These days it seems that everyone and their whole neighbourhood have either a deep insight into what is wrong with SC2 or even a brilliant solution to all such problems. If someone just came to TL and read a few threads, he would probably conclude that this is a site about an awful, unplayable and irrelevant game - and moved on.
Why is that? Because people just like to complain. They like to be unhappy and like to have strong opinions and show their ability to see the problem. As soon as complaining about somehting becomes common, everybody siezes the opportunity and hops on the train. You don't really have to go far for a real-life example: even though the quality of life in any western country is the best ever by a long shot, the newspapers across the whole Europe are filled with people complaining about how terrible the crisis is, because they cannot afford a separate car for every family member ...
Maybe the hypothetical new reader, having swiftly left the forum, remembered the lesson from the real western life - that the reality is light years better than its common description - and maybe he gave TL another chance. Hopefully, he got caught by my headline and landed on this blog, becasue this is exactly the place when he may find a second hope. The reason is, that my topic today is: why SC2 is awesome. In fact, this is a very difficult topic, because there is a character limit on the blog and the reasons for the above statement are virtually endless, so I will just contain myself and spell out thethree key points. Note: it gradually turned out that I had a BW comparison in mind for every point. Yes, I now that I am on TL and that it is the greatest possible heresy, but I consider SC2 far better than BW in every concievable aspect. To avoid making this into a SC2 vs. BW writeup, I have put the BW related part in a spoiler for each point. By reading the spoilers, you accept that you are obliged not to hit your computer with a hammer in the following five minutes. Thanks for understanding.
1. SC2 is unbelievably deep, even for an incompetent player
SC2 is just not some RPG when you run around the world, do some quests and then defeat a final boss and it's over. This is a game with an unbelievable abyss of options. Here I am, having played thousands of games of SC2 and no other game in the last three years, and I still do not feel anywhere near the "end" of the game. In the two-odd years of WoL, I didn't even have the time to get through all the options for one race, not to mention to really try the two others and then they changed everything all in a sudden? I guess I have to play more to try to catch more of HoTS before LotV comes out! The crucial thing here is that even though all these things are pretty difficult, I can, in the end, have fun and success with them. I now that I could probably just macro better and win, but yet I feel hitting the right forcefields, storms and blinks rewarding and awesome.
But SC2 is nothing in depth when compared to BW! Well, it's probably true, but in BW, I just found it that even though there are almost infinite amazing things, I can put none of it to a good use. Because there I really just have to macro better instead of hitting ... anything. That's why I essentially stopped playing BW a year before SC2 came out and hoped for a miracle, which luckily did happen!
2. SC2 is easy to come and play
The "play" button of the ladder is one of the greatest inventions of humanity. When my friend bought SC2, I heard he is somehow playing with complete strangers, without any apparent effort. I was puzzled, how that works and then just schocked by the simplicity of the whole thing. Honestly, why I haven't thought of that? Years of games when I had to convince some of my friends to play with me, then fight all kinds of network obstacles and spend the evening debugging a router instead of playing, conditioned me so hard that I just couldn't imagine multiplayer experience to be so simple! The sheer ease of finding more, more and more new oponents, on the exactly right skill level is addictive.
But b.net 0.2 is such a disaster! In BW, we had channels and society and ... And today, you have jabber, facebook and forums - that's what I use to talk to people online. And I use b.net when I want to play! I honestly don't care about any other function of the thing that the matchmaker and the "play" button and these work really, really well. In BW, getting to play a game was sheer horror - I could either join my friends to play, but we were too imbalanced in skill to get really good games, or play with some completely random people, not knowing their skill at all (or I could go to a place like iccup, with a website specificaly designed to deter noobs from joining and a tailor-made unfriendly atmosphere of contrived rules...)
3. SC2 is thrilling to watch
I must admit that, lately, I watch SC2 more than I play it. The amount of high-quality, yet free content is unparalleled. WCS gives the whole year an amazing storyline (particularly with a little bit of help of our amazing Die4ever) and the games, casting and production keep a long-time very high level. Yes, it's not really "big" and the viewership can hardly be compared to LoL or DoTA2 - but why should I care? The interest is big enough to keep the things I want to watch running and the little number in the corner has very little effect on how much I enjoy the content.
But BW was so much bigger, it was a national sport! Yes, in a nation that speaks a language nobody understands and was almost completely shut down from the rest of the world most of the time. I take niche competition with high-res stream and English production over a Korean national TV rebroadcasted in 240p any time. Also, the graphics is so much better and easier to follow than that of BW.
For me, the last three years, were years of SC2. For a long time, it has stayed as my go-to source of indoor fun (as most of my other hobbies are almost exclusively outdoor). When I want to play something, I play SC2, when I want to watch something, I watch SC2 and I am still not even a little bit bored by it all. feel seriously thankful to Blizzard for doing such a wonderfull game and consider the money spend on SC2 the second best investment of my life (after my bike). The only problem I can ever see in the world of SC2 is the amount of annoying complainers. Something should be really about that!
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.
I think we are (but)hurt that SC2 is no longer the top-dog in esports. I think the focus on SC2 is going away from personal streaming (numbers on pro-gamer streams are getting lower I think) and audiences focus more on tournaments.
There is so much esports going on now (LoL, Dota2 and SC2) that you can't watch everything.
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
South Korea and it's ~50,000,000 residents seem to disagree with you.
I am sorry, but I could care less for Korea. I agree that BW is a better game than SC2 (but not by far). But if i had to choose between BW being alive just in Korea and dead everywhere else and SC2 being alive internationally and not so popular in Korea, then....I choose the second option.
BW was lucky to have come out in 1998 in a time when the internet was relatively new. Had SC2 come out at that time, esports would have exploded worldwide. We would not even have the term foreigner. Imagine that!
Thanks for such a positive thread! I hope that people will eventually stop these "SC2 dying" discussions. It creates such a negative atmosphere and I can imagine that the hard working progamers which get a low salary must feel pretty bad when they try to give us the best games and the community gives the game so much hatred.
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
South Korea and it's ~50,000,000 residents seem to disagree with you.
No offense, but it gets annoying when people only justify success of sc2 based on what Koreans think. Koreans enjoyed BW because they were able to play the game for free in PC bangs. If you haven't connected the dots yet, Free=Korean love.
I personally love SC2 and there has never, EVER, been another game that captured my attention for years on end.
I consider SC2 far better than BW in every concievable aspect.
in BW, I just found it that even though there are almost infinite amazing things, I can put none of it to a good use. Because there I really just have to macro better instead of hitting ... anything. That's why I essentially stopped playing BW a year before SC2 came out and hoped for a miracle, which luckily did happen!
You being bad is not a valid argument for why one game is better than another.
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
For casual players, no doubt, which is shown by the amount of active players. Too bad BW has a far higher skillcap and is far more entertaining to watch professionals play.
If there wasn't anything wrong with the game, there wouldn't be a "toxic community". The OP makes 3 arguments
1- SC2 has depth. Fine.
2- SC2 is easy to come play. This is outright false and most people will agree that multiplayer is a chore. Players quickly get bored of the game because while the learning curve at low levels is workable, LoL and Dota 2's learning curve is much easier, you can always blame your teammates when you lose
3- SC2 is thrilling to watch. I disagree for my own personal reasons, and the viewership of SC2 hasn't been great because many people agree. I watched IEM yesterday and today I don't remember any of the games, I just remember who won them, because while the games can all be argued to be unique, very, very few of the tactics and general strategies tend to be memorable. All there is is large clumps units moving across the map - either they make progress, or they don't. I used to keep track of everything when I made an effort to be interested though, but now 90% of the games I watch turn out to be outrageously similar to games I've seen previously. And the occasional dynamic and interesting game isn't enough to keep people interested.
To get back to the "toxic community" though, don't be confused.... those people don't hate the game, they're not trying to kill esports, they're disappointed with the fact that they find the game boring when they believe it has so much potential. If they just wanted to shit on it, the threads wouldn't be so common. But those are passionate people who want more out of SCBW's little brother. And the game's engine is there: a tremendously awesome game could be built on this foundation. But as it is, at least IMO, it fails to impress because the devs are merely balancing the game (they are doing that well), but they're not making it fun to watch. The micro is subtle and largely unimpressive - even when it requires incredible control. The macro is only impressive to people who know what they're looking at, but none of it is spectacular. Where are the cool reaver scarab detonations, the insane splits to take out lurkers, the mutalisk micro that actually changes something, the PvP that doesn't completely suck...
We have excellent gamers, perhaps the best games in the world playing SC2, a game which is completely devoid of any possibility for true showmanship. The incredible skills of the players are not as noticeable as they could be. Only few players like Whitera dare to do "special tactics", but they're largely ineffective next to the good ole' sharpened boring standard plays that we've all seen tens of times.
I'll be accused of being a purist, or of wanting SC2 to be BW all over, but it's not the case. I don't think the game needs reavers, mutalisk micro of whatever. It needs its own specific fun units. Not just balanced units: FUN units that do fun things, and can synergize with other units to do re ally impressive shit in the hands of good players. What to we have, oracles that kill workers, vipers that kill colossi, god damn mines that kill things vaguely at random? Those are just explosions and particle effects.
Regardless, you guys are probably right in that complaining won't change a thing so it's useless. But people gonna feel what people gonna feel.
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.
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.
The worst thing is the argument basically boils down to I suck at broodwar so I can't do anything cool and I don't understand korean so I never watched BW. I mean, this is basically an argument for why LoL is the "best" game on earth.
in BW, I just found it that even though there are almost infinite amazing things, I can put none of it to a good use. Because there I really just have to macro better instead of hitting ... anything. That's why I essentially stopped playing BW a year before SC2 came out and hoped for a miracle, which luckily did happen!
You being bad is not a valid argument for why one game is better than another.
this and
They like to be unhappy and like to have strong opinions and show their ability to see the problem. [...] Yes, I now that I am on TL and that it is the greatest possible heresy, but I consider SC2 far better than BW in every concievable aspect. To avoid making this into a SC2 vs. BW writeup, I have put the BW related part in a spoiler for each point.
Really? Complain about X and then do X. If it's an attempt to be ironic or sarcastic I apologize for not getting the point.
I'm sure after reading this, SC2 fans will suddenly rally and there will be the second coming of Christ and eSports will explode. This is like the fucking President's speech in Independence Day.
On October 14 2013 21:53 flashimba wrote: 5/5
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
I think for a SC2 fan the most important thing to do is to always put it: SC2 is the best RTS game in the world.
Don't ever say anything about BW. Especially not on TL. Then you can stay happy, because a bunch of guys that is frustrated about their favorite game being dead can't screw up your day. For as long as you never mention BW.
On October 15 2013 05:00 Big J wrote: I think for a SC2 fan the most important thing to do is to always put it: SC2 is the best RTS game in the world.
Don't ever say anything about BW. Especially not on TL. Then you can stay happy, because a bunch of guys that is frustrated about their favorite game being dead can't screw up your day. For as long as you never mention BW.
They will always come with it, because of those damned letters in SC2's name.
On October 15 2013 05:00 Big J wrote: I think for a SC2 fan the most important thing to do is to always put it: SC2 is the best RTS game in the world.
Don't ever say anything about BW. Especially not on TL. Then you can stay happy, because a bunch of guys that is frustrated about their favorite game being dead can't screw up your day. For as long as you never mention BW.
But... BroodWar is the best RTS in the world, so now we have reached an impasse.
I wasn't planning to mention BW at all at first. Then I realised that the principal things that I like about SC2 are those where there is significant improvement with respect to BW. It then felt hypocritical not to say that. I know that some people here are storngly convinced that BW is better, but... whatever, this is just a blog and it is, what I think. Also, everyone who read the BW-related parts, has open the spoilers on his free will. I refuse to take blame for that
On October 15 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: 2- SC2 is easy to come play. This is outright false and most people will agree that multiplayer is a chore. Players quickly get bored of the game because while the learning curve at low levels is workable, LoL and Dota 2's learning curve is much easier, you can always blame your teammates when you lose
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).
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.
On October 15 2013 00:11 vOdToasT wrote: You being bad is not a valid argument for why one game is better than another.
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.
You easily could have made an argument "SC2 is not dead" without mentioning Brood War just fyi because there is no correlation between SC2 being dead/alive and BW...
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.
On October 15 2013 06:32 opisska wrote: I wasn't planning to mention BW at all at first. Then I realised that the principal things that I like about SC2 are those where there is significant improvement with respect to BW. It then felt hypocritical not to say that. I know that some people here are storngly convinced that BW is better, but... whatever, this is just a blog and it is, what I think. Also, everyone who read the BW-related parts, has open the spoilers on his free will. I refuse to take blame for that
On October 15 2013 00:21 Djzapz wrote: 2- SC2 is easy to come play. This is outright false and most people will agree that multiplayer is a chore. Players quickly get bored of the game because while the learning curve at low levels is workable, LoL and Dota 2's learning curve is much easier, you can always blame your teammates when you lose
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).
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.
On October 15 2013 00:11 vOdToasT wrote: You being bad is not a valid argument for why one game is better than another.
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.
By better, I mean more interesting and more enjoyable. Different people are intrigued by different things, but I have yet to meet any one who has played both SC1 and SC2, gotten ok at both of them, and yet prefers SC2. If some one prefers SC2, and can tell me why (in other words, what SC2 has that SC1 does not), then I will respect his taste.
I understand that you can enjoy something because it's easier, but that doesn't make it the better game. It just means you're too bad to appreciate the other game. For example, I play The King Of Fighters 98 rather than 2002, because I'm really bad at fighting games, and KoF 98 has less, therefor making it easier for me to appreciate. I'm not going to say that 98 is better, because I don't think it is. 2002 simply has more, and is more interesting - I'm just too bad to use any of it, and therefor I choose the easier game (for now).
But 2002 is still better. If I was good enough, I'd enjoy it more.
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
South Korea and it's ~50,000,000 residents seem to disagree with you.
No offense, but it gets annoying when people only justify success of sc2 based on what Koreans think. Koreans enjoyed BW because they were able to play the game for free in PC bangs. If you haven't connected the dots yet, Free=Korean love.
SC and SC:BW probably has more game sells than SC2, definitely for both korea and possibly worldwide (bw 10 mil sales worldwide in 2007)
Couldn't agree more. SC2 > BW in every conceivable way.
South Korea and it's ~50,000,000 residents seem to disagree with you.
No offense, but it gets annoying when people only justify success of sc2 based on what Koreans think. Koreans enjoyed BW because they were able to play the game for free in PC bangs. If you haven't connected the dots yet, Free=Korean love.
SC and SC:BW probably has more game sells than SC2, definitely for both korea and possibly worldwide (bw 10 mil sales worldwide in 2007)
I doubt that. I think SC2 and HotS have more than SC1 and BW.
I dunno, pretty close. not very good sources, but there is the 10 million source and 11 million source for starcraft/starcraft bw in 2009 timeframe from text of articles speaking with blizzard employees, and an article in Nov 2012 saying WoL had 6 million sales since release July 2010 according to activision (no direct quotes on these figures, but saying like Blizzard COO or Activision or Morheim, etc)
Probably wasn't a ton of sales of sc2:wol in 2013.
We're at 11 million bw vs 6 million WoL + HotS/2013 sale figures.
On October 15 2013 08:18 N.geNuity wrote: I dunno, pretty close. not very good sources, but there is the 10 million source and 11 million source for starcraft/starcraft bw in 2009 timeframe from text of articles speaking with blizzard employees, and an article in Nov 2012 saying WoL had 6 million sales since release July 2010 according to activision (no direct quotes on these figures, but saying like Blizzard COO or Activision or Morheim, etc)
Probably wasn't a ton of sales of sc2:wol in 2013.
We're at 11 million bw vs 6 million WoL + HotS/2013 sale figures.
pretty close.
I suppose statistics don't lie. But that surprises me a little. It makes sense, however, when you consider that RTS games used to be mainstream (within gaming), before gaming in general became more mainstream.
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.
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 06:32 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 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 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 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.
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.
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!
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
Prevelance
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 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.
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.
Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things:
Comebacks
Prevelance
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.
Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things:
Comebacks
Prevelance
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.
Now from the viewer perspective I enjoy two things:
Comebacks
Prevelance
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
