People criticizing the ideas have to realize that these additions don't really negate the enjoyment with the core fanbase in any discernible way (except for the suggestion for a shorter campaign)

ShadowDrgn

United States2497 Posts

April 13 2012 21:27 GMT

#44

On April 14 2012 04:59 CryMore wrote:
What happened to a game being popular because it was just a good fucking game?

Developers got more psychologically savvy and realized that gamers will put more time into a mediocre, addictive game than a good game with no addictive qualities. Now, most modern games in every genre are Skinner boxes. I'm glad Blizzard didn't do that to SC2, but it's still possible to put these kinds of features into the experience without ruining the core game. They tried to do this with achievements, portraits, decals and the whole league/division system, but it wasn't done well at all. Bnet2 already gets enough shit for its failures, but this is unfortunately another one of them.

Angel_

United States1617 Posts

April 13 2012 21:50 GMT

#45

On April 14 2012 04:59 CryMore wrote:
What happened to a game being popular because it was just a good fucking game?

The gaming industry subtly changed their model from "We're going to make a great game and people are going to play it if they like it", to "if a lot of people play our game, that means we made a good game!"

All of those things might be fine and dandy for a casual gamer, and I'm not meaning to shit on casual gamers at all, but frankly I think CoD was an awful game. But gamers today are from a newer generation. They don't understand and we don't understand, and that makes me feel like my grandparents must about other things.

Skilledblob

Germany3392 Posts

April 13 2012 22:25 GMT

#46

the OP managed to write down in way to many words every point I hate from the bottom of my heart about "modern" games

Nazza

Australia1654 Posts

April 13 2012 22:36 GMT

#47

On April 14 2012 04:59 CryMore wrote:
What happened to a game being popular because it was just a good fucking game?

Precisely. Starcraft can be an extremely unforgiving game sometimes, but also extremely rewarding. I believe most people play Starcraft cos they like the fact that there is honest competition at their levels. And as long as there are people that are worse and people that are better, they'll keep playing coz they truely enjoy the game.

Unlocks might entice a person to play the game, but won't keep them there for long. I think this is especially true amongst older gamers, whose time is limited. Basically, nowadays, money is not a factor, but time is. People might not have trouble spending $60 on a 4-hour singleplayer experience, coz it's fun for the 4 hours or so, but they would have trouble spending 100 hours on a mediocre, boring, grind-fest of a game.

I want Starcraft to be the leader of E-sports, but it needs to be a popular game in order to that, and in this case, we have to learn from the best.

It has to be popular, but that does not neccessarily mean more people have to play the game. Other games are popular too, but that does not make it sustainable.

TBH, i'm really iffy about using this kind of rewards system to entice gamers. Sure they may be attracted to the game, but for the wrong reasons. In the end, what sort of community would you prefer? The sorts of people that come into a game because of arbitrary unlocks are the sorts of people that will leave the game when it stops being new.

FoeHamr

United States489 Posts

April 13 2012 23:02 GMT

#48

I would like a win based unit-skin and dance system. When I first started playing SC2, I knew nothing about the pro-scene. I kept playing ladder to unlock the portraits which lead to me getting smashed by better and better players. There was literally no drive to play beyond "I want to get that High Templar portrait." The only reason I ever made it out of bronze was to unlock portraits, and now that all the portraits are 200+ wins away I don't feel the same urge to play. I think skins would be a harmless, and honestly fun way to make the game more addicting.

Loanshark

China3094 Posts

April 13 2012 23:14 GMT

#49

What SC2 Could Learn From Dota 2:

1. How to be a good sequel

Glurkenspurk

United States1915 Posts

April 13 2012 23:16 GMT

#50

On April 14 2012 08:02 FoeHamr wrote:
I would like a win based unit-skin and dance system. When I first started playing SC2, I knew nothing about the pro-scene. I kept playing ladder to unlock the portraits which lead to me getting smashed by better and better players. There was literally no drive to play beyond "I want to get that High Templar portrait." The only reason I ever made it out of bronze was to unlock portraits, and now that all the portraits are 200+ wins away I don't feel the same urge to play. I think skins would be a harmless, and honestly fun way to make the game more addicting.

There are a ton of players that think this way. Most people don't care about improving to become the best in the world or to get top of their division. They just want to log on and play a few games, maybe get achievements or some shit.

More ways to get rewards like portraits/skins, etc would be fantastic for helping the casual audience stick with sc2.

0123456789

United States3216 Posts

April 13 2012 23:20 GMT

#51

SCII needs to learn from LoL

laLAlA[uC]

Canada963 Posts

April 13 2012 23:21 GMT

#52

As much as I dislike CoD, I have to agree with whats said here :/

Mobius_1

United Kingdom2763 Posts

April 14 2012 02:36 GMT

#53

As a quick and easy first step, Blizz could make more portraits to make the steps smaller. Right now you can get the 10's the 25's and maybe up to 100 wins, but then you end up with steps of 100+ wins, and I see that and I lost whatever drive I've had from portraits to go on. Of course the game itself is fun but the fun diminishes, more incentives would be welcome.

OptimusYale

Korea (South)1005 Posts

April 14 2012 09:51 GMT

#54

I personally am happy without the casuals....because lets be honest once you get out of the lowest 2 leagues you won't get anymore casuals to go against. All adding casuals would do would be to make more money for blizzard out of a game that was relatively sub par on release. I believe the game is good, if not great (don't think I've ever spent much time playing other games in comparison) but the casual market could not get into the game.

I'll list a few reasons just to say why:

Reason 1: The biggest reason we won't get a massive influx in players is because it's on a PC. COD's system is all well and great but it caters almost completely to the console market. The lack of multiplayer progression, a relatively low skill ceiling...they cry console casuals. There are very few PC casuals. Mainly because many casuals cannot justify spending the money to just casually play games on a PC. They will have to spend about 5-600 bucks on a PC every couple of years compared to paying 2-300 for an xbox which has been out a long time.

Reason 2: Demographics. This game isn't really designed to be a casual pick up and play game. Their is a high skill ceiling, it takes effort to get good at the game and that is rewarded with the divisions. I'm a platinum player and feel that I have come on leaps and bounds since I was a bronze nublet. However when I play COD I feel that there is no measure of skill. Theres no structured match making, no true skill ranks nothing. Nearly everyone was complaining about the change in matchmaking, well COD is worse, much worse. Imagine Nestea playing bronze nubs all day everyday...that is what COD is like. If your good, playing ladder would just be a waste of time because you never get matched with comparable skills. Its solely based on who can join the game at that time.

Ok so those are my couple of reasons why not. We can add more shiny things, you can add more stuff to collect but the game just doesnt appeal to that market. It's like sticking pictures of fruit on a slaughtered cow at a vegetarian convention. No matter how pretty you make it, they won't come and look because it just doesn't intrest them.

(as a side note, I have a 16 year old brother who's currently on school vacation, and I've tried to get him to play the game, but he won't as he feels it's 'shit man, all you do is press buttons and stuff'. I tried showing him games, I tried everything and he just walks out....and my brother is the epitome of casual gamers)

ComebackKid

Canada105 Posts

April 15 2012 03:58 GMT

#55

really great post

cascades

Singapore6122 Posts

April 15 2012 06:49 GMT

#56

Fuck shorter campaigns. Campaigns make the game experience, not bronze noobs turtling in their base.

EternaLLegacy

United States410 Posts

April 15 2012 07:02 GMT

#57

What is this I don't even...

Just. No.

udgnim

United States8024 Posts

April 15 2012 07:11 GMT

#58

On April 14 2012 08:20 0123456789 wrote:
SCII needs to learn from LoL

make WoL multiplayer free when HotS comes out

Blizzard won't do that though

Nikon

Bulgaria5710 Posts

April 15 2012 08:09 GMT

#59

I wouldn't say that a shorter campaign is a good thing. Personally, whenever I play a game campaign that ends in ~6 hours, I feel... bored. No, that's not it. Well, not exactly. But the fact of the matter is that those short campaigns end about where the game actually starts to fully engage you. It's a huge bummer, you get left with a "Was that all?" feeling. It diminishes the overall experience.

Djin)ftw(

Germany3357 Posts

April 15 2012 09:48 GMT

#60

Very interesting, I never played Halo or medal of honor. I didnt even know they were such successful franchises. Console games hm? Guess I'll look into it.

Anyway, I think Op got a point. Making the game more appealing to casual players doesnt mean you have reduce its complexity, you can just add features and make it user friendly.