On March 12 2011 09:14 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2011 08:39 rabidch wrote:On March 12 2011 08:05 Bleak wrote:
Starcraft was the first original game I've ever owned and I loved it, but my interest kind of shifted to other games and my loss of the discs didn't help either. I kinda forgot about the game for quite some time, until last March. I haven't even heard about SC1 scene until SC2 came out and I found out about Teamliquid but SC has been one of my fav games of all time.
There are two things that re-introduced me to Starcraft 2: Youtube, and HD/Husky. I knew that SC2 was coming up in future, but I didn't know there was a beta. While going through Youtube I saw a game with FrozenArbiter vs some guy. It immediately caught my interest. With the infamous Nazgul vs TLO game on Metalopolis, I was a fan.I spent whole March-July(until the release) watching SC2 matches from Youtube. I did not care if there were MBS or unlimited control groups, or just any other difference than the SC1. Probably I didn't even know about these. Graphics were amazing, and game was fast paced action. It made me remember my childhood. It was great.
I do not care if the difference between a good and a terrible player in SC2 is lesser than SC1, or that MBS and automine makes macroing easier and thus makes game "boring". To me, those things should have been in SC1 too and I see them as an improvement. Why shouldn't I? Because some group of elitists (not directed at whole of TL or the OP, a particular minority) can satisfy their egoes while bragging about how fast their heroes can click and insult anyone else who enjoys the sequel to the series ? I don't care if the game takes 5 clicks or 250 clicks to play. I enjoy SC2 as both a spectator and a player. And yes, I watch the BW vods off Youtube too, and I see that those are damn fun to watch aswell. The difference isn't that big for me. While watching BW I love that I can see how many units died in a specific battle and how the units engage each other (collision size) compared to SC2. While watching SC2, I enjoy the improved graphics, decision making of top players and the quality of the casters.
Of course I hate games that end with cheese or 1-base all-in, noone enjoys that unless some real crazy shit is going down. But I believe that a game released in 2010 shouldn't rely on old and outdated game engine/mechanics/UI to create a competitive gaming scene. Improvements must be made, not just sticking to inferior design would be illogical, but because nowadays video games are becoming more and popular, unlike 1990s, everyone wants to pick and try out something. Some are doomed to fail, which is a good thing as they will destroy the loyal fanbase by assimilating them if the game allows. But SC2 does not. When given enough effort, you can be a decent player. When given no effort, you can't even go up from Bronze. You can try to mimic what you see from the top players. SC1 fans define themselves through the players(pros) and games they are watching as BW is really hard to get really good compared to SC2. But SC2 fans, define themselves through watching games, players AND playing themselves. They don't feel alienated by the game and they don't feel so mystified with regards to how that guy play the game so good. They know that with enough practice, they can execute anything as close as it can get. That is what makes SC2 good. You can have fun with it in any way, not just becoming astonished by the tip-top pros.
alienated? SC1 fans are alienated by their game because they can't play it as well as a pro? What an assumption to make, unfortunately everybody is not you. And given any correctly applied effort anybody can get good at BW, or for the matter, most video games and sports. Why are SC1 pros so good? Because it's their job. There's tons of people who want to be good even at SC2, a game universally acknowledge to be easier than BW, and they aren't. They try really really hard, be it to get out of bronze or to reach the highest levels, but they peak, because they don't have it. There's plenty of athletes that never reach the highest level of competition, it's not because they didn't try as hard, it's because they just plain aren't as good. Not everyone can be good at sports, or video games, or a lot of things in life. What makes you an expert on the things other people are capable of, anyway? I see tons of people who try and fail at all sorts of things throughout their lives. Video games require a certain amount of hand eye coordination, a certain thought process to be good at, etc. How can you definitively say that every single human being has that exact same capacity to perform? The "anyone can do it" mentality is really absurd to me. It usually always boils down to "I can do that.. if I wanted" which is usually always false but it at least makes sense, it's very common to have an inflated sense of self. People aren't equal in any facet of life, why would video games be an exception?
Have you ever coached anybody or taught somebody a skill(s) and knowledge over a period of at least a few months?
Maybe everybody doesn't have the talent to get to the highest levels, but just being "good", is a different status, excepting those who are literally crippled.
|
SC2 is it's own game and I think if you want to like it you're going to have to appreciate it for that. It really does not look like BW at all. I watched July vs Nada today in the GSL just to see what the game looks like now, and it was somewhat interesting... but by set 3 I was beginning to see the game doesn't have the dynamics or demands that made me like BW. Then I watched a normal proleague series and I realised just how completely different the games are. It doesn't mean anything if I tell you that I like BW better, but I think to say SC2 is looking more like BW everyday is complete falsehood. SC2 will never look like BW. Two of the greatest BW players ever couldn't make it look like BW, it just didn't have the right gameplay. I don't think Blizzard is trying to make another BW either, so don't expect the expansions to perform that function.
No matter how much Tastosis say that they think SC2 is gaining some of the depth SC2 had, that is just their nostalgia for BW and what they miss about it. What they call elements of BW coming out in SC2 are elements all RTS games have. What separates BW from all other RTS games is not coming thru in SC2, and I think people should begin acknowledging that. SC2 has to do its own thing to separate itself from other RTS. The creep spread mechanic is about the only thing I see that's especially interesting in SC2. Everything else is pretty cliche RTS stuff as far as I can tell.
(Right now BW is looking pretty stable to me, so I am really not offended by the idea of SC2 becoming a better game. It just seriously needs a good expansion to be anything but an unusually popular RTS).
|
On March 20 2011 03:08 Chef wrote:
SC2 is it's own game and I think if you want to like it you're going to have to appreciate it for that. It really does not look like BW at all. I watched July vs Nada today in the GSL just to see what the game looks like now, and it was somewhat interesting... but by set 3 I was beginning to see the game doesn't have the dynamics or demands that made me like BW. Then I watched a normal proleague series and I realised just how completely different the games are. It doesn't mean anything if I tell you that I like BW better, but I think to say SC2 is looking more like BW everyday is complete falsehood. SC2 will never look like BW. Two of the greatest BW players ever couldn't make it look like BW, it just didn't have the right gameplay. I don't think Blizzard is trying to make another BW either, so don't expect the expansions to perform that function.
No matter how much Tastosis say that they think SC2 is gaining some of the depth SC2 had, that is just their nostalgia for BW and what they miss about it. What they call elements of BW coming out in SC2 are elements all RTS games have. What separates BW from all other RTS games is not coming thru in SC2, and I think people should begin acknowledging that. SC2 has to do its own thing to separate itself from other RTS. The creep spread mechanic is about the only thing I see that's especially interesting in SC2. Everything else is pretty cliche RTS stuff as far as I can tell.
(Right now BW is looking pretty stable to me, so I am really not offended by the idea of SC2 becoming a better game. It just seriously needs a good expansion to be anything but an unusually popular RTS).
I agree BW and Sc2 are both completely different games. They should only be compared because its the sequel. Comparing the two game's game play is quite different.
|
EPT
