|
Some thoughts about SC2 were wandering in my head lately.
Its no secret SC2 is not doing very well, or atleast as it was expected. And its nowhere near the epicness of BW. Both games are quite similar, but there are ingame-factors why one was succesful and other isnt, which I'm not going to discuss here. And please don't start BW vs SC2 war.
Generally speaking, Blizzard tried to remake starcraft by adding as many cool features as possible. There is the terrible damage syndrome, colossi, mothership, medivac (wtf aircraft healing you from the air??), thors and more. When you watch battles everything explodes/dies very fast like in a hollywood movie. Its easy to guess they tried to cater casuals. They followed same strategy as CoD (to feed army of brainless button clickers, no offense). As in a business perspective that might be right thing to do, but I think they did a mistake.
1. Starcraft is a RTS game, rts games are not popular among casual players. Too many things to control and no one wants to spend lots of time and dedication to learn the game and be decent.
2. BW was popular because of hardcore gamers and fans, not casual gamers. Why would you try to change that?
3. You don't make flashy action-packed eye-candy shit from an RTS game. Can you imagine chess where figures are exploding all over the board.
In terms of money, I think Blizzard would've sold same amount of copies if they've implemented more hardcore version of sc2 (similar to bw). Casuals would leave the game anyway after finishing the campaign. But hardcore players would stay and make the game as epic as bw. When you think of it I wonder why Blizzard didn't make the exact copy of BW with better/modern graphics, better battle.net and matchmaking system, and some new campaign. Why the game needs to be different? Look at Dota 2 and FIFA ffs. These are exact same games like previous versions with slight adjustments. Some people around have arguments like if you want bw then play bw. But bw is a bit outdated, no battle.net, grapchics are quite old. I would be very happy if they made a decent battle.net and 1600x1300 resolution.
So guys, do you think it would be better if they made sc2 same as bw? with better battle.net and grapchis? I'm not talking about sc2bw maps (those are garbage). Mechanics, unit-clumping should be the same as in bw.
 
|
It'll push away more casual players and that's not good for business if SC2 becomes as mechanically challenging as BW. And it's pretty much too late to change the game lol. Just need to wait till LotV and see if something better happens then.
|
It's kind of two years late to be asking this stuff.
I think they didn't want to just make broodwar with better graphics, they wanted to make a new game, and they did.
|
I'm pretty sure I've read something like this a lot in 2010. 
|
Activision syndrome.
And I don't know why people hate SC2 so much. I actually am entertained quite a bit by the strategic depth of it.
Perchance it is because my only previous RTS was W3TFT? Idk.
|
to play devil's advocate:
it's not as if they designed the original starcraft to be some masterfully designed game that was so well made that it would make a balanced and entertaining spectator sport for many years to follow. so saying that they abandoned their past wisdom and insight is kinda dumb because the insight was never there to begin with. i'd even go so far as to say that more thought and theory crafting has been put into sc2 than was put into the original. the balance and epicness of brood war was achieved through time and maps, not through blizzard
|
Yes. They need to fix the pathing engine. There is a big discussion going on about this right now, and I hope it keeps going and more people join in.
Three things to do to open up a crapton more strategic possibility.
1. Fix pathing to have no auto clump/no slide collision, which in turn enables=
2. Stronger sources of AOE to be implemented, along with units that control space in HOTS (lurker ffs).
3. Larger maps for more epic fights with wide open spaces.
Pathing needs to be changed, and we need more spacial control.
Often times it seems there is so much they fucked up that they should have STARTED with BWlurkers as a model and then made appropriate changes while staying trulurkerse to the original game. This is more like they created a completely different gamewhere and thenthe tried to fuckmake it have some aresemblance to BWlurkers.
|
First of all.. there is battle chess with animated chess figures killing each other.. This was very popular and not reducing the "sports" behind chess in any way.
Starcaft1 wasnt perfect when it was released, the patches and the great add on helped a lot.
In SC2 however those patches ruin the game even more. I am not talking about balance here.
I am talking about this:
The maps that are too large to allow any early aggression, most players get three bases before even building units. This is sick boring to play and to watch and yes.. casual players will have no fun with this, (SCBW was fun for casuals, even though they were doing bad)
Compare this to SCBW were players attacking each other all game long. SC2 has one big fight that decides the game..
Mechanics like the warp in ruin this even more, the warp in negates the rush distance and therefore deletes the advantage the defender should have over the attacker.
Instead of allowing smart aggression and fights to gain small advantages here and there, blizzard is patching SC2 to do either nothing but eco OR all in the opponent right away. The games with 20 minutes of fighting all over the maps and epic micro winning the game are so rare, while SC1 is full of them.
|
Warpgates sounds cool on paper, in reality, its terrible shit. I said that few times already...
Just bring back the lurker. Oh, and buff carriers.
|
Its no secret SC2 is not doing very well, or atleast as it was expected. And its nowhere near the epicness of BW. Both games are quite similar, but there are ingame-factors why one was succesful and other isnt, which I'm not going to discuss here. And please don't start BW vs SC2 war.
You can't prove this. Yes, SC1 has sold over 11 million copies in its entire history. However SC2 sold more than 4.5 million copies in the first six months and over 1.8 million on the first day.
I doubt the legitimacy of any of your arguments if you can't look at that and say, "Wow, by objective standards, Starcraft 2 has been very successful".
Then again, after saying "And please don't start BW vs SC2 war." and doing exactly that into your post, I can't take anything you say seriously.
|
On July 04 2012 18:15 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +Its no secret SC2 is not doing very well, or atleast as it was expected. And its nowhere near the epicness of BW. Both games are quite similar, but there are ingame-factors why one was succesful and other isnt, which I'm not going to discuss here. And please don't start BW vs SC2 war.
You can't prove this. Yes, SC1 has sold over 11 million copies in its entire history. However SC2 sold more than 4.5 million copies in the first six months and over 1.8 million on the first day. I doubt the legitimacy of any of your arguments if you can't look at that and say, "Wow, by objective standards, Starcraft 2 has been very successful". Then again, after saying "And please don't start BW vs SC2 war." and doing exactly that into your post, I can't take anything you say seriously.
Yes, and the sc2 esports scene has exploded outside of korea, which is a pretty big achievement when compared to bw.
|
On July 04 2012 18:15 Probe1 wrote:Show nested quote +Its no secret SC2 is not doing very well, or atleast as it was expected. And its nowhere near the epicness of BW. Both games are quite similar, but there are ingame-factors why one was succesful and other isnt, which I'm not going to discuss here. And please don't start BW vs SC2 war.
You can't prove this. Yes, SC1 has sold over 11 million copies in its entire history. However SC2 sold more than 4.5 million copies in the first six months and over 1.8 million on the first day. I doubt the legitimacy of any of your arguments if you can't look at that and say, "Wow, by objective standards, Starcraft 2 has been very successful". Then again, after saying "And please don't start BW vs SC2 war." and doing exactly that into your post, I can't take anything you say seriously.
"And please don't start BW vs SC2 war." - I asked for this, so that people won't start making comparisons between games and try proving which game is better. For instance, you already started a war by claiming that sc1 sold 11 mil and sc2 4.5 mil in 2years, but you ignore the fact that people didn't have many computers then. I didn't have computer until 2007. So please stop it.
As a game which been developed and sold, business-wise, sc2 was very succesful. No doubt of that. But it's just another CoD or Sims, which are also succesful projects. The problem is that sc2 didn't meet our expectations,not good enough for us (hardcore gamers). I'm a bit lazy but there is a thread which shows that many TLers stopped playing sc2.
I guess, esports scene is kinda still alive, but it feels its driven by hype not with the quality or entertainment value of games. People mostly discuss drama or balance, whereas in bw people used to discuss strategies and tactics.
My point is, it seems it would be better if they left bw mecanics and units unchanged, maybe added couple more units, but core should've been the same (e.g. marine medic, lurkers, dragoons). It was proven by time, it wasn't necessary to change that.
|
On July 04 2012 17:57 Qwyn wrote:
3. Larger maps for more epic fights with wide open spaces.
you'd be surprised how little this gets brought up, everyone talks about AOE and unit movement when on this subject but no one talks about the maps  They have certainly got better but it's still sub-par imo.
SC2 doesn't feel like a full game It still feels like it's in the beta with it's UI and lack of different unit diversity/new units..
HoTS I'm waitin' on you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
