I expect this to get a lot of views and heat. Here we go.
First I should define failure. I have no doubt that Starcraft 2 will sell a ridiculous number of copies. Blizzard is pretty much guaranteed a huge market success from the Starcraft 2 title. Even if the game was just a half-assed attempt with no attention to gameplay or balance, the title Starcraft 2 itself is enough to set sales records solely on the name itself, albeit Blizzard’s reputation would be tarnished. However, compared to a pay-to-play model like WOW, SC2 from this business perspective is unable to achieve a profit margin anywhere near the profitability of WOW. Implementing a free Bnet is required and expected, and charging for multiplayer service is an undoubtedly unpopular and probably harmful move.
But let’s put that aside and say that SC2 is a decent game. It cannot be a truly amazing game for several reasons. One is that, from its very core, it is simply a remake of the same Starcraft game we have grown to love over its highly extended life span. The same game that people have spent countless hours playing, analyzing, conditioning, assimilating and engaged in, to the point where it has become an embodiment of second nature. For most people, this appeal does not last forever, and they eventually move on to other games to entertain themselves. To a minority (ie. TL community) they continue this pursuit to achieve excellence in this game, honing their mechanics, timing, and game sense to every higher levels. It eventually reaches a point where the game no longer presents novel scenarios for creative thinking, but rather becomes an exercise in rhythm and getting into the flow of the game.
There is no point in criticizing those “less hardcore” segment of the gamer population. I experienced this phenomenon myself, when at some point the game became an exercise in hand-eye coordination and mechanics, almost something that seemed more like work than entertainment. I guess part of that has to do with my own lazy, casual personality and approach to life. Nevertheless, the loyal Starcraft community values this kind of speed and dexterity to win. Starcraft 2 is pretty much the same game, with new units, buildings and tech trees. Therefore, even before it is released, the game is already stale. Players are familiar with the same overall pattern of gameplay, feel, and mental preparation. Sure, new strategies and trends will emerge, but it feels too much like the original game, a property that developers and the fan base aimed for intentionally, no doubt.
The player base will be composed of those new to the Starcraft franchise, the still active SC1 veterans, and the majority should be people who played Starcraft before, stopped playing, and will probably revisit SC2 for its brand name and to relive fond memories long ago. Most of the population, just as before, will give it a try, and move on relatively quickly once they realize the amount of time, effort and training required to become competitive.
Personally, I would have liked to see Starcraft 2 really take some new risks and innovate with some daring features. An example I could use, though I’m sure most would vehemently disagree, is to one-up the race count from WC3 and put in 5 races. Balance may be impossible, but you never know. Starcraft with new units, graphics, and abilities is still just Starcraft with new units, graphics and abilities. Updating a legendary, dated game is not enough to really invigorate the market, and remind everyone why Blizzard is the best. Truthfully, pretty much any company could try to do the same thing, and the most notable difference would probably only lie in balance.
But SC2 will not suffer all that much from staleness or a shrinking community. Offering a well designed, integrated ladder in Bnet 2 is sure to do wonders in sustaining a healthy competitive scene. However, I predict that SC2 “standard melee mode” will be easily eclipsed by a well made, highly popular UMS, ala DOTA.
I have many good reasons for this prediction. SC2’s map editor has been promised to be a gigantic leap forward from the already very powerful WC3 map editor. I do have very high expectations for this tool, and will probably be blown away by its features. Even if I myself do not have the knowledge or expertise to fully exploit the complexities of the program, there is a large community of map-makers full of creative talent that can.
SC and SC2 are mostly designed and played in a one-on-one format. While this is easily the most balanced and competitive set-up, from a player’s perspective, it simply is not as fun as playing in a team game or larger FFA with multiple players in one game. 5v5, whether in DOTA, CS, or whatever, is just that much more enjoyable when you can share your clutch plays and teamwork elements with many others, also introducing a social aspect to it.
SC2 will be forced to take itself extremely seriously from the very start. Balance is number one, while players’ demands may conflict, and changes could be expected to come very slowly and cautiously. Compare this with a custom made map, where the creator pretty much has the freedom to do whatever they wish. Updates, improvements, additions, and tweaks can be made quickly. Editors have very high flexibility in making the game more enjoyable for players. If large mistakes are made, they are better tolerated then when introduced via an official patch to the serious business game of ladder.
Shortly after SC2 is released, there will be a huge influx of map editors trying to make the next DOTA for SC2. It will most likely be a team format. Many will be simple rip-offs of the general DOTA gameplay, but I am much more excited for new and original formats. People will be inspired by DOTA’s success, and perhaps see if they are able to make their own. Soon, as from the points listed above, SC2’s popularity will stagnate and slowly dwindle, and some new custom map will eclipse the ladder game in terms of popularity and “casual” tolerance. Something that is more enjoyable to the general market, and that less resembles “work”. A team will be built around this UMS game, to build, polish and balance it to remarkable levels. It will likely reach a level of quality enough to be a standalone game, and LAN cafes will advertise tourneys for that UMS over the SC2 ladder game.
You heard it here first. What cha think? I guess I'll also throw in that I've never played SC2, nor do I have that much interest in its development.
I'm gonna be straight with you...you probably shoulda kept that last line to yourself. The fact that you haven't played the game or have kept up with its development pretty much makes everything else you said lack any credibility whatsoever. It may well be as you say, but given that you know less than the average TL.netter does about the game by your own admission makes your entire post conjecture.
On April 01 2010 13:55 DanceCommander wrote: what a load of bullshit. arrian has already pointed out why this blog is a waste. someone please close this, it makes me sick
mr.defensive over here b/c he clearly just got a beta key lol
On April 01 2010 13:55 DanceCommander wrote: what a load of bullshit. arrian has already pointed out why this blog is a waste. someone please close this, it makes me sick
mr.defensive over here b/c he clearly just got a beta key lol
Well, I think there might be a lot of incorrect conjectures in your blog post, but here is the one that I think it the most inaccurate.
You claim that BW, at this point, is only played for the speed and dexterity, and that there is no room for creative thinking. I completely disagree. I think the exact opposite: that the reason BW is still going where other games have failed is that there is a strategic depth that surpasses every other game. There has been consistent meta game development from the moment it was released until even today.
SC2 seems to put an even greater emphasis on strategic depth rather than mechanics like micro and macro, leading me to believe that it might have even greater esports potential than BW.
You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be made to fit your needs, especially if you don't like Starcraft 1. There are plenty of other RTS games out there that might be better suited for you. Starcraft was made for a different type of person.
He has a fair point, but then again in any debate its not just the fair point but how far it goes to support you.
Starcraft may have become less of making new strategies and into more reactions and timing. In a sense this could be inevitable for any game. But name me a game that doesn't have this nature? (Chess after decades has also become mastered, just that the skill level is much wider)
In any case, a couter argument can be easily built by your idea of hand-eye coordination. In a game, depending on who you play, you can easily learn about a person through their style. This may not occur all the time, but eventually through playing continuously, you can tell how someone is deep down through playing them across the monitor. The other person has nothing to hide, for he/she is behind the safety of the monitor, so in a sense he/she can show you his/her personality through the game. (This can be disproven because some people might not have the mechanics, but generally you can learn about people through the game).
For example, many of my friends who play really show off their style. My pasifist friend does relatively safe builds. On the other hand, my outgoing friend is more well rounded and likes to play risky, which really reflects their character. (Note: This can be disproven, but I notice this with some people)
The reason Starcraft allows this is through its balance and variability despite figuring it out. Thinking about what a person does, how to respond, how to counter back after an attack etc is really exciting in that your having a mental battle with someone else, thats different than any other thing. (people who play 1v1 sports can relate to this idea of a mind battle between two people). I have no doubt that Starcraft 2 once balanced can also have this potential.
Other games have a lower ability to do this because many games are biased towards certain styles. Massing tanks in C and C is almost auto win, so everyone seems to do it. Point is Starcraft has that factor that allows people to learn about each other, without actually meeting them. This combined with the fun factor, the hand-eye corrdination and gamer base, makes the game truly great.
MAAAAAAAAAAN you couldnt be more wrong. did you just enter the video game world today? let me break it down for you.
the entirety of your opinion is contrived because you believe that because a sequel is similar to its predecessor, then its stale. this is WEIRD of you to think, and i must assume you've never looked at sales for other video games.
for example, every single FPS ever made is similar to the other. same rhythm same set of gameplay ideas. HOWEVER the sales for FPS's keep getting higher and higher ever single year, because tiny things are improved on, smoothness, graphics, incorporating multiplayer elements, etc etc.
you dont have any idea how to make an argument, it comes down to the establishment of 3 things
ethos pathos logos
you have failed to establish a foundation for ANY of these things, therefore you will convince absolutely no one of your opinion. ^_^
He has a fair point, but then again in any debate its not just the fair point but how far it goes to support you.
Starcraft may have become less of making new strategies and into more reactions and timing. In a sense this could be inevitable for any game. But name me a game that doesn't have this nature? (Chess after decades has also become mastered, just that the skill level is much wider)
In any case, a couter argument can be easily built by your idea of hand-eye coordination. In a game, depending on who you play, you can easily learn about a person through their style. This may not occur all the time, but eventually through playing continuously, you can tell how someone is deep down through playing them across the monitor. The other person has nothing to hide, for he/she is behind the safety of the monitor, so in a sense he/she can show you his/her personality through the game. (This can be disproven because some people might not have the mechanics, but generally you can learn about people through the game).
For example, many of my friends who play really show off their style. My pasifist friend does relatively safe builds. On the other hand, my outgoing friend is more well rounded and likes to play risky, which really reflects their character. (Note: This can be disproven, but I notice this with some people)
The reason Starcraft allows this is through its balance and variability despite figuring it out. Thinking about what a person does, how to respond, how to counter back after an attack etc is really exciting in that your having a mental battle with someone else, thats different than any other thing. (people who play 1v1 sports can relate to this idea of a mind battle between two people). I have no doubt that Starcraft 2 once balanced can also have this potential.
Other games have a lower ability to do this because many games are biased towards certain styles. Massing tanks in C and C is almost auto win, so everyone seems to do it. Point is Starcraft has that factor that allows people to learn about each other, without actually meeting them. This combined with the fun factor, the hand-eye corrdination and gamer base, makes the game truly great.
it is nice to be able to see someones personality through their gameplay, but im not quite sure you understand what hand eye coordination is lol n__n
On April 01 2010 14:20 mOnion wrote: MAAAAAAAAAAN you couldnt be more wrong. did you just enter the video game world today? let me break it down for you.
the entirety of your opinion is contrived because you believe that because a sequel is similar to its predecessor, then its stale. this is WEIRD of you to think, and i must assume you've never looked at sales for other video games.
for example, every single FPS ever made is similar to the other. same rhythm same set of gameplay ideas. HOWEVER the sales for FPS's keep getting higher and higher ever single year, because tiny things are improved on, smoothness, graphics, incorporating multiplayer elements, etc etc.
you dont have any idea how to make an argument, it comes down to the establishment of 3 things
ethos pathos logos
you have failed to establish a foundation for ANY of these things, therefore you will convince absolutely no one of your opinion. ^_^
lol I have my doubts that most people consider ethos, pathos and logos while arguing things. Regardless I agree he's wrong. Think about any popular video games and their sequels.... they succeed because they are similar enough to catch the same crowd and different enough to offer new challenges. SC2 is no different.
You do realize that there will be ALOT of new faces, and seeing as how majority of the bw players played like 5-7 years I would think, why would this be any different for the new generation of players, along with the old generation that chooses to continue to play. What a fail blog .
On April 01 2010 13:37 Shiverfish wrote: I guess I'll also throw in that I've never played SC2, nor do I have that much interest in its development.
Assuming you aren't trolling, which I find improbable, I'll say this.
Not having played SC2 does not make you an objective source of criticism on it. It merely makes you someone who speaks on a certain topic without knowledge of the topic (I am tempted to use stronger words to describe how aggravating that action is), and I say this because Starcraft and Starcraft 2 are not the same game. The changes that guarantee this are too many to enumerate here - you can find them out for yourself, by playing the game.
Secondly, not being interested in its development is, quite simply, bullshit. You are arguing against yourself when you state your expectations of SC2 map editor: guess what, it's part of the game. And then there's that huge wall of text in your blog about SC2. Maybe with the Orthodox Easter closing by, you wanted to make your rant look like a bunch of prophetic conjectures that are based on, well, nothing. You claim that the games are (or will be) about mechanical acting and not creative thinking; you simply fail to see the creative thinking showcased in every single match of BW or the SC2 beta out there - again, I don't have to enumerate, you'll simply deny it anyway because you are not able to understand it.
You don't like Starcraft, we get it. Starcraft 2 is very close to the first game for a reason. If you don't like that, there are plenty of other RTS/RPG games out there for you to try. At any rate, the only possible prank I see out of this is you being less of a casual shortsighted failure than you illustrate.
Hey, I clicked this thread ready to read some nice arguments I'd probably agree with. Stuff about the apparently lacking defender's advantage, the way the new engine throws off the balance which Blizzard is still at least somewhat basing their decisions from... Stalkers (the coolest unit) sucking...
Instead there is just a whole lot of rambling, touchy-feely words that don't actually present any sort of an argument and go on for freakin' ever. If you've made up your mind to hate SC2 and bitch about it, at least go about it the right way!
This is such a terrible blog, you havent even played sc2 yet your willing to bet on its failure? How can you do that? Thats like... not eating candy because you say you dont like it, but yet you havent had a single piece... Your a moron. GG
EDIT: I'm actually kinda +1 for him thinkin sc2 is going to just fail, maybe he wont try and play it and he'll eventually stop using teamliquid and thus reducing the horrible blog entries.
blahblahblah, i have no beta key, i dont like starcraft 2.
until i read the last sentence i planned to at least write a lengthy comment, but now that i have read through everything its just not worth the effort
this is probably the best response I have seen so far, as for the post itself the part at the end kinda killed any credibility it had for me, Id at least expect you to have played it to be making such a strong point about the game
I think he just doesn't want a good game like broodwar being replaced by a new game that's supposed to try and beat out its predecessor. I'm not gonna jump the bandwagon like everyone else is doing although I do agree he should've at least played the game first before making such a statement.
On April 01 2010 13:37 Shiverfish wrote: It eventually reaches a point where the game no longer presents novel scenarios for creative thinking, but rather becomes an exercise in rhythm and getting into the flow of the game. blablabla an exercise in hand-eye coordination and mechanics, almost something that seemed more like work than entertainment.
Ugh, hate this. This is a point of view held almost exclusively by players who have never reached the level of play they're talking about, and so don't grasp that even though the obvious variations in play they've come to regard as "creative thinking" are no longer present, there are subtler aspects to the game that have exactly the same role once play is optimized. If you "experienced this phenomenon" of totally mechanical play yourself, it's only because you chose to mindlessly copy high level play without any actual understanding of it.
Rest of your post basically boils down to THEY SHOULD HAVE NEW RACES BECAUSE THEY'RE NEW and the startling observation that, much like every competitive videogame ever, there will probably be more players interested in using the engine to get some shallow gratification(these kinds of "enjoyable", casual games are usually the ones which actually become boring and mechanical when you take them to a higher level of play, btw) than any sort of serious competition.
I really don't think anyone can say anything about sc2 if they never even played it nor did they even keep up with development.
Personally I thought sc2 was a lost cause but after actually playing it, I think it has much promise provided the right changes are made sooner or later.
EDIT: furthermore I'm almost certain you have no idea how the original BW panned out from the start.
Opening with an argument that is akin to saying "Modern games can't be successful without recurring fees and/or micro-payments" isn't the way to get me to consider your opinions. That said, I read it all and I disagree but I don't wish to bother elaborating as to why. Your thoughts are too scattered in the post to make them easily addressed. You also bounce between stating why the game is already stale to pointing out how it won't be stale. Which is it? Why say a game is doomed but have points in the text defending the game? Your goal should be to refute those points and if you can't then they should probably be dropped from your argument since they'll only work against it.
just in case you're trolling I'll keep this short:
1. starcraft is a timeless game because it has some core values. perfect balance is one. including 5 races and shitting on balance is not the way to go if sc2 shall be a long-term succesful rts (like sc:bw).
2. other companies remade exactly what made starcraft great and had a very positive reception in the sc community. armies of exigo is the best example - an absolutely fantastic competetion game only "doomed to failure" because it did not have the same marketing backup as blizzard's games and eventually was abandoned by its developers.
3. dota can be a lot of work too and i'm not sure if you HAVE played dota, but the "casual friendliness" you're speaking of is not given at all. when I played pub games "back in the day" there were always some high skillers who went ahead in levels and items and owned shit up. also team maneuvers and especially last hits need a lot of work on until you can reliably employ them, that's always where i lost interest in the game, same argument as yours.
if you're not trolling you have your very own view of how sc2 is supposed to be (different from sc1), that's ok, just that you should know the mentality here on tl and that we have absolutely zero understanding for this (and why should we - this is not ESPORTS)
On April 01 2010 13:38 Shiverfish wrote: Wow 13:37 on April fools day. This isn't a troll post or April fools day joke either, in case it might look like it.
DOUBLE FOOLED BAM BOOM BITCHES
Srsly I doubt the guy is retarded enough to claim such things without having followed the development or played the game at all.
On April 01 2010 13:38 Shiverfish wrote: Wow 13:37 on April fools day. This isn't a troll post or April fools day joke either, in case it might look like it.
DOUBLE FOOLED BAM BOOM BITCHES
Srsly I doubt the guy is retarded enough to claim such things without having followed the development or played the game at all.
I guess I'll also throw in that I've never played SC2, nor do I have that much interest in its development.
Then don't talk like you understand anything. You haven't played the game, You don't follow how it is developing, so why are you making random conjectures about it? Play the game first, then you can come back and try and give an informed opinion.
On April 01 2010 14:20 mOnion wrote: HOWEVER the sales for FPS's keep getting higher and higher ever single year, because tiny things are improved on, smoothness, graphics, incorporating multiplayer elements, etc etc.
EPT
.
