|
Learning from the Best
As a writer for TeamLiquid and passionate Starcraft fan, I have a vested interest in the continued popularity of the best game in the world: Starcraft 2. Most of the video game world, however, thinks that another game is the best in the world: Call of Duty. It is the undisputable leader in terms of modern franchise sales, game time logged, and growth speed. Before the days of yearly releases and Activision becoming an example of an evil corporation, Modern Warfare was the hardcore gamer fix. From there it became the fix of the casual audience as well, becoming a worldwide phenomenon. A simple google search of “call of duty 4 sales” tells the story, watching as sales passed 7million, then 10, and settling on 13 million sales. Just a few years later, Black Ops would sell 1 billion dollars’ worth of software, “outpacing theatrical box office, book and video game sales records for five-day worldwide sales” (ibtimes). So, Call of Duty is a pretty big deal. Parents know about it, kids know about it, and everyone in between knows about it. Right now, we are blissfully ignoring this console behemoth; rather than trying to learn from it, we are content to keep things years in the past. The purpose of this article will be to point out the things that Starcraft could learn from Call of Duty to create a more sustainable and popular future. Things we could inherit from Call of Duty include, its ranking system, accessibility, its unlock system, and its brief campaign. Please keep in mind that the main reason most people dislike Call of Duty now is for its annual release schedule with little change from game to game; this does not contradict, however, the revolutionary things that this franchise did to take over Halo as the biggest household name in gaming.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tr86D.jpg)
Ranking
The ranking system in Starcraft is outdated and poorly designed for growth in player numbers. Halo 3 was the last blockbuster game release to feature a ranking system based directly on player skill, and there’s a reason for that. When implementing a ranking system, you must ask yourself, what are we incentivizing? Call of Duty’s ranking system, and most games since its release, incentivize playtime over skill.
To take a brief example, I am a rank 52 on Battlefield 3 with a score/minute of 461 and 120 hours played. My friend Zach is a level 40 with a score/minute of 185 (276 less than mine) and 115 hours played. As you can see, skill plays a very small roll in ranking, as I’ve pulled ahead only about 12 levels. Despite not being very good at the game, Zach still feels incentivized to play, only trailing a few levels behind me. The game is not deranking him for bad matches where he doesn’t get any kills and it’s not punishing him for mediocre gameplay. For him, it's not a question of rank going down, he just has to play a little longer to make up for it.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AE3XM.png)
Call of Duty (and most modern games) do this incentivizing of game time over player skill, and this is essential to allowing a community to grow around a game. Starcraft, due mostly to its unnatural control scheme, is already extremely intimidating to approach. When you are immediately placed into a league after your first 5 matches, and can even get demoted from there, that pressure is even further exfoliated. How do players respond to this added pressure? They just stop playing. The vast majority of users take little interest in jumping in feet first to a system where player skill is the main determinant of rank, it makes learning too hard and too full of pressure.
As another example, I was a level 46 on Halo 3’s game mode Lone Wolf. After a certain point, I just couldn’t play anymore. I had hit the level where if I didn’t spend a considerable amount of time and thought trying to improve, I would just continue deranking. So how did I respond? I stopped playing. Now that I’m in masters division, I play less Starcraft than I ever have. My friend recently got promoted from platinum to diamond, and also plays less than ever. Most people do not have the pro player drive to be the best, that's what make the pros the pros. A ranking system based more on time than skill means that you can hit a skill cap, and continue to be happy with your performance.
In the end, most people want playing a game to be a mix of fun with challenge, and rankings based on skill suck the fun out of it, turning the game into homework. When you rank up with time over skill, your rank can never go down, and means that everyone can improve at their own pace. I also want to add here for clarification that MMR would still be the determinant factor on matchmaking, that number (MMR) would just be hidden while a displayed number would be based more heavily on time played.
Rapid Unlocks
Call of Duty is so successful because it pairs its time related leveling system with rapid unlocks, so even the worst player feels as though they are working towards something. Starcraft currently has 5 "unlocks", silver, gold, platinum, diamond, and masters. Most players need to feel as though they are unlocking cool things in order to keep playing. Some practical ideas for Starcraft unlocks off the top of my head are maps, custom game types, and unit/weapon skins. Unlocks for everything from killing a certain number of terran units to defending a certain number of cloak banshee rushes should be awarded to give the player constant feedback. Imagine the feeling a new player gets when they unlock a new missle turret skin for shutting down their 10th cloak banshee rush.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YsIJS.jpg)
Call of Duty was even brilliant in its execution of “prestiging.” When you prestige in Call of Duty, you get a new ranking symbol in exchange for starting over on your unlocks. The popularity of this system shows two things: first, people really care about their symbol, even if it’s not very meaningful, and second, it allows for an almost infinite number of unlocks, as the player is choosing to unlock everything all over again.
People care a lot about meaningless numbers tied to arbitrary unlocks, and that's not a bad thing. It's something that we need to exploit so that newer players can get into the game. Heck, a lot of people even pay actual money for things like costumes and weapon skins.
Robust Replay, Party, and Gametype Systems
Since the release of Call of Duty, we have had many revolutions in user accessibility, all of which Starcraft seems to have ignored. Replay saving and sharing is a standard, including editing clips and taking pictures from them. I can’t remember the last game that didn’t have a party system with party chat, match searching, lobby hopping, and auto searching into the next map. If games are released now with less than three or four different game types, they are brutally assaulted in reviews for not having more options.
First, a robust replay system is essential for incentivizing trying new things. The throwing knife on Call of Duty is in almost no way preferential to a grenade, and yet many players still use it. Why? It’s so that they can create a unique clip to share with their friends of “oh my god, guys we have to watch this after the match!” The equivalent here is something like planetary fortress rushing. Simply having a replay system in place that has easy to share clips incentivizes doing unique strategies. In Starcraft, the moment is even more exhilarating, as the person who is executing a planetary fortress rush serves as both easy wins and fun losses for their opponents. Everyone is happier with a better replay system of sharing, lobby viewing, and clip editing.
Second, Starcraft makes playing with friends a chore. Once you get everyone into a party you have to search a match only when everyone is completely ready, and then continue doing that over and over again just to play a few games. This system encourages only playing 3 or 4 games in a row before people decide they're too tired or want to play something else. I remember my days of playing Call of Duty late into the night because the next match or round starts automatically, not giving you time to even think about quitting. It doesn't ask you if you’re ready, it doesn’t kick you to an outside lobby after every game, the partys just roll over and the next game starts. Starcraft has a real opportunity to get a flow like this going, imagine you join a game set to a best of 13, mixed game modes, and just keep playing, I don't know if I'd ever get to bed on time again.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qoCvB.jpg)
I think this is a bad use of this meme, but it's how their community feels, and rightly so
Finally, having only the options of 1v1, 2v2, etc., and FFA is almost inexcusable. While these modes bread a competitive multiplayer, they do not breed a fun multiplayer. Where are the fun and different game types? Right now, alternative game modes are completely reliant upon the fans to make. There should be matchmaking for Desert Strike, Monobattles, and Marine Arena, there should be game modes that include all of them, even a mode where you and a friend can play a mix of custom games and the standard game in a best of 9 against another team. Players need variety, and Blizzard has ignored everything but the most basic implementation of the standard game.
A Smaller Campaign
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/V7oyg.jpg)
All of the things I discussed above require a large amount of work, and Blizzard is a company with limited resources. In my mind, the campaign goals set by Blizzard for Starcraft 2 have been far too lofty. IGN’s review sums up most reviewers opinion of Starcraft pretty well “It's not a step forward for the genre, exactly, but StarCraft II is still one of the most polished, finely crafted and well presented real-time strategy games available.” As much work as Blizzard puts into its campaign, it will never be what truly revolutionizes and makes Starcraft more popular than other games. People may come for the single player, but what keeps them around is the multiplayer. While most games have been trending towards a 6 hour campaign “sweet spot,” Starcraft 2 aimed for a 15-20 hour length. The problem is that now a days most people don’t want a game that long. Sure, I enjoy having a long campaign because I, like all of you, absolutely love Starcraft; but at the same time, I would never play a 20 hour campaign of Call of Duty, a game I at least moderately enjoy. I’m guessing that most people don’t finish the campaign, and multiplayer serves as a much better game extender.
The way you keep the campaign short and satisfying is simple, Wings of Liberty’s story, without a lot of the arbitrary side stuff (Tosh, saving the colony, etc.), could probably be told in about 6 hours. You’ll notice that the single player of WOL has many of the things that the multiplayer should have, a lobby hub area, upgradable buildings, and unique game modes. I can’t entirely blame Blizzard for a lack of multiplayer unlocks because so much effort went into the single player; I do believe, however, that this is a misallocation of resources.
To Conclude
I know that the Starcraft series is the best series ever made, and I love it just as much as anyone else. The problem is that the game ignores many of the things that have made modern games more accessible and fun for everyone. I’m not saying that we need yearly releases or subscription services, I’m saying that we need to pay attention to a 5 year old game that revolutionized the video game industry. Our ranking system needs to change, we need unlocks, shorter campaigns, and a more accessible system. 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.
Some practical considerations:
1. In terms of ranking, of course you keep an MMR going in the background, the shown ranking just has very little correlation to it
2. The pro players should still be segmented and ranked in a special way, a special separate ladder once you hit a high enough MMR would be really cool, especially because it would be a surprise if you were good enough to unlock it
3. With a focus on time based rankings, you can still show a win/loss ratio and no one is ashamed, because the focus isn’t only on skill
4. Obviously nothing gameplay altering can be unlocked, things like weapon/unit skins, decals, custom maps, and certain game modes seem to be the way to go
5. There would need to standards set for professional matches (perhaps unlocks could carry over B.net though, imagine Idra gets a special rage skin or something)
6. Unlocks probably can’t be as rapid as in other games.
7. Perhaps a better AI needs to be built in order to make a player leaving early okay
 
|
A skimmed it and it seems to be a troll  Let's see if I'm right (COD, really?)
EDIT: Ok I read it now and I see the point is valid. Yes, the game should appeal to the casuals much more than it does. Blizzard failed really hard here. The biggest thing they failed at doing is reacting to the community needs. Custom games should have a much larger place in the game, which would be good both for pros and casuals if done right. Some incentive for playing other than "I'm better than this guy named PISSCAKE" is really needed nowadays, especially that in SC2 you don't even know how good the guys you're comparing to are.
I disagree with the shorter campaign point but that's rather personal so I won't elaborate.
|
Fastfood games for fastfood gamers, Mcdonalds is also one of the most successfull restaurants in the world, still i find that food disgusting.
|
That's what you get for skimming. :/
It's a good read, I agree on some of your points. I do like in Battlefield 3 the unlocks based on "doing XYZ thing" ...though obviously in SC2 you can't unlock an 8x zoom scope for killing ten recon class players, but you can do exactly what you said...skins, decals, portraits, w/e.
It's easy enough to reward players for doing shit on ladder, but I guess the gameplay is supposed to be rewarding enough
|
United States5162 Posts
On April 14 2012 00:05 Qbek wrote:A skimmed it and it seems to be a troll Let's see if I'm right (COD, really?)
You should skim better. The way I understood it, he was highlighting some of the reasons that he believes contributes to many popular modern games that we consider casual(or worse) and applying them to SC2 so that people who aren't just concerned with ladder and skill can still enjoy playing. Right now, if you don't care about ladder, there's hardly any reason to play due to the poor UI and communication features.
|
i read through it a bit and saw shorter campaign an quickly realized that this was not worthwhile. Cod is a completely different game to Starcraft II, we all have complaints on how Blizzard does stuff and we they may eventually solve things, but they aren't going to change everything cause cod releases 3 games a year and reels in cash.
|
This was hilarious to read. Thanks.
You should try the job applications for kotaku.
|
I really cannot tell if you are being serious?
|
Rankings based on grinding rather than skills, unlocks, rubbish single player. This post highlights all the things I despise of the current videogame industry.
|
This better be a joke. >.<
|
you basicaly described everything I don't like about modern video games (FPS's) and said that sc2 should learn from their regression.
RTS's are never going to have the 12 year old popularity that FPS's have I have no idea why you'd want to bring down games to that level.
|
I agree with a few parts of the OP though, joke or not...if you don't ladder or don't have many friendsthat play SC2, you're kinda dead in the water in terms of meeting new people :p
I mean you can befriend Joe MacRagefuck in that Nexus Wars game but otherwise it's not a very non-competitive friendly game haha.
|
Did you guys even read the post he makes a lot of points that make sense and would definitaly be doable. More game types and better custom game settings is something that has blizzard has even stated is lacking in the game and are trying to fix.
The unlocks thing would make acheivements actually worth trying to get instead just getting some points. My ghosts should get a sick new skin when i land a nuke killing 50 units.
I dont agree with the ranking system because at least with blizzards it does mean a little other than cod where it means you played the game somehwat,
Read the post guys!
|
You're right, but your aims are for people that will never read this blog. Most TL users are just going to go "LOL CoD", because that is how their brain works.
|
Ladder more Time then SKill based? i hope Blizzard never reads that part of the Blog... About the unlock thing: Unlocking Portraits etc on a different way would be nice (for example the HT for killing X Units with 1 storm or what ever.
A crapier campaign? No Never pls. I want the size of the SC1 Story back btw!
All in all i dont think we can learn mutch from CoD at all and that what we can learn from it we could learn from eny other Game in the Industry.
|
This won't be popular here, as it's not a mindset that more competitive people have. But there are a lot of extremely good ideas in here, and the point is a good one. Starcraft 2 can't hold onto casual players long enough to turn them into competitive players. The scene basically consists of more motivated players froms previous RTS's, and all the casual players who played for a while and left.
Putting people into the grind of the ladder immediately is a terrible idea for expanding your playerbase and getting more new talent into the game. Having a more casual-player-focused incentive system is what keeps people playing long enough to get good enough and the gain the motivation to ladder and grind their way up.
CoD has proved that all of those things work at what they're attempting to do: they keep casual players playing your game. And without a new influx of casual players, the scene will eventually die out. Laddering on sc2 is too difficult, cold, and unforgiving to maintain an active casual playerbase. And that'll kill the game.
|
I don't mind these suggestions. They don't benefit or detriment the core multiplayer experience, though they may add attractiveness to the ancillary. If useless incentivizing gets gamers to play, that's their own fault, not the industry's. Starcraft 2 is far from the best game in the world though.
|
On April 14 2012 00:12 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 00:05 Qbek wrote:A skimmed it and it seems to be a troll Let's see if I'm right (COD, really?) You should skim better. The way I understood it, he was highlighting some of the reasons that he believes contributes to many popular modern games that we consider casual(or worse) and applying them to SC2 so that people who aren't just concerned with ladder and skill can still enjoy playing. Right now, if you don't care about ladder, there's hardly any reason to play due to the poor UI and communication features.
This, he brings on some valid points. It's very hard to enjoy Starcraft just casual, because of the nature of the gameplay, but also because of above reasons.
|
The casual gamer and the strategy gamer who loves a real challenge are simply two completely different breeds. They cannot and should not be forced into a one-size-fits-all type of game, because such a game will only cater to the larger group, the casual gamers.
I don't know anyone who reads classic literature, and so it can feel kind of lonely not having people to discuss it with, but that does not mean I want Dostoyevsky to take lessons from Harry Potter.
|
So what I gather from this is you want SC2 to:
1) Cater more to casuals by making more small rewards. (note: Achievements and especially Portraits/Decals already do this, having "I won 1000 games so I got this portrait" is about the same as "I played x many games so I have y experience and am now level z." -- would it make you more comfortable if you "levelled up" every time you got a new portrait? I can almost get behind that.)
2) Shorten the campaign.
GTFO. No, seriously, open the door, walk outside, and let it hit you on the ass while wallking out. Then come back because I'm not done being angry at you.
FPS are naturally easier to sit down and play. I have friends that take one look at Starcraft, or Age of Empires, or any RTS game, and say "That looks WAY too complicated, I won't play that," but have absolutely no problem sitting down with a controller with a handful of buttons, running around and shooting things. At its core, it's simple, it's basic, it's easy to understand. I missed that guy. He hit me. Next time: I shoot that guy and don't miss. Playing an FPS poorly (and by extension, learning) against other people is still "fun".
Playing an MMO is the next step above that -- you now also have an inventory to manage, skills to consider, and learn about levelling up and such, but there's no pressure behind the learning. You're playing against the computer. If you die, you respawn. There's nobody on the other end who just defeated you. You just try pressing your buttons in a different order until you find the one that works. It's calm, it's relaxing, and it's snared MILLIONS of casual people.
Learning to play an RTS is not fun for the masses. It's complicated. It's overwhelming. I can sit my 52 year old mother in front of an FPS and she can shoot things (Left 4 Dead is a favorite because we shoot zombies instead of each other). I've had her in the past fish for me in FFXI or WoW because she enjoyed that part. But sitting in front of an RTS? Completely clueless. The concept of even what to do is beyond the scope of what you can explain. She can *watch* a match, and understand what's going on ("so what I get is the bug guys just make a bunch of those little spittin roach things and they win? why wouldn't you just keep making more little spitty guys then?"), but the concept of managing resource gathering, building structures, timing out when you need to do this so that it flows into that is way beyond the scope of what casuals are interested in learning. [Edit: Understanding the concept that all these things are going on is not hard. "He went bio, so the other guy went mech, so the other guy transitioned into sky." is simple. "He hit a timing right before the other guy's researches were done, so that's why he won." is simple. Converting that into them sitting down and having that same kind of knowledge while they play is the chore, and a much larger time investment than most are willing to make.]
Shortening the length of the campaign is not going to entice more people to try starcraft. Adding more decals and portraits and more little things won't make someone who doesn't enjoy the concept of an RTS go ahead and try it.
If you want to spread the word of Starcraft, doing it through showcasing players and the insane plays they make is the best start. Get people intrigued by the (ugh...) TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE DAMAGE, the bright shiny lasers that kill things and make SC2 look like the beautiful thing it is. When it steps to the next phase of, "Wow, that looks like fun, I want to try that too!", that's when the next step can evolve -- the playing of the campaign, the trying out of the competition on ladder (don't forget about the FIFTY practice league matches you get to learn the basics, for the people who don't care about the storyline, plus the fact that you get placed into a league with other people of similar skill.)
What I *would* like to see from Blizzard is more links inside the game to things *outside* the game. I know when all the SC2 tournaments are because I follow them like a hawk. I would never know when the LoL tournaments were (when I played), except that it popped up right in the lobby with a direct link to the stream. There are links to all sorts of helpful things inside the actual client. B.net 2.0 currently lacks this.
You show the people who are already playing where the resources are to see awesome games and to also improve, and you show the people who aren't playing just how amazing the SC2 experience is. That's how you draw them in. Not with shiny rewards for a game they don't really care to continue playing.
Can I smack you again for suggesting a shorter campaign?
|
Makes a lot of sense. The ladder fear is a big long term problem for keeping the community active imo.
|
|
|
@arcticfox
his suggestion for a shorter campaign is that it takes up time in devlopment for making multiplayer better do we really need several of those side quest missions that really didnt add much to the story? I think a more streamlined campiagn that focused on making the main arch better would improve the story and accomplish the ops goals.
|
On April 14 2012 00:52 iamperfection wrote:
@arcticfox
his suggestion for a shorter campaign is that it takes up time in devlopment for making multiplayer better do we really need several of those side quest missions that really didnt add much to the story? I think a more streamlined campiagn that focused on making the main arch better would improve the story and accomplish the ops goals.
The storyline in SC1 was 30 missions long, none of which could really be considered "fluff." BW was 26 missions long (excluding the bonus mission), all of them with interesting things and a deep, fascinating story. I don't remember anyone complaining that those campaigns were too long.
SC2's campaign was 29 missions (with at most 27 in one playthrough, and I think you can finish it in as few as 14? That number might be off but it's close.) My main beef with the SC2 campaign is that it had some missions in it that were designed specifically to be solved with units they introduced that weren't even included in multiplayer. Also, yes, THAT story could have been told in many fewer missions -- why accept that the story sucks and should be shorter, when you know they could write an epic story over 30 missions 15 years ago? Don't let them off the hook with a shorter campaign -- push for a better written one. 
As it is, WoL's story was 29 missions (though you could easily argue that the story could be adequately told in 20.) HotS is projected to have 20 missions. LotV will probably also be around 20. That's 60 missions, roughly the same as SC1+BW, only spread across a 3rd game so as to suck more money out of us. Why should we expect lower quality? With that much development time, I should expect a better story, not a shorter, worse one.
I think the SC1/BW model was better since it allowed for a more dynamic story to be told, plus allowed you to preview all 3 races, instead of getting used to Terran in the campaign, then jumping into multiplayer and going, "Welp....I only know Terran....let's do this!"
|
It's so sad that these things are required to get people to play... Seriously, I despise it.
''You suck at the game. Here, have an unlock and a promotion just because you played.''
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On one hand I hate the ideology behind useless unlocks, but on the other hand I like having a huge playerbase. In the end I'd probably be willing to make that trade, given how popular games seem to be that require at least a small component of grinding.
For what it's worth they made a lot of noise about adding custom matchmaking (and even ladders) to game types like desert strike before release but now are saying it won't be included until heart at least. So that's apparently on their minds, and I assume with Blizzard Dota around the corner will be a necessity at some point.
|
I get what your saying except...
Call of Duty isn't fun, I don't play it at all even though I ranked up much faster than I have in Starcraft, the game is less rewarding for me, even if I have a good game and kill more people than people killing me (I'm really bad at cod ok?) it's still not very fun to play. The reason it's so popular could easily be that you can play with your friends without each having to buy the game and it's available on game consoles not just the computer.
|
I agree with the rewards system and i think leagues should be removed and the ladder system should be like wc3, were you would level up as long as you win some matches, didn't need really high win ratios.
I disagree with the short campaign though, the WoL campaign was already short enough.
|
This is a really great point. I HATE CoD with an often-times dramatic passion, but I can't deny that it's popular for reasons other than the fact that it's fan base doesn't know good games from bad. It's well-designed to keep people playing.
When you mentioned new rounds starting automatically, I thought back to playing BF3 until the wee hours simply because, yeah, it keeps going without you needing to tell it to. If the ladder did that I would play SO much more, I'm sure.
"Just one more game."
"Okay, that was my last game. I'll just get one more kill and then leave."
"Shit, I died. I can't leave with a less-than-one kill/death ratio."
...
--Game finishes--
"Okay, just one more kill."
|
all the points op brings up are absolutely valid, given the goal: get players to spend time on the game. But is that really a good thing no matter what? I recently dwelved into League of Legends and it was immensely fun and motivating at first, i cant bring myself to play another match today after 3-4 month of playing. Watching a lol stream or match i never get to the edge of my seat or scream in excitement: the game is just to shallow for me or my understanding of it.
-> maybe its ok to have the rigorous ladder of sc2 and a "normal" mode on the side, with the seriuos ladder actually breeding competition and amazement.
Also as totalbiscuit has criticised games should be played cause they are fun and or challenging not because of points unlocks or ranks. After a while youll feel baited like a dog and thats a demotivation.
|
Isn't Call of Duty looked down on by critics for being non-innovative hackney trash? 'Realistic cover-based shooters' are about as common as games with zombies, and it's not exactly a good thing. It is more like 'what makes the most money' vs 'what is actually an interesting game.' Surely a company just wants to make money, but from a designer perspective it's a shame.
I guess that's irrelevant to your argument tho. B.net2 fails in a lot of ways and your points are valid, but I think that when you're talking about the same company that made WoW, a game which succeeded on these addictive points and appeal to casual gamers, you're not being fair. Blizzard wanted to create an ESPORT with SC2. They certainly know how to make a casual game. I don't see it as a bad thing that they wanted to make a game for a different audience, and certainly they've succeeded in making people (who never had BW) actually want to watch other people play, something Call of Duty never did.
The real place Blizzard failed for the casual gamer is the UMS front. That's what made BW so popular. Making maps and having others play on them was a huge factor to casual appeal, + the fact that those games didn't show up on your record. Untracked progress and infinite variety actually worked really well for most people, and I would dare say better than meaningless achievements and annoying unlocks that give older players an advantage over you do. I played CoD and clones a little bit and was always annoyed that other players had access to stuff I didn't, and so I never played more than 20 minutes. What always separated Blizzard titles (WC3 and BW) from other rts was the variety offered by custom maps. Why Blizzard didn't do that this time is beyond me. They took something that worked and broke it, maybe to encourage the esports side of their game more.
|
Just read the comparisons with CoD and I instantly stopped reading it.
You try to make SC2 like CoD? CoD is probably the worst thing mankind has developed, it turned out to be nothing but a moneymaking machine with new games featuring only different characters but the same gameplay and no improvement at all.
No thanks, go back to playing CoD casually
|
Some of the aspects why you say modern games are so good, are aspects that I am very vary of because they are also what makes games addicting.
|
yeah, I even found the campaign kind of short... People who don't want to do that I think is just fine...
|
There's nothing stopping casual gamers from playing custom maps. Blizzard should honestly strive to promote more of the live streaming and e-sport scene. The e-sport scene is what got me playing sc2 to begin with. Since I was not a BW player I just watched tournaments, totalbiscuit, day[9], and dapollo. Those youtube videos, livestreams, and shoutcasting convinced me to get involved.
As for actually getting it, it was really intimidating. But that was because of the fact that I did not know how to play. Would unlocks and a ranking system based on time convince me to play? Not really. There are portraits and the achievement point system which was a good bonus but not what convinced me to play.
A game shouldn't be about tricking people into playing. It should be about the fact that it is purely enjoyable.
I don't play COD cause it's not enjoyable to me, unlocks or not.
I did play Bad Company 2 cause it was more enjoyable aspects of the game. But that games have unlocks! So? I hated the unlocks in Bad Company 2. I wish they didn't have them, I didn't like the stars either. It made me feel cheated when someone with a Gold Star on a revolver killed me, even though I had a Gold Star as well. Did I work for it? No... I used the revolver cause I had to. Bleh.
Just in general, comparing a RTS to a FPS is dumb. Plain and Stupid.
"Well I think we should be able to upgrade our units cause in Gran Turismo you can!"
No. Just No.
There's a reason Red Alert, Dawn of War, and Age of Empires doesn't have a strong e-sport scene compared to SCII.
Even though you unlock a bunch of stuff for playing Age of Empires III.
Point proven.
|
20 unlocks till you can use marines in multiplayer.
|
Well written, I agree with the faster unlocks part. Give them something to strive for. I havent a clue what. The only thing I really wish for sc2 personally is that your avatars be animated.
|
I don't really care about having casuals play the game. Casuals don't provide to the competitive player pool which in turn provides for improved practice and better games. So I'm fine with them just flinging in the money through watching competitive SC2.
And the amount of SC2 players who care about stuff outside the game is small. I don't see the point to do all this.
People who want to feel like they are good and progressing without putting in any effort will stick to other games regardless of how well SC2 is catered to them.
|
I really like this. I was talking with some friends about this same idea, about how (especially) the second Modern Warfare was completely tuned to the target crowd, and was extremely successful in winning them over (even my 54 year old dad said their commercials were "cool").
I have some ideas:
--Trading bonus pool for extra dance moves for your units
--Minipets a la 1v1 OBS games, but supported by Blizzard. (Maybe you would like Kerrigan to strut around your hatchery as you macro up :D)
--I really like your skin idea (I guess it's kind of already been done by the "dark mercenary portrait swap" guy, but still.)
--Chooseable colours for 1v1 (This would be implemented like so: You queue 1v1, choosing race and the actual 1v1 option, and also a colour. If you queue somebody with the same colour choice as you, the player with HIGHER MMR gets to repick, to give the underdog some "home advantage" mental benefit.)
I can't think of more right now, but I sure hope Blizzard reads this thread :D
|
On April 14 2012 02:54 HwangjaeTerran wrote:
I don't really care about having casuals play the game. Casuals don't provide to the competitive player pool which in turn provides for improved practice and better games. So I'm fine with them just flinging in the money through watching competitive SC2.
And the amount of SC2 players who care about stuff outside the game is small. I don't see the point to do all this.
People who want to feel like they are good and progressing without putting in any effort will stick to other games regardless of how well SC2 is catered to them.
You don't think casual players help the competitive player pool? Maybe not in the short term, but in the long term having a large and vibrant casual player pool is the best way to recruit more competitive players. A big casual player pool also creates a much larger audience for the competitive players. Halo was such a popular competitive game not because it was particularly suited for it over other FPS's, but because it had a huge casual playerbase to draw an audience from.
Without a large casual playerbase, you will never get a large audience to watch competitive play and your competitive playerbase will eventually atrophy without the new source of talent.
|
What happened to a game being popular because it was just a good fucking game?
|
On April 14 2012 04:59 CryMore wrote:
What happened to a game being popular because it was just a good fucking game?
Time happened.
|
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)
|
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.
|
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.
|
the OP managed to write down in way to many words every point I hate from the bottom of my heart about "modern" games
|
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.
|
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.
|
What SC2 Could Learn From Dota 2:
1. How to be a good sequel
|
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.
|
SCII needs to learn from LoL 
|
As much as I dislike CoD, I have to agree with whats said here :/
|
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.
|
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)
|
|
|
Fuck shorter campaigns. Campaigns make the game experience, not bronze noobs turtling in their base.
|
What is this I don't even...
Just. No.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
On April 15 2012 17:09 Nikon wrote:
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.
You have to keep in mind that I meant a shorter campaign in order to accomplish something more important. I love Starcraft's campaign, I really do, but I think that sustaining multiplayer's popularity is more essential to growing E-sports and the community. If Blizzard could do everything, keep a long campaign, and implement the multiplayer changes I talk about, then ya, that would be amazing. I only mentioned that point because I could live with the core 6-8 hour campaign (revolving around Raynor, Kerrigan, and Zeratul) in exchange for the other changes, if that sacrifice had to be made.
Please don't think that I would prefer a shorter campaign if it wasn't necessary.
|
I agree with almost all of the OP, I think a lot more people would stick around if some of these changes were implemented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
