EPTSC2 won't kill SC - Page 2
| Blogs > Freezard |
|
Vedic
United States582 Posts
| ||
|
Wotans_Fire
United Kingdom294 Posts
On February 28 2010 01:01 JSH wrote: Well technically all games days are numbers No game lasts forever... And SC2 can help make that time come faster or slower for SC:BW What about chess? I think SC:BW will always be a game in its own right just because there is a sequel doesn't mean that BW doesnt have something different to offer. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8173 Posts
If they don't agree, then korean scene will keep on playing SC1, which will die very slowly. Otherwise, probably a great switch. | ||
|
cafaro
Netherlands32 Posts
I'm pretty certain the Koreans will stay with SC. It's hard to say what will happen to the foreign player base, but my guess is that, after the SC2 hype is over over, a considerable portion will return to SC (similar to the source/1.6 split). And I really believe the 1.6/source, quake3/quake4 analogy can be made here as well. SC = good gameplay (bad graphics), requires good mechanics for macro/micro, pretty much perfect for competative play. SC2 = easy gameplay, fun experience for casual gamers (good graphics), micro is pretty much non-existent, macro is far too easy (barely requires any mechanics), resulting in a small skill gap since it's relatively easy to become a decent player, so not suited for competative play. Only argument for SC2 would be better graphics, but i still think the game looks like shit. In SC2, units are hard to distinguish in large battles, buildings/units have a rather toy'ish/childish appearance, whereas SC1 units are easy to tell apart, and the units/buildings have more mature "look". And if you think the people will stay with SC2 because organizations will host SC2 tournies with larger prize pools, you're wrong, just look at what happened with CS:S and the CGS, it completely failed. In the end, most players will stick with the game with the best gameplay. Just my 2 cents  | ||
|
Cambium
United States16368 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5282 Posts
The only players who could be interested in sticking with SC:BW are the TOP Korean players who are basically guaranteed Starleague appearances. All the B-teamers, people like Idra and countless other no-name Koreans, will get the fuck out of SC and look for their chance for fame&money in SC2. SC2 will also be the topic of all conversation, and SC will go completely underground. Then, if SC2 fails, SC might come to life again, but I don't see it happening to the degree of having a Starleague broadcasted in prime time like it is now in Korea. | ||
|
Spike
United States1392 Posts
Only the most hardcore of hardcore players will stick with SC1 (Koreans), so yea, the game will die. Don't have a problem with it either. | ||
|
Freezard
Sweden1029 Posts
On February 28 2010 02:00 Vedic wrote: So, because it happened once with CS, you think it will happen in SC? Diablo was replaced by Diablo 2. WC2 was replaced by WC3. Quake was replaced by Quake 2, which was then replaced by Quake 3. Saying that SC2 won't replace SC is just wishful thinking. -Diablo wasn't a multiplayer game at its core, as far as I know there wasn't even an online mode in the expansion Hellfire. Hell no one even had Internet when Diablo was released. -Quake and Quake 2 might have been replaced by Quake 3, but did Quake 4 replace Quake 3? I don't think so, that game was dead within a year. And if you didn't know, Id Software had a QuakeWorld tournament last QuakeCon, which proves people still play Quake competitive. -WarCraft 3 replaced WarCraft 2, agreed. -CS:S did definitely not replace CS. -UT2003/UT2004/UT3 did not replace UT, there are more UT tournaments today as well as over 2000 players constantly playing on public. -GH:XXXXXX did not replace GH3, it is still the most competitive game with the largest userbase today. -Did CoD4 replace CoD2? Did CoD5 and 6 replace CoD4? Judging by the amount of players on ClanBase for example, CoD2 still has way more players than most other online games today, and CoD4 has a ridiculous amount of players. So, as you see, it didn't happen once but tons of times already. Some games have pretty much been replaced, but there are more cases where the userbase have been split and created a loss/loss situation. No one likes when a sequel sucks up players from the old game, but no one likes a new game without enough players as well. I'm not trying to say SC2 will disappear and everyone will play SC, I'm just saying SC will still be active and COULD have as many players as SC2 or even more, as the smoke fade away after a year or so. | ||
|
nbaker
United States1341 Posts
My money is on Brood War | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
I really wish they'd just brought out a new game rather than a sequel. With a sequel everyone feels the urge to switch over and sponsors stop sponsoring the old game. If it was a new franchise that wouldn't be an issue. sigh* | ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
There is a reason why Blizzard removed lan from SC2. If blizzard is too controlling with SC2, then it won't be a viable e-sport (in korea or anywhere). | ||
|
StalkerSC
Canada378 Posts
On February 28 2010 00:45 Zoler wrote: Who cares what Plexa said he also said Boxer should quit..  + Show Spoiler + Tho SC's days ARE numbered ^^that | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
| ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Now they want to become pro, win tourneys and travel and they all know it won't happen if they stick to bw. But Koreans won't quit this game. | ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
 | ||
|
eMbrace
United States1300 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9110 Posts
| ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
| ||
|
rererebanned
67 Posts
On February 28 2010 02:55 nbaker wrote: After the hype fizzles out, people will play the game that is more fun. My money is on Brood War People wont play Sc1. Note that most of the "new" gamers, are relatively younger than the hardcore SC1 community, thus they probably dont even know Starcraft. Perhaps few of them will try it if they like SC2 (or if it sucks), but I would expect SC2 to become the "new" RTS game, or maybe even the "game of the year/quarter", with millions of casual gamers (blizzard hopes for that). Other such games would be GTA San Andreas and COD4, which were really good games suitable both for starters and "new" gamers. Do people who like them play the previous games from these series? Perhaps some, but not that many. Im not sure if SC2 is fun though; I mean, currently it has the "fun" of a new game, with decent controls/interface, but I wonder if there is any fun gameplay in it. I mean, I havent seen any muta micro (I love playing zerg due to muta micro); nor fun terran micro (mines, mnm), nor fun spellcasting (storms!), nor even 'fun' macro, with players taking few bases and fighting over land old-school TvP style (maybe because the maps are so small). Im talking from a viewer perspective - I mean, I dont see much of the "starcraft1" charm in SC2; and I dont see the WC3 charm either (frankly speaking I dont like WC3 surrounding-micro + 34236523 spells; I prefer "fast" sc1 micro). | ||
|
selboN
United States2523 Posts
| ||
| ||
