The real Total Annihilation Vs Starcraft!

Noddingdog · Aug 7, 2003

Some very good points being made there by Croesus - thanks Croesus.

I don't see how you can call TA "painfully ugly" unless you are running it in monochrome 320X240 resolution The units are generated in real-time and, to half-quote Cavedog, tanks recoil when they fire shots and when they blow up little bits of wreckage fly everywhere. It has been said that the units are hard to distinguish, but if you are anything beyond a newbie you will be able to easily identify almost any unit on the battlefield (or every if you are a good player).

Bear in mind that TA was made in 1997 and these "advanced games" so to speak slopped onto the market more recently. TA put every RTS game around it to shame graphics wise when it first came out, and continues to do so to some of the more "advanced" games today! Of course, it does not match up graphics wise to the most powerful 3d-accelerated RTS's, but it was programmed in '97 after all! The gameplay easily outshines any of these "high-tech" RTS's.

When you can activate or deactivate a feature, you can put it on if you like it or switch it off if you don't, which is much better than forcing people to use it or not have it against their will.

Croesus · Aug 7, 2003

Noddingdog said:
When you can activate or deactivate a feature, you can put it on if you like it or switch it off if you don't, which is much better than forcing people to use it or not have it against their will.

I think he is trying to say that TA is more customizable when it comes to internet multiplayer play, in that you can set the victory conditions, limit specific units, limit total units, chang starting resources, change how TA handles LOS, change whether the map is visible, or unexplored. SC has many of these features, but they can only be used in a scenario.

Here are some more advantages of TA: resource and unit sharing. In MP, I can loan, or give resources to my ally, and give my ally units. I can also set it so that if I have more than 2000 metal, it automatically spills over to my allies metal.

With a mod that the Swedish Yank Spankers made, I can even draw on the map so that my allies can coordinate battle plans with me.

Megachihuahua · Aug 7, 2003

I'd really like a place to mp besides that stupid GAmespy place.

ifriit · Aug 7, 2003

Croesus said:
Each peasant in TA compared to the similar counterpart on the other team does have differences. They are subtle, but the differences are about 1%-5% differneces in build time, armor/hitpoint, movement speed, and turning speed. They also use different models, which means that certain ones can hide behind obstacles better. The small differences do make a significant difference if you watch closely. It has taken me hours of play to take advantage of them.

Okay. I can't honestly say I found the game interesting enough to spend the time.

Croesus said:
I will not say that no one plays terran on b-net, but by far the most played is the protoss, then the zerg. I have found that terran can only effectively rush other terran and zerg with a tank. Against the protoss, an early rush of fire bats seems best, but hard. Whatever. If you had played TA as much as I played SC, you could come up with good rebuttle.

Could be.

Croesus said:
As for the graphics, WCIII came out 5-6 years after TA. That is like comparing WCI to TA in terms of time, or other rts's that came out in 1991-1992. SC came out one year after SC. Most computers then could handle a larger color pallete if all you were doing was sprites. Saying that Blizzard did a good job with a small pallette, is like giving the Autoracing super world title to a guy who enters in a VW bug, because for what he chose, he raced real good.

So what? I knew no one who thought the graphics in SC inferior to TA, despite the fact that SC was so graphically limited in comparison. We're talking about opinions here, not technology. That Blizzard managed to sustain such a high opinion of their graphics despite their technical inferiority speaks very well of them.

Croesus said:
Comparitively, TA is not terribly far behind WCIII. WCIII has no water line, as in when your units go in water, part of them are submerged. In fact WCIII does not have water terrain. They have blue terrain that only air units can cross. WCIII has a movable camera, and 3d terrain. Does this terrain affect your units? Do archers fire farther when on higher ground? Do hills or cliffs block shots? I haven't played WCIII that much, so I don't know the answers. If the answer is no, then does WCIII really have 3D terrain, or just 3D looking terrain?

Again, you're talking technology and game design where I'm talking aesthetics. Slight clarifications, though; there are actually some water units in WC3, though none of them are buildable, and even some amphibious creatures. They don't map the bottom of the water as TA did, though. In as far as I know, there are advantages to high ground for ballistic weapons, and hills and cliffs definitely block shots due to line of sight issues, though I'm uncertain about whether an archer can hit a unit on a cliff if there's a spotting unit. I believe they used a mechanic where relative height affects the chance to hit.

Croesus said:
As for balanced side, I disagree. Your point of a protoss being able to build an entire base with one peasant does not support the point of SC being balanced. Additionally, Protoss have the ability to mindcontrol. Therefore the protoss have the ability to have 600 units, and every unit in the game. Since most people play "The Faster Map Possible" or "Big Game Hunters", it is more possible to use Zerg and Terran units because of the abundance of resources.

That, I admit, is a bit broken, though I'm of the opinion that this is due mostly to the game design--resource limitation was part of it, and when you remove that, imbalance results.

Croesus said:
Anyway, SC is a good game. It has some good things in it, and is now relatively not buggy. To me TA does a better job of simulating an epic war, while SC seems to be a battle. I got to go now. I'll post more later. or I might just look for what I have already posted about the SC TA debate.

I'm inclined to agree with your evaluation.

ifriit · Aug 7, 2003

Noddingdog said:
I don't see how you can call TA "painfully ugly" unless you are running it in monochrome 320X240 resolution The units are generated in real-time and, to half-quote Cavedog, tanks recoil when they fire shots and when they blow up little bits of wreckage fly everywhere. It has been said that the units are hard to distinguish, but if you are anything beyond a newbie you will be able to easily identify almost any unit on the battlefield (or every if you are a good player).

The problem is that due to the indistinguishability of the units, it doesn't encourage people to play. For example, I generally could spot identify a unit easily, but none of my friends ever could. Therefore, none of them became anything more than newbies because the game didn't pull them in enough to continue playing. The general opinion was that the units were blocky, indistiguishable, and lacked any character whatsoever.

Noddingdog said:
Bear in mind that TA was made in 1997 and these "advanced games" so to speak slopped onto the market more recently. TA put every RTS game around it to shame graphics wise when it first came out, and continues to do so to some of the more "advanced" games today! Of course, it does not match up graphics wise to the most powerful 3d-accelerated RTS's, but it was programmed in '97 after all! The gameplay easily outshines any of these "high-tech" RTS's.

Technically, yes, TA was graphically better, but no one liked the aesthetics of it.

However, as to whether TA's gameplay is better, that's also entirely a matter of opinion. I personally found it to be rather dull.

Noddingdog said:
When you can activate or deactivate a feature, you can put it on if you like it or switch it off if you don't, which is much better than forcing people to use it or not have it against their will.

I'm sorry, but that's silly. Every configurable feature you add for that decreases general usability and limits your audience. Effectively, for every one person who likes having the option, two will dislike it and probably be confused. It may be more limited than you like, but I don't see how less limitation is inherently better.

ifriit · Aug 7, 2003

Croesus said:
I think he is trying to say that TA is more customizable when it comes to internet multiplayer play, in that you can set the victory conditions, limit specific units, limit total units, chang starting resources, change how TA handles LOS, change whether the map is visible, or unexplored. SC has many of these features, but they can only be used in a scenario.

Here are some more advantages of TA: resource and unit sharing. In MP, I can loan, or give resources to my ally, and give my ally units. I can also set it so that if I have more than 2000 metal, it automatically spills over to my allies metal.

With a mod that the Swedish Yank Spankers made, I can even draw on the map so that my allies can coordinate battle plans with me.

That's pretty slick.

You know, it's funny, supposedly IC's engine is designed to support all this kind of crazy stuff. It's really too bad that the game itself was so bland as to go pretty much unnoticed--I don't see much of a mod community for it.

Croesus · Aug 7, 2003

In reference to aesthietics I would like to bring up the game TA:kingdoms. Horrible graphics. They are as blocky as TA, but they are supposed to be creatures. To me blocky `Mechs add to the game. Barrels on cannons are shaded to look smooth, so as to add to the game too.

The SC graphics engine is pathetic in technically aspects. However, your point was that it does a good job. Sure it does, I don't find them that much of an eye sore. If the truth be known, I still play my NES. Compared to my Dreamcast, the NES has terrible graphics. But the NES did use good technology for its time period. There is little excuse for SC to use sprites at that time, or to limit you to one graphics mode. AOE used sprites, but I could turn up the resolution. My point is that blizzard did not put forth enough effort to improve their graphics. All they added in comparison to WCII is translucent pixels.

Noddingdog · Aug 11, 2003

I agree. Some games have primitive graphics yet are still excellent for gameplay. Pocket Tanks is a good example, along with TA (to a lesser extent).

ifriit · Aug 11, 2003

Croesus said:
In reference to aesthietics I would like to bring up the game TA:kingdoms. Horrible graphics. They are as blocky as TA, but they are supposed to be creatures. To me blocky `Mechs add to the game. Barrels on cannons are shaded to look smooth, so as to add to the game too.

Well, some people disagree. What more can I say?

Croesus said:
The SC graphics engine is pathetic in technically aspects. However, your point was that it does a good job. Sure it does, I don't find them that much of an eye sore. If the truth be known, I still play my NES. Compared to my Dreamcast, the NES has terrible graphics. But the NES did use good technology for its time period. There is little excuse for SC to use sprites at that time, or to limit you to one graphics mode. AOE used sprites, but I could turn up the resolution. My point is that blizzard did not put forth enough effort to improve their graphics. All they added in comparison to WCII is translucent pixels.

There's a huge excuse for SC's graphics--it ran on 99% of the PCs out there. Just about everything was still using sprites; TA was an exception, and it made TA unplayable on most computers because it was so CPU intensive. It required something like a 200 MHz machine when most people didn't have even that, and it was still annoyingly slow to play on such a machine. As for resolution, that was again a design decision; the trick in AoE was that the sprites didn't change resolution, meaning that people with better computers could see more on their screen. Blizzard deliberately decided not to do this as they saw it as unfair to a large portion of their target audience.

Croesus · Aug 11, 2003

TA requires a p-133. I play it on a P-166 networked with 4 people. Its fine as long as I don't use AI's. SC requires a p-90. What are they doing with that processing power? WC played on a 486. Sprites do not take that much computing power. Also, SC came out in 1998. I had an old p-166 at that time. The 166 was old for goodness sakes. P-90 came out in 1995, although thye cost 2K that year.

Also, why doesn't SC have naval units? WC did. I loved naval units.

ifriit · Aug 11, 2003

Croesus said:
TA requires a p-133. I play it on a P-166 networked with 4 people. Its fine as long as I don't use AI's. SC requires a p-90. What are they doing with that processing power? WC played on a 486. Sprites do not take that much computing power. Also, SC came out in 1998. I had an old p-166 at that time. The 166 was old for goodness sakes. P-90 came out in 1995, although thye cost 2K that year.

You're right, the 166 was old when both TA and SC came out. Nonetheless, the market saturation of such machines was still surprisingly low; unfortunately, I don't have any sources anymore as the data isn't recent, but at any given time, about half of the computers out there ran at clockspeeds at or below the slowest manufactured processor. It wasn't until the big internet boom of 1999-2000 that people started upgrading more aggressively. Oh, and the huge memory price drops that occurred around the same time.

I'm somewhat surprised you find the game playable on a P166; in networked games with a P200, my friends thought it unplayably slow. (I had a P350 at the time, and didn't have any problems, of course.) Any time a major skirmish broke out, the framerate would slow to around five frames per second or so.

Croesus said:
Also, why doesn't SC have naval units? WC did. I loved naval units.

I can't really say for certain, but it was their choice to make. I don't honestly think SC suffered for not having naval units.

Croesus · Aug 11, 2003

Ram helps tons. My two 166 have 32 and 64 megs. It helps internet play. Also, you make a good point of the internet boom in 1999-2000. Gamers were already upgrading their machines about as often as now. More common people weren't. I wasn't, I just got lucky.

As for SC not suffering, I think you mean sales. People were hyped up. WCII was a good game. It was better its time than most other RTS's. I was expecting WC in space, when it comes to revoltuoinary things. Oh well. I think I would like SC more if there were a navy.

I am happy that the default resolution was 640x480, because my monitor doesn't do 800x600.

Blizzard does not deliver high tech computer games. Take Diablo II. The introduction screen is 800x600, yet the game plays at Blizzards favorite resolution 640x480, unless you get the expansion. I think their head graphics guy has a really old monitor still.

ifriit · Aug 11, 2003

Croesus said:
Ram helps tons. My two 166 have 32 and 64 megs. It helps internet play. Also, you make a good point of the internet boom in 1999-2000. Gamers were already upgrading their machines about as often as now. More common people weren't. I wasn't, I just got lucky.

Memory may be it--I have no recollection at all how much memory the 200 had.

Croesus said:
As for SC not suffering, I think you mean sales. People were hyped up. WCII was a good game. It was better its time than most other RTS's. I was expecting WC in space, when it comes to revoltuoinary things. Oh well. I think I would like SC more if there were a navy.

No, I meant as a game. It's entirely opinion whether navy should or should not be present.

Croesus said:
I am happy that the default resolution was 640x480, because my monitor doesn't do 800x600.

Blizzard does not deliver high tech computer games. Take Diablo II. The introduction screen is 800x600, yet the game plays at Blizzards favorite resolution 640x480, unless you get the expansion. I think their head graphics guy has a really old monitor still.

Yeah, I agree--Blizzard, as a company, has devoted their development to low end systems, for better or worse. Even WC3 is supposed to run acceptably with an old 3D card at 640x480. However, I think they're the masters of developing for that level, as their games never fail to look technically better than they really are, and their game designs make up for their lack of technical whizz-bang.

Megachihuahua · Aug 12, 2003

Naval units can't go planet-to-planet very easily, but ships and ground units can

Croesus · Aug 13, 2003

Neither can a Nexus or Hive, or any other building besides the terran ones. Look at the ships the US has today. Aegis cruisers are amazing. Or even missile subs.

Megachihuahua · Aug 13, 2003

O.K., then they were just to lazy to build units which might not be built 8/11ths of the time.

Vylo · Aug 15, 2003

blizzard Is Your God

RazorX · Aug 15, 2003

Ooookay.....

Pope Gonzo · Aug 16, 2003

I don't know if anybody noticed this or whatever. I just skimmed the whole thread and didn't see a mention of it, so I'll just go with it. According to ign.com, Starcraft is the 7th greatest video game of all time. Total Annihilation isn't on the list of the top 100.

As for my experience with both games, I've been in love with Starcraft for the past... 4 or 5 years(when my brother taught me to play). When I was learning to play, a buddy of mine showed me Total Annihilation, and the game just didn't draw me like Starcraft did. But that's me, and I guess IGN agrees with me

Noddingdog · Aug 16, 2003

Pope Gonzo said:
I don't know if anybody noticed this or whatever. I just skimmed the whole thread and didn't see a mention of it, so I'll just go with it. According to ign.com, Starcraft is the 7th greatest video game of all time. Total Annihilation isn't on the list of the top 100.

Yeah, but according to me, Total Annihilation is the greatest game of all time, and Starcraft doesn't even feature on the list.

As for my experience with both games, I've been in love with Starcraft for the past... 4 or 5 years(when my brother taught me to play). When I was learning to play, a buddy of mine showed me Total Annihilation, and the game just didn't draw me like Starcraft did. But that's me, and I guess IGN agrees with me

PC Games doesn't (see previous posts)

The real Total Annihilation Vs Starcraft!

Which one is better, TA or SC?

Total Annihilation rules!

Starcraft rules!

I don't care.

Huh?

Noderator

Active Member

Ex-Christian

PRABOB!

PRABOB!

PRABOB!

Active Member

Noderator

PRABOB!

Active Member

PRABOB!

Active Member

PRABOB!

Ex-Christian

Active Member

Ex-Christian

Stick with the King!

¤The Blade of Truth¤

Well-Known Member

Noderator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency