where user interactions have fewer limits, but a lot of frustration. |
|
(To say nothing of Supcom's annoying habit of units setting off in the opposite direction. Especially irritating for your ACU when trying to beat a hasty retreat, which arguably shouldn't even have the vehicle movement mechanics which causes this)