|
Y'know, at first I was cool with it. And by "it" I mean all the people who complained about StarCraft 2. It could have been anything. Gameplay, graphics, sound, whatever. These were valid complaints at the time. I had NO problems with some of these arguements:
This game won't be as good as the original. How could they take out high ground advantage? It was one of the elements that made SC:BW the best rts!!
or
Blizzard is really dropping the ball. There are a lot of units in this game that are WAY too overpowered. The Brood Lord, Roach, Reaper being some examples. C'mon Blizzard, you can do better than this.
I didn't respond to these on message boards (or comments on YouTube) because the points made above were all true. Some units in SC2 are overpowered and some units aren't powered up enough. It's true that they need to put high ground advantage back in. It added to the strategy of one of the best, no, THE best RTS of all time. Fine by me, all valid points. It's THESE complaints I hate:
Man I dont even know why so many people like sc2. I guess its cause SC BW is like way too hard for noobs to become good.
Wh-What?! Are you kidding me?! First of all, I'm going to come out and say it: I'm a noob. Always have been and probably always will be. But to complain that we shouldn't like SC2 because it is "noob-friendly" is ridiculous! Let me ask all of you this. How good were you at StarCraft when it first came out? I bet you lost periodically. I bet it took you countless hours of practice to even beat the computer. I know that I still can't do it and I'm playing SC:BW nearly every day. It's hard. You have to be able to multi-task like a mothereffer. To say that SC2 is more "noob-friendly" is actually a true statment. I won a few games on the beta server. But does this make it a bad game? No, it does not. Even though I was winning the occasional match I wasn't good enough to advance to the Gold or even Platinum leagues. Now granted, there are a lot of features that make SC2 more friendly to noobs. For example, auto-mining is nice. Being able to group your units into larger numbers (not just 16 at a time) was a nice touch. But to say that you, in all your StarCraft greatness is still going to get beaten by a noob, is both a ridiculous and stupid statement. If your a noob, you still need to practice 'til your fingers are raw to be any good at SC2.
Secondly, what about the new gamers? Has anybody thought about them? Hell, I only started playing StarCraft about a year ago when I got it for my 19th birthday. I couldn't play it to save my life but I'm a bit better now but still get curbstomped whenever I play the computer. Do we really want gamers to have a horrible experience while playing SC2. Do we really want new gamers to become so frustrated that the stop playing altogether? That would be like every team in the MLB quitting because they couldn't compete with the New York Yankees. We need these new players and noobs so we have something called competition. Who knows? That noob may even shed that status and become a good player. Everyone started out as a noob at StarCraft including all the pro players that you and I love to watch everyday. So please, when complaining about SC2, stick to the fundementals. Complain about the gameplay. Complain about the graphics. Complain about imbalance. But don't bash a game because it is "noob friendly". For if there are no noobs, there can be now gamers.
 
|
I agree with most of what you said. I do believe that SC2 was made to be easier to start playing, but it is still a hard game that no one EVer will be perfect at. There is just too much happening at once. Thus SC2 is not a game for noobs, just a game that is more inviting to new players.
|
Refreshing post that makes a point an doesn't sound like whining. Well written.
|
I think sc2 is a great game for player that never had any experience. They can duke it out in the copper league, or now known as bronze league.
|
United States565 Posts
You can only group up to 12 at a time in BW, not 16 
|
imo sc2 is noob friendly,when i started the beta and chose toss.I played 2v2 that time and go str8 to zlot colossus only and just A move.I didnt even scout or do stuff which you must suppose to do in BW.Just mass and win.
|
On July 07 2010 14:28 Tenryu wrote:You can only group up to 12 at a time in BW, not 16
couldn't you group 16 on the N64 version?
and the newb-friendly factor doesn't help competition the way you think. Yes, more people will play, so bigger competition, no? Well, kinda. As a player, sure, why not, more people = more n00bs to bash. As a spectator, tho, having the game to simplified (well...not the correct word but still) is a bad thing.
And tell me honestly, what make you feel better, getting up a rank in a difficult game, whose sole purpose is to demotivate you, or a game that helps you win and give you eye candy for a reward and if you lose, says "try again, you can do it"
People are getting spoiled by the noob-friendly interfaces of nearly all the major titles. I guess if you haven't grown up played insanely hard games, it will be a demotivational experiece, but in the end i feel it is for the better
|
On July 07 2010 14:52 justiceknight wrote:
imo sc2 is noob friendly,when i started the beta and chose toss.I played 2v2 that time and go str8 to zlot colossus only and just A move.I didnt even scout or do stuff which you must suppose to do in BW.Just mass and win.
You act like it was any better when SC1 came out.
It takes time for the standard of play to evolve, and I have absolutely no problem with the ease with which players pick up SC2, especially seeing that is clearly has little effect on the highest play considering the variability of wins among the current top players.
|
Starcraft 2 is easier. Yes. This is where people get confused. Easier does not mean worse. It does not mean less competitive.
The only reason it IS easier is because it's better designed. The pathing is good, and the UI doesn't have the same archaic limitations as it did in BW (Single building, 12 unit selection). If they REALLY wanted to, Blizzard could keep the game like this. It would just be a completely arbitrary step backwards in order to make the game more difficult, which is dumb.
Being easier does NOT make the game less competitive. It just changes the nature of the competition. Instead of being about who has mastered the UI the best, it's about who has the better strategy, which is kinda the point of real-time STRATEGY games.
Some people don't like change, but I think if given a chance, SC2 can absolutely live up to its predecessor. Above all, people need to stop judging the game after a few months and remember that BW had 12 years to develop.
To sum it up, I completely agree with the OP.
|
you got an 11 year old game for your 19th birthday?
|
On July 07 2010 15:25 Waffles wrote:
you got an 11 year old game for your 19th birthday?
makes for a nice cheap gift that you can spend years playing
|
i dont know man, when you see 4 perfect storms in BW your like ohhh dammmmm that guy is fucking good, and you see something like that in sc2 your just like, meh. with the level of skill required to be good and to do things right being severly lowered it just isnt as exciting to watch or play imo. in BW your fighting the game as much as your fighting your opponent so its much easier to tell when someone is kickass in BW than it is in sc2. i guess sc2 is more for casual gamers as you stated. as one of the guys above me stated its no longer about mastering the ui. this makes me a little sad as some of the funnest times ive had in BW was microing my way out of a bad disadvantageous position, does this mean that isnt really gonna be a part of sc2? i dont know, i guess only time will tell but in my opinion BW is always gonna be the better game to watch+play.
|
I dont care if its easier for people new to the game as long as the skill-cap is unreachable, like in BW. I'm not sure if that will be the case, time will tell. I dont think anyone should say with absolute certainty that it will or will not have a skill-cap as high or higher then bw, we just dont have the tools and knowledge at our disposal to do that yet.
|
StarCraft 2 =/= Brood War
Not even released yet =/= 12 years of tweaking + expansion
|
I feel the game is one of those games that are like, Easy to Learn but Hard to Master. Of course the game is going to be noob-friendly, more people will learn, but many pros will still master complex strats and techniques which will be the dividing line.
|
1019 Posts
I'm probably not going to enjoy starcraft 2, I was so disappointed when they took out almost all the original units from brood war. They should have just left them and then added new units. Money-wise, that would be better since the reason why brood war was such a success was because of race balance. It would have been easier for the jump to sc2 in terms of programing. Now everything is just screwed up, people have to learn all the new units, and no one knows if its going to be balanced at all.
|
On July 07 2010 15:01 jasp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2010 14:52 justiceknight wrote:
imo sc2 is noob friendly,when i started the beta and chose toss.I played 2v2 that time and go str8 to zlot colossus only and just A move.I didnt even scout or do stuff which you must suppose to do in BW.Just mass and win. You act like it was any better when SC1 came out. It takes time for the standard of play to evolve, and I have absolutely no problem with the ease with which players pick up SC2, especially seeing that is clearly has little effect on the highest play considering the variability of wins among the current top players.
I'm sick of this arguement =P.
SC2 has brood war as it's grounding to work from.
Don't go comparing it's flaws to those of SC1's as if it's even remotely comparable.
IT AINT.
|
I have a lot of relatives and colleagues who play casually ( = 30 apm, can lose vs cpu ), and I tried to explain to them why SCBW was so good because you had to intensively macro / micro, and how much I disliked automine/mbs/mass selection/smart spell cast.
They replied "in real-time strategy there is strategy, it's not the goal to reward the player who clicks the fastest, but the one with the best strategy". Which is quite a logical answer from a 30 apm noob with no multitask skill whatsoever.
Then I replied "in real-time strategy, there is real-time, the fact that time passes in your main base while you are attacking, and have idle probes and empty gateways, is the essence of real-time strategy, go to play heroes of might and magic if you only want pure strategy"
I mean people want to play real-time strategy. Real-time means the theorically perfect play requires infinite speed. It is then normal that people who have huge multitask abilities to perfectly macro/micro/harass/cast spells are rewarded.
I am not saying that SC2 is not a RTS. I am just saying that highly simplified macro/micro part will appeal so much more the casuals/noobs.
I don't really mind that the game will be more noobs friendly, it can still be a game that is hard to master. The problem is that it will make it a lot less enjoyable to watch. When watching it you will not be ":O Flash's barracks macro is so awesome", but just "oh ok, MBS...". You won't be "omg these Jangbi's storms where so amazing", but just "oh well smart cast...".
|
On July 07 2010 16:27 endy wrote:
I have a lot of relatives and colleagues who play casually ( = 30 apm, can lose vs cpu ), and I tried to explain to them why SCBW was so good because you had to intensively macro / micro, and how much I disliked automine/mbs/mass selection/smart spell cast.
They replied "in real-time strategy there is strategy, it's not the goal to reward the player who clicks the fastest, but the one with the best strategy". Which is quite a logical answer from a 30 apm noob with no multitask skill whatsoever.
Then I replied "in real-time strategy, there is real-time, the fact that time passes in your main base while you are attacking, and have idle probes and empty gateways, is the essence of real-time strategy, go to play heroes of might and magic if you only want pure strategy"
I mean people want to play real-time strategy. Real-time means the theorically perfect play requires infinite speed. It is then normal that people who have huge multitask abilities to perfectly macro/micro/harass/cast spells are rewarded.
I am not saying that SC2 is not a RTS. I am just saying that highly simplified macro/micro part will appeal so much more the casuals/noobs.
I don't really mind that the game will be more noobs friendly, it can still be a game that is hard to master. The problem is that it will make it a lot less enjoyable to watch. When watching it you will not be ":O Flash's barracks macro is so awesome", but just "oh ok, MBS...". You won't be "omg these Jangbi's storms where so amazing", but just "oh well smart cast...".
Agreed completely. You worded it better than I could've. I was just gonna respond to that Cofo guy up top that they are taking out the mutltiasking aspect of bw by adding MBS and automining but u just explained it so well with the real timing thing.
And I understand how selecting over 12 units can be a good thing but imo if that was in BW it would break zvt becuz terran will not have iridate that fast in the game while 24+ mutas all clumped together in one single hotkey.. well i don't even have to explain the imbalance for that. I think terran's would be forced to valkeriyie every game if that happened.
|
On July 07 2010 16:27 endy wrote:
I have a lot of relatives and colleagues who play casually ( = 30 apm, can lose vs cpu ), and I tried to explain to them why SCBW was so good because you had to intensively macro / micro, and how much I disliked automine/mbs/mass selection/smart spell cast.
They replied "in real-time strategy there is strategy, it's not the goal to reward the player who clicks the fastest, but the one with the best strategy". Which is quite a logical answer from a 30 apm noob with no multitask skill whatsoever.
Then I replied "in real-time strategy, there is real-time, the fact that time passes in your main base while you are attacking, and have idle probes and empty gateways, is the essence of real-time strategy, go to play heroes of might and magic if you only want pure strategy"
I mean people want to play real-time strategy. Real-time means the theorically perfect play requires infinite speed. It is then normal that people who have huge multitask abilities to perfectly macro/micro/harass/cast spells are rewarded.
I am not saying that SC2 is not a RTS. I am just saying that highly simplified macro/micro part will appeal so much more the casuals/noobs.
I don't really mind that the game will be more noobs friendly, it can still be a game that is hard to master. The problem is that it will make it a lot less enjoyable to watch. When watching it you will not be ":O Flash's barracks macro is so awesome", but just "oh ok, MBS...". You won't be "omg these Jangbi's storms where so amazing", but just "oh well smart cast...".
damn it, i said the same thing 2 post above but you worded it perfectly
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
