|
Today was an interesting day for me...
One of my friends buddies considers himself a great gamer. He plays lots of different games (MMORPG games, FPS games, Console games) So today, I go up to him and ask him if he's ever played StarCraft...
I knew what the answer would be, but I thought I'd ask anyway. He laughed and said "No... Didn't blizzard make that? I can't believe they would make something with such bad graphics." For about 30 minutes of one-sided-arguing I felt like I was talking to a 9 year old, and I was quite disappointed in myself for bothering with someone so stupid.
I evantually got tired of trying to explain why and how it's such a deep game, and went into the library to play chess with my friend. It makes me sad to see that people here look only at graphics and seem to frown upon actually using their mind and skill to play.
Games like WoW, Halo and CounterStrike are really common here in America. I really hate them to be honest. I used to play counter-strike ALOT, until I got bored with it. I played WoW a little bit less than that, and got bored of it too easily. To me, They are the kind of games that any random chobo can pick up and be 'professional' at in a months time.
Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. I've kind of lost faith in the Gaming Industry, so much that I'm probably not even going to pursue video game designing/programming like I wanted to, and go into actual Computer Programming like I originally intended.
I'm sure lots of people feel like me, that people don't respect the games and gamers who play for the competition and the depth of gameplay, rather than crappy graphics or "competitive" games that require little skill to be good at.
Anyway, If anyone has had a similar situation like this, I'd like to hear about it.It's so sad how ignorant some people can be, and how closed-minded they are to actually skilled gamers.
I'd also like to know if anyone disagrees with me, or think I'M the ignorant guy here.
/end rant
 
|
'Tis why games like Fantasy Earth Zero are a longshot to get ported to the US 
|
Before I came to Teamliquid, I was just "Yeah, Starcraft? That was a pretty good game.". It's not that easy for people to understand how deep the game is.
I don't really understand why he says "why would they make something with such horrible graphics"... This game was made like ten years ago, right?
|
You are definitely not alone bud. I haven't bought a game in ages simply because they are no decent ones being made. Same thing is happening with Hollywood; the investors/producers are just not interested in making art anymore. It's all about the glorious dollar. And the guy you were having the argument with is a perfect example of the people they are targeting.
I don't know if society is getting stupid or if people are just too easily amused.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
I don't have much to add, but I want to say this:
Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism.
Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience?
Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on?
Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
hi5 broski
Graphics are one part of the formula of a good game holmes.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
His sentence was completely subjective and stating his opinion. I'm sure a lot of people would agree that many of the games that have come out recently aren't that good.
Actually, the entire blog post was his opinion, and a rant at that. I wouldn't take it too seriously as to pass it off as righteous indignation. We can all understand when someone doesn't appreciate the same things we do; that's life.
|
I agree. People play games to have fun and pass time, I'm alright with that. It's annoying however when people belive they play a game that require lots of skill for example. When its in reality is a shitty noob game in every aspect. I was the best player in the world for a while at BFME2. Let me tell you it was fun when goofing around in the beginning, but as soon as I tried to get good I noticed it has no depth at all. Same with every RTS out there except WC3.
Blizzard is the best gaming company ever!
|
Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism.
I've never actually thought of it this way. I always knew that we were elitists, but thanks for bringing this up.
Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
I understand what you are saying... but my basis for that quote is merely from experience, nothing more really. I don't understand how you can call something that is a reasonable truth stupidity.
I don't really understand why he says "why would they make something with such horrible graphics"... This game was made like ten years ago, right?
He didn't know it was made back then... that's the really sad part.
On September 23 2009 04:43 GunSlinger wrote:
You are definitely not alone bud. I haven't bought a game in ages simply because they are no decent ones being made. Same thing is happening with Hollywood; the investors/producers are just not interested in making art anymore. It's all about the glorious dollar. And the guy you were having the argument with is a perfect example of the people they are targeting.
I don't know if society is getting stupid or if people are just too easily amused.
Yeah, This is why I'm no longer interested in pursuing Game Design. I don't want to be a part of this process. People are too easily amused by graphics and loud explosions these days.
hi5 broski
Graphics are one part of the formula of a good game holmes.
I agree graphics to some extent increase the game overall, but for extremely competitive types of games, they just get in the way.
On September 23 2009 05:05 DarkShadowz wrote:
I agree. People play games to have fun and pass time, I'm alright with that. It's annoying however when people belive they play a game that require lots of skill for example. When its in reality is a shitty noob game in every aspect. I was the best player in the world for a while at BFME2. Let me tell you it was fun when goofing around in the beginning, but as soon as I tried to get good I noticed it has no depth at all. Same with every RTS out there except WC3.
I can respect the people who play games for fun, casually. But I can't even dream of respecting the people like you mentioned, who don't seem to understand something of such intricacy.
Viva Blizzard! They are the one company who actually about the Game not the money... and I hope that doesn't change in the coming years..
Thanks for all your replies, I'm interested in hearing more!
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:02 Chromyne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. His sentence was completely subjective and stating his opinion. I'm sure a lot of people would agree that many of the games that have come out recently aren't that good. Actually, the entire blog post was his opinion, and a rant at that. I wouldn't take it too seriously as to pass it off as righteous indignation. We can all understand when someone doesn't appreciate the same things we do; that's life.
"None of them are close to being good" isn't a subjective statement.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:06 TwilightStar wrote:Show nested quote +Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. I understand what you are saying... but my basis for that quote is from experience, nothing more really. Don't understand how you can call something that is a reasonable truth stupidity.
Because, if you survey the general population, the past 5 years have yielded some fantastic games. That's not a reasonable truth, that's branding your opinion as fact.
To add a little subjective weight against your claim: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all
|
i disagree with starcraft's graphics being bad, they are perfectly functional(even moreso functional compared to other games where you can't even see what the hell is going on, which although SC2 graphics are good some people still have this problem) and just because they are outdated doesn't take away anything from the game
what does take away from the game though is the programming, the AI features are horrible 
|
Actually, that 'horrible' Starcraft graphics is pretty functional if not essential part of the whole game. After some practise, you can figure out what's going on within a second, because units/animations/sprites are not messing up your strategic view. This is one of the reasons I prefer SC over Warcraft or Diablo or anything else: in those games everything is glowing, exploding, blinking and you never know what really happens. From graphical standpoint, Starcraft is like chess: you have information before your eyes, the only thing is to use it efficently (fog of war being the only exception).
|
On September 23 2009 05:08 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:02 Chromyne wrote:On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. His sentence was completely subjective and stating his opinion. I'm sure a lot of people would agree that many of the games that have come out recently aren't that good. Actually, the entire blog post was his opinion, and a rant at that. I wouldn't take it too seriously as to pass it off as righteous indignation. We can all understand when someone doesn't appreciate the same things we do; that's life. "None of them are close to being good" isn't a subjective statement.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't read that statement in this context and NOT take it as an opinion. Even if he intended to pass objective judgement on video games, I wouldn't be able to take it as such when I read it.
I guess we just respond to it differently
|
I think you forgot to tell him its an 11 year old game.
Just so you know, WoW, CS, and Halo (halo 1 i mean), all have bad graphics, yet u used them as examples that US only play games with top notch graphics.
|
Although I don't buy a lot of games, I have friends that do and I play their console and computer games with them. They're fun.
Whenever I want to get the idea across that StarCraft isn't just any other game, I point to the professional scene in South Korea and talk about how successful it is. Once I got someone trying to tell my Halo's professional scene in the USA is better. I loled and then continued watching the OSL game on the TV.
Why get all pissed off an angry about what games a person likes? Why shut yourself off from trying to enjoy any other game but StarCraft? Trying to explain to someone how deep and amazing and strategically superior in every way StarCraft is just makes you look like a prat. I mean, it definitely is a great game, but you aren't doing it any justice when the person you're talking to has no idea what you're talking about (and your understanding of the game is probably pretty low as well).
|
If there's anything worse than ignorant modern gamers, it's jaded gamers who can't leave the past behind.
There are tons of great games out there, I am a fan of every genre and I love playing other strategy games besides Starcraft.
Bashing games because they are popular is just plain dumb. WoW is a great game whether it was designed for you or not, and Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console.
Sure, you'll meet people who are also close minded and who only play CoD and Gears of War, and who say Halo invented FPS -- but those people will always exist.
It's frustrating, but so is living in the past. There are some brilliant titles in all genres that have come out recently that are masterpieces IMO.
although admittedly -- developer are trying to appeal to casuals and in turn make game less deep, and more enjoyable for casual play.
look at WoW, look at CoD, look at GeOW -- popular because of accessibility. hell, look at the Wii.
|
I've been a gamer all my life. In school all I would think about is getting hope and gaming. Though even before I learned about starcraft I hated about how fast you can beat a game and what it takes to play multi-player. If you can get Xbox Live or what ever for your console then console gaming is as good as starcraft to me if you have someone to play with. Though I do hate how someone could think starcraft's graphics suck. It might just be that I love the game that much but I find the graphics amazing. Though to be a hardcore console gamer today is just absolutely outrageous cost-wise.
|
Well I like starcraft (enough to get good enough to have a shot at beating anyone)
but I never dismissed other games. in fact I loved playing CS at around the same time. and then later I got into dota while still playing sc.
however I have seen what chill is talking about in some other players
|
also, and i can't leave this alone -- CS is has an extremely deep learning curve and there is a reason it is still bigger than casual games like Halo and CoD in terms of competitive play.
honestly, CS IMO is the SC of FPS.
|
On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console.
Poll: Which game is better?
(Vote): Goldeneye 64
(Vote): Halo
|
New games aren't just competing with old games, they are competing with the old games combined with all their associated nostalgia. Even if someone makes a better RTS than Starcraft, you'll never accept that it's better because of all the fond memories you have of playing SC. People have been complaining about declining quality in just about everything since humanity has existed because of this. Some of those cave drawings from 10,000 B.C. probably mean "they just don't make clay pots like they used to these days." And in 50 years, you'll be yelling at kids to get off your lawn and reminiscing about the good old days when children respected their parents and video games were fun.
|
On September 23 2009 05:36 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console. Poll: Which game is better?( Vote): Goldeneye 64 ( Vote): Halo
nostalgic bias, here we go!
|
Nah, I just really hate the idea of regenerating health. I think most people can agree that's a cheap trick for making Single Player easier to design, and doesn't belong in a competetive environment. License to Kill (one hit kill no matter what or where you hit your enemy) is actually the only interesting game mode in any multiplayer FPS.
|
On September 23 2009 05:30 eMbrace wrote:
also, and i can't leave this alone -- CS is has an extremely deep learning curve and there is a reason it is still bigger than casual games like Halo and CoD in terms of competitive play.
honestly, CS IMO is the SC of FPS.
I hope you are talking about CS 1.6 ;D and I totally agree with you.
|
CS is very good for competition, and some modern games while they aren't as good for pure competition they can still be fairly entertaining just to watch (L4D comes to mind) and play, and they still have large elements of skill in them. If we're speaking of graphics, there are different benchmarks - I go by pure aesthetic value, some 16 bit games have terrific graphics even now, some 32 bit graphics feel REALLLY dated in comparison. (FF7 to say, Chrono Trigger).
Starcraft does have nice graphics, I think. They aren't by any means perfect, but they do their job very well in informing you of the units, for the most part. Some things are still really ugly and confusing, like the lurker... wtf is that? Same with Devourers. Much of the BW stuff is actually a bit less impressive graphically ... compare the Dark Archon death animation to the HT one. If the role of graphics is to be realistic, as much of the recent trends indicate, then yes, SC fails pretty hard and will be owned by any recent game. Wireframe portraits occasionally leave a bit to be desired, and lots of the buildings aren't very self-explanatory... the ugliest thing in the game is a floating CC, I think.
I think there is starting to be a move away from this sort of over-realism in games, especially with games like TF2 being very popular, and the rise of Casual games like desktop tower defense.
|
On September 23 2009 05:43 Chef wrote:
Nah, I just really hate the idea of regenerating health. I think most people can agree that's a cheap trick for making Single Player easier to design, and doesn't belong in a competetive environment.
absolutely agree, takes a lot of intensity out of the game .
and it's the new standard for every shooter being made, which is why games like CS where you need to watch HP and behave accordingly (as well as actually having to control some tough recoil), are going to be things of the past.
it's really sad =/
|
Being able to recover HP has always been a part of multiplayer FPS, going back to Doom. Ah, there was a glorious game.
|
I think if there's demand for different game modes, developers won't be shy in adding them. It's really easy just to turn regeneration off, I imagine for a programmer.
On September 23 2009 05:48 Nevuk wrote:
Being able to recover HP has always been a part of multiplayer FPS, going back to Doom. Ah, there was a glorious game.
We're not talking about picking up health packs though, we're talking about "get out of combat for 5 seconds and you got back to full health."
|
On September 23 2009 05:48 Nevuk wrote:
Being able to recover HP has always been a part of multiplayer FPS, going back to Doom. Ah, there was a glorious game.
in the form of healthpacks, yes -- getting rocked in the face and then ducking behind cover so you can try again is just stupid IMO (in multiplayer, it works with single-player).
|
Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good.
Really, if the only standard you have for "good" is "highly competitive," then think about board games. How many of them have high-level competition? Now compare that to the number of board games that exist.
Not everyone wants "highly competitive" gaming. Indeed, videogames are capable of more than just "achieve victory," and the majority of gamers are more interested in those things than competition.
If the only thing you want out of a videogame is competitive play, then yes, you're not going to like most games. But there's nothing wrong with that objectively. You're simply part of a niche that is being catered to by only a few developers.
|
On September 23 2009 05:44 Nevuk wrote:
Starcraft does have nice graphics, I think. They aren't by any means perfect, but they do their job very well in informing you of the units, for the most part.
What ? Yes, 10 years ago maybe.. Now ? By today standars ? Ugly as hell.. I dont expect from a game so old to be nice.. But i also dont make illusions of a game this old being nice ( graphic wise) because it simply isnt.. But it makes the job done, even now.
I for one will always say that graphic doesnt make the game good, i see nothing wrong with 2D overview like Starcraft.. And will never put down a game because of "shitty graphic", since i have always enjoyed good old FRP like Torment, even now  ..
For me, gameplay is all that matters...
|
i used to play sc competitively, it is a good game no doubt, but i don't understand the whole holier-than-thou attitude a lot of starcraft players have. why do you feel you should compare every new game to starcraft (even if it's apples to oranges) and then also declare it's worse than sc based on your entirely subjective and biased criteria?
especially when you go around spouting provably false statements like
They are the kind of games that any random chobo can pick up and be 'professional' at in a months time.
..it really gives off a bad impression of all starcraft players to be honest.
like, when the TL Dota vent became public, why is it that when we were playing dota, starcraft players come into our channel and start spouting how terrible dota is compared to sc? superiority complex much? at least there's a password on it now to prevent it (not that i dont get c/p spam either)
or the inherent hate on war3, wow/lineage/other mmos or fps's like CS, quake etc those are all good games. just like starcraft. stop being so narrow-minded already.. it hurts to read
|
On September 23 2009 05:09 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:06 TwilightStar wrote:Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. I understand what you are saying... but my basis for that quote is from experience, nothing more really. Don't understand how you can call something that is a reasonable truth stupidity. Because, if you survey the general population, the past 5 years have yielded some fantastic games. That's not a reasonable truth, that's branding your opinion as fact. To add a little subjective weight against your claim: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all
Last 5 years, Nothing of interest found. I've played around 80-90% of the games on that list.
The fact that Age of Empires II : Age of Kings is ahead of StarCraft makes me just want to punch something.
On September 23 2009 05:13 Duke wrote:
i disagree with starcraft's graphics being bad, they are perfectly functional(even moreso functional compared to other games where you can't even see what the hell is going on, which although SC2 graphics are good some people still have this problem) and just because they are outdated doesn't take away anything from the game
The graphics of StarCraft were good for when they were made, and they are completely perfect in relation to the gameplay be honest. You can tell what is going on and it's easy to see whats going on (No distracting explosions). But in terms of looking graphically realistic, StarCraft loses compared to a modern game.
On September 23 2009 05:15 levelzx wrote:
Actually, that 'horrible' Starcraft graphics is pretty functional if not essential part of the whole game. After some practise, you can figure out what's going on within a second, because units/animations/sprites are not messing up your strategic view. This is one of the reasons I prefer SC over Warcraft or Diablo or anything else: in those games everything is glowing, exploding, blinking and you never know what really happens. From graphical standpoint, Starcraft is like chess: you have information before your eyes, the only thing is to use it efficently (fog of war being the only exception).
I really love that comparison, as both a chess and StarCraft player. The raw information is before our eyes, and we the player get to decide what happens with it, not luck.
On September 23 2009 05:20 Chef wrote:
I mean, it definitely is a great game, but you aren't doing it any justice when the person you're talking to has no idea what you're talking about (and your understanding of the game is probably pretty low as well).
You don't know if my understanding of the game is low or not. I've actually been playing StarCraft since it was released. By NO means would I be able to ever compete with a professional gamer like Flash or Jaedong, and the list goes on, But I sure have a decent understanding of the game.
On September 23 2009 05:43 Chef wrote:
Nah, I just really hate the idea of regenerating health. I think most people can agree that's a cheap trick for making Single Player easier to design, and doesn't belong in a competetive environment. License to Kill (one hit kill no matter what or where you hit your enemy) is actually the only interesting game mode in any multiplayer FPS.
I really hate the health-regeneration factor in Halo as well. It completely ruins the game from my point of view. 1-Hit kill in FPS games is something alot of people seem to complain about, at least in counter strike with the AWP... but I like it better that way too!
On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
If there's anything worse than ignorant modern gamers, it's jaded gamers who can't leave the past behind.
Sorry, but I feel as if this is directed towards me, so here is my explanation.
I've played a majority of the most recent games. I actually HAVE played CounterStrike, I actually HAVE played WoW. What I'm saying is, the games I'm actually criticizing I put a decent and honest effort into trying to play competetively. From the way I see it, living in the past is only bad if you haven't even had a taste of the newer stuff, which isn't the way I am.
On September 23 2009 05:55 NicolBolas wrote:
Really, if the only standard you have for "good" is "highly competitive," then think about board games. How many of them have high-level competition? Now compare that to the number of board games that exist.
If the only thing you want out of a videogame is competitive play, then yes, you're not going to like most games. But there's nothing wrong with that objectively. You're simply part of a niche that is being catered to by only a few developers.
I understand what you are saying. The people who play games casually, I have no problem with, and I feel happy for them. It's the people who think something is deep where it really isn't is what I have a problem with.
Again, Thanks for all replies!
|
United States4796 Posts
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
No lie, never saw it this way before.
|
United States4796 Posts
On September 23 2009 05:40 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:36 Chef wrote:On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console. Poll: Which game is better?( Vote): Goldeneye 64 ( Vote): Halo nostalgic bias, here we go!
Poll: Which is a better game?
(Vote): WarCraft II
(Vote): WarCraft III
|
|
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but he did propose a very strong argument..
|
On September 23 2009 05:09 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:06 TwilightStar wrote:Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. I understand what you are saying... but my basis for that quote is from experience, nothing more really. Don't understand how you can call something that is a reasonable truth stupidity. Because, if you survey the general population, the past 5 years have yielded some fantastic games. That's not a reasonable truth, that's branding your opinion as fact. To add a little subjective weight against your claim: http://www.gamespot.com/reviews.html?type=reviews&platform=5&mode=all&sort=score&dlx_type=all&sortdir=asc&official=all
Looking at that list, about 1/5th of the games >= 9 have been made in the last 5 years, when it should be closer to 1/3rd due to the timeframe. Why is that? Although the OP overdramaticized his argument, surely he's on to something when he says that games are getting worse. (And not even just the average game, but the best games are getting worse too.)
On September 23 2009 05:40 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 05:36 Chef wrote:On September 23 2009 05:23 eMbrace wrote:
Halo is easily the most well-made FPS on a console. Poll: Which game is better?( Vote): Goldeneye 64 ( Vote): Halo nostalgic bias, here we go!
I think it's more "can only vote for one option" bias. >_>
|
one of my friends calls starcraft "Starcraft Hero" combination of starcraft and guitar hero lol most people have no respect for the game
|
I don't see how you playing the games means you understand them. I've technically played starcraft since 1998 but I'm a D+ iccup player at best. I've technically played CS in multiple leagues but I'll never be "pro."
no one here is trying to judge your tastes, rather, how it seems your stating your personal tastes as facts.
Saying a random noob can be pro at CS in a few months is absurd. just because it bored you doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most deep FPSs on the market (it's a decade old and it still has a very strong competitive following, remind you of anything?).
you are being the same type of person you stated you hated IMO, by talking about games in an ignorant manner.
you say no games in the past 5 years have been deep like SC -- how can we prove you wrong if you just say, "nope I played that one, sorry it was too casual."
EDIT: also, to the people judging games based on scores -- stop. just stop.
|
I see you were born in 1992. I sincerely doubt that most people your age will have played SC seriously and/or have any sort of strong feelings associated with the game.
Granted, there is a serious lack of creativity in the gaming industry and a growing minority that seems to despise this, but overall the industry has found what sells, and people are happy enough with it to buy these games. And, as people have said, a lot of people are just looking for quick entertainment, not real-time-speed-chess-on-crack.
Furthermore, the games you speak of - WoW, CS, and Halo - do require a certain degree of practice to acquire skill and develop instinct in the game. Why do you think particular teams in Halo place consistently in the top 8 at MLG events? Because people have to not only have the raw mechanics to aim and shoot well, but also decision-making and teamwork. Same goes for WoW and CS.
Hell, in ANY serious competitive multiplayer game you have to think and plan out how you're going to win against your opponents... it's just that most people operate in a reactive fashion and shoot the first thing that comes onto their screen or build mass dragoons because it's the only thing they know how to do, or they get a rush when they win just operating on reaction. The games that truly require no skill or thinking are those that require only keyboard/button mashing to win, and I don't see any of those being played competitively.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:
Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good.
Really the only problem with the Starcraft graphics is that they were made for 640x480 on a CRT where you get free antialiasing, but these days everyone has LCD with strange sizes like 1366x768. Those pixels had a lot of love put into them that's hard to emulate in the modern content pipeline.
Game developers are expected to justify gamers' conspicuous consumption of hardware. This means you have to run at 2560x1600. What are you going to do with a 640x480 game there? Resample? 12 windows at the same time? And what about those 216 shader cores, you better be using those for something.
So obviously you do everything in 3D. Now instead of pixels coming out of the artist's hands, there's a whole team of craftsmen carefully assembling meshes and coordinates and effects. Then you have to make sure the screenshots show enough bloom and specular highlights (but no rainbows please). And this isn't Crysis, so it better fit in the polygon and shader budget of five year old hardware.
Also this isn't Hollywood; you don't get to set up Kubrick angles. The player's going to grab the camera and move it around randomly, so your models better look right from any perspective.
There are just too many variables you can't control. For a game that is essentially 2D (units move in a plane), realtime rendering is never going to look as good as pre-rendered sprites.
|
I introduced a (female, not that it matters) friend of mine who isnt that much into gaming into pretty much every game I play. She isn't good in any, but she clearly liked starcraft best.
What she stated was, that the game is easy to follow and she could pretty much understand whats
going on at all times and when and why she lost or won a particular game.
This is something that is pretty unique. In other games its not that easy to see.
|
On September 23 2009 07:03 eMbrace wrote:
Saying a random noob can be pro at CS in a few months is absurd. just because it bored you doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most deep FPSs on the market (it's a decade old and it still has a very strong competitive following, remind you of anything?).
Instead of my terribly thought up example about that from before, try this one:
Lets take the top CS player. I don't know WHO he/she is, if you could give me a name that'd be nice.
Then, lets take the top StarCraft player. As for who it is, I don't know. I could give suggestions but I'm sure I'd be missing someone.
If the counter-strike player was given a month to train constantly at StarCraft,
and the StarCraft player was given a month to train constantly at CS,
(Both by other top players of each title)
Who do you think would yield the best results in term of ability and knowledge of the new game?
Looking at that list, about 1/5th of the games >= 9 have been made in the last 5 years, when it should be closer to 1/3rd due to the timeframe. Why is that? Although the OP overdramaticized his argument, surely he's on to something when he says that games are getting worse. (And not even just the average game, but the best games are getting worse too.)
I agree. Sometimes I can be over-dramatic when it comes to these types of issues, but I really think that games are getting worse and worse in terms of gameplay. Blizzard can be our savior but hopefully some other gaming companies will start realizing what is happening.
On September 23 2009 07:11 d3_crescentia wrote:
I see you were born in 1992. I sincerely doubt that most people your age will have played SC seriously and/or have any sort of strong feelings associated with the game.
Granted, there is a serious lack of creativity in the gaming industry and a growing minority that seems to despise this, but overall the industry has found what sells, and people are happy enough with it to buy these games. And, as people have said, a lot of people are just looking for quick entertainment, not real-time-speed-chess-on-crack.
Furthermore, the games you speak of - WoW, CS, and Halo - do require a certain degree of practice to acquire skill and develop instinct in the game. Why do you think particular teams in Halo place consistently in the top 8 at MLG events? Because people have to not only have the raw mechanics to aim and shoot well, but also decision-making and teamwork. Same goes for WoW and CS.
Hell, in ANY serious competitive multiplayer game you have to think and plan out how you're going to win against your opponents... it's just that most people operate in a reactive fashion and shoot the first thing that comes onto their screen or build mass dragoons because it's the only thing they know how to do, or they get a rush when they win just operating on reaction. The games that truly require no skill or thinking are those that require only keyboard/button mashing to win, and I don't see any of those being played competitively.
Yes, I didn't play online until late 2004. You can understand a game in single player, just not very well (unless it is only a single player game). As I developed these 5 years I've come to learn more and more about the game, and I am still learning. That's what I thought he said when Game Understanding.
Practice to a certain degree you say? Through your eyes, Is that bar higher or lower than a game like StarCraft or WarCraft?
On September 23 2009 07:24 butterbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:
Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Really the only problem with the Starcraft graphics is that they were made for 640x480 on a CRT where you get free antialiasing, but these days everyone has LCD with strange sizes like 1366x768. Those pixels had a lot of love put into them that's hard to emulate in the modern content pipeline. Game developers are expected to justify gamers' conspicuous consumption of hardware. This means you have to run at 2560x1600. What are you going to do with a 640x480 game there? Resample? 12 windows at the same time? And what about those 216 shader cores, you better be using those for something. So obviously you do everything in 3D. Now instead of pixels coming out of the artist's hands, there's a whole team of craftsmen carefully assembling meshes and coordinates and effects. Then you have to make sure the screenshots show enough bloom and specular highlights (but no rainbows please). And this isn't Crysis, so it better fit in the polygon and shader budget of five year old hardware. Also this isn't Hollywood; you don't get to set up Kubrick angles. The player's going to grab the camera and move it around randomly, so your models better look right from any perspective. There are just too many variables you can't control. For a game that is essentially 2D (units move in a plane), realtime rendering is never going to look as good as hand-drawn sprites.
Yeah, I didn't like the way Chill put that. StarCraft is a game that needs the graphics to be clear and understandable... If there was a bigger explosion and huge death animations when a siege tank died, it'd be very distracting. The death animations in BW are short and sweet, and you can tell if a unit dies without being distracted. Nice to see a technical aspect in this sense, nice post.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
why did you tlpd-ize your post
|
I have no idea... I would say it was a misclick, but meh. Sorry and fixed.
|
On September 23 2009 07:32 TwilightStar wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 07:03 eMbrace wrote:
Saying a random noob can be pro at CS in a few months is absurd. just because it bored you doesn't change the fact that it is one of the most deep FPSs on the market (it's a decade old and it still has a very strong competitive following, remind you of anything?).
Hmm... How about this example. Lets take the top CS player. I don't know WHO he is, if you could give me a name that'd be nice. Then, lets take the top StarCraft player. Again, this would be controversial for a few. If the counter-strike player was given a month to train constantly at StarCraft and the StarCraft player was given a month to train constantly at CS Who do you think would yield the best results in term of skill at the new game?
wow....
are you really comparing two different genres of games and then comparing the skills required to play them effectively?
you can't even begin to make that argument, if anything I'd say I'd easily stomp either of them in SC or CS.
a pro basketball player will not pick up baseball faster because it's a "lazy" sport (lol at micheal jordan).
just because you think CS is a joke doesn't mean it is. there is so much to that game besides *shoot at the head* that it is quite insulting to hear you talk about this stuff.
and you wanted to design games?
|
It's easier to pick up and start playing an FPS game than an RTS game, is it not?
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:
Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience?
But, on the other hand, it has excellent artwork. It is the art style and the clever use of color application that makes Starcraft so easy to 'take in' with the eyes. At a glance, you can get quite a lot of information, and the colors are generally pleasing - they are not overly brown and grey. Starcraft's lack of real shadows and shaders and motion blur etc. also contribue to the game being very easy to understand at a glance. The only real advancement that could make it even easier to 'read' would be real-time anti-aliasing.
Agree with everything else, just wanted to distinguish between graphics and art style.
|
On September 23 2009 07:46 TwilightStar wrote:
It's easier to pick up and start playing an FPS game than an RTS game, is it not?
And it's easier to swing a bat and run to 1st base rather than sprinting back and forth across a court trying to shoot hoops, isn't it?
but it means nothing to what type of skills each game requires.
Starcraft is very easy to pick up and play, quite possibly one of the easiest RTS games out there. It's when you take SC to the next level that harder factors become apparent.
the same goes for CS, any noob can play this game for a couple of months and do decently on servers he joins.
can he join a beginner league and do well? hell no.
|
On September 23 2009 07:46 TwilightStar wrote:
It's easier to pick up and start playing an FPS game than an RTS game, is it not?
And it's harder to be a good teammate in an FPS game than it is to have 200APM.
And, it's harder to read 20 moves ahead in Go than it is to do either of those. Does it mean that we should all drop SC and start playing Go instead, because it is clearly the intellectually superior game?
|
Of course it is harder to read 20 moves ahead in a game of Go, because it's such an abstract game... That is what makes it great. Can you tell me WHERE in any of my posts, i'm asking anyone to drop the current game they are playing? I'm not telling them to quit that game and play a new one, I'm telling them to understand the skill gap between different types of games.
And I highly doubt being a good teammate in an FPS game is harder than being completely efficient with 200 APM.
|
On September 23 2009 08:08 TwilightStar wrote:
Of course it is harder to read 20 moves ahead in a game of Go, because it's such an abstract game... That is what makes it great. And I highly doubt being a good teammate in an FPS game is harder than being completely efficient with 200 APM.
he was wrong to use the good teammate example, because being a good teammate is relative to the level of play you are at.
that doesn't change the fact that what you are trying to say isn't a fair argument in any way.
arguing what sport takes more skill than another is a pointless debate.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
I want to add to this by saying I play games because they are fun. SC just so happens to have the most of the elements I find interesting and enjoyable. As chill briefly hit on, SC players in general seem to see it as some kind of serious career-quality pursuit that is not for enjoyment but to some how prove something to other people. Look at how often someone blogs about "ramping up their practice schedule to 6 hours a day" or something equally ridiculous, and those posters are never pros or even people who have won money playing.
Who cares if someone else likes a different game? This is an industry based on entertainment.
|
Heh WoW arena is a non-trivial thing to be pro at, and I don't mean in terms of being top 5 or whatever on your battlegroup, cause there are some pretty terrible battlegroups.
|
On September 23 2009 08:12 eMbrace wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 08:08 TwilightStar wrote:
Of course it is harder to read 20 moves ahead in a game of Go, because it's such an abstract game... That is what makes it great. And I highly doubt being a good teammate in an FPS game is harder than being completely efficient with 200 APM. he was wrong to use the good teammate example, because being a good teammate is relative to the level of play you are at. that doesn't change the fact that what you are trying to say isn't a fair argument in any way. arguing what sport takes more skill than another is a pointless debate.
Pointless, Maybe... but interesting nevertheless.
I want to add to this by saying I play games because they are fun. SC just so happens to have the most of the elements I find interesting and enjoyable. As chill briefly hit on, SC players in general seem to see it as some kind of serious career-quality pursuit that is not for enjoyment but to some how prove something to other people. Look at how often someone blogs about "ramping up their practice schedule to 6 hours a day" or something equally ridiculous, and those posters are never pros or even people who have won money playing.
Who cares if someone else likes a different game? This is an industry based on entertainment.
I don't care what games people like, nor am I trying to change it. People are obviously free to enjoy playing any game they wish. Most people on this subject aren't trying to change people, they are trying to inform them, or argue their position..
|
On September 23 2009 08:08 TwilightStar wrote:
Of course it is harder to read 20 moves ahead in a game of Go, because it's such an abstract game... That is what makes it great. Can you tell me WHERE in any of my posts, i'm asking anyone to drop the current game they are playing? I'm not telling them to quit that game and play a new one, I'm telling them to understand the skill gap between different types of games.
And I highly doubt being a good teammate in an FPS game is harder than being completely efficient with 200 APM.
It's unfortunate that this is what you are effectively communicating this by comparing relative skill levels of different games among people who pride themselves at being "good" at gaming. If you say "X game takes more skill than Y game does" then how do you think the other person would react if they never touched game X and exclusively played game Y? At best they might say "oh that's pretty neat," try a few games and realize that it would take far too much work for them to get any good at X for them to enjoy it.
Now we should consider that a lot of gamers are a bunch of angry egotistical immature nerds. How do you think they would react?
I do believe the guy above me has it right regarding teamwork - it's obviously relative to skill level. Being a good partner is something that most people are absolutely shitty at, and I would argue that at the highest level of play this is something that everyone needs to work on even if they do have excellent communication already.
|
United States47024 Posts
Not much to add, most of what I was going to say has been said, but one more little thing:
This happens to every entertainment medium. It's not exclusive to video games. It happened in television/cinema. It happened in comic books. It happened in basically every genre of music you can think of. Hell, it probably even happened to novels, though none of us were around to know it. As forms of entertainment enter the mainstream, the values that it was originally based on, or that it's original fans found "good" are changed. Common people think differently about different things, so its natural that the general populace has a different idea of what a "good" movie is, compared to a hardcore movie watcher. We used to have Citizen Kane, and now we get Transformers. Many entertainment communities have already had this discussion before us. Gaming's just next in line.
So what do we do? We go on. Video gaming isn't going to "die" just because its values changed. People still write comic books. Movies still get made. You can still find music in about every genre known to man. All that happens is that the original fans are faced with a choice. Either they embrace the new mainstream ideas, or they go off their own way. And the people who go off their own way do just fine. Independent movies, music, etc. come out all the time, especially with the internet as a new means to publicize them. They're not as big of hits as your usual Transformers summer blockbuster, but the good ones bring in enough money from the dedicated fans to get by. And that's enough to keep those hardcore readers/listeners/viewers going. We're already seeing this in the video game industry. A large portion of the good games that have come out in recent years were independent games, and the good ones (like World of Goo) actually find their way onto a mainstream platform.
TL;DR: You're not experiencing anything that thousands of people in different entertainment fields haven't seen already. They're all still alive in some shape or form, so there's no need for doomsaying yet.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
couldnt agree more.
|
Also not every game needs to be competitive just like every movie isn't out to win academy awards.
|
I mainly get annoyed at scrubs who righteously impose the scrub mind-set on games that are clearly competitive as if they are the final arbiter on how gamers should approach a game. ("That's not how the game was meant to be played.") Also scrubs who think that whatever skill they may have is noteworthy in the context of a deep skill curve game. ("Yeah, Starcraft, I used to be good at that game.")
The game industry is fine, though.
|
On September 23 2009 05:36 ShadowDrgn wrote:
New games aren't just competing with old games, they are competing with the old games combined with all their associated nostalgia. Even if someone makes a better RTS than Starcraft, you'll never accept that it's better because of all the fond memories you have of playing SC. People have been complaining about declining quality in just about everything since humanity has existed because of this. Some of those cave drawings from 10,000 B.C. probably mean "they just don't make clay pots like they used to these days." And in 50 years, you'll be yelling at kids to get off your lawn and reminiscing about the good old days when children respected their parents and video games were fun.
This is incredibly true, people should pay more attention to them. I always wonder whether new games are actually easier and not as good, or whether I'm just older and nostalgia is getting the best of me.
I'm sure nostalgia plays a huge role, but after getting all the stars on super mario galaxy again and then trying to play mario 64, I realized just how much easier the newer game is. I also feel like rpg's didn't really go anywhere after the snes era, but maybe that's just because by then, almost every story was already used up.
|
I came from a non/anti-gaming family, so I - despite being 23 - actually never played a lot of the older "classic" games, and I tend to suck balls at games I do play. Off the top of my head, only a few video games have really grabbed me - StarCraft is my #1 (surprisingly enough for a tl member), but the others are all across the spectrum: TECMO bowl (epic if ancient), Halo (sorry, it looks good and that's all I want from an FPS), Portal. In the RTS genre, I'm fascinated by Homeworld (don't play very often though), and play AOE2, War3, and DoW occasionally.
I guess this makes me, what, a casual gamer? That always seemed a really weird label to me, because aren't games just for entertainment anyway? - I guess next time I go kick a ball around with some friends I'm just being a casual soccer player, and if I want to think good things about myself I should really go join a league and really learn to play the game properly.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 12:16 Musoeun wrote:
I guess this makes me, what, a casual gamer? That always seemed a really weird label to me, because aren't games just for entertainment anyway? - I guess next time I go kick a ball around with some friends I'm just being a casual soccer player, and if I want to think good things about myself I should really go join a league and really learn to play the game properly.
The casual vs. hardcore gaming idea applies the same way it does to other entertainment media. People who just want a good 2 hour show vs. moviegoers who look for well-developed cinema. People who just listen to songs they like vs. people who look for "good" (by whatever arbitrary scholastic standard that's been instilled in them) music. People who read comic books for badass characters and explosions vs. people who look for deep literary and philosophical meaning in them. People who read dollar novels at the airport vs. people who've spent a lifetime studying literature.
Despite the desire to compare a game like Starcraft to a sport, the gaming industry as a whole is far more analogous to other entertainment media like cinema or music.
|
Yeah I love SC but really u cant hate all other games, just hate WoW and u are fine.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Show nested quote +Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
i agree with the first paragraph so much and parts of the other ones. but basically chill is 100% right about starcraft players being ridiculously elitist. the funny thing is that a lot of people here on teamliquid don't even play starcraft that often (i haven't played in a while myself) and yet feel they are part of this whole "zomg i'm awesome" thing that happens with starcraft players. then they dismiss other games without even knowing shit about them and complain about other people not knowing the depth of starcraft...
|
On September 23 2009 12:53 Nitrogen wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me. i agree with the first paragraph so much and parts of the other ones. but basically chill is 100% right about starcraft players being ridiculously elitist. the funny thing is that a lot of people here on teamliquid don't even play starcraft that often (i haven't played in a while myself) and yet feel they are part of this whole "zomg i'm awesome" thing that happens with starcraft players. then they dismiss other games without even knowing shit about them and complain about other people not knowing the depth of starcraft...
yeah it's a pride thing, some people let it get to their head.
i wear my WeMade fox shirt around like i own the world
-- I'm D+
|
I don't bother with arguing with people who complain about Starcraft's shitty graphics. If kickass graphics make them happy, just let them play those games with kickass graphics and save your breath. For me, Starcraft is the best game ever and no amount of complaining from people I don't know is going to change that for me
|
Starcraft has the best graphics in the world imo. 3D is just too blobby imo. heck i still play GBA.
I remember playing Runescape, the adventure of the fat clowns in armor. the graphics were "bad"
so bad that it lowered the rating on many websites by 2-4. recently, i just heard they made this new hd graphics but seeing just literally burned my eyes. i had a headache for days x_x... just saying, im focused on gameplay (unless its so bad, you cant tell the difference between your Hero and Enemy.) I wasnt really impressed with SC2's graphics although they are pretty good. i just liked the mapping features and a chance to be good in a game at start :D...
|
On September 23 2009 13:02 meegrean wrote:I don't bother with arguing with people who complain about Starcraft's shitty graphics. If kickass graphics make them happy, just let them play those games with kickass graphics and save your breath. For me, Starcraft is the best game ever and no amount of complaining from people I don't know is going to change that for me
What the hell.. We dont complain, ITS A FACT.. Starcraft have SHITTY GRAPHICS BY TODAY STANDARS.. It doesnt mean its not a great game.. It doesnt mean anything else..
You cant go and say its a great nice beautiful graphic because its not.. Its ugly, shitty, but its fucking 10 years old.Its understandable, so get it in your head...
There are people who dont play games because they have bad graphics, its understandable.. Some even go further, complaining about that bad graphics, not counting the fact that the game is old and it cant have nice beautiful graphic, so that is moronic.
And just for reference, why Sc graphic is bad by today standards..
|
Like others have said, Chill pretty much hit the nail on the head. StarCraft is a GREAT game, there's no denying that for anyone that's ever taken the time to truly get to know it. But so many of the people within the community have this heavily close-minded view of things. Just from reading the first couple paragraphs, it's easy to see that the OP has this mindset as well. Granted, according to what the other person reportedly said, he wasn't exactly the most knowledgeable person about StarCraft, but it's not anyone's job to try to "enlighten" everyone about the "holyness" that is StarCraft and how it's the world's "savior" from all things bad like so many hardcore players seem to believe. It reminds me a lot of hardcore religious folks trying to convert people that are completely happy with their lives already. When you try to do that, it makes YOU the ignorant one, not the person that doesn't know anything about the thing that you worship. People need to understand that everyone has different opinions and feelings and are happy in different ways, and that their own opinions and feelings are not fact and are not things that should be forced onto others.
That said, it's always cool to introduce new people to the game, but you gotta have an open-mind about it and not treat it like it's some religious conversion. Don't argue with people about the game and try to "prove them wrong" when they clearly don't know much about it, that just makes you seem like a douchebag. Instead, just look at things from their point of view and if they're interested, explain why you think the game is so cool. But don't sit there and tell people they're wrong or treat them like they're ignorant or unenlightened, that's not good for anyone.
Basically, don't act like you're better or smarter than anyone for playing and/or knowing about StarCraft, because that definitely doesn't make you better than anyone. Just be cool about it and treat it like a fun, normal activity like you would other things. You'll get a lot more people to see things your way and try out the game that way. It's a great game for sure, but not everyone will understand that or agree with it. That's just the way life is, different people see things differently.
|
United States47024 Posts
On September 23 2009 16:27 Samurai- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2009 13:02 meegrean wrote:I don't bother with arguing with people who complain about Starcraft's shitty graphics. If kickass graphics make them happy, just let them play those games with kickass graphics and save your breath. For me, Starcraft is the best game ever and no amount of complaining from people I don't know is going to change that for me What the hell.. We dont complain, ITS A FACT.. Starcraft have SHITTY GRAPHICS BY TODAY STANDARS.. It doesnt mean its not a great game.. It doesnt mean anything else.. You cant go and say its a great nice beautiful graphic because its not.. Its ugly, shitty, but its fucking 10 years old.Its understandable, so get it in your head... There are people who dont play games because they have bad graphics, its understandable.. Some even go further, complaining about that bad graphics, not counting the fact that the game is old and it cant have nice beautiful graphic, so that is moronic. And just for reference, why Sc graphic is bad by today standards..
Saying Starcraft has shitty graphics is like saying old music doesn't sound as good because people didn't have computers to edit the raw recordings. Limitations of technology don't prohibit good composition and design. "Good" graphics aren't just about taking advantage of every modern graphical feature. Starcraft had much better art direction that most modern games (definitely better than Crysis), and it's arguable that it has better art direction than any non-Blizzard game (based on the attention that Blizzard puts into their art).
That's part of why its bothersome when people say Starcraft has bad graphics. It doesn't. Starcraft only has bad graphics if you're basing "good graphics" on meaningless numbers like poly count, or buzzword features like HDR lighting. Features like that don't tell you the quality of the artist's production, just like Autotune doesn't tell you anything about whether the music you're listening to is any good.
|
Anything that came out of 1998 like CS and SC are fucking epic games! that is all..
CS has a degree of difficulty in which you have perfectly aim that fucking crosshair to the head without any thought what soever, so in order to do that, You really need to practice your headshooting skills like 3-4 hours a day in cs_deathmatch or cs_tankbeta. (I played CS from beta 3.4 to CS 1.4 only)
But that is not all, in CS you need an indepth knowledge of the maps, maps such as de_dust2, de_cobble, de_train need complete synchronized planning (everyone should be in the same page when in comes to attacking or defending a post) how can CS not be that deep?
Same goes to starcraft, you really need the mechanical prowess of Bisu or JD to execute a plan that requires godlike multitasking, but in order to do that you really need to practice your brain in memorizing where the hotkeys are and shouldn't slack in making probes, zealots, buildings, expo.
And besides, not everyone has the same talent in playing CS or SC. I know some players that really sucked at CS then I know some players (including me) that sucked in SC.
My still stands that CS you really need in depth knowledge of a map and the mechanical prowess just like SC. But I know that it's a different genre so we can't really make any debate on that.
|
Thanks for all of your replies. Regardless of if it was for me or against me, they all were all helpful or insightful. Happy Gaming!
|
I met alot of people who consider themselves "good" or "pro" gamers. Then i destroyed them at Starcraft, SSBM, and Mario Kart 64. The only games that matter. Although my friend still kicks my ass at street fighter.
|
On September 24 2009 01:00 Licmyobelisk wrote:Anything that came out of 1998 like CS and SC are fucking epic games! that is all.. CS has a degree of difficulty in which you have perfectly aim that fucking crosshair to the head without any thought what soever, so in order to do that, You really need to practice your headshooting skills like 3-4 hours a day in cs_deathmatch or cs_tankbeta. (I played CS from beta 3.4 to CS 1.4 only) But that is not all, in CS you need an indepth knowledge of the maps, maps such as de_dust2, de_cobble, de_train need complete synchronized planning (everyone should be in the same page when in comes to attacking or defending a post) how can CS not be that deep? Same goes to starcraft, you really need the mechanical prowess of Bisu or JD to execute a plan that requires godlike multitasking, but in order to do that you really need to practice your brain in memorizing where the hotkeys are and shouldn't slack in making probes, zealots, buildings, expo. And besides, not everyone has the same talent in playing CS or SC. I know some players that really sucked at CS then I know some players (including me) that sucked in SC. My still stands that CS you really need in depth knowledge of a map and the mechanical prowess just like SC. But I know that it's a different genre so we can't really make any debate on that.
As a member of the CS community since Beta 1 and having been around SC for a while now, I can safely say the two communities have incredibly similar mindsets surrounding our games, elitism as it were. It makes sense since both games have enormous replay value and so much creativity can be expressed throughout both games in different ways. Pub communities are pretty much exactly like US West, they play every now and then and get bored or whatever and may come back in a few months to play. League players and pros are just like ICCUP players and progamers(though sadly, the 1.6 community is much smaller than it used to be, the skill level has depreciated, there is not as many tournaments as there used to be, and CS:S was helpful in wrecking that[SC2 will most likely do the same]). On paper, both games like quite simple and bland, while in watching the games, we see awesome strategies play out, as well as brilliant individual plays. Not to mention that both games' styles have changed dramatically over the years.
|
Yeah you really should have told him that chess doesn't have huge explosions and other parts of amazing graphics... I really like to compare SC to chess when talking with my friends, they always stop their flames on SC.
There is a LOT of similarities between these 2 games
|
Im growing out of liking games. Played a lot of different games when i was younger. I am no longer a gaming fan. With that being said, Starcraft is simply the best game ever made. This is the ONLY game I can still play and enjoy. Too much strategy and skill involved. It is truly like a sport. Strategy wise chess and SC are similar. However, no micro or macro in chess. Just simply all strategy.
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:
I don't have much to add, but I want to say this:
Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet.
Most Starcraft players, at least on TL, are closer to chess or poker players than they are to a typical video gamer. Video gamers move on from one game to the next, Starcraft players put most of their focus on one deep game.
Didn't read the rest, looked like a boring anti-elitist rant.
|
On September 23 2009 12:23 TheYango wrote:
...
Despite the desire to compare a game like Starcraft to a sport, the gaming industry as a whole is far more analogous to other entertainment media like cinema or music.
What I feel makes the divide between videogame players much different than the other ones you mentioned is that with videogames, it's not that people have different approaches to the same thing, it's that they're all playing very different things that have been generalised under a really flawed umbrella term. What people call a videogame is really any set of electronically handled rules that respond to input, with the output being meant only for entertainment. Whether those rules are meant for competition or simply to act as an entertainment experience is something that's completely ignored, because generally people only have experience with one of the two and apply their assumptions about one to the other.
It's ridiculous. It's the equivalent of having flamewars between people who like novels and people who like instructional manuals.
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
1998 was the year gaming changed
goddamn thank god I was actually able to play videogames at 1998, I feel bad for people who never witnessed the golden age of gaming
|
On September 23 2009 04:47 Chill wrote:+ Show Spoiler [amazing post] +I don't have much to add, but I want to say this: Starcraft players are some of the most closed-minded gamers on the planet. The majority of people are looking for something fun to pass the time, not a second job with no benefits. Starcraft players dismiss nearly every other genre. Have you ever noticed that WoW and WC3 players at live events can freely enjoy Starcraft and find it really interesting to watch? And conversely, when Starcraft players watch the other games, all they do is criticize them? This could mean that Starcraft is somehow an objectively better game, or, more likely, Starcraft players suffer a little too much from elitism. Starcraft has shitty graphics. There is no denying this. They are fucking terrible by today's standards. Graphics are a huge part of a game. Maybe you like the graphics because they are familiar, but that doesn't make them objectively good. Why is someone who perceives something as fun because of nice graphics any different than someone who bases it on the gameplay or multiplayer experience? Two men discuss their lives. One dates women mostly based on their personality. The other, mostly on looks. You can argue that former will have a deeper connection with his partners, and will learn almost everything about her. The latter may have a weaker connection, but will probably get bored and move onto something else. Yet they are both happy. Is one person objectively better in this case? Is one person "doing it right"? Does one person deserve to be looked down on? Your stupid sentence, Alot of games have come out in the past 5 years, but none of them are close to being good. proves my point. It is this baseless brush-stroking that upsets me.
I somehow have to agree with Chill.
I actually had played SC a few times but it never clung onto me so I switched games. Played plenty of WC3 (ladder), DotA and all those custom games, WoW, CS, TF2 and many other games and I enjoyed watching vids or compilations from them.
Ever since I started prioritizing SC it's like... I just don't enjoy it as much as a good SC game.
|
What level did you play Counter-Strike at that you got bored with it?
Pubs? Off-Client Pugs? Two seasons of Cal-O three years ago?
Find it very hard to believe you played at the level where you could understand the game in its competitive form and still find it "boring."
I'm sure people who only played BW on west UMS games found it boring eventually too, doesn't mean it's true, now does it?
|
On October 01 2009 12:18 MrHoon wrote:
1998 was the year gaming changed
goddamn thank god I was actually able to play videogames at 1998, I feel bad for people who never witnessed the golden age of gaming
I actually think 2007 was a better year overall. 1998 was fantastic as well, but when I look at some of my favorite games, most are from '07.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.thezeal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/starcraft.png)
![[image loading]](http://mysite.verizon.net/revelin/Crysis_2.jpg)
