|
On September 09 2012 20:58 Kipsate wrote:
UI people UI, not IU, IU is a different kind of thing
Anyway BW was succesfull due to the Korean culture and economic problems aswell as the accessibility of it, all things irrelevant to the gameplay itself.
Then why wasn't it Tiberian Sun (1999) or Total Annihilation (1998) or Red Alert (1996) or Command & Conquer (1993, re released 1995) or WarCraft II (1996) or any of the other RTS game that was released during that time? There were lots of RTS games during that time, and many of them, just like StarCraft, did not require an extremely good computer. Some allowed you to have a worse computer than StarCraft.
Out of all those games, only StarCraft lasted. And that is obviously because StarCraft was the best.
As for wether StarCraft would be successful had it been released today - of course it would not. Neither would fighting games. Real time strategy games, and fighting games, only exist today with their modest success because they came during a time when games didn't have to be easy to succeed. Hard games sold very well. The Ninja Gaiden games for NES, the Megaman games, all the hard as fuck fighting games, and later on, strategy games, all came out for the first time during a time when games were hard.
The only reason people still buy fighting games and RTS games (and sequels to the sidescrolling games like Megaman) is because they come from a time when games didn't have to be easy. But RTS and fighting games are still much less financially successful today than other easier genres. If RTS was "invented" today, it would fail. Not just StarCraft, but any RTS.
The modern exceptions to this rule of RTS games only making modest profit compared to oither genres are:
WarCraft III and StarCraft 2
WarCraft III had more (and probably still has) players playing custom games than the normal game. Custom games are easy to get in to, and friendly to casual gamers. It also had the name value of Blizzard and WarCraft. WarCraft II sold millions of copies (again, it came out before games went completely casual), so obviously people were going to buy WarCraft III.
StarCraft 2 had the biggest name value ever. It was the sequel to the best RTS game in the world, the sequel to a sport broadcasted on TV. It sold as well as you'd expect with that name value, but the number of players decreased very quickly after the initial hype cooled off. It may have sold millions, but it sure as hell doesn't have that many people still playing.
If StarCraft 2 wasn't made by Blizzard and didn't have the name StarCraft, it wouldn't have been even remotely as successful as it was. Not only because the game itself isn't that good, but also because it's an RTS, and a pretty hard game.
|
OP is right but posted this on tl, pretty much a bw forum, so will get shit feedback  As much as I want difficult games to be created and played, it wont happen. Its the same reason that you dont see large numbers of people playing chess or go, people dont want to think.
|
I liked reading this blog even though I disagreed on a few points.
You clearly struck a nerve with a lot of angry bw fans though! I think anyone who got mad at the OP needs to reread it calmly and not get their panties in a knot. It's actually really well thought out and clearly expressed. It wasn't saying BW was crap, if anything it was saying BW was better for OTHER reasons, perhaps it was that 13 years of competitive play led to the most refined and balanced play ever? Maybe the units just happen to create amazing dynamics in BW and it isn't all about difficult UI issues.
Also to people saying OP doesn't understand UI maybe you don't understand the term. UI is often defined as any information in a machine or program that a human can interact with. Therefore any info on your HUD ingame is part of the UI.
|
|
|
Not that simple. Age of Empires online was an attempt at a casual rts.
|
Its hard to write a blog that even mildly criticizes BW on here, with good reason, this site was and still is dedicated to Starcraft in all its facets. However, people don't like to admit it, but LoL is fun, thats why its the most popular game in the world, they say there are a ton of casuals, however, once you transcend the casuals (about 1800 elo) you get to see mostly strong players. Dota2 also has its own issues, but meh doesn't realy pertain here. The thing is that Riot marketed their game correctly, and though some of the things you have said are erroneous, like BW failing if it had been introduced in the present (though it would not have had the nostalgia or following it had commanded at one point before the Match Fixing Scandal), there is definite truth in here that most people do not want to admit. Most people do not appreciate "competitive games" Most people like little iphone games, and most people don't play to be competitive, but to have fun; it is in this way that this community differs from most people. Now on a little less rage induced area of this post. Riot is successful because they marketed like mofos, there is no other way to describe it. Starcraft was successful because they were the originals, and SC2 is less popular because of Riot marketing, and the fact that though SC2 is fun and has a considerable fan base, it does not have the same marketing.
|
On September 09 2012 21:59 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 20:53 LucidityDark wrote:On September 09 2012 19:54 Wintex wrote:
Controlling units in BW just feels good. Watching it does also feel good, but that might be me. I don't know what to say, but the fact that BW feels great. The easy games you are referring to, like COD etc.. There's a reason why they last one year.
Oh, and I really don't see how hard it is it to select your workers and check saturation. They require a simple action, and this is NOT hard at all. Knowing the fact that 16 workers is enough on one mineral line is half the battle.
Easier is not better. It just entertains people that pay attention less on a bigger basis than "hard". I don't know about you but when I played Brood War briefly, wrestling with the AI and pathfinding was one of the most horrific experiences I've ever had with an RTS, whether it heightened the skill ceiling or not. Reason? I like it when games work properly, and I can see why a lot of other people hate Brood War for that reason. On the flipside, I also see why people love it for that reason because it adds somewhat of a dynamic to the game where you have to make sure your army isn't derping into lurkers or tank fire. If Brood War was released today, ignoring graphics it would be slammed for terrible AI and pathfinding and an overall bad UI interface. If you were to go totally blind into Brood War without having knowledge of the pro scene or community you would be scared off quickly. The main reason it is still going today is that people who play it were ridiculously persistant it learning it, and knew that there was a relatively balanced and fun game if you managed to ignore the AI and bugs in the game. As a free indie game released today I doubt it would even maintain a niche community for very long which would be a shame. Are you seriously saying that every player who started playing BW was aware of pro scene and community and had a horrific experience when tried it, but remained persistent with it just so he could potentially have fun later? I don't even...
This.
I played both vanilla and BW campaigns on loop for YEARS and it wasn't until I got the Wings beta that I discovered there was a pro scene for the game.
|
Well it's a good thing you decided against that sarcastic article you were going to write about macro requirements (even though you kind of went on to say it anyway), because that would've gotten you banned from this forum a while back 
+ Show Spoiler +On March 3 2008 FrozenArbiter wrote:
From now on, anyone using the "Dune argument" will be temp banned. No warnings, just banned.
For those of you unaware of what it is, here's an explanation:
The "Dune argument" is that if we are so worried about skill, and think MBS is so detrimental to this, why don't we revert back to the Dune UI, where you could only select one unit at a time.
The counter-argument to this is obvious: If you want everything to be so easy, why don't we turn the game into an interactive movie? Why don't we just have the computer macro for you, and you can control the units!
See how silly both of these arguments are? This type of argumentation leads nowhere, as what's important is finding a balance, not going to various extremes to make silly points.
Thank you for your co-operation,
- FrozenArbiter
It's worth noting that the unit selection cap was a design choice from the start, not some technical limitation.
Later in the development process, and after many design arguments between team-members, we decided to allow players to select only four units at a time based on the idea that users would be required to pay attention to their tactical deployments rather than simply gathering a mob and sending them into the fray all at once. We later increased this number to nine in Warcraft II. Command and Conquer, the spiritual successor to Dune 2, didn’t have any upper bound on the number of units that could be selected.
(source: http://www.codeofhonor.com/blog/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1)
That guy solved sc2's deathball problem without even seeing it in action :3
The point I'm trying to make is bw's "restrictions" weren't about artificially creating a higher skill ceiling. They made the game more fun. People didn't play bw for skill ceilings, balance, etc. They played because it was the most fun rts, despite other rts having these ui improvements you seem to think are so critical.
|
On September 10 2012 00:58 Laertes wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 09 2012 20:27 Sawamura wrote:
Fun is subjective. I don't find last-hitting fun. I don't find fiddling with limited control groups and pathing AI in Broodwar fun. Most people find CoD more fun than BW and LoL. A lot of Koreans find Aion more fun than BW and LoL.
And again, Broodwar is fun to watch of course.
Well since you put it that way lets put out of my definition here at least . I don't find it fun seeing my units feel more weaker than it is in broodwar especially in my tanks in sc2 . Watching sc2 in proleague is boring and yeah fake orgasm about banelings hitting the mineral line of it's opponent makes me face palm so hard . I told my self I never going to watch sc2 again in my life . I want to carry on about my definition of fun and I can't because if I do it's just another bw elitist being a numb skull trying to say his game superior > others even though by right if both games are compared from a spectator point of view I find sc2 inferior because it isn't clear . I don't know what's happening on the screen and blobs of units all are on top each other for some kind of a unholy orgy crusade . I completely agree with the content of this post, people shouldn't be dissing people for feeling SC2 is crap designed. Go here to appreciate amazing game design, with the exact same mechanics, but ideas NOT revolving around bandage fixes and bad reasoning. Let me explain myself. I know I've been very vocal about this lately, but I am totally obsessed with this little mod because it is simply amazing, and it's what SC2 SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Still ignoring me? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VAzdl.jpg) Did that get your attention? I'm sure it did. We are not living in a world where we are unable to make choices; starbow is that kind of choice. Really, we have to decide whether we REALLY LIKE SC2, or if there's gotta be something better. Starbow isn't a 100% revamp of Starcraft 2, but it does include iconic figures such as the Carrier, the Lurker, the Reaver, and the Science Vessel. This is the future of Starcraft my friends, bringing back the old in COHESION with the new, which Starbow also includes: Stalkers and Immortals, Planetaries and Orbital, Inject Larvae and Spread creep. Stuff like this, you know? There's a time that's going to come when we might wake up and realize that SC2 isn't that great, and they don't seem to be fixing core issues in HotS. No high ground advantage, no positional play, (EXCEPT for the swarm host, but that is a different matter), but that's no reason to give up the game altogether. In the SAME game, is a user created mod, which blizzard endorses being made, and this user created mod is SC2 WoL's superior in every single way. There's a decision coming: do we stick with Blizzard,and their crappy esport, which they are writing off as good, or do you want to have fun as both a viewer and a player, with deep strategy and amazing blending of the old and the new. It's Win/Win for Blizzard, both structures are within their game, but its NOT a Win/Win for YOU, and that's why its your decision, Starbow or SC2?
Starbow is the future ? Ok, right ...
A no-name game vs. a game that everyone knows and that is produced by a famous Studio.
Who's going to win ? ^^
Face it. Starbow has no money and thus will never achieve eSports status.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On September 09 2012 21:59 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 20:53 LucidityDark wrote:On September 09 2012 19:54 Wintex wrote:
Controlling units in BW just feels good. Watching it does also feel good, but that might be me. I don't know what to say, but the fact that BW feels great. The easy games you are referring to, like COD etc.. There's a reason why they last one year.
Oh, and I really don't see how hard it is it to select your workers and check saturation. They require a simple action, and this is NOT hard at all. Knowing the fact that 16 workers is enough on one mineral line is half the battle.
Easier is not better. It just entertains people that pay attention less on a bigger basis than "hard". I don't know about you but when I played Brood War briefly, wrestling with the AI and pathfinding was one of the most horrific experiences I've ever had with an RTS, whether it heightened the skill ceiling or not. Reason? I like it when games work properly, and I can see why a lot of other people hate Brood War for that reason. On the flipside, I also see why people love it for that reason because it adds somewhat of a dynamic to the game where you have to make sure your army isn't derping into lurkers or tank fire. If Brood War was released today, ignoring graphics it would be slammed for terrible AI and pathfinding and an overall bad UI interface. If you were to go totally blind into Brood War without having knowledge of the pro scene or community you would be scared off quickly. The main reason it is still going today is that people who play it were ridiculously persistant it learning it, and knew that there was a relatively balanced and fun game if you managed to ignore the AI and bugs in the game. As a free indie game released today I doubt it would even maintain a niche community for very long which would be a shame. Are you seriously saying that every player who started playing BW was aware of pro scene and community and had a horrific experience when tried it, but remained persistent with it just so he could potentially have fun later? I don't even...
This 100%. My friends introduced me to SC Vanilla and then I got BW from another friend and we would play together online. After they stopped playing, I played some 1v1s and a lot of customs(Fastest map possible, BGH). Not to mention I played through the campaign a lot and some missions over and over(that last Protoss mission in BW was awesome lol). I knew that a scene existed because one of my friends mentioned it but I never bothered to look it up and see what's going on. Keep in mind this was back in 2001 or so but the point is that I never found the game difficult at all. I really enjoyed myself and I don't recall using control groups because I didn't know they existed so ya, harder in my book is a challenge and BW was the right medicine for me ^^
|
United States10328 Posts
"Success" in video games has become more and more short-term. Companies just want to sell their games; ideally they'd like to you to sort-of-enjoy the game so you'll recommend it to your friends, but no company is trying to maintain their game into the long term... because you can only make money by selling more games. (I guess the "in-game purchase" model is coming into fashion, especially with the advent of mobile games...)
You're right that RTS/any sort of "difficult" game is going to have a hard time gaining traction, unless it's marketed as a "competitive" game--but where does that leave the casuals? I think SC2 is sort of a halfhearted compromise between these two goals. For example, when you talk about "better UI": do automine and smartcasting count as "better UI"?
|
-_-
You know what's really jarring?
Part of BW's success was part of the timing so the basis of his argument is rubbish to begin with, lol.
|
Regardless of how we feel about the direction that Blizzard and other developers have gone in designing their games, I highly disagree that the arcade era was the "pinnacle" of gaming. We're in an age where gaming is finally become maintstream; and because of that there are infinitely more possibilities for what you play and how you play it. The fact that small groups of indie developers now have an outlet for their games (without having to pay to get them published and distributed the old-school way) for example; Steam, Apple Store, Android Market (whatever it's called now, Google Play?) means there is a plethora of games to choose from. Indie development means the boundaries of what a game is are pushed and prodded, and ideas in their pure and raw form are explored.
This is the age of gaming.
Unfortunately, I think the issue you are talking about is to do with the inherent conflict between gaming a game accessible (so that people from all skill levels can enjoy it / spend their $ on it), VS what makes a great e-sport game. It's a catch-22, if you make a game which is SUPER hard then normal people just won't play it, which means no-one will care about the game, and no-one will watch it as an e-sport. And if you make it super accessible (like HotS or WoL) then the skill ceiling might be too low for it to be an interesting e-sport.
Tricky issue, I don't have the answer. For me the biggest thing that makes WoL not as good of an e-sport than BW isn't the interface changes, it's the speed of the game. WoL is very fast; battles are over in second and are essentially a race to get as much splash DPS as possible; whereas in BW units died slower, moved slower, and so players had more capacity to micro-manage a battle and really show their skills. Plus in WoL if you lose a big engagement, thats' 99% of the time the end of the game for you; not so in BW. Again, to do with the speed.
I used to think Blizzard would always get it right; StarCraft, Diablo 2, World of Warcraft are all the peak of their genres. And then Diablo 3 came along and in a moment I lost a lot of confidence in their ability to actually listen to the community. I wonder if the people with the $ are pressuring the people who design it, forcing them to cater their games now to a wider and wider demographic.
|
People don't play a game because it's easy or hard. They play it because it's fun. BW was played/is played because it's very fun. LoL is playes because it's fun. I hate when people say "OMG LOL SUCKS EASY GAME N00B!1"!!!" I play a game because it's fun. If then also require skills then you can be entertained by watching pimp plays and then the pro scene flourishes. Fun is the most important ingredient for a successful videogame/Esport, but people usulayy don't realize this...
|
In my opinion :
1) a studio designs an awesome game that takes skill
and then
2) the community and the most skilled players that have fun at this games create the eSport scene.
Not the other way around.
|
On September 09 2012 23:17 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 20:58 Kipsate wrote:
UI people UI, not IU, IU is a different kind of thing
Anyway BW was succesfull due to the Korean culture and economic problems aswell as the accessibility of it, all things irrelevant to the gameplay itself. Then why wasn't it Tiberian Sun (1999) or Total Annihilation (1998) or Red Alert (1996) or Command & Conquer (1993, re released 1995) or WarCraft II (1996) or any of the other RTS game that was released during that time? There were lots of RTS games during that time, and many of them, just like StarCraft, did not require an extremely good computer. Some allowed you to have a worse computer than StarCraft. Out of all those games, only StarCraft lasted. And that is obviously because StarCraft was the best. As for wether StarCraft would be successful had it been released today - of course it would not. Neither would fighting games. Real time strategy games, and fighting games, only exist today with their modest success because they came during a time when games didn't have to be easy to succeed. Hard games sold very well. The Ninja Gaiden games for NES, the Megaman games, all the hard as fuck fighting games, and later on, strategy games, all came out for the first time during a time when games were hard. The only reason people still buy fighting games and RTS games (and sequels to the sidescrolling games like Megaman) is because they come from a time when games didn't have to be easy. But RTS and fighting games are still much less financially successful today than other easier genres. If RTS was "invented" today, it would fail. Not just StarCraft, but any RTS. The modern exceptions to this rule of RTS games only making modest profit compared to oither genres are: WarCraft III and StarCraft 2 WarCraft III had more (and probably still has) players playing custom games than the normal game. Custom games are easy to get in to, and friendly to casual gamers. It also had the name value of Blizzard and WarCraft. WarCraft II sold millions of copies (again, it came out before games went completely casual), so obviously people were going to buy WarCraft III. StarCraft 2 had the biggest name value ever. It was the sequel to the best RTS game in the world, the sequel to a sport broadcasted on TV. It sold as well as you'd expect with that name value, but the number of players decreased very quickly after the initial hype cooled off. It may have sold millions, but it sure as hell doesn't have that many people still playing. If StarCraft 2 wasn't made by Blizzard and didn't have the name StarCraft, it wouldn't have been even remotely as successful as it was. Not only because the game itself isn't that good, but also because it's an RTS, and a pretty hard game.
That's some dangerous logic you're using there. Just because Starcraft lasted longed doesn't necessarily mean it's objectively better. Besides, Starcraft and Total Annihilation are 2 very different kinds of RTSs, both were earth shattering awesome though
|
Baa?21243 Posts
this is a bad blog. op is a bad person and should feel bad.
|
On September 09 2012 22:33 surfinbird1 wrote:
I think one aspect of the BW handling is always ignored and that's the possibilities for expressing yourself in the game. If you compare for example two instruments like a piano and a single bongo drum. Sure you can express yourself on the bongos and do some freaking amazing things with it but a piano has a much broader range. You can do almost anything with a piano because it is more complex and more difficult to handle. It has options and nearly endless possbilities to express yourself. I think the same thing is true about BW, just by watching a game I can tell which player is playing right now, every player has a certain style and character and strengths/weaknesses which arise through the UI. So being more complex isn't necessarily worse. Harder can also be more rewarding and add another layer to the game.
That's more of an anti example, since piano has the easiest UI of any instrument : the sound creates itself through a very easy action, the keys are clearly indicated and the sound is always in tune. Compared to wind instruments where you have to create the sound yourself or non-keyboard string instruments where the keys aren't indicated (except for guitars), it's a lot easier. I play both piano and guitar - it took me one try to hit a piano key right, and far more to produce a decent sound with a guitar string. Yet piano has a lot more depth than most instruments. Edit : also no one could say piano is skill less or skill capped.
More on topic, as much as i tend to agree with the OP regarding things of the past, I have to say that the logical continuation (autobuilding workers, auto upgrade, etc) scares me a bit. I think i'm just biased i guess.
Oh and also i agree that you should fight your opponent, not the game - the main reason i never really got into playing BW.
|
I gave you 1 star but really I'm not quite sure you deserved it
|
On September 10 2012 07:34 ArcticRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2012 22:33 surfinbird1 wrote:
I think one aspect of the BW handling is always ignored and that's the possibilities for expressing yourself in the game. If you compare for example two instruments like a piano and a single bongo drum. Sure you can express yourself on the bongos and do some freaking amazing things with it but a piano has a much broader range. You can do almost anything with a piano because it is more complex and more difficult to handle. It has options and nearly endless possbilities to express yourself. I think the same thing is true about BW, just by watching a game I can tell which player is playing right now, every player has a certain style and character and strengths/weaknesses which arise through the UI. So being more complex isn't necessarily worse. Harder can also be more rewarding and add another layer to the game. That's more of an anti example, since piano has the easiest UI of any instrument : the sound creates itself through a very easy action, the keys are clearly indicated and the sound is always in tune. Compared to wind instruments where you have to create the sound yourself or non-keyboard string instruments where the keys aren't indicated (except for guitars), it's a lot easier. I play both piano and guitar - it took me one try to hit a piano key right, and far more to produce a decent sound with a guitar string. Yet piano has a lot more depth than most instruments. More on topic, as much as i tend to agree with the OP regarding things of the past, I have to say that the logical continuation (autobuilding workers, auto upgrade, etc) scares me a bit. I think i'm just biased i guess. Oh and also i agree that you should fight your opponent, not the game - the main reason i never really got into playing BW.
Meh the only unit pathing that you are fighting is Goon's.
Other units does things according to your order.
Even reavers, you need to know where to hit the scarab so that it inflicts dmg and not dub out.
You really need to figure out the map's layout because many time you would try to move a unit somewhere but really that place is 'restricted' with unmovable area.
Its like
Xx) U
It would seems that the border of a 'ground' is between the capitalized X and its lower case counterpart. So you would try to move your unit to the point but really the perephecy of the ground is on the bracket sign. So if you were to press on what appears to be the outskirt, the unit would move to the edge of the space and glitch out a bit.
With Dragoons, it just somehow move to random directions and thus forces the player to be paying attention to them more than other unit.
I really think that those who are not good at BW are lazy people that wouldn't go out of their ways to practice and excel at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
