|
On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
No, it's not false. You just can't deny the fact getting a good game going on is absurdly simple (and light years easier than in BW - at least you can't do it convincingly when your main argument is "some people like to bitch about it on the internet". The problem is that most of those people do not want to play normal multiplayer - which was, in fact, the same in BW, where the "casual" scene was not in 1v1 (a fact that I learned with a big surprise a long time after I left BW). But it is not a problem for me , because I do want to play ladder and the game allows me that just fine - and the amount of people who feel the same is large enough to keep the waiting time very short (obviously, it would much more of a problem, if this wasn't the case)
I think the problem in that regard resides in perception. You see, everyone and their mom thinks they're the hot shit at LoL. You'll get into a low level POS turbo-low-ranked LoL game and everyone's convinced that they have what it takes to go pro but they're temporarily inconvenienced by bad teams or whatever.
BW had a similar thing going on, back when people of similar skill levels enjoyed playing together and made little clans and played UMS games and did their little occasional melee games. Now you open up SC2 and the UI is not at all conducive to socializing. Right out of the gate, you see big matchmaking button for men, and practice games for pansies.
The Dunning-Kruger effect keeps horrible LoL players queuing even though they're scared of losing their precious ELO, because they don't know they're bad. So the point I'm trying to make is, SC2 players know they're bad, especially since we have such an elitist community, where it's very much understood that everybody who's not high masters (or whatever) has some serious flaws in their gameplays. People who are "stuck in silver" and try to improve very quickly get exposed to the fact that their play is so deeply flawed and every aspect of what they do is ridiculously bad....
When I played BW back in the day, as a kid, I was horrible, but I loved that game to death because I was never told just how bad I was. And I'm not arguing that the game should be even more open and more casual-friendly, it has done as well as it could for itself in that regard. But SC2 is by no means a game that's easy to get into. People pick it up, enjoy it, then when they're faced with the fact that it's hard, they leave and go play LoL where they'll be bad but they'll never ever know.
|
On October 15 2013 10:01 dream-_- wrote:
SC2 is no longer the pinnacle of esports. If you are ok with this, there is no problem. If you still want SC2 to have that role, obviously there is a problem.
Something can't "no longer" be the pinnacle of something if it never was the pinnacle at any point.
|
On October 15 2013 06:51 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
That probably depends on what you mean by "better". As a game is meant for personal enjoyment and everyone enjoys different things, it is hard to imagine that we can come up with a universal metrics for a game. On the other hand, I propose a theory that there are more people that can't do squat with BW mechanics than those that can and thus my point of view is more universal. But I can see how your metrics can be completely reversed and don't see a problem with that. I think you're making a false assumption about the purpose of the game. People enjoy strategy computer games as a competitive platform and enjoy the aspect of competition. People who play games like Diplomacy, Phantom, BGH, etc, are still fairly competitive with each other in their mindset towards how they play. Sure, playing single-player and shit like that is fun, but when people say "SC2 is dying", they are almost always referring to the competitive aspect of the game, which is why they often refer to tournaments, balance issues, and professional players when making an argument about the competitive scene. And what you proposed is not a "theory", because there has been no scientific study, and additionally, given enough time and dedication, nearly anyone can play BroodWar with some decent proficiency.
I don't think the assumption is false. Why do the people ejnoy the competitivness? Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot. There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond (and thus incredibly bad by any metrics that TL would accept) but they still play the game a lot (as can be seen by the still very low queuing times), so they seem to enjoy it. Even if I there were serious problems with the competitive aspect of SC2 at pro level, how does it affect those people?
I think that this is one of the main reason for all the complaining: many people think that they do know the true purpose of the game and if their favorite aspect doesn't work the way they want it, the whole thing is somehow written off. On TL, there is a vocal group of pepole who think that nothing but the highest level of competitions has any value and thus judge which game is "better" using a specific set of criteria. What makes this approach universal, or even better than any other?
On October 15 2013 13:46 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
No, it's not false. You just can't deny the fact getting a good game going on is absurdly simple (and light years easier than in BW - at least you can't do it convincingly when your main argument is "some people like to bitch about it on the internet". The problem is that most of those people do not want to play normal multiplayer - which was, in fact, the same in BW, where the "casual" scene was not in 1v1 (a fact that I learned with a big surprise a long time after I left BW). But it is not a problem for me , because I do want to play ladder and the game allows me that just fine - and the amount of people who feel the same is large enough to keep the waiting time very short (obviously, it would much more of a problem, if this wasn't the case) I think the problem in that regard resides in perception. You see, everyone and their mom thinks they're the hot shit at LoL. You'll get into a low level POS turbo-low-ranked LoL game and everyone's convinced that they have what it takes to go pro but they're temporarily inconvenienced by bad teams or whatever. BW had a similar thing going on, back when people of similar skill levels enjoyed playing together and made little clans and played UMS games and did their little occasional melee games. Now you open up SC2 and the UI is not at all conducive to socializing. Right out of the gate, you see big matchmaking button for men, and practice games for pansies. The Dunning-Kruger effect keeps horrible LoL players queuing even though they're scared of losing their precious ELO, because they don't know they're bad. So the point I'm trying to make is, SC2 players know they're bad, especially since we have such an elitist community, where it's very much understood that everybody who's not high masters (or whatever) has some serious flaws in their gameplays. People who are "stuck in silver" and try to improve very quickly get exposed to the fact that their play is so deeply flawed and every aspect of what they do is ridiculously bad.... When I played BW back in the day, as a kid, I was horrible, but I loved that game to death because I was never told just how bad I was. And I'm not arguing that the game should be even more open and more casual-friendly, it has done as well as it could for itself in that regard. But SC2 is by no means a game that's easy to get into. People pick it up, enjoy it, then when they're faced with the fact that it's hard, they leave and go play LoL where they'll be bad but they'll never ever know.
That's one thing I never understood: how is the matchmaking button "for men". It's one fascinating piece of nonsense that has been spoken about so much that it became a truth, without having any merit. Because it's completely the contrary: the button is for fun! It's a button that finds you an oponent with whom you should play a balanced match, regardless of whether you are good or bad. Man, I am scared to hell to play a custom game, because the guy I will play may be a high masters screwing around and I will get my ass handed to me like there is no tomorrow. But matchmaking? That's one huge comfy safety net!
|
On October 15 2013 16:58 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 06:51 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
That probably depends on what you mean by "better". As a game is meant for personal enjoyment and everyone enjoys different things, it is hard to imagine that we can come up with a universal metrics for a game. On the other hand, I propose a theory that there are more people that can't do squat with BW mechanics than those that can and thus my point of view is more universal. But I can see how your metrics can be completely reversed and don't see a problem with that. I think you're making a false assumption about the purpose of the game. People enjoy strategy computer games as a competitive platform and enjoy the aspect of competition. People who play games like Diplomacy, Phantom, BGH, etc, are still fairly competitive with each other in their mindset towards how they play. Sure, playing single-player and shit like that is fun, but when people say "SC2 is dying", they are almost always referring to the competitive aspect of the game, which is why they often refer to tournaments, balance issues, and professional players when making an argument about the competitive scene. And what you proposed is not a "theory", because there has been no scientific study, and additionally, given enough time and dedication, nearly anyone can play BroodWar with some decent proficiency. I don't think the assumption is false. Why do the people ejnoy the competitivness? Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot. There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond (and thus incredibly bad by any metrics that TL would accept) but they still play the game a lot (as can be seen by the still very low queuing times), so they seem to enjoy it. Even if I there were serious problems with the competitive aspect of SC2 at pro level, how does it affect those people? I think that this is one of the main reason for all the complaining: many people think that they do know the true purpose of the game and if their favorite aspect doesn't work the way they want it, the whole thing is somehow written off. On TL, there is a vocal group of pepole who think that nothing but the highest level of competitions has any value and thus judge which game is "better" using a specific set of criteria. What makes this approach universal, or even better than any other?
Did you even read what I wrote?
The first paragraph you wrote is the same thing I wrote, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Being "competitive" is not restricted to professional gaming. However, people who are competitive on a small scale still use professional gamers as points in their arguments.
When vOddy says that you quit BroodWar because you were bad at that game, you respond with "Oh no, it doesn't matter, I just play for fun, same as everyone else." then go:
"Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot."
So you essentially are contradicting yourself, and I highly suspect that you were, in fact, very bad at Broodwar, but would rather blame the game itself (i.e., it's too hard to control blah blah blah) rather than own up to the badness that exudes from your fingers every time they rest on a keyboard and mouse. You know how I know how I figured this out, like the super-sleuth I am?
There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond
And therefore you are vastly under-qualified to make a determination about the parameters by which a game should be designed. You could just say "Hey, I don't find BroodWar to be as fun for myself as SC2 personally", not say stupid shit like "I think SC2 is better than BroodWar cuz I don't like watching proleague in Korean", which has nothing to do with the game, and OH, remember GOMTV? Watch Nick Plott's casts of GOM and -bam-, you have good old-fashioned English. Also, being an apologist for Blizzard by going "We have facebook nao to talk to people." is something I find absurd, because you're essentially making excuses for a mistake that they admit they made. Good luck going on facebook and asking your Grandma for a 1v1 in SC2, or maybe she'll just settle for some team games, I dunno.
If you disagree with anything I've said, then come on iCCup and play me 1v1, and we'll settle it there at high noon.
|
On October 15 2013 17:56 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 16:58 opisska wrote:On October 15 2013 06:51 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
That probably depends on what you mean by "better". As a game is meant for personal enjoyment and everyone enjoys different things, it is hard to imagine that we can come up with a universal metrics for a game. On the other hand, I propose a theory that there are more people that can't do squat with BW mechanics than those that can and thus my point of view is more universal. But I can see how your metrics can be completely reversed and don't see a problem with that. I think you're making a false assumption about the purpose of the game. People enjoy strategy computer games as a competitive platform and enjoy the aspect of competition. People who play games like Diplomacy, Phantom, BGH, etc, are still fairly competitive with each other in their mindset towards how they play. Sure, playing single-player and shit like that is fun, but when people say "SC2 is dying", they are almost always referring to the competitive aspect of the game, which is why they often refer to tournaments, balance issues, and professional players when making an argument about the competitive scene. And what you proposed is not a "theory", because there has been no scientific study, and additionally, given enough time and dedication, nearly anyone can play BroodWar with some decent proficiency. I don't think the assumption is false. Why do the people ejnoy the competitivness? Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot. There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond (and thus incredibly bad by any metrics that TL would accept) but they still play the game a lot (as can be seen by the still very low queuing times), so they seem to enjoy it. Even if I there were serious problems with the competitive aspect of SC2 at pro level, how does it affect those people? I think that this is one of the main reason for all the complaining: many people think that they do know the true purpose of the game and if their favorite aspect doesn't work the way they want it, the whole thing is somehow written off. On TL, there is a vocal group of pepole who think that nothing but the highest level of competitions has any value and thus judge which game is "better" using a specific set of criteria. What makes this approach universal, or even better than any other? Did you even read what I wrote? The first paragraph you wrote is the same thing I wrote, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Being "competitive" is not restricted to professional gaming. However, people who are competitive on a small scale still use professional gamers as points in their arguments. When vOddy says that you quit BroodWar because you were bad at that game, you respond with "Oh no, it doesn't matter, I just play for fun, same as everyone else." then go: "Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot." So you essentially are contradicting yourself, and I highly suspect that you were, in fact, very bad at Broodwar, but would rather blame the game itself (i.e., it's too hard to control blah blah blah) rather than own up to the badness that exudes from your fingers every time they rest on a keyboard and mouse. You know how I know how I figured this out, like the super-sleuth I am? And therefore you are vastly under-qualified to make a determination about the parameters by which a game should be designed. You could just say "Hey, I don't find BroodWar to be as fun for myself as SC2 personally", not say stupid shit like "I think SC2 is better than BroodWar cuz I don't like watching proleague in Korean", which has nothing to do with the game, and OH, remember GOMTV? Watch Nick Plott's casts of GOM and -bam-, you have good old-fashioned English. Also, being an apologist for Blizzard by going "We have facebook nao to talk to people." is something I find absurd, because you're essentially making excuses for a mistake that they admit they made. Good luck going on facebook and asking your Grandma for a 1v1 in SC2, or maybe she'll just settle for some team games, I dunno. If you disagree with anything I've said, then come on iCCup and play me 1v1, and we'll settle it there at high noon.
Did you even read what I wrote? Because you are just repetaing an argument about which I have already delcared that I don't consider it valid. That is not a very fruitful way of discussing, because you are giving up on convincing me about anything, before you even started.
You are fixated on the idea that being "bad" at a game is something wrong and that the only and sole point of BW/SC2 is being good at it. Now, to be clear, I am not trying to convince you that you should not be focused on being good and you should not enjoy high-level competition - on the contrary, I firmly believe that as long as you find it rewarding, fun, or in general giving you whatever positive emotion, it is very good for you and the game. But why do you expect everyone to have the same approach and to (and now I am just repeating what has been already said and you choose to ignore it), enjoy the same thing?
BW is probably better for people who want to work hard and improve and get really good, while SC2 is, in my opinion, better for everyone else, including myself. I think that the it is quite universally agreed on TL, that anyone who works on themselves and focuses on improvement will be at least diamond in no time. However, that is about 1/5 of the whole population (probably less, because many diamonds are bad as well), thus this group is the smaller one. You still haven't shown any arguemnt as to why the metrics of this group is the right one to measure the quality of a game.
|
On October 15 2013 14:41 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 10:01 dream-_- wrote:
SC2 is no longer the pinnacle of esports. If you are ok with this, there is no problem. If you still want SC2 to have that role, obviously there is a problem. Something can't "no longer" be the pinnacle of something if it never was the pinnacle at any point.
ohohoho
|
People who cry for the reaver should check out Grubby's oracle micro then ask again with a straight face. This game gets absolutely nuts as a high level and it's only a matter of time til pros show it!
|
[B]On October 15 2 Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 01:14 Kassploj wrote:
I don't understand how and why this guy turned a "SC2 isn't dying"-thread into a "SC2 is better than BW"-thread, even moreso when he seeemingly neither played nor watched Brood War ever. I have specificaly mentioned that I have played BW. I actually played the game for several years, the last year of that period I played almost every workday evening. Just to make this clear.
Yes, that you did. And in the very same post you also claimed that Brood War was televised in 240p and that there was no point in landing spells or microing.
Getting EMP off on protoss army to halve it's hp or hitting an arbiter about to recall, getting tanks stasised, storms killing up to tens of units and dark swarms giving your zerglings invincibility up to a cluster of tanks. Just a few examples of the abilities and how important they are in order to win or lose a game.
I don't know, if you played nothing but TvT I can see it maybe happening, but in all other match ups hitting your abilities is usually pivotal to whether you lose or win an engagement. Things like picking reavers up with shuttles to dodge shots was used by like 90% of the players at D+ rank when I was playing, so if you feel like there's no microing or ability using going on then you must've really been at highest D, if not D-. I don't see that being possible having played "several years almost every day".
Like I said, your game is free to flourish. I hope SC2 can continue on as it is because obviously we have a large community here which enjoys the game. But in the end, all this seems to be is a candid SC2 vs BW thread and we've already had thousands of those, and ones with some kind of actual motivation to why one game would be better than the other. Next time, keep infected topics out of blogs they aren't even related to.
|
On October 14 2013 20:42 Targe wrote:
imo the biggest problem with sc2 is the toxic community (doomsayers etc.), there are very few fans of the game who look at it in its own right as the best rts of its time, instead they compare it to bw (arguably the best rts of all time) and say its shit because its not better.
Oh well, nice blog! 5/5 just because it's praising sc2 not pointing out all its 'flaws'
/e
Creationsoul, people need to stop giving a shit about viewer numbers and ESPORTS, why would that matter to you as the viewer? Just watch it cause you want to watch it.
Most of the people on TL haven't even watched or played BW. Just look at the stream numbers of BW streams they're not high at all. It's just silly calling a game better when you haven't even invested time in it.
|
The decline of players/viewership was expected after the initial hype ended.
Actually I think the purge of non-SC2 believers is good.
Now the true fans will stay not just the community type people(which I obviously don't like).
Currently I really enjoy watching top SC2, play LoL and used to enjoy BW in the past.
Problem is I don't enjoy playing SC2 or watching B-class players dueling.
Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things:
Comebacks:
The game is back and forth and that there is almost always a chance to turn the tide unless you really fucked up.
Prevelance:
When a player who is good can maintain his position for more than one season.
Now if I compare games like SC2, BW, LoL all three of them have these qualities..
However I dare to say that SC2 prevelance is smaller than that of BW and combacks are rare or non-existant below top level.
That's why I cannot watch B-class gamers, because they have not mastered all the nuances and the games are usually one sided.
LoL, BW even on noob levels is full of comebacks.
Another problem for me to enjoy playing SC2 is the lack of diversity in strategies for lower levels.
If I have not mastered all the high micro nuances it is really difficult to play more than a few strategies.
I've tried to play 2v2 with a friend for a while, but the strategies where very limited.
In BW you could do all kind of crazy strategies at the lower levels.
In LoL there are a few strategies for each champion combined with the variety of champion types you get a lot of different strategies.
And LoL is really solid in comebacks, unless there is a leaver or a very noob player even on low levels you will get very enjoyable games full of comebacks - on all 3 modes normal mode, crystal abyss, and ARAM.
Only drawback of LoL is the "report and insult everybody" immature community, but I take that rather than unenjoyable 1v1ing/2v2ing on SC2 ladder.
|
On October 15 2013 16:58 opisska wrote:
That's one thing I never understood: how is the matchmaking button "for men". It's one fascinating piece of nonsense that has been spoken about so much that it became a truth, without having any merit. Because it's completely the contrary: the button is for fun! It's a button that finds you an oponent with whom you should play a balanced match, regardless of whether you are good or bad. Man, I am scared to hell to play a custom game, because the guy I will play may be a high masters screwing around and I will get my ass handed to me like there is no tomorrow. But matchmaking? That's one huge comfy safety net!
I don't necessarily agree with what I said but that's how it is regardless.
|
On October 15 2013 23:05 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 20:42 Targe wrote:
imo the biggest problem with sc2 is the toxic community (doomsayers etc.), there are very few fans of the game who look at it in its own right as the best rts of its time, instead they compare it to bw (arguably the best rts of all time) and say its shit because its not better.
Oh well, nice blog! 5/5 just because it's praising sc2 not pointing out all its 'flaws'
/e
Creationsoul, people need to stop giving a shit about viewer numbers and ESPORTS, why would that matter to you as the viewer? Just watch it cause you want to watch it. Most of the people on TL haven't even watched or played BW. Just look at the stream numbers of BW streams they're not high at all. It's just silly calling a game better when you haven't even invested time in it.
I don't think that's a fair measurement, even if I agree with you. Many of the people who played and especially watched a lot of BW, me included, stopped doing it when SC2 took over. I loved to watch Day9 when he was still analyzing BW replays, watching pro games, TSL, diggity... but when everyone left for SC2, it became harder to immerse in English commentated BW. Add that to the fact that foreign BW wasn't as interesting and that there was still a lot of hope that SC2 would be patched and redesigned to the point where it would become more interesting, it's not surprising that the amount of people who watch BW streams nowadays is FAR fewer than there used to be.
|
This is just baiting a giant Brood War circlejerk... I don't get it.
|
On October 16 2013 01:53 SomethingWitty wrote:
This is just baiting a giant Brood War circlejerk... I don't get it.
Ugh, "circlejerk", what a stupid phrase.
On October 15 2013 18:12 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 17:56 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 16:58 opisska wrote:On October 15 2013 06:51 ninazerg wrote:On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote:
That probably depends on what you mean by "better". As a game is meant for personal enjoyment and everyone enjoys different things, it is hard to imagine that we can come up with a universal metrics for a game. On the other hand, I propose a theory that there are more people that can't do squat with BW mechanics than those that can and thus my point of view is more universal. But I can see how your metrics can be completely reversed and don't see a problem with that. I think you're making a false assumption about the purpose of the game. People enjoy strategy computer games as a competitive platform and enjoy the aspect of competition. People who play games like Diplomacy, Phantom, BGH, etc, are still fairly competitive with each other in their mindset towards how they play. Sure, playing single-player and shit like that is fun, but when people say "SC2 is dying", they are almost always referring to the competitive aspect of the game, which is why they often refer to tournaments, balance issues, and professional players when making an argument about the competitive scene. And what you proposed is not a "theory", because there has been no scientific study, and additionally, given enough time and dedication, nearly anyone can play BroodWar with some decent proficiency. I don't think the assumption is false. Why do the people ejnoy the competitivness? Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot. There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond (and thus incredibly bad by any metrics that TL would accept) but they still play the game a lot (as can be seen by the still very low queuing times), so they seem to enjoy it. Even if I there were serious problems with the competitive aspect of SC2 at pro level, how does it affect those people? I think that this is one of the main reason for all the complaining: many people think that they do know the true purpose of the game and if their favorite aspect doesn't work the way they want it, the whole thing is somehow written off. On TL, there is a vocal group of pepole who think that nothing but the highest level of competitions has any value and thus judge which game is "better" using a specific set of criteria. What makes this approach universal, or even better than any other? Did you even read what I wrote? The first paragraph you wrote is the same thing I wrote, but maybe I wasn't clear enough. Being "competitive" is not restricted to professional gaming. However, people who are competitive on a small scale still use professional gamers as points in their arguments. When vOddy says that you quit BroodWar because you were bad at that game, you respond with "Oh no, it doesn't matter, I just play for fun, same as everyone else." then go: "Apart from a very few top players, they don't make any money or fame on it, so they do compete for their personal enjoyment! I do that as well. The fact that I am playing against real people increases the level of my enjoyment a lot." So you essentially are contradicting yourself, and I highly suspect that you were, in fact, very bad at Broodwar, but would rather blame the game itself (i.e., it's too hard to control blah blah blah) rather than own up to the badness that exudes from your fingers every time they rest on a keyboard and mouse. You know how I know how I figured this out, like the super-sleuth I am?
There are vast hordes of players who are, like me, below diamond
And therefore you are vastly under-qualified to make a determination about the parameters by which a game should be designed. You could just say "Hey, I don't find BroodWar to be as fun for myself as SC2 personally", not say stupid shit like "I think SC2 is better than BroodWar cuz I don't like watching proleague in Korean", which has nothing to do with the game, and OH, remember GOMTV? Watch Nick Plott's casts of GOM and -bam-, you have good old-fashioned English. Also, being an apologist for Blizzard by going "We have facebook nao to talk to people." is something I find absurd, because you're essentially making excuses for a mistake that they admit they made. Good luck going on facebook and asking your Grandma for a 1v1 in SC2, or maybe she'll just settle for some team games, I dunno. If you disagree with anything I've said, then come on iCCup and play me 1v1, and we'll settle it there at high noon. Did you even read what I wrote? Because you are just repetaing an argument about which I have already delcared that I don't consider it valid. That is not a very fruitful way of discussing, because you are giving up on convincing me about anything, before you even started. You are fixated on the idea that being "bad" at a game is something wrong and that the only and sole point of BW/SC2 is being good at it. Now, to be clear, I am not trying to convince you that you should not be focused on being good and you should not enjoy high-level competition - on the contrary, I firmly believe that as long as you find it rewarding, fun, or in general giving you whatever positive emotion, it is very good for you and the game. But why do you expect everyone to have the same approach and to (and now I am just repeating what has been already said and you choose to ignore it), enjoy the same thing? BW is probably better for people who want to work hard and improve and get really good, while SC2 is, in my opinion, better for everyone else, including myself. I think that the it is quite universally agreed on TL, that anyone who works on themselves and focuses on improvement will be at least diamond in no time. However, that is about 1/5 of the whole population (probably less, because many diamonds are bad as well), thus this group is the smaller one. You still haven't shown any arguemnt as to why the metrics of this group is the right one to measure the quality of a game.
I know you're sitting there thinking I didn't make a point, but I did somewhere in there, but it's like a secret hidden prize. I showed you how you contradicted yourself, and now you're changing the argument to "Why are diamond players not qualified to evaluate game design?" and the answer is twofold:
1 - My cat roll around on my keyboard and get into diamond league.
2 - Sounds like dodge-talk.
When you're ready to 1v1, hit me up.
|
[B] Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things: Comebacks: The game is back and forth and that there is almost always a chance to turn the tide unless you really fucked up. Prevelance: When a player who is good can maintain his position for more than one season.
I get that those are enjoyable things, but you phrase this as if comebacks or dominating players are the only thing you like to watch. That seems silly to me.
|
On October 16 2013 17:46 guruPanda wrote:Show nested quote +[B] Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things: Comebacks: The game is back and forth and that there is almost always a chance to turn the tide unless you really fucked up. Prevelance: When a player who is good can maintain his position for more than one season. I get that those are enjoyable things, but you phrase this as if comebacks or dominating players are the only thing you like to watch. That seems silly to me.
A game with where comebacks are pretty much nonexistent and the mechanics don't allow the better player to win against blind luck seems pretty silly to me.
|
On October 16 2013 17:46 guruPanda wrote:Show nested quote +[B] Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things: Comebacks: The game is back and forth and that there is almost always a chance to turn the tide unless you really fucked up. Prevelance: When a player who is good can maintain his position for more than one season. I get that those are enjoyable things, but you phrase this as if comebacks or dominating players are the only thing you like to watch. That seems silly to me.
It is the where the most long term enjoyment comes from.
Comebacks = excitement, when a player wins after a comeback you feel the most intensive emotions.
Prevelance = fan-boyism, cheering for a player, also long-term. When there is no prevelance I simply don't have any favorite players.
Visuals, Music, Commentating = is just filling for me, I more care if the visuals are transparent enough = you can see clearly what's going on(BW/SC2/LoL is good at this by the way).
I used to watch bw-proleague and I don't speak korean at all, guess how much I care for commentating..
I must say though that I've really grown fond of the latest BW casters - especially the old champs like Grubby, Rotterdam and ToD, but also Apollo and the rest is just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
