|
This blog will be about my views on the problem with SC2 and what blizzard could have done better when developing SC2.
As many of you know, sc2 is the sequel to the popular RTS game StarCraft: Broodwar which is very popular in Korea. Sc2 and bw are similar in many ways, both containing some of the same units that play the same roles. However there are some major differences in the game and most people can agree that these differences make bw a much harder game. Some of these differences include the auto-mining feature of bw or that you can only have 12 units per control group. Because of this a lot of people consider bw a better game than sc2.
I started watching bw when the proleague came back last year in November with the lovely casting of Sayle, and I have watched every game this proleague. Ever since I started watching bw, it has been very hard for me to watch sc2 as passionately as I did before because I feel like bw is such a better game to watch. Some might say that this is due to sc2 being a new game that is not developed yet as bw is but for me I do not feel like this is the issue as to why I enjoy bw more than sc2.
Because of this I have been thinking of what blizzard could have done to make sc2 a more interesting and better game. And my solution to this is to have made sc2 a pretty version of bw. Sc2 has a lot of explosions and such that appeal to the casual crowd. Bw pretty much has terrible graphics so if they just made it prettier with, much like valve did with dota 2 where dota 2 is pretty much a prettier version of dota. The switch between bw to sc2 most likely would have been so much quicker and would have most likely been unanimous.
I would like to hear everyone's opinions on this issue and if just making the game prettier would have had a positive effect on sc2.
  
|
Making the game easier was positive for SC2 considering it appeals more to the common gamer. On the other hand, there are people like me who started BW in 98 and played until SC2's release and are very frustrated with SC2 as a whole. It'll be more popular internationally than BW I think, but as of right now I definitely do have a very strong opinion as to which is the better game.
|
|
|
Well, this has been a topic that has been discussed extensively. But even though Sc2 is better suited for "casuals", Blizzard understands that games for casual players sell better and are more accessible to the general public. Now I certainly would be in favor of a graphically updated BW, similar to Halo Ce 10th aniversary edition, but I also think while thinks like unit clumping in SC2 is not visually pleasing, other AI improvements from SC2 should be implemented (Dragoons and Scarabs for example).
|
On February 04 2012 06:42 Bagration wrote:
Well, this has been a topic that has been discussed extensively. But even though Sc2 is better suited for "casuals", Blizzard understands that games for casual players sell better and are more accessible to the general public. Now I certainly would be in favor of a graphically updated BW, similar to Halo Ce 10th aniversary edition, but I also think while thinks like unit clumping in SC2 is not visually pleasing, other AI improvements from SC2 should be implemented (Dragoons and Scarabs for example).
But don't you think that just making the game more visually appealing would appeal more to casuals?
|
On February 04 2012 07:05 soulist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 06:42 Bagration wrote:
Well, this has been a topic that has been discussed extensively. But even though Sc2 is better suited for "casuals", Blizzard understands that games for casual players sell better and are more accessible to the general public. Now I certainly would be in favor of a graphically updated BW, similar to Halo Ce 10th aniversary edition, but I also think while thinks like unit clumping in SC2 is not visually pleasing, other AI improvements from SC2 should be implemented (Dragoons and Scarabs for example). But don't you think that just making the game more visually appealing would appeal more to casuals?
No, if you've played any rts in the last 10 years you'll know that all of them have these features like MBS, unlimited selection, automining etc. A lot of casuals wouldn't accept it if they still had to send workers to mine and all that stuff, which is unfortunate but its the reality of games today. When bw came out casuals had no problem with it and in fact bw's UI was pretty advanced at the time. I dont think you could even make control groups in wc2 for example.
The problem is blizzard took it too far. They replaced microable and positional units like the lurker, reaver etc with a-move units like banes and colo to make it easier for casuals. Smart cast is another big problem as well as the clumping. I dont expect blizzard to make a graphically updated bw but if they fix those 3 issues (units, clumping, smartcast) and maybe add some more micro to the game (moving shot, muta stacking) then they'd have a really good sequel on their hands.
|
On February 04 2012 07:50 L3gendary wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 07:05 soulist wrote:On February 04 2012 06:42 Bagration wrote:
Well, this has been a topic that has been discussed extensively. But even though Sc2 is better suited for "casuals", Blizzard understands that games for casual players sell better and are more accessible to the general public. Now I certainly would be in favor of a graphically updated BW, similar to Halo Ce 10th aniversary edition, but I also think while thinks like unit clumping in SC2 is not visually pleasing, other AI improvements from SC2 should be implemented (Dragoons and Scarabs for example). But don't you think that just making the game more visually appealing would appeal more to casuals? No, if you've played any rts in the last 10 years you'll know that all of them have these features like MBS, unlimited selection, automining etc. A lot of casuals wouldn't accept it if they still had to send workers to mine and all that stuff, which is unfortunate but its the reality of games today. When bw came out casuals had no problem with it and in fact bw's UI was pretty advanced at the time. I dont think you could even make control groups in wc2 for example. The problem is blizzard took it too far. They replaced microable and positional units like the lurker, reaver etc with a-move units like banes and colo to make it easier for casuals. Smart cast is another big problem as well as the clumping. I dont expect blizzard to make a graphically updated bw but if they fix those 3 issues (units, clumping, smartcast) and maybe add some more micro to the game (moving shot, muta stacking) then they'd have a really good sequel on their hands.
It amazes me that we continue to see people complain about clumping and say that the game needs more micro in the same sentence. If people wanted to prevent clumping all they need to do is micro...
(I would agree about the units tho.)
|
there is a good thread in the strategy forums i think that talks about this well
my biggest beefs are pretty much two things:
- in bw, matchups were all different and had their own styles to it: zvp, tvp, tvz all played differently. some races turtled, some races took map control, some races contained, some races pressured. in sc2, almost every single matchup seems like it is a deathball vs deathball matchup - even for a matchup like tvt.
- really explicit hard counters - in bw you did have armor types and stuff but in general counters weren't explicitly programmed in (half damage against this unit, +50 damage against that unit) so even though lurkers countered marines due to the nature of the lurker attack and the marine unit size and hp, it was still possible to fight lurkers with marines. trying to counter immortals with the wrong unit or marauders with the wrong unit is ridiculous in sc2, barring an absurdly outnumbered fight. it reminds of wc3 where basically every fight has the same unit mixes because you have to address all the counters in the same proportions as your opponent
that said as a former hardcore bw player i really love sc2. it is a blast and much fun
|
my oppinions ons BW vs sc2
1. the 12 unit max selection would be horrible for a modern game no matter how you look at it.
2. i am a programmer and i have to give credit to the people who made the pathing for SC2; it's a marvel of engineering. And that's the problem. The pathing algorithm was made by a very good programmer, but i don't think he had any idea about how a RTS works. He was just out to create the best pathing there is, without realising the implications
3. you must realize that BW was a stroke of luck. i even consider the ballance achived in 12 years to be a series of lucky things happening.Looking through SC2 eyes all races seem so overpowered (archons, storms,arbiter, tanks, spider mines, defiler, lurker etc), but it all seemed to work.
4. blizzard seems to understand some of the problems with the game and i like how they plan to solve them (i really like the viper in HOTS)
|
On February 04 2012 08:09 y0su wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 07:50 L3gendary wrote:On February 04 2012 07:05 soulist wrote:On February 04 2012 06:42 Bagration wrote:
Well, this has been a topic that has been discussed extensively. But even though Sc2 is better suited for "casuals", Blizzard understands that games for casual players sell better and are more accessible to the general public. Now I certainly would be in favor of a graphically updated BW, similar to Halo Ce 10th aniversary edition, but I also think while thinks like unit clumping in SC2 is not visually pleasing, other AI improvements from SC2 should be implemented (Dragoons and Scarabs for example). But don't you think that just making the game more visually appealing would appeal more to casuals? No, if you've played any rts in the last 10 years you'll know that all of them have these features like MBS, unlimited selection, automining etc. A lot of casuals wouldn't accept it if they still had to send workers to mine and all that stuff, which is unfortunate but its the reality of games today. When bw came out casuals had no problem with it and in fact bw's UI was pretty advanced at the time. I dont think you could even make control groups in wc2 for example. The problem is blizzard took it too far. They replaced microable and positional units like the lurker, reaver etc with a-move units like banes and colo to make it easier for casuals. Smart cast is another big problem as well as the clumping. I dont expect blizzard to make a graphically updated bw but if they fix those 3 issues (units, clumping, smartcast) and maybe add some more micro to the game (moving shot, muta stacking) then they'd have a really good sequel on their hands. It amazes me that we continue to see people complain about clumping and say that the game needs more micro in the same sentence. If people wanted to prevent clumping all they need to do is micro... (I would agree about the units tho.)
Clumping removes micro. You want your units to be clumped 90% of the time to increase dps. The only issue is aoe but aoe is greatly nerfed in sc2. So obviously if you remove the clumping you need to buff aoe to bw levels.
|
When SC2 was first announced, I think half of TL was shocked that it wouldn't be a 3D port of BW.
|
Just because it appeals more to casual people doesn't mean there isnt all kinds of room for skill to make up the difference. People who say the games much easier as still losing to all kinds of people better than them
|
Brood War is like a 60's Muscle Car. Unwieldy, difficult to drive, you have to nurse it around corners (you have to nurse Dragoons through minefields) and it's pretty dumb.
SC2 is like a Nissan GT-R. It's much faster, much more well made in terms of materials (code, graphics, physics, AI), much easier to drive and even master.
But that muscle car is much more fun. Also you respect those people who master that muscle car so much more.
Also this discussion is really tired and tiring. SC2 is what it is because gamers have moved on from playing BW, and Blizzard have too much self-respect to play Terran remake BW.
|
On February 04 2012 11:40 Mobius_1 wrote:
Brood War is like a 60's Muscle Car. Unwieldy, difficult to drive, you have to nurse it around corners (you have to nurse Dragoons through minefields) and it's pretty dumb.
SC2 is like a Nissan GT-R. It's much faster, much more well made in terms of materials (code, graphics, physics, AI), much easier to drive and even master.
But that muscle car is much more fun. Also you respect those people who master that muscle car so much more.
Also this discussion is really tired and tiring. SC2 is what it is because gamers have moved on from playing BW, and Blizzard have too much self-respect to play Terran remake BW.
wc2 is like a horse, mad respect for people that can drive them horses.
|
On February 04 2012 15:26 OrangeSoda wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 11:40 Mobius_1 wrote:
Brood War is like a 60's Muscle Car. Unwieldy, difficult to drive, you have to nurse it around corners (you have to nurse Dragoons through minefields) and it's pretty dumb.
SC2 is like a Nissan GT-R. It's much faster, much more well made in terms of materials (code, graphics, physics, AI), much easier to drive and even master.
But that muscle car is much more fun. Also you respect those people who master that muscle car so much more.
Also this discussion is really tired and tiring. SC2 is what it is because gamers have moved on from playing BW, and Blizzard have too much self-respect to play Terran remake BW. wc2 is like a horse, mad respect for people that can drive them horses.
And Dune 2 is like a dinosaur, whose drivers deserve even more respect for various reasons.
|
I agree that on a raw level, BW is a much better game to spectate.
But SC2 is a much better (ie easier) game to play. For me, the fact that I can easily play SC2 propels it above BW in terms of spectator enjoyment.
Blizzard makes most of its money by selling to players instead of watchers. They have no incentive to make a prettier version of BW. (And yes I know about the SC2 BW mod)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
