What Pyro said. The strategic options and realism in TA are just -so- much more engaging than in Starcraft. Let me list some features:

-Fully 3D terrain, also realistic view angles etc
-Real newtonian physics engine for all units and projectiles
-Realtime 3D for all units
-Scriptability and expandabilty in every aspect (new units, maps, AIs, physics can be done)

Some things you see in TA that you'll never get in Starcraft:
-units holding the high ground actually have better range and safety than those lower. It isn't faked like in Starcraft; you're really holding a better position.
-nuclear missiles are stored in real silos and can be fired from afar
-maps that are the equivalent of 2048x2048 in Starcraft
-tanks that change angle up hills, have recoil when they fire, and have to actually track their targets
-wreckage on the battlefield which hurts movement and firing capabilities
-a full suite of ground, air, hover, amphibious, and sea units
-realistic flight patterns for fighters, bombers, gunships, and transport aircraft
-radar capabilties for intelligence, and jamming
-long range artillery batteries
-explosions that produce shrapnel and damage other things in the process
-anything else you can think of, because if the default game doesn't have it, you can do it yourself.


------------------
Ignie Ferroque. Just Tech.
leviathan@sourcecod

[This message has been edited by oasamostexianu (edited 05-27-2002).]

You can get the Total Annihilation demo here: http://www.macgamefiles.com/detail.php?item=10162


The unpleasant results of having your gunships with Sabot rocket launchers meet a larger number of flak guns...


A minimap. That yellow thing in the upper left is one 800x600 screen.


Just some neat looking terrain.


Why long range artillery can ruin your day.


------------------
Ignie Ferroque. Just Tech.
leviathan@sourcecod

I'd have to say, go with it.

Though I haven't played Total Annihalation, and it looks pretty good, I can tell you that StarCraft is definitely worth the money.

I bought StarCraft from Amazon.com at a cost of $25 for the BattleChest which is the original game, the expansion pack (which is very much like a StarCraft 2) and then 2 strategy books and a backgroud book. Now, I actually got gypped. About a week later I found the exact same thing at Target for $20.

The thing costs chump change and is just incredible. I addicted my uncle to it and he spent many, many hours playing it. I actually haven't even been able to do multiplayer because of our computer and weird phone lines, so I imagine that would add a whole new depth to the game - it is the reason that many of my friends play at all.

My advice, however, if you do buy the game - DO NOT CHEAT!!! The cheat codes come with it, but if you use them, it will ruin the fun of the game.

And you could probably buy total annihalation on the side.

------------------
"You will find that your device is highly non-functional...." - Bad Guy
My Webpage!

from just that view of TA, id say go for SC. You may have a point that the things that you are working with seem realistic to today's standards, but you have to think that SC is based on future combat, and space combat at that. The smaller maps make for some more interesting strats and the game has a less, hmmm, colorful view. The brightness on those pics real? Or are they a result of something? Cause with the colors that bright, it more takes away from a game than it gives to it.

------------------

We were the first political party to advocate renaming the Washington Monument the Big Stone U.S. Penis and putting big, orange foam testicles at the bottom.

also, from the screenshots, TA looks a lot more like Warcraft 2 than SC

------------------

We were the first political party to advocate renaming the Washington Monument the Big Stone U.S. Penis and putting big, orange foam testicles at the bottom.

*clap* *clap* I totally agree

------------------
Desert-Rat a pro n00b
Propaganda, so click | Navigare necesse est

Yes. Starcraft is worth getting. I've only played the demo of TA, but I find SC more playable. Alternatively get Myth/Myth2. It's detailed tactical warfare with realistic physics and a large smattering (splattering) of blood.

Heck, why not buy all three and enjoy several months solid playing time?

Az

------------------
___
Some nights I still sleep on the beach...

I'll go with the last statement, as I have money to burn i'll buy all three. Thanks for the comments, you've made me want to buy both of them through your arguing and I've played myth and thats really fun. Oh the dwarfs, miserable gits.

Anyway thanks again.

---Burning cow---

------------------
We found Osama Bin Laden, in little old England. Go to:
nu.homepage.nu
Pictures and beer by bEER mOnkey

I was going to respond to this topic and talk more about TA, but oasa and Pyro have pretty much said all that there is to say.

However, in regards to the original purpose of this topic, I would definitely recommend buying StarCraft. I got bored with it after a while and haven't played it in over a year, but it was definitely worth however much I payed for it. Total Annihilation is definitely a better game, but that doesn't mean that StarCraft is completely without merit.

------------------
You can stab and shoot and spit
But they won't be fixing it

Its not that I got bored with it, I am not. Its just that I dont have the time for it anymore that keeps me away from playing it. Its still a fun game, SC is.

------------------

We were the first political party to advocate renaming the Washington Monument the Big Stone U.S. Penis and putting big, orange foam testicles at the bottom.

I played the demo of TA once and trashed it pretty fast. SC is worth it for the single player alone, not to mention the awesome variety and challenges of multiplayer.

------------------
Some call me strange. Some call me weird. Some just call me a normal guy.

Starcraft is definetly worth getting, it is a fun game and the single player missions (especially in Brood War the expansion) are extremely challenging. Also the multi-player possibilites are quite open since so many people play.
Having only played the TA demo I can't really say much about it. It seems to that it has a rougher interface and I don't like the command controls much (think of Command and Conquer but worse). I probably will try and get the game this summer as I like deep thinking strategy games.

------------------
Kosh was here...

Heh, you and I wish. He's pretty damned good at SC. And no, 30 minute games does not imply rushing. We almost never rush.






------------------
flargh: slank - you realize, of course, that you've just dragged about 40,000 volts of static electricity off the tip of your vacuum cleaner attachments over your CPU.
-The Construct, Gameranger

Oh yeah, Oasa and Pyro, this is not a rehash of the very, very old argument between SC and TA users. He asked a question and got the answer.

Besides:

- StarCraft is not meant to be realistic, but fun. What fun would it be if siege tanks could shoot accross half the map?

- Nuking system (of SC) is a load of fun, but unrealistic.

- TA graphics are better than SC's. No question there, but is it as fun? I wouldn't like the horror of going through a multiplayer system

- Long Range Bombardment question: Does having 20 zillion artillery unbalance things a bit cough*TS*cough* , or is everything modeled (sp?) on the scissors/paper/stone concept?

- Holding higher ground may be 'faked', but still gives you a huge advantage over someone trying to get you from lower.

- Assigning one thing to build multiple buildings doesn't apply with the Zerg, obviously.

- StarCraft has 3 very different races. I'd buy it just for that.

Stop whining and wait for :2. Anyway, didn't TA come out later than SC?



------------------
flargh: slank - you realize, of course, that you've just dragged about 40,000 volts of static electricity off the tip of your vacuum cleaner attachments over your CPU.
-The Construct, Gameranger

You aren't to bad either
And Pyro I played it at my friends house 2 years ago and we played it maybe 4-5 times so I know how boring it is.

------------------
Desert-Rat a pro n00b
Propaganda, so click | Navigare necesse est

Definitely try to get TA. I found the demo to be a blast myself, and to be much more usable than C & C. Since it didn't seem too bad, I went for the full version and don't regret it though I hardly ever have a good opponent. Once you get to know the interface you'll find all the automations you can apply to your units and the unlimited command queus (sp?) to be a great asset and that it isn't really that clumsy. Internet play isn't worth the trouble, but as I said before, LAN is great fun. Just about everything in TA is inferior except LAN, though that's kind of a toss-up. It's still rougher than Starcraft, which takes off a lot of points, but against a human the 3D terrain and units have real meaning, and are much easier to use to your advantage - and it's much more fun when you succeed. Multiple long range guns can cause serious balance issues, but they can usually be avoided and killed somehow with a well planned strike and enough radar jammers.

On a side note, how the heck does one go about setting up real shared vision in TA? I've found that the sharemapping command only sends explored terrain data for that moment to your ally. Is there any way to do real SC style shared vision, or even live updating terrain (w/out units) info? And where can I get the Mac version of Überhack?

------------------
Non cognosco quo modo dicere linguam latinam bene.

[This message has been edited by LoneIgadzra (edited 05-30-2002).]

You TA people keep bashing SC for being 'unrealistic'. SC is fun and designed so that nothing is unstoppable - if this comes at the expense of realism, then who cares?

Also, I do suck at strategy games. The modicum of SC skill I have is through about 2 1/2 years of experience - I am by no means a natural at these games. However, SC hasa great learning curve and is fun, so I persevered. TA has a ****-hard learning curve so I didn't. And why should I spend months getting good at a game none of my friends like either when we are perfectly happy with SC?

------------------
Mazca, Moderator, EV Developer's Corner
The one and only drunken kitchen leprechaun
EV Developer's Corner | NovaTools | EV Development FAQs | Obligatory EVula Link | Personal Message to You

[quote]Originally posted by Talon Karrde:
Oh yeah, Oasa and Pyro, this is not a rehash of the very, very old argument between SC and TA users. He asked a question and got the answer.

Besides:

- StarCraft is not meant to be realistic, but fun. What fun would it be if siege tanks could shoot accross half the map?

- Nuking system (of SC) is a load of fun, but unrealistic.

- TA graphics are better than SC's. No question there, but is it as fun? I wouldn't like the horror of going through a multiplayer system

- Long Range Bombardment question: Does having 20 zillion artillery unbalance things a bit cough*TS*cough* , or is everything modeled (sp?) on the scissors/paper/stone concept?

- Holding higher ground may be 'faked', but still gives you a huge advantage over someone trying to get you from lower.

- Assigning one thing to build multiple buildings doesn't apply with the Zerg, obviously.

- StarCraft has 3 very different races. I'd buy it just for that.

Stop whining and wait for :2.   Let me answer some of your questions:

In my opinion, TA is much more fun than Starcraft. Multiplayer works quite well, I think, and nothing is scarier than having your long range radar pick up several ICBMs heading your direction... which, because they travel at a realistic several-thousand-miles-per-hour, you can't do much about.

The interesting thing about nuclear weaponry is that anti-nuke SAM batteries can built, but these units do have limited range. Nuking is only effective when you can send more missiles than he can shoot down, or you're attacking a region outside of a protected area. The first scenario rarely happens as a nuclear missile silo takes at least ten in-game minutes to build, with the missiles each taking another two minutes, at enormous cost (about the same price for the whole combo as a rather large carrier-based naval task force)

The same thing goes for long range artillery. It's very expensive to build, and unless you can get visual sighting on your target (or radar coverage) firing blind is VERY expensive (each projectile for the artillery and every other unit costs resources). Still, if you can amass enough resources to build a firebase under radar-jamming coverage, you can ruin someone's day very quickly. The downside to artillery pieces is that, like any set piece unit, it can't run away and is very vulnerable to air attack. A single five bomber pass will take a cannon out for good.

Things are in general balanced out very well, so that an attack of one sort isn't entirely unstoppable.

TA is definitely harder to learn than SC, but it's -so- worth it.



------------------
Ignie Ferroque. Just Tech.
leviathan@sourcecod