|
On September 20 2013 03:25 LaLuSh wrote:
What the designers of SC2 did well I think was to make the game more fast paced. Because to attain the same level of depth in a mechanically less challening game -- you must introduce something in order to put players under more stress. But where they botched SC2's design I think was in uncritically copying all those other design parameters from Brood War while simultaneously changing the pace of the game.
They changed the economy. They changed how fast the economy developed. They changed pathing. They made the game feel more fast paced. They made all these changes, but they made them without putting any real thought as to whether they would still fit within a 200 supply game or within the same size/scale map designs.
I'd go further than that - if they change a game so much that the spectator's appreciation is supposed to be drawn to a different set of skills, i.e. the spectator shouldn't be focusing on the battles but on whatever happens before all these battles that is really deciding, does it still make sense to make the game look and act like StarCraft? Do we then even need to see the battle instead of focusing purely on the decision making, bluffs and strategy?
If Blizzard wanted to do a different game, they shouldn't have called it StarCraft. Seeing this product they came up with, what I'm left with is that they either had different goals but failed horribly or they just wanted to take advantage of the predecessor without putting too much thought or effort in. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both.
Either way, this is what makes SC2 a bad game in my eyes. Not the fact that it's so different from BW, not that it's mechanically less demanding or its pathfinding is boring, but the fact that it's different and YET it pretends to be the same. It just doesn't work for me. Watching the commentators go nuts over a battle that has clearly been won 10 minutes ago and there's nothing either side can do with it - it's insulting to me as a viewer. But what are the casters supposed to do? It's not their fault the game is badly designed at its very core.
|
On September 30 2013 16:21 Stratos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 03:25 LaLuSh wrote:
What the designers of SC2 did well I think was to make the game more fast paced. Because to attain the same level of depth in a mechanically less challening game -- you must introduce something in order to put players under more stress. But where they botched SC2's design I think was in uncritically copying all those other design parameters from Brood War while simultaneously changing the pace of the game.
They changed the economy. They changed how fast the economy developed. They changed pathing. They made the game feel more fast paced. They made all these changes, but they made them without putting any real thought as to whether they would still fit within a 200 supply game or within the same size/scale map designs.
I'd go further than that - if they change a game so much that the spectator's appreciation is supposed to be drawn to a different set of skills, i.e. the spectator shouldn't be focusing on the battles but on whatever happens before all these battles that is really deciding, does it still make sense to make the game look and act like StarCraft? Do we then even need to see the battle instead of focusing purely on the decision making, bluffs and strategy? If Blizzard wanted to do a different game, they shouldn't have called it StarCraft. Seeing this product they came up with, what I'm left with is that they either had different goals but failed horribly or they just wanted to take advantage of the predecessor without putting too much thought or effort in. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both. Either way, this is what makes SC2 a bad game in my eyes. Not the fact that it's so different from BW, not that it's mechanically less demanding or it's pathfinding is boring, but the fact that it's different and YET it pretends to be the same. It just doesn't work for me. Watching the commentators go nuts over a battle that has clearly been won 10 minutes ago and there's nothing either side can do with it - it's insulting to me as a viewer. But what are the casters supposed to do? It's not their fault the game is badly designed at its very core.
But if they didn't make SC2 then we never wouldve learned the full story of the Queen of Blades D:
|
On October 01 2013 02:24 traceurling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 16:21 Stratos wrote:On September 20 2013 03:25 LaLuSh wrote:
What the designers of SC2 did well I think was to make the game more fast paced. Because to attain the same level of depth in a mechanically less challening game -- you must introduce something in order to put players under more stress. But where they botched SC2's design I think was in uncritically copying all those other design parameters from Brood War while simultaneously changing the pace of the game.
They changed the economy. They changed how fast the economy developed. They changed pathing. They made the game feel more fast paced. They made all these changes, but they made them without putting any real thought as to whether they would still fit within a 200 supply game or within the same size/scale map designs.
I'd go further than that - if they change a game so much that the spectator's appreciation is supposed to be drawn to a different set of skills, i.e. the spectator shouldn't be focusing on the battles but on whatever happens before all these battles that is really deciding, does it still make sense to make the game look and act like StarCraft? Do we then even need to see the battle instead of focusing purely on the decision making, bluffs and strategy? If Blizzard wanted to do a different game, they shouldn't have called it StarCraft. Seeing this product they came up with, what I'm left with is that they either had different goals but failed horribly or they just wanted to take advantage of the predecessor without putting too much thought or effort in. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both. Either way, this is what makes SC2 a bad game in my eyes. Not the fact that it's so different from BW, not that it's mechanically less demanding or it's pathfinding is boring, but the fact that it's different and YET it pretends to be the same. It just doesn't work for me. Watching the commentators go nuts over a battle that has clearly been won 10 minutes ago and there's nothing either side can do with it - it's insulting to me as a viewer. But what are the casters supposed to do? It's not their fault the game is badly designed at its very core. But if they didn't make SC2 then we never wouldve learned the full story of the Queen of Blades D:
Ahh.. what a tragedy that would be, to have missed the grand story of Heart of the Swarm.
Good post OP. Definitely crystallizes many of the thoughts I've had about these two games since SC2 came out.
Looking forward to a future post when you go over what decemberscalm went over 
|
On September 30 2013 16:21 Stratos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2013 03:25 LaLuSh wrote:
What the designers of SC2 did well I think was to make the game more fast paced. Because to attain the same level of depth in a mechanically less challening game -- you must introduce something in order to put players under more stress. But where they botched SC2's design I think was in uncritically copying all those other design parameters from Brood War while simultaneously changing the pace of the game.
They changed the economy. They changed how fast the economy developed. They changed pathing. They made the game feel more fast paced. They made all these changes, but they made them without putting any real thought as to whether they would still fit within a 200 supply game or within the same size/scale map designs.
I'd go further than that - if they change a game so much that the spectator's appreciation is supposed to be drawn to a different set of skills, i.e. the spectator shouldn't be focusing on the battles but on whatever happens before all these battles that is really deciding, does it still make sense to make the game look and act like StarCraft? Do we then even need to see the battle instead of focusing purely on the decision making, bluffs and strategy? If Blizzard wanted to do a different game, they shouldn't have called it StarCraft. Seeing this product they came up with, what I'm left with is that they either had different goals but failed horribly or they just wanted to take advantage of the predecessor without putting too much thought or effort in. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a bit of both. Either way, this is what makes SC2 a bad game in my eyes. Not the fact that it's so different from BW, not that it's mechanically less demanding or its pathfinding is boring, but the fact that it's different and YET it pretends to be the same. It just doesn't work for me. Watching the commentators go nuts over a battle that has clearly been won 10 minutes ago and there's nothing either side can do with it - it's insulting to me as a viewer. But what are the casters supposed to do? It's not their fault the game is badly designed at its very core.
I don't think they changed the focus of the game intentionally, as the "terrible terrible damage" philosophy seems to imply that the battles are the focus, however the result of this philosophy is that the damage is so high (along with other factors) that micro during battles is less significant.
|
On October 01 2013 02:24 traceurling wrote:But if they didn't make SC2 then we never wouldve learned the full story of the Queen of Blades D:
I wouldn't have missed it... If there's one thing where SC2 definitely falls way short of SC1/BW, then is is in the storyline and its presentation.
|
On September 20 2013 22:39 Freakling wrote:Your overall conclusions are sound, but your descriptions of how terrain, path finding, unit orientation and collision boxes work and interact in SC1 is just plain wrong. Your analysis of how the tiles (or grids, as you call them) of the terrain interact with units is. well, just utterly wrong. Units do not "try to sit on top of a tile" as you claim. All that "bobbing around" of units is just because one collision box gets in the way of another. And those pictures are just bad and totally improper to explain anything about the structural basics of pathfinding in BW. Here's another picture, directly from SCMDraft (map editor), displaying the important aspects much better: green: terrain tiles grey: sub-tiles (these are the relevant ones for pathing; each tile is made up of 4x4 of them) red: collision boxes of the units. For ground units (except workers with mining command) these are not allow to overlap under normal circumstances, and if they ever do, resolving that becomes highest priority action for the moving algorithm, before any other action. This is why worker drills can disrupt units from attacking. greyed out areas: unwalkable sub-tiles, collision boxes of ground units are not allowed to overlap with these under normal circumstances, resolving terrain collision has priority even over resolving unit collision (although it is possible to transition unit collision into terrain collision, as demonstrated in the Blue Storm video). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/x32pIHu.jpg) As you can see from that picture alone, there is no difference at all between Dragoons, Vultures, Goliaths and Siege Tanks. they all have the exact same collision box and thus behave identical as far as pathfinding goes. So why does one need to micro them (and against them) differently? - Because of other differences like: - unit orientation: vultures always point in a certain direction, to have them ready to fire one must make sure they face the direction of the target. That's why they work best with patrol micro (patrol basically gives them a direction order on top of an attack order), dragoons on the other hand have no orientation, so they are always ready to fire and can be microed by hold position. Tanks are kind of in between, in that they are basically two units in one, one chassis and one turret, each with an orientation of its own. The chassis is facing into the moving direction, but the turret can still rotate freely and stay locked on a target in reach, thus resulting in an overall unit behaviour that is closer to that of the dragoon than the vulture. Goliaths also feature a turret, but a less mobile one that can only rotate a small angle, thus requiring the whole unit to be aimed at a target to attack - attack animation: A dragoon has to stand still for a while to "cough up" that lightball of his and giving it any new order before the projectile is launched will disrupt the attack, Vultures on the other hand fire instantly, if facing the target, and thus can keep moving constantly. Tanks and Goliaths also pretty much fire instantly. - unit speed and acceleration: units don't just stop when ordered to do so, but have a short phase of deceleration. This is relevant when using fast firing, fast moving units like vultures, because it means that they can fire while still moving and just keep moving, when given another move command right after the attack (also important for muta and shuttle micro, for example) - rate of attack: Goliaths pretty much fire one attack after another in rather short succession (not quite like Corsairs, but still...), whereas Vultures, Dragoons and Tanks have really long attack cooldowns, which is why the latter three are much better, or at least easier, to attack-move-micro. - projectile type: Goliaths (vs. ground) and Tanks do not have projectiles, their shots hit almost instantly. Vultures and Dragoons (or Goliaths vs. air), however, fire projectiles that only apply damage once they hit the target. This means that their attacks can be dodged by "removing" the target, like loading it into a transport or bunker, it also means that they are more prone to land overkills, i.e. fire more projectiles at a target than would be required to kill it (tanks do this too, however, especially in siege mode.).
This needs to be read by everyone.
Some other nitpicky stuff: units' collision boxes do not change based on orientation. Dragoons' boxes do not expand when the legs extend, ultras' boxes are always horizontally longer whether the unit is facing horizontally or vertically, vultures are actually always squares despite their appearance (as Freakling mentioned), etc.
|
I just wan to say wow. . .
It is really enlightening? I really feel good reading this.
It is something not many could write.
After reading, and watching video,
I feel SC1 limited pathfinding is more realistic. Where units movement are limited by accessible block of space?
compare to SC2 every unit just go there, and rearrange themselves once they reach there.
Oso the battles, where there is human factors in controlling units, such as vulture and dragoon control.
That cause realistic.
In SC2, like u say, like chess, not much u can do when battle begins. It loses some realistic feel I tink.
I always feel BW feels more realistic and fun to watch than SC2, and I always cannot explain it 100%...
After reading this blog, I kind off understand where this feel came from  .
Some part of the blog, makes me feel SC2 feels like Robot basketball games, where robot have similar skillset and lack human factor. It is not as fun as real human playing basketball?
Or maybe streetfighter where 1 button = 1 move. I dont know,
Okay I am talking rubbish, I still think reason for my little bit dislike for SC2 come from the unit design. Like the hardcounters, unit design for specific reasons...(hellbat for ...zealot? Snipe for...spellcaster? Viking for...? etc..)
I really hate viking and thor, compare to the units they are going to replace, it is like a step backwards.
EDIT: They feel like clumsy units. That is how I feel
The whole ecosystem is too man made, feels like tailor to make the game balanced and competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 23 2013 08:36 papalion wrote:
Sorry, but I am starting to be a bit frustrated with these threads. You all remind of the trolls in the HoN forums that told us all how good Dota2 was.
First: Where are the big Frisbee events compared to MLB?
Second: When I was posting in this thread earlier, I was told that my arguments were bad and that "people have to get out of a bubble that SC2 is evolving". That being obviously complete nonsense, I started to feel that I was talking to truthers. And that is what you BW nostalgia guys are. Truthers that one cannot discuss with, because it does not matter what I say and how good my arguments are. Even if SC2 had like 1800 billion billion viewers, you would still miss your old times.
I really do appreciate to know that all of you nostalgia guys really loved (past tense) and miss BW, a game that still exists, even tournaments are being played. I am bored with reading how good BW was, how hard to learn, how the bad pathing was so awesome, or any other limitation. My proposal would be: Why not tie one hand to your back while playing SC2? It would make the game so much harder, so much more enjoyable.
It is ok to love a game. I love Medieval 2: Total War, and think that any other TW game that came after is inferior to it, but that does not make go to a forum and whine the whole time how bad e.g. Napoleon is. I do not tell Napoleon players that their game needs Jihads or Crusades
The article of the OP is a good example of how destructive criticism can be disguised as constructive. He at first says he is "in the middle" of the extremes of opinions, but then he says the gameplay is seriously flawed, and admits he has no ideas how to fix it. This is not helpful, this is whining hidden behind a wall of "smart" writing.
You all feel you are contributing. If you would have an interest in contributing seriously, you would stop telling SC2 players "What is wrong with the game" and how great BW was. It was good for obvious reasons, but you will never understand it. You truthers like more to believe in miracles, that Blizzard has made a "lucky strike" with BW, completely ignoring the long history BW had to get through to be THE professional computer game on earth. You would go to the BW section, and discuss BW, watch BW streams, play BW, and be happy with BW. So long guys!
I am 33 now and I played tons of games since I was 7, I've also played dota and BW, but in my opinion it is SC2 and HoN that are better. My opinion. That does not make me go to a dota2 or BW forum and tell the players how elitist I am because I like a game they do not play.
You know what? Warcraft 1 was better than BW because you had control groups with only 4 units max! See how elitist I am? Nah, that was kidding.
EDit: Forgot to tell you that I won't make any more posts here in this thread. my opion is clear, and I've stopped talking to truthers here or anywhere else.
You did either not fully read (my guess) or comprehend the op.
Here's a thought: when an op clearly put so much effort into his post, at least give him (and everyone else) the courtesy of completely reading it before going "amagad another sc2 bw thread gotta defend my gameeeeeeee".
Now I get that you're tired of shitty bashing threads of which there has been an abundance, but that is not the case here.
The op broke the games down to the most basic level and examined the effects certain game mechanics have on players and observers. Now you might label this as "not constructive" because Blizzard can't completely rewrite pathing and unit AI and whatnot, but that's just stupid. It is very constructive in terms of the discourse the community has (should have) about the quality of the game(s).
I have played Bw for 10 years, and stopped playing Sc2 (the game I had been waiting for for 10+ years) after a few months. Watching the game played in tournaments doesn't remotely give me the excitement that Bw did. And even though I considered myself a very good player at both games, I never really could say why. Now I can point to this thread.
And you're completely missing the point with your analogies.
Having "bad" pathing and unit AI is what made Broodwar harder to play/master and thus more exciting to play/watch. So yes, SC2 is "better" technically it's just not as much fun to play and watch.
Now please ignore all the statements broodwar developers have given out over the years how much of the game design has been "accidental" aka lucky and please do go on to confuse game mechanics with balancing and meta game changes that actually are what did evolve bw over the years. Also make sure to label everyone with a different view as conspiracy nuts or "truthers", especially in the light of player numbers in south korean pc bangs. I guess the people of Seoul (not to mention the progamers retiring from SC2 and streaming Bw) are all just blind fools following elitist TL-net truther propaganda.
You look cute in that corner with your fingers in your ears. Have a consolation cookie.
Edit: On a sidenote, I agree that HoN is a better game than Dota/2, the problem there is that S2 couldn't market water to a man dying of thirst.
|
Wow, an amazing read that's very well organized and non-biased. 5/5 Please feature this!!!!
|
Wow thanks OP! This helped me understand my own thoughts on why I don't like SC2 compared to BW and stopped playing after a few months. Worst thing is it is hard to even play BW now days with the lack of support fro Blizzard and all the lat issues. I think for most of us all we ever wanted was some better looking Frisbee and online support with SC2.
|
This post is so amazing I keep coming back to it. I explained it to some of my friends as how pathing works in bw compared to sc2 and how difficult it was back in the day
|
On September 20 2013 06:11 Mzimzim wrote:
I want this author, day9, and lalush to team up and make the world's greatest RTS. This is my dream.
this guy can see through the future :o
|
So this thread has been buried for one year in the dust? This was an enlightening read! It has given me the (probably) complete understanding of the essential difference between SC1 and SC2. Deathballs vs multiple spread out armies. Stalling and tactical walkarounds vs waves of direct confrontation over and over again. No bonjwa vs eras of absolute dominance.
Too bad, this also means the hopes of return for the legends of BW are very unlikely. On the other hand, we have something like Taeja who excels at intuition, game-reading, adaptation and decision-making. No surprises why he is like the most consistent with golden results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/My5zmrk.gif)
