|
So I was reading the SC2 forum (always a terrible idea if you're look for rationality) and found this amazing gem of a post:
+ Show Spoiler +On January 03 2013 07:30 The_Darkness wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 06:56 Serpico wrote:On January 03 2013 06:38 Fenris420 wrote:
People have impossible standards on new games if you ask me. They compare a new game to the games they played in the past with all the connotations it includes. Many of the things we remember that make us feel good about something actually have little to do with the actual game itself.
Nobody remembers how terrible some old games are until they pick them up and actually start playing them again.
I think that D3 was well worth the money. It wasn't the kind of game that you kept playing for more than a few hundred hours, but that is still a very long time. You will beat dozens of old pc or console games in that time. Same thing goes for the Sc2 campaign. I would buy sc2 even if I never intended to play online at all. The spectator part of it doesn't require me to buy the game either way.
As far as HotS is concerned I feel the same way. The campaign alone makes it worth the money. The new units are almost exclusively designed to diversify the game with high mobility, utility or range. It will be very hard to learn how to use them properly I think, but once that happens they game will benefit from it. It does not mean I agree with every single unit and ability, but overall I think the gameplay is heading in the right direction. A lot of people saying SC 2 sucks are playing broodwar right now, there's no nostalgia because the game is still active. This isn't a bunch of people in their rockers recollecting times long past where they no longer are able to play the games they love. They can reevaluate how good they think the games are pretty easily since they're right at our fingertips. It's not hard to compare BW and SC 2 right now because we can all have first hand experience. People expect more because more has been delivered over a decade ago, to have technology and budgets progress but quality decrease is ridiculous. I think his point is that there are many reasons, outside gameplay (e.g., you got your first handjob while playing BW -- only kidding), that might make someone like or not like a game. The rabid BW supporters likely have been playing that game for many years and therefore must clearly love it, especially now that there's no pro scene and given that the game hasn't been rebalanced for a long time. I'm guessing the BW diehards in part like to shit on SC2 because of some combination of the following factors: (i) SC2 has now officially replaced BW on the professional scene, (ii) most of their friends believe BW is superior to SC2, (iii) BW is less accessible to noobs, (iv) they're elitists and (v) they genuinely love BW and dislike many aspects of SC2. It's difficult to know how seriously to take their opinions since they usually just seem to assume that BW was better. Also it's very easy to take a dump on something. No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc. I watched BW and enjoyed it a fair amount but I like SC2 a lot better, and I'm guessing most people do; otherwise you would see more people staging BW tournaments. The demand, other than from a small, vocal group of diehards, is simply not there. In sum, I don't put much weight on the opinion of a BW diehard who says the quality of the game has decreased from BW.
So, anyhow, I've been thinking about this for awhile now, and have wanted to talk about my thoughts on "balance" in BroodWar and SC2. Not that it's going to change anyone's preconceived notions about how the game is balanced. My main three points are these:
- Balance =/= Fairness
- SC2 was modeled after it's predecessor
- OMG U R IDIOT
Balance =/= Fairness
The most perfectly balanced game I can think of is actually that good-old-fashioned game of Tic-Tac-Toe. If you are unfamiliar with T3 (as the cool kids call it), it is a turn-based high-energy high-stakes strategy game where the objective is to plant three fortresses in a row along a 3x3 grid. Your opponent attempts to stop your string of fortresses by planting their own forts on the battlefield. T3 is actually the most balanced game in human history, but has a drawback - 100% of all games will end in a draw, unless one of your opponents has attention span of a brick.
In this respect, T3 isn't "fair", because it doesn't allow the superior player to ever win, or even prove they're superior. The skill ceiling is just too damn low. With SC2, the skill ceiling is much, much higher than T3 respectively, but the brick-level attention span still comes into play quite often during SC2 games. Here's why:
Almost everyone wants to believe they're smart, or at least, smarter than most people. While this may be technically true in certain aspects of their intelligence, it may not translate well over into the realm of SC2. However, this fact is lost on many people who follow this string of logic:
- I am smart.
- SC2 requires intelligence.
- I am more intelligent than most people, therefore I should win more.
*takes losses from plebian-level intelligence*
- I should still be winning, because I am smart, and they are dumb, so there must be something fundamentally wrong with the game.
- Other people agree with my assertion that there is something wrong with the game, and they are also very intelligent, which further validates my point that the game needs to be altered.
- Time to post on the forumz!
A simple gut-check to make sure your logic is sound:
+ Show Spoiler +
1 - You are smarter than a majority of people. This means you are more likely to be right than the majority.
2 - The majority of people believe there is a balance problem. Did (A) the majority of people suddenly become as smart as yourself, or (B) are you not as smart as you thought you were?
If A, then you are losing because your relative intelligence has been lowered. You need to practice more.
If B, then you are dumb and need to stop posting dumb things, such as your opinion on balance.
Remember, balance is not dictated by personal experience, or mob mentality. For example, when Zerg was considered to be underpowered, the Infestor was actually stronger than it is now. The main problem with Zerg strategy against, say, Terran, was that it was difficult to scout into the Terran's base, making it decidedly more difficult to plan a proper defensive build against a wide variety of Terran aggression in the early game. What if the map was a bit larger though? Theoretically, less early aggression would be as effective from the Terran player, and suddenly, without even patching the game, the balance of power would shift towards the Zerg players.
As far as specific units being "Overpowered", it's my opinion that if you have an economy advantage in a game, that you should be able to roll that advantage into a larger advantage by being able to afford more powerful units that are more expensive. Even if it seems lame, that's kind of the way BroodWar and SC2 both work.
SC2 was modeled after it's predecessor
So, to quote the post I read earlier:
No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc.
Most of the points he's brought up here are just horribly misinformed, except for the pathing, which is much better in SC2. However, in terms of gameplay, SC2 was designed to be very BroodWar-like, and therefore, cannot escape the comparisons that would inevitably arise from their similarities. Most of the techmology that went into the development of SC2 already existed by the year 2000, such as 3D-rendering, mass unit selection, and even more. The physics for fluctuations in terrain affecting unit movements was developed in the 90s, but was not utilized for SC2 for one reason only: to preserve that SC1-feel to the second title.
SC2 is already outdated in terms of it's interface and engine - it takes place on a 2D battlefield with units being rendered in real-time. In the 90s, the computers and current understanding of programming were not up to par to handle things like alterations to the terrain, "real" terrain, unit corpses laying on the battlefield instead of disintegrating into nothing in 30 seconds for no reason, mass unit selection, et cetera. SC2 was designed to have limited unit selection. It was designed to have gigantic crystals sticking out of the ground for no explicable reason.
So please, if you think the comparisons are unfair, then you're not really looking at the bigger picture. Even in the super-duper early days of video game production, people realized this, like when Super Mario 2 came out in Japan, fans complained that it was too much like Super Mario, and so the Nintendo team designed a whole new Super Mario 2 where you rip giant turnips out of the ground.
OMG U R IDIOT
I remember someone posting that "BroodWar took 10+ years to get balanced, you can't expect SC2 to just be done." and it made me so mad that I had to punch a pillow really really hard.
The rabid BW supporters likely have been playing that game for many years and therefore must clearly love it, especially now that there's no pro scene and given that the game hasn't been rebalanced for a long time.
I hate reading things and coming up with an implication, but from his follow-up complaint that there is no variation in gameplay in BroodWar (Which is very heavily misinformed), I would think that he were saying that because BroodWar hasn't had a fundamental change to it's core gameplay in a long time, that it gets boring.
Okay, I can kind of follow that line of thinking. Things that are stagnant get stale. However, arguing that BroodWar fans don't like SC2 because BW hasn't been patched in ages is border-line nonsense. Truthfully, the last patches that affected the core fundamental gameplay were implemented in 2000. Wings of Liberty was constantly being tweaked with patches, and it changed the core fundamental gameplay several times over, creating sudden invalidation of strategies that were beginning to establish themselves repeatedly. Considering the mixed reviews of Heart of The Swarm, I don't find it unlikely that there will be continued patches to the actual gameplay well into this latest expansion.
Why do I consider this a problem? Because players aren't figuring out solutions, but rather, are having solutions handed to them. Solutions can come in a wide variety of forms, including: map structure, economy management, unit composition, upgrade/unit composition timings, and even the ability to gamble. None of these solutions requires a patch. I don't know exactly what the players will need to come to meet these said solutions, but what I do know is that a only a small minority of people will actually find the solutions. A small minority of people will be good at the game, whereas an overwhelming majority of people will be bad at the game. Everyone should NOT have a "50% winrate" to prove the game is balanced. If a majority of people are losing a majority of their games, then you know that the game is fair, because it rewards people who invest time into the game, not whiners who want everything patched so they can win more.
tl;dr:
+ Show Spoiler +If you're too lazy to read this, then don't, you lazy-ass motherfucker. 
  
|
I really like your blog title. I'll give you 5 stars just for that I think.
|
So usually, when I gaze upon the form of someone/a forum post, in the off chance I find a well formed gazee, I form the following thoughts.
1) Female - So hot. What I wouldn't do to check on the form of mind as well.
2) Male - Fucking hell I need to stop slacking and increase my exercise routine.
3) Forum Post - Oh beauty, how I wish to 5/5 you.
In some odd cases, #3 is strangely not so attractive despite beauty of form, be it through simplicity or whatnot, as there are many ways, not all of which are discovered, to beauty of form. Basically, it's like spotting a hottie and then realizing said hottie is kind of boring (or in some cases, you realized you're not ready for same sex action!).
In short, my brain felt it just got tugged 3 ways in alternating fashion by a post of eye accosting form. It's not quite sure where it is now. Could you perhaps infuse more of your cuteness next time, so at least my brain can be happily leashed along?
|
However, arguing that BroodWar fans don't like SC2 because BW hasn't been patched in ages is border-line nonsense.
You're getting it kinda wrong. He's saying that, since BW has been the same game all these years, the few that are left must have an almost fanatical love of the game (which is true, don't argue otherwise. When you do anything and enjoy it for like a decade you really fucking love that thing).
What that means is that they have an inherent bias towards that thing that may not be entirely rational. Keep in mind bias can be very hard to spot. It might only nudge an opinion in one direction as opposed to completely change it, and it is often well-hidden behind a veil of reason.
Basically, he's saying that BW diehards have a ton of bias for admittedly obvious reasons, which is correct.
However, that does not refute certain points BW diehards have brought up over the years about SC2, in the same way that the SC2 fans' bias does not invalidate the inferiority of BW AI.
I does necessitate a degree of skepticism on the whole "Which game is better?" horrific ugly shit-flinging flamewar debate, though. Bias may not invalidate someone's point, but it can shift their wording and content to subtly (or blatantly) favor a certain side.
Bias is really fucking subversive.
|
I really enjoyed reading this, it was really well written and full of alot of good points that people just need to read, thanks for writing it
|
its not bw's fault people move on. bw is still the best, no one will ever disagree with that.
but we move on from everything in life eventually, and for so many different reasons.
|
On January 03 2013 11:17 FFGenerations wrote:
its not bw's fault people move on. bw is still the best, no one will ever disagree with that.
but we move on from everything in life eventually, and for so many different reasons.
lots of ppl would disagree with that. Especially 0 mechanics master players :p.
anyway his post was entertaining for its stupidity and i liked your blog
|
On January 03 2013 10:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +However, arguing that BroodWar fans don't like SC2 because BW hasn't been patched in ages is border-line nonsense. You're getting it kinda wrong. He's saying that, since BW has been the same game all these years, the few that are left must have an almost fanatical love of the game (which is true, don't argue otherwise. When you do anything and enjoy it for like a decade you really fucking love that thing). What that means is that they have an inherent bias towards that thing that may not be entirely rational. Keep in mind bias can be very hard to spot. It might only nudge an opinion in one direction as opposed to completely change it, and it is often well-hidden behind a veil of reason. Basically, he's saying that BW diehards have a ton of bias for admittedly obvious reasons, which is correct. However, that does not refute certain points BW diehards have brought up over the years about SC2, in the same way that the SC2 fans' bias does not invalidate the inferiority of BW AI. I does necessitate a degree of skepticism on the whole "Which game is better?" horrific ugly shit-flinging flamewar debate, though. Bias may not invalidate someone's point, but it can shift their wording and content to subtly (or blatantly) favor a certain side. Bias is really fucking subversive.
No, he's saying that all of the "I don't like SC2" arguments are moot because they can be matched by similar "I don't like BW" arguments, but when he gives his 'examples', most of them are completely wrong. He's essentially saying that BroodWar fans have no right to complain about alleged inadequacies in SC2, which they do, especially considering that SC2 (although designed around a completely new engine), is based entirely on the BroodWar engine and design.
|
On January 03 2013 12:27 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 10:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:However, arguing that BroodWar fans don't like SC2 because BW hasn't been patched in ages is border-line nonsense. You're getting it kinda wrong. He's saying that, since BW has been the same game all these years, the few that are left must have an almost fanatical love of the game (which is true, don't argue otherwise. When you do anything and enjoy it for like a decade you really fucking love that thing). What that means is that they have an inherent bias towards that thing that may not be entirely rational. Keep in mind bias can be very hard to spot. It might only nudge an opinion in one direction as opposed to completely change it, and it is often well-hidden behind a veil of reason. Basically, he's saying that BW diehards have a ton of bias for admittedly obvious reasons, which is correct. However, that does not refute certain points BW diehards have brought up over the years about SC2, in the same way that the SC2 fans' bias does not invalidate the inferiority of BW AI. I does necessitate a degree of skepticism on the whole "Which game is better?" horrific ugly shit-flinging flamewar debate, though. Bias may not invalidate someone's point, but it can shift their wording and content to subtly (or blatantly) favor a certain side. Bias is really fucking subversive. No, he's saying that all of the "I don't like SC2" arguments are moot because they can be matched by similar "I don't like BW" arguments, but when he gives his 'examples', most of them are completely wrong. He's essentially saying that BroodWar fans have no right to complain about alleged inadequacies in SC2, which they do, especially considering that SC2 (although designed around a completely new engine), is based entirely on the BroodWar engine and design.
I'm kinda nitpicking here. On the whole, his post is about how BW guys are incorrect in criticizing SC2.
I'm simply referring to the one part you were referencing and were either misinterpreting or presenting in a disingenuous fashion.
|
No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc.
It's this part this kills me. If you wanna critique/offer opinions about BW that is great.
However, when they are this ignorant it invalidates the entire argument: literally everything listed as a flaw is hopelessly misinformed or flat false.
Gameplay emphasizing mechanics OVER strategy is complete nonsense. Mechanics are the minimum to have. If someone thinks their is no strategy in BW, or less strategy than SC2, they are nothing more than hopelessly misinformed and out of touch with the game.
Unless the poster is referring to ZvZ in terms of "forced down a tech tree" that is also completely wrong. With the exception of ZvZ, which does tend to be muta/ling, every MU has tremendous diversity in the options available. To say otherwise is pure ignorance.
A fair number of units seldom used in professional play? Huh? Their is like one: the scout, and possibly the devourer as well. Every other unit sees use and not just once in 100 games. SC2 has a few units like this also so it's no different than BW in that respect.
The pathing is clunky in aspects where it doesn't need to be, that is undeniable. However, the general feel I get from posters is that BW had nicer, more interesting looking battles and a lot of that is a result of BW's awkward pathing. If you cleaned up pathing through ramps, and the way units try to navigate when they are blocked heading to a target I don't think there would be a significant number of complaints about BW pathing.
Certainly nobody is saying BW doesn't have flaws...but whatever that poster listed (aside from pathing) certainly aren't true.
Criticism isn't a problem.spouting nonsensical 4th hand dribble that you have about heard about BW is. Really the entire reason I make this post is that I still see way to many posts that quote this same stuff as fact. Somehow it got accepted as true by a noticeable portion of people in the SC2 community, and now is frequently taken as fact.
|
I hate the fact that people are still trying to compare the two. We knew Blizzard would tinker with the dynamics just like they did when they went from WCII to WCIII. Anyway, I hope some of those developers learn some invaluable lessons about design at the very least.
It's funny Nina because all those posts are generic now. Rinse and repeat.
|
On January 03 2013 13:25 L_Master wrote:Show nested quote +No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc. It's this part this kills me. If you wanna critique/offer opinions about BW that is great. However, when they are this ignorant it invalidates the entire argument: literally everything listed as a flaw is hopelessly misinformed or flat false. Gameplay emphasizing mechanics OVER strategy is complete nonsense. Mechanics are the minimum to have. If someone thinks their is no strategy in BW, or less strategy than SC2, they are nothing more than hopelessly misinformed and out of touch with the game. Unless the poster is referring to ZvZ in terms of "forced down a tech tree" that is also completely wrong. With the exception of ZvZ, which does tend to be muta/ling, every MU has tremendous diversity in the options available. To say otherwise is pure ignorance. A fair number of units seldom used in professional play? Huh? Their is like one: the scout, and possibly the devourer as well. Every other unit sees use and not just once in 100 games. SC2 has a few units like this also so it's no different than BW in that respect. The pathing is clunky in aspects where it doesn't need to be, that is undeniable. However, the general feel I get from posters is that BW had nicer, more interesting looking battles and a lot of that is a result of BW's awkward pathing. If you cleaned up pathing through ramps, and the way units try to navigate when they are blocked heading to a target I don't think there would be a significant number of complaints about BW pathing. Certainly nobody is saying BW doesn't have flaws...but whatever that poster listed (aside from pathing) certainly aren't true. Criticism isn't a problem.spouting nonsensical 4th hand dribble that you have about heard about BW is. Really the entire reason I make this post is that I still see way to many posts that quote this same stuff as fact. Somehow it got accepted as true by a noticeable portion of people in the SC2 community, and now is frequently taken as fact.
I very rarely see people critique brood war without enormous backlash no matter how good their reasoning is. It is a delusion, especially previously on this sight while pro-BW was in its waning stages, to think that any person saying something bad about broodwar would leave the thread without being flamed. A lot of the time, at least when the more vitriolic of BW players (you know who I am talking about) came to the sc2 forums, their intentions were not to promote good arguments. Most of the time, I found, they came to shit talk sc2, they came to point out that there were in fact no flaws in BW, and most of all they came to tell the sc2 people that they were killing BW just for shits and giggles. You can't turn a blind eye to those transgressions and say that only sc2 comments say dumb things about BW. That is simply special pleading at its worst. I don't mean to sound angry or jaded, I'm just trying to point out that this blog was a bit over the top and did not stop to consider that all sc2 players might not be idiots.
|
You're on an internet forum. Need I say more? Everyone is an idiot until proven otherwise and it doesn't matter which section. You will find shit everywhere no matter where you look for whatever purpose. In many cases, it's self-serving. Anywho, I do get a good kick when I find those who clearly don't know what they're talking about and unfortunately there are a lot of people who don't understand BW, which is a real shame.
|
On January 03 2013 14:32 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:25 L_Master wrote:No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc. It's this part this kills me. If you wanna critique/offer opinions about BW that is great. However, when they are this ignorant it invalidates the entire argument: literally everything listed as a flaw is hopelessly misinformed or flat false. Gameplay emphasizing mechanics OVER strategy is complete nonsense. Mechanics are the minimum to have. If someone thinks their is no strategy in BW, or less strategy than SC2, they are nothing more than hopelessly misinformed and out of touch with the game. Unless the poster is referring to ZvZ in terms of "forced down a tech tree" that is also completely wrong. With the exception of ZvZ, which does tend to be muta/ling, every MU has tremendous diversity in the options available. To say otherwise is pure ignorance. A fair number of units seldom used in professional play? Huh? Their is like one: the scout, and possibly the devourer as well. Every other unit sees use and not just once in 100 games. SC2 has a few units like this also so it's no different than BW in that respect. The pathing is clunky in aspects where it doesn't need to be, that is undeniable. However, the general feel I get from posters is that BW had nicer, more interesting looking battles and a lot of that is a result of BW's awkward pathing. If you cleaned up pathing through ramps, and the way units try to navigate when they are blocked heading to a target I don't think there would be a significant number of complaints about BW pathing. Certainly nobody is saying BW doesn't have flaws...but whatever that poster listed (aside from pathing) certainly aren't true. Criticism isn't a problem.spouting nonsensical 4th hand dribble that you have about heard about BW is. Really the entire reason I make this post is that I still see way to many posts that quote this same stuff as fact. Somehow it got accepted as true by a noticeable portion of people in the SC2 community, and now is frequently taken as fact. I very rarely see people critique brood war without enormous backlash no matter how good their reasoning is. It is a delusion
I have yet to read any reasonable critique of BroodWar, except the reviews in 1997 that said it looks like "WarCraft in space". Well, as it turned out, StarCraft met the critics by exceeding their expectations. After its release, StarCraft was praised almost universally, especially by fans of WarCraft II, who felt that the game delivered. In fact, it continued to deliver for well over a decade - moreso than any other RTS in the world. Ask any progamer which game they enjoyed playing more. There's a reason people who try to critique the game get flamed (although I'm not a proponent of flaming people)
I'm just trying to point out that this blog was a bit over the top and did not stop to consider that all sc2 players might not be idiots.
Not once did I ever say that or imply it. Not once did I say SC2 was inferior to StarCraft: BroodWar. Read the blog before you get all defensive for no reason.
|
On January 03 2013 15:50 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 14:32 docvoc wrote:On January 03 2013 13:25 L_Master wrote:No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc. It's this part this kills me. If you wanna critique/offer opinions about BW that is great. However, when they are this ignorant it invalidates the entire argument: literally everything listed as a flaw is hopelessly misinformed or flat false. Gameplay emphasizing mechanics OVER strategy is complete nonsense. Mechanics are the minimum to have. If someone thinks their is no strategy in BW, or less strategy than SC2, they are nothing more than hopelessly misinformed and out of touch with the game. Unless the poster is referring to ZvZ in terms of "forced down a tech tree" that is also completely wrong. With the exception of ZvZ, which does tend to be muta/ling, every MU has tremendous diversity in the options available. To say otherwise is pure ignorance. A fair number of units seldom used in professional play? Huh? Their is like one: the scout, and possibly the devourer as well. Every other unit sees use and not just once in 100 games. SC2 has a few units like this also so it's no different than BW in that respect. The pathing is clunky in aspects where it doesn't need to be, that is undeniable. However, the general feel I get from posters is that BW had nicer, more interesting looking battles and a lot of that is a result of BW's awkward pathing. If you cleaned up pathing through ramps, and the way units try to navigate when they are blocked heading to a target I don't think there would be a significant number of complaints about BW pathing. Certainly nobody is saying BW doesn't have flaws...but whatever that poster listed (aside from pathing) certainly aren't true. Criticism isn't a problem.spouting nonsensical 4th hand dribble that you have about heard about BW is. Really the entire reason I make this post is that I still see way to many posts that quote this same stuff as fact. Somehow it got accepted as true by a noticeable portion of people in the SC2 community, and now is frequently taken as fact. I very rarely see people critique brood war without enormous backlash no matter how good their reasoning is. It is a delusion I have yet to read any reasonable critique of BroodWar, except the reviews in 1997 that said it looks like "WarCraft in space". Well, as it turned out, StarCraft met the critics by exceeding their expectations. After its release, StarCraft was praised almost universally, especially by fans of WarCraft II, who felt that the game delivered. In fact, it continued to deliver for well over a decade - moreso than any other RTS in the world. Ask any progamer which game they enjoyed playing more. There's a reason people who try to critique the game get flamed (although I'm not a proponent of flaming people) Show nested quote +
I'm just trying to point out that this blog was a bit over the top and did not stop to consider that all sc2 players might not be idiots.
Not once did I ever say that or imply it. Not once did I say SC2 was inferior to StarCraft: BroodWar. Read the blog before you get all defensive for no reason.
Starcraft is RSI delayed by a few years, the exact length depending on the intensity of spam and the density thereof with relation to time.
Thank god I quit before my wrist jumped off the bridge. Too bad I am still an addict just waiting to happen... a mouse click away.
|
On January 03 2013 12:38 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 12:27 ninazerg wrote:On January 03 2013 10:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:However, arguing that BroodWar fans don't like SC2 because BW hasn't been patched in ages is border-line nonsense. You're getting it kinda wrong. He's saying that, since BW has been the same game all these years, the few that are left must have an almost fanatical love of the game (which is true, don't argue otherwise. When you do anything and enjoy it for like a decade you really fucking love that thing). What that means is that they have an inherent bias towards that thing that may not be entirely rational. Keep in mind bias can be very hard to spot. It might only nudge an opinion in one direction as opposed to completely change it, and it is often well-hidden behind a veil of reason. Basically, he's saying that BW diehards have a ton of bias for admittedly obvious reasons, which is correct. However, that does not refute certain points BW diehards have brought up over the years about SC2, in the same way that the SC2 fans' bias does not invalidate the inferiority of BW AI. I does necessitate a degree of skepticism on the whole "Which game is better?" horrific ugly shit-flinging flamewar debate, though. Bias may not invalidate someone's point, but it can shift their wording and content to subtly (or blatantly) favor a certain side. Bias is really fucking subversive. No, he's saying that all of the "I don't like SC2" arguments are moot because they can be matched by similar "I don't like BW" arguments, but when he gives his 'examples', most of them are completely wrong. He's essentially saying that BroodWar fans have no right to complain about alleged inadequacies in SC2, which they do, especially considering that SC2 (although designed around a completely new engine), is based entirely on the BroodWar engine and design. I'm kinda nitpicking here. On the whole, his post is about how BW guys are incorrect in criticizing SC2. I'm simply referring to the one part you were referencing and were either misinterpreting or presenting in a disingenuous fashion.
He believes there are "BroodWar Elitists" that he must contend with. He is, in fact, saying that he believes they truly love the game, DESPITE no proscene (ignoring the SSL, but it's not 'official' yet, so I'm not going to get all huffy about it) and DESPITE a lack of 'rebalance'. I'm not being disingenuous by contending that there is no need for any fundamental changes to the core aspects of gameplay for the game to be potentially appealing.
|
On January 03 2013 14:32 docvoc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2013 13:25 L_Master wrote:No one cares enough about BW anymore to go on a rant about its flaws but you could easily find faults if you wanted to -- gameplay that emphasizes robotic mechanics over strategy, matchups where you are forced to go down a single tech path, a fair number of units that are seldom used in professional play, at best "wonky" unit pathing and control, etc. It's this part this kills me. If you wanna critique/offer opinions about BW that is great. However, when they are this ignorant it invalidates the entire argument: literally everything listed as a flaw is hopelessly misinformed or flat false. Gameplay emphasizing mechanics OVER strategy is complete nonsense. Mechanics are the minimum to have. If someone thinks their is no strategy in BW, or less strategy than SC2, they are nothing more than hopelessly misinformed and out of touch with the game. Unless the poster is referring to ZvZ in terms of "forced down a tech tree" that is also completely wrong. With the exception of ZvZ, which does tend to be muta/ling, every MU has tremendous diversity in the options available. To say otherwise is pure ignorance. A fair number of units seldom used in professional play? Huh? Their is like one: the scout, and possibly the devourer as well. Every other unit sees use and not just once in 100 games. SC2 has a few units like this also so it's no different than BW in that respect. The pathing is clunky in aspects where it doesn't need to be, that is undeniable. However, the general feel I get from posters is that BW had nicer, more interesting looking battles and a lot of that is a result of BW's awkward pathing. If you cleaned up pathing through ramps, and the way units try to navigate when they are blocked heading to a target I don't think there would be a significant number of complaints about BW pathing. Certainly nobody is saying BW doesn't have flaws...but whatever that poster listed (aside from pathing) certainly aren't true. Criticism isn't a problem.spouting nonsensical 4th hand dribble that you have about heard about BW is. Really the entire reason I make this post is that I still see way to many posts that quote this same stuff as fact. Somehow it got accepted as true by a noticeable portion of people in the SC2 community, and now is frequently taken as fact. I very rarely see people critique brood war without enormous backlash no matter how good their reasoning is. It is a delusion, especially previously on this sight while pro-BW was in its waning stages, to think that any person saying something bad about broodwar would leave the thread without being flamed. A lot of the time, at least when the more vitriolic of BW players (you know who I am talking about) came to the sc2 forums, their intentions were not to promote good arguments. Most of the time, I found, they came to shit talk sc2, they came to point out that there were in fact no flaws in BW, and most of all they came to tell the sc2 people that they were killing BW just for shits and giggles. You can't turn a blind eye to those transgressions and say that only sc2 comments say dumb things about BW. That is simply special pleading at its worst. I don't mean to sound angry or jaded, I'm just trying to point out that this blog was a bit over the top and did not stop to consider that all sc2 players might not be idiots.
I agree with everything you wrote.
You can't turn a blind eye to those transgressions and say that only sc2 comments say dumb things about BW. That is simply special pleading at its worst.
Of course not. But nowhere in my post did I ever state that BW players don't sometimes do the same in regards to comments about SC2.
|
all i can say is:
its time to stop arguing, its like religion, just fucking give up on trying to convert someone to your side, it isnt going to happen so stop making a shit storm for no reason. this is all of you (including the OP)
|
On January 03 2013 16:27 sc14s wrote:
all i can say is:
its time to stop arguing, its like religion, just fucking give up on trying to convert someone to your side, it isnt going to happen so stop making a shit storm for no reason. this is all of you (including the OP)
Again, please actually read the OP. I'm not advocating converting anyone to my "side".
|
I think the funniest part about The Darkness post is: "It's difficult to know how seriously to take their opinions since they usually just seem to assume that BW was better."
Trust me, The_Darkness, the BW "fanatics" you're talking about have played both BW and SC2 a lot, they aren't assuming anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kwgJb.jpg)
