[quote who="[AC]DalzK" reply="25" id="2099216"]
the simple truth is that it isn't 1998 anymore.
Are you sure? Its the most played RTS game in the whole word and it is widely accepted it has the most depth and the largest competitive scene.[/quote]

Thank you.

Yeah enough off-topic plz.   Im 99% sure that Demigod will hit like a meteor... and if it doesnt.. welll its just a game.

[quote who="[AC]DalzK" reply="4" id="2099846"]
Starcraft takes "Skill" and practice to play, no one argues that,... but what it doesn't do, is offer a lot of strategic depth .
Care to expand. As far as I know it offers the most strategic depth that a rts has so far.

[/quote]

I'd have to say pretty much all of the total war series offers more RAW strategy than starcraft does, and so does pretty much everyone whos played both. Some people cant even play the games because of all the strategic conditions you have to take into account. I'd say starcraft is a better game for competition and it does have a great deal of strategy (Although its mostly tactics), but by the definition of strategy the total war series requires more.

Ahhh okay now I get it.  You're one of those "strategy is the only thing that ought to matter" people.  Sorry, but micro and tactics are what make a game competitive.  Anybody can study a strategy and learn it, memorize it.  Turn based games give you all the time in the world to make decisions.  RTS games force you to make decisions quickly, far more quickly than you can possibly make them without making mistakes.  One measure of skill in an RTS, then, is the ability of the player to minimize mistakes.  Another measure, in a game with possibility for micro and tactics, is the ability of a player to get the most out of their individual units.  Micro and tactics allow a truly skilled player to outplay a weaker player even if they have far less to work with.  In a game without micro, battles come down to the type and number of units involved, and perhaps the positioning of them.  Player skill in-the-moment is not a large factor.  Hence, lack of competitive depth.

Plus, Starcraft involves tons of strategy despite a focus on micro and macro.  Reaver drops, Siege Tank positioning, use of elevation, scouting, tech rushes, marine drops, fast expansions, and on and on.  It really can't be underestimated. 

A game with huge maps, zillions of tiny units and hardly any micro involved doesn't present anywhere near the amount of depth that a game like Starcraft (or Starcraft 2) does.

To put it simply, the difference in ability between the best Starcraft player in the world (Boxer probably) and a simply great Starcraft player (somebody who's not pro) is absolutely immense.  You can play Starcraft for years and years and still never get anywhere close to being that good.  I really, really doubt there could be such a gap in ability in a game like Supreme Commander or Total War.  Even in a game like Age of Empires 3 (a game I love and played for a long time) there isn't the possibility for that kind of skill disparity.

The obsession that many fans of games like Total War, Supreme Commander, DoW, etc have with strategy as the "only thing that matters" in RTS games is nothing more than a desire for the game to be more casual, for it to require less of them.  If a game only needs strategy, all you have to do is learn what to do in specific situations.

I played Total War Multiplayer for 6 years... and sorry but i have to proove you wrong.. there is a HUGE gap between Total War pros and noobs.. and even after years of practice some people are still utterly crap.

Second of all if you see ho Starcraft people play, its based on experience.. not strategy, the more u play the better you get... you can not make up new strategies as in games like total war, civ, or even demigod. There are formulas, and the peopele who execute them faster, win. You should see how the koreans play starcraft.. you can even see their fingers moving... is that in depth strategy? or simply 10 years of playing the same game, thats why starcraft has still so many ppl playing it... they put everything into that game, they could hardly play a game like total war or civ.

No, not all games are based on experience. If you have a good sense for strategy you can play games pretty good the first time you load up one game. Total war has extremely quick based battées, with enormous scales, which starcraft fans would hardly be able to handle. 

I live in Korea, there are 3 TV stations that show starcraft games all day and night, so plz allow me to know this better than you.

You are seriously a few cards short of a deck...

Why I thnik I know everything about gameS? I could ask the same question from you.. bloody hypocrat. Anyways im not korean i live here, but i just said that all the koreans i know play starcraft, and have been playing it for ages.

And what would the sentance: "If you have a good sense of strategy you can play games pretty "well" for the first time" proove? űAre you seriously that stupid? Why would that mean u got that from playing RTS game over and oveR? I knew people who played an MMO, switced of to a RTS, and did perfectly fine.. becasue they werent complete and utter idiots.... like you my friend.

Thats not my testimony. I said people with a good sense for strategy can do that. But appearently you guys have never experienced that so it is pointless to argue with you.

Like telling a deaf man to listen more crafeully. 

What?  Eh? Did you say something?

No micro in SupCom - have you even played this game. My brother and myself have played both Starcraft and SupCom competively and there is not less micro or macro needed in SupCom than in Starcraft. Starcraft is a great game which is probably the best synthesis from Micro/Macro/Timing and Strategy in a RTS we have yet but I am so sick of some random noobs saying that other games don't need micro or macro. I am also sick of noobs telling that Demigod has no depth, in a 1vs1 it really hasn't much but in a 3vs3 or bigger there is enough depth and timing involved that the game will never be mastered, so it is certainly theoretically suited for competitive game. The one thing you really need for a competitive game is a big player base not wicked things like "perfect balance" or "insane depth".

Also calling boxer the best starcraft player is a few years too late, if you go by "all time merits" then it wouldn't be him but the early time innovators like zileas of larrytheweird who changed the game more than anyone else.

I can also see Ginko-sans point, there really in not that much innovation and new strategies in Starcraft nowadays and but that is because of that fact it is already 11 years old and so many player play it that almost everything has been discovered so it is mostly about the execution and psychology.  Its a bit like chess, the first 20 turns are played by the book if you are a grandmaster, but that doesn't make chess a game without depth it just shows that many good players played it already.

Also Starcraft isn't balanced per se, the balance has been achieved by years of experimentation from custom map makers. The original maps make all for pretty unbalanced matches and even nowadays played maps like Medusa (66% win for P vs T) or Neo Requiem (66% win for P vs T) are quite imba. (They are still played because they make for exciting matches in TV which is more important than balance).

The Third TV station is GOMTV - although they only do internet streams primarily targetted at the foreigners it is big enough to be counted as third I think. Their tournaments are part of the kespa rating and all good pros play at them. Furthermore the GOM players is the most popular media player in korea so this isn't some small internet video stream but a big player.

That being said, good luck with your clan Ginko-San. Demigod-Live plans to have a clan league soon after release but that is still a bit in the future

Sounds to me like you ought to play turn based games if you really want a chess-like experience.  You're welcome to have a preference, and I have nothing against that.  But don't pretend that games that focus on strategy at the expense of everything else actually involve more skill than games that don't.  You're confusing strategic depth with competitive depth, in any case (which is what I care about).  Maybe Starcraft / Starcraft 2 have less strategic depth than the games you're talking about.  I don't know, I haven't played them.  Even if they do, however, they have much less competitive depth, because they demand a lot less in-the-moment from the player.

Whatever... these are off... so ill do you a favour and show you how to respond to off:

.....

[quote who="[AC]DalzK" reply="11" id="2097246"]
Demigod is a casual game. One that involves basic, easy to learn/easy to master gameplay. You may be over expecting a competitive community for this game.
When the hell was it decided that Demigod was going to be a "casual" game? If that was the case I would not have thought about buying it. I always thought this whole game was aimed at the online competitive community - and the single player was for the casuals.

There is already a competitive community for the game. There has been 2 tournies already, and another one coming up soon. Gamereplays will be having money tournies (hopefully) post release. Demigod still a casual game?

There is nothing wrong with this guy wanting to advertise his clan...Two topics can really be spam can it? Like has been mentioned before, one topic was asking if anyone would be interested in any making a clan, the second one was advertising his clan website he made. And besides, ive seen more casual clans than competitive ones.[/quote]

Yeah.. In fact, we were promised in the begining that it was going to be a competitive-oriented game