|
ok I wanted to post this in the SC2 forum, but it doesn't really add anything so i'm bloggin it. So if anyone is interested here is a scan.
When blizzard recently invited both [press and pro StarCraft players to its shiny new Irvine, CA headquarters for the unveiling of the zerg, it amazed me how many questions and how much concern there was from the pro players about the game-speed options. Lead designer Dustin Browder said that blizzard has gotten negative feedback from the community about how gameplay footage released over the past few months, which shows the game running at normal speed, appears to be "super slow". He assured them that the game currently has both "fast" and "faster" settings, and that the dev team is considering adding a "fastest".
I don't blame blizzard is the slightest for giving Blizzard in the slightest for giving its community what it wants (it's something the company does exceptionally well), but in my opinion people who play RTS games at accelerated speeds are missing the point. I'm not saying that playing that way isn't an amazing skill, and I'm not denigrating the accomplishments of professional RTS players (those guys sure kicked the snot out of me when I tried to play against them), but are we really in such a hurry that a game has to be over within 10 minutes? When I wrote a couple months ago about how refreshing the pace of Sins of a Solar Empire is in comparison to the breakneck pace of games like StarCraft and Command & Conquer 3, I was talking about playing those games on normal speed.
At high speed, a game ceases to be a simulation of a real battlefield. Yes, we're playing in the far future with aliens and lasers and everything else, but come on. Everybody's zipping around so fast that the screen looks like and shaken-up ant farm which might make sense for zerg, but for marines to move like that in enormous suits of power armor is ridiculous, unless those resource crystals are supposed to be crystal meth. (That would explain why they're always out to score more.) What's worse, though, is that when you're playing at that rate, you can go ahead and toss strategy out the window along with the realism. Min/maxers (people who bust out Microsoft excel to figure out how to build the strongest possible force with the minimum possible time/resource investment) make the real strategic value of many RTS games debatable at normal speeds, but when sped up to two or three or four times as fast, it's not even a question. It's no longer about out-thinking your opponent and the big picture; it's about reflexes, rehearsal of a super-efficient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities-no higher-level thinking required.
In their Q&A and feedback time with Browder, some of the pro players noted that due to the changes made between StarCraft and SC2, there were moments when, while waiting for resources to accumulate or units to build, they felt they "didn't have anything to do." Isn't that when you're supposed to think?
I got yelled at a couple of times during that trip for hosting a game and setting the speed to normal instead of fast or faster. I yelled back that if the game was supposed to be played at those speeds, they would be called normal.
some discussion on their forums http://www.pcgamer.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39127
|
chuckles
"For marines to move like that in enermous suits of power armor is ridiculous, unless those resource crystals are supposed to be crystal meth."
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
LR you need to email Dan Stappleton and lay the smack down.
|
CA10828 Posts
wow i cringed as i read that
|
Ugh. I wish I could email that guy and tell him he's a stupid newb who thinks slow.  (((
|
this guy seriously is missing the point lol
|
don't let chill see this or he'll break down and cry in a corner
anyway, doesn't the media understand that some games have evolved into a competition(and in this case, a spectator sport (not just for "casual fun")) and the demand for skill, in an RTS, requires the game to be fast paced in addition to requiring fast analytical skills
|
|
|
This is so painful to read...
|
In their Q&A and feedback time with Browder, some of the pro players noted that due to the changes made between StarCraft and SC2, there were moments when, while waiting for resources to accumulate or units to build, they felt they "didn't have anything to do." Isn't that when you're supposed to think?
I felt like I was chewing on aluminum when I read this part.
|
I really hated the point he was trying to make, dear christ who the fuck wants to spend an hour every game. The reason it's fun is because it's always much less than an hour per game. If that's so short maybe he should go back to wow raiding all night.
At high speed the game ceases to be a simulation of the battlefield.
Oh man this game sucks I have to feel like I'm really a commander there on the battlefield in control otherwise it's no fun. *unsheaths plastic sword and starts whacking it around frantically while in underwear*
People who write for these magazines are usually so extremely nerdy they can't even relate to most of the audience anymore. Starcraft has never been a slow game so why change it now, he should just play another kind of rts like supreme commander.
|
loooooooooooool
some people need to sit down with SC for a couple years to see the true beauty in speed O_O
|
United States20661 Posts
We played one normal-speed game - I think it was with him; I didn't yell at him though. I just sort of uh... yeah. My 12 colossi 36 zlot vs your... 12 zergling?
oh right that game I chatted with SoG. It was like that X comic where he plays that word game!
edit: for the record, he seemed like a nice guy, even if lower skill.
edit2: Yeah, in retrospect, I don't have a problem with him or other casual gamers saying 'we want to play slower speeds'; Blizzard has slow/normal/fast settings.
As long as we get our 'fastest' it'll all be ok.
edit3: I reread it and apparently he thinks I'm a progamer. Amusing.
|
THis guy needs to realize that there are plenty of games for him to play.
Civilization, Chess, Alpha Centauri.
If you want time to think, play a turn based game
|
United States22883 Posts
Here's the thing. The casual vs. hardcore gamer debate is always going to live on, until Molyneux does something completely unbelievable in Fable 8.
PC Gamers' core audience are casual gamers and noobs, because only those types of people would read a paper technology magazine. Even worse, each editor/reviewer has so many other responsibilities that they're essentially noobs who don't have enough time to get into a game in the first place.
|
Oh well, he likes a slower paced game; nothing wrong with that -_-
|
I think it's time we rip this guy a new hole. Seriously we should all send complaints to their letter section and rip him to pieces, but what do you expect from a casual gamer?
|
Ya but he's basically saying "I think theres no strategy in this game, it's just a huge clickfest. All you people that play starcraft that don't play on the normal speed, like the developers wanted you to, are playing it wrong and starcraft2 is heading in the same direction"
|
Canada7170 Posts
...
"Speed Freaks"
Funny as LR said the speed you need in SC2 is barely any.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
lol omg
fuck
i wanna die reading that shit
fuck
fuckfcuk
|
This guy is a fucking retard who needs to understand that starcraft isnt chess, and that you dont need 200 + IQ to win.
Starcraft is the king of FAST paced RTS. It uses simplictic features like the old 90's RTS and it isnt realistic at all but this is fun because it is really hard to master, both macro and micro are really demanding and it requires speed, accuracy and multitasking.
Starcraft on normal speed mode is booooooring. I mean why you dont you hop when you play soccer ? It would slow the pace and players would have time to think about awesome strategies.
Mmm wait maybe it would be dull to watch or even to play.
This game isnt designed for Sun Tzu wannabes. It is FAST PACED. If you dont like it and suck, dont whine and go play Civilisation IV instead.
+ Show Spoiler + i like Civ too 
|
this thread pissed me off so bad I signed up for the site and made two replies. I hate noobs so much lawl
|
I'm bored of those retards who compare Starcraft to Civilisation, Diablo to real RPG and so on.
People have to understand that turn-based games or slow macro RTS ( Cossack like ) have nothing to do with a game like stracraft. It is a different genre of RTS period.
|
stupid article from someone who doesn't understand the game one bit
|
I think he missed the part where you're supposed to think *while* doing all the micro/macro in starcraft. It's not like he'll win against pros even on normal speed (unless they fall asleep). I don't really see what point he's trying to make.
|
lol at least the sc2 article in this swedish gamer magazine said that the casual gamer should stick to normal speeds and the pros will probably prefer higher speeds
fuckin douche fag can't accept the fact that there are people that are just downright better by a loooong shot, that he lost only because he didn't have time to execute his grandmasterflash-plan.
it's the same kind of people that blame lagg, eating, girlfriend giving blowjob etc etc when they lose a game. so hard for people to accept that they are inferior to better players.
|
Wow, whoever wrote that is a goddamn pussy. Or perhaps just a casual gamer who doesnt know how to play the game.
|
Also another sad (or funny yet still sad) note is that if SC2 was released and played at the same speed as broodwar on fastest, but with this setting called normal or only fast, tons of retarded hardcore gamers would complain until they would "fix" this.
The fix would of course only consider of renaming the settings to those of broodwar and everyone would be happy, and one day someone would point out that the game did indeed not run any faster than before, and they would all laugh at those people who complained initially, completely forgetting that they themselves joined the badwagon..
Edit: oh, and the guy who wrote this article does have a point, but starcraft isn't that kind of strategy game. It's a fastpaced "resource-gathering and building-and-fighting game".
|
Reading this made me want to punch my monitor. Seriously, the guy is in no position to criticize the game's speed and the "speed freaks" the game created; Starcraft is a fast-paced RTS. Furthermore, there's really no time to think in times of War; you must think during it.
|
On May 02 2008 03:16 JeeJee wrote:
I think he missed the part where you're supposed to think *while* doing all the micro/macro in starcraft. It's not like he'll win against pros even on normal speed (unless they fall asleep). I don't really see what point he's trying to make.
banned... dodger
|
United States20661 Posts
Oh, I really like Hearts of Iron 2. It's a slow RTS that Moltke introduced to me. Fucking time consuming slow paced thing but omg so good.
|
Can someone give me his mail address please? I couldn't find it and I'd like to write him an e-mail.
|
my brain started hurting after reading that . somebody should show this man the light...
|
The guy probably has fat, stubby fingers and an apm of 40.
|
|
|
On May 02 2008 03:45 Scorpion wrote:
The guy probably has fat, stubby fingers and an apm of 40.
this made me burst out laughing like shit cuz i got this mental picture of him and his face (from the article title) squinting into the monitor using his left hand for nothing other than grabbing snacks and a diet coke and going "so uhhhh wtf happened to my 12 zerglings?"
|
I agree about finding the optimal speed/pace. The original starcraft had good pace and the same pace will probably work for sc2 aswell. Turning it slower or faster will probably make it worse.
|
CA10828 Posts
i don't understand how newbies to the game can't comprehend a single concept
they all think that they're strategical prodigies or something, and can't face the truth that they simply suck at the game.
"oh but the only reason why he won is because he can click faster, but my thinking was lightyears ahead of him!"
ok genius, answer this: when you perform an action when you're playing, you put thought into it, right? (yes, yes you do)
then if someone is performing actions at a rate 3-4 times yours, can't you understand that they are thinking 3-4 times faster than you?
|
Calgary25980 Posts
This is such a problem at lower levels. People think they should be able to win because they snuck two Tanks all the way around to flank from the high ground and then get steamrolled by 24 Dragoons. The game doesn't reward isolated tactics like that or else it would be a fucking terribly broken game.
|
I really don't like how Dan was a complete dick about posting the "hate mail." The mail he posted was written well (at least on forum standards) and very respectful.
|
I would beat that noob on fucking slowest
|
That article made me hurt inside.
It's a real-time strategy game because it is in real-time. You're not supposed to have hours on end to think out what strategy you want to use to counter your opponents'. Any idiot can figure out how to beat what your opponent is doing if he's given an ample amount of time. What he wants is not strategy - it doesn't even happen in real life.
The most truly "strategic" thing in the world, the one that all strategic games are based off of, is real-life war. If real-life commanders applied his "give-me-a-couple-hours-to-think-this-through" philosophy, I'm sure that the results of many battles would have changed.
|
So many people on that forum are defending Dan also. No I understand why Blizzard is so split on the issue, because they want $, and a ton of people who don't even care about competitive RTS gameplay are going to buy this game.
I don't know why you'd want to play a game badly, so I just assume everyone would want it geared towards a competitive style of play. I have no idea what these people would do with SC2, play campaign? Play a 2v2 once or twice a week with their friends on normal speed? I guess they can do that, and there will always be a normal speed. It's silly to complain that people who are (or try to be) good at the game play on fastest, they'll always do that, and you can play your casual games on normal with your friends.
But slow game speeds are never going to played competitively.
|
i guess that guy never saw mid and late game first person views of progamers LOL
|
GUys fucking stupid. He wants to play connect the dots instead of multitasking ==
|
Heh, I admire the fact that the guys who wrote that "hate mail" (how ridiculous of Dan to call it this way...) kept cool all along. :O
|
On May 02 2008 03:21 ATeddyBear wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 03:16 JeeJee wrote:
I think he missed the part where you're supposed to think *while* doing all the micro/macro in starcraft. It's not like he'll win against pros even on normal speed (unless they fall asleep). I don't really see what point he's trying to make. banned... dodger
Maybe you should stop playing your crappy gta and come 1v1 some more on hamachi
dodger.
|
United States22883 Posts
I don't want to make an account but if someone wants to reply for me to this:
"Sun Tzu and Hannibal weren't great generals because they could yell orders faster than anyone else." Actually, they were. That wasn't all they did, they prepared excellently outside of battle as competitive RTS players do, but a large portion of their brilliance came from their ability to make quick decision. The double envelopment at Cannae would not have been successful had Varro been given more time to view and understand what the Carthaginians were doing. In fact, nearly every lopsided military defeat has happened because one side could not adequately comprehend and react to the situation they were given. Time and speed are important parts of tactical decisions and don't be so foolish as to think different armies use radically different formations and equipment. Since the author somehow wants to talk about realism in a fantasy game, if you remove the fast pace from warfare, then it would simply become a beancounting exercise where whoever had the superior numbers and equipment would win.
Now why don't we consider a reductio ad absurdam view of your argument. If slowing down the game requires more strategic thinking, then why don't we slow it down even further like to SC64 speeds? Playing the game on slowest would offer the most strategy oriented experience possible, and isn't that what we want? Of course this would be ridiculous, and in general we can say that after some time, giving us extra time to think about strategy and tactics really doesn't benefit us anymore. For you, extra time starts to diminish around the Normal speed setting or slower. Now when you talk to good players, not professionals, just good amateurs, I can almost guarantee you that they're going through an excess of strategic calculations in their head, so for them, time diminishes around the Fastest speed.
Well then isn't it just great that Blizzard offers us different speed settings, for you to play slower and for the quicker thinker to play faster?! Yes, I did call the good player a quicker thinker, just as a brilliant child can finish a math test in 10 minutes and it might take the better part of an hour for a less intelligent child to finish. This is a game, not a test however, so everyone should get a chance to play as you'd like and you absolutely do.
|
I signed up and posted. Hope i did good because im not good at arguing my point on message boards ;;
|
What a fucking stupid scrub.
He doesn't understand anything about a game, but decides that rather than admitting he doesn't understand it, he would rather claim that other people are playing the game incorrectly.
This is the worst filth of the planet.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 02 2008 05:50 jimminy_kriket wrote:
I signed up and posted. Hope i did good because im not good at arguing my point on message boards ;;
Please post what I said. <3 Actually, gimme 1 sec I'm gonna add some more.
|
you post it, i need backup in there, taking fire from all sides
SHIT THEY'RE EVERYWHERE
|
United States22883 Posts
OK I EDITED MY POST NOW YOU POST IT ON THEIR BOARDS
|
|
|
also, one reason for France's stunning defeat in WW2 was because they were unused to the pace of war, and expected it to be slow strategic maneuvers
|
Absurd article. And to think that magazines are dying. PC Gamer has been a fat piece of shit for years now.
|
|
|
On May 02 2008 06:51 fusionsdf wrote:
also, one reason for France's stunning defeat in WW2 was because they were unused to the pace of war, and expected it to be slow strategic maneuvers
Stop to compare real life to broodwar.... Seriously if you think that Savior would make a good general you are an utterly retarded fanboy dork.
Make comparisons with other RTS, but please stop this bullshit it is terrible to read.
Seriously how can you dare to compare France defeat to a fucking whiner who dont know how to play video games ?
|
And wow, what a bunch of whiners on that forum. Dawn of War is too fast? Jesus.
|
On May 02 2008 07:09 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 06:51 fusionsdf wrote:
also, one reason for France's stunning defeat in WW2 was because they were unused to the pace of war, and expected it to be slow strategic maneuvers Stop to compare real life to broodwar.... Seriously if you think that Savior would make a good general you are an utterly retarded fanboy dork. Make comparisons with other RTS, but please stop this bullshit it is terrible to read. Seriously how can you dare to compare France defeat to a fucking whiner who dont know how to play video games ?
Do you know for a fact he wouldn't (after extensive military training, that is)?
|
On May 02 2008 07:23 Ancestral wrote:
Do you know for a fact he wouldn't (after extensive military training, that is)?
LOL
Sry if i seem rude, but please stop to compare bw to real life, it is stupid, and lets stop this off topic
|
On May 02 2008 07:27 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 07:23 Ancestral wrote:
Do you know for a fact he wouldn't (after extensive military training, that is)? LOL Sry if i seem rude, but please stop to compare bw to real life, it is stupid, and lets stop this off topic
Personally, I'm not comparing it to real life. I don't think being good at BW makes you instantly a good general, but I don't think there is any specific evidence that Savior would NOT make a good general, that is the only point I am contending.
And Jibba, I'll post that if no one else has in a bit, I want to see how the react to my current post first.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 02 2008 07:09 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 06:51 fusionsdf wrote:
also, one reason for France's stunning defeat in WW2 was because they were unused to the pace of war, and expected it to be slow strategic maneuvers Stop to compare real life to broodwar.... Seriously if you think that Savior would make a good general you are an utterly retarded fanboy dork.
The idea is that a huge component of tactics lies in the time you're allowed to make those decisions. In Starcraft, strategy does not vary so much among good players because everyone knows the appropriate builds, counters, etc. Tactically, there is a huge amount of variation and time is a big reason for that. If you removed time as a limiting factor, tactics would become formulaic as everyone would know which maneuvers to pull off and how to do them. When tactics and strategy both stall, you usually run into boring, defense oriented, dragged out affairs, as more people become capable of responding to pressure adequately. With a time constraint, the advantage is given to the attackers and it becomes more difficult to respond to each move. Thus you get a fast and exciting game, like the Showtime Lakers.
Comparing chess to speed chess is an absolutely horrible example. First of all, chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft. Second, it's still a turn based game, so you don't have dynamic circumstances to deal with. You simply cannot accurately compare a real time game to a turn based game.
|
Hong Kong20321 Posts
TL fighting. i hope you guys totally and utterly dominate the pcgamer members.
|
Germany2896 Posts
why bother? Convincing blizzard is enough. Everybody else does not really matter.
|
On May 02 2008 07:57 alffla wrote:
TL fighting. i hope you guys totally and utterly dominate the pcgamer members.
It's just a matter of them admitting it, which they won't. T___T
|
On May 02 2008 07:52 Jibba wrote:
Comparing chess to speed chess is an absolutely horrible example. First of all, chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft. Second, it's still a turn based game, so you don't have dynamic circumstances to deal with. You simply cannot accurately compare a real time game to a turn based game.
I already said that Turn-based games / Macro RTS / Fast paced RTS ( broodwar ) are each different kinds of games and it is a matter of taste.
Nevertheless you can still make comparisons with other RTS or Turn-based games like chess and point out the characteristics of each games, why you ( dont ) like it, why you think it is a great game, balance issues and so on.
But when you make comparisions between 1v1 GAMES and real life battles involving thousands of PEOPLE you are a fucking dork who takes starcraft too seriously.
Stop to dream, reaching B+ rank doesnt mean that you are smarter than the D- beginner. It doesnt mean that you would be a better general neither. You are just more used ( or skilled ) to play a fucking video game.
I hate those stupids analogies.
edit: btw mechanics > strategy in broodwar.
|
United States42652 Posts
On May 02 2008 08:35 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 07:52 Jibba wrote:
Comparing chess to speed chess is an absolutely horrible example. First of all, chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft. Second, it's still a turn based game, so you don't have dynamic circumstances to deal with. You simply cannot accurately compare a real time game to a turn based game. I already said that Turn-based games / Macro RTS / Fast paced RTS ( broodwar ) are each different kinds of games and it is a matter of taste. Nevertheless you can still make comparisons with other RTS or Turn-based games like chess and point out the characteristics of each games, why you ( dont ) like it, why you think it is a great game, balance issues and so on. But when you make comparisions between 1v1 GAMES and real life battles involving thousands of PEOPLE you are a fucking dork who takes starcraft too seriously. Stop to dream, reaching B+ rank doesnt mean that you are smarter than the D- beginner. It doesnt mean that you would be a better general neither. You are just more used ( or skilled ) to play a fucking video game. I hate those stupids analogies. edit: btw mechanics > strategy in broodwar.
My mechanics suck ass. Always have done. I'd give my classic example of my success at low apm except I said I'd stop doing that after some guy nagged me so pm me if you want to hear me brag.
To give a different example, K00lam beat Testie on Longinus with 90apm. He did it by having excellent game sense and strategy, even though his mechanics were, at 90 apm, pretty awful.
|
United States42652 Posts
Oh, and most beginners simply cannot think. I mean the first step in any game is to just take a basic look at the map and describe its features. Most D- players struggle to do this, let alone predict how those features will influence the strategies available.
|
Wow that was hard to read. I don't think he realized that this game WAS made for the speed and competitiveness (and strategy too!). But that's the truth with modern day games; casual games are always a plus these days... and the skill gap between pros and noobs are shrinking (look at ssbm -> ssbb, they're debating like the MBS threads...)
I really hope sc2 gets an eSports opportunity in the U.S., even though it's highly unlikely.
|
You know how you hear random people all the time complaining that Starcraft is a "rushing" game? This is a perfect example.
I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more out there, so there's no way that anybody can convince most of them to change their opinion, let alone even change a single person's. I fully trust that Blizzard won't slow down the game just for them so I really don't care what one self-important retard thinks about the game.
|
God reading that article (and the associated forum thread) just INFURIATES me. Unfortunately, that's pretty much the reaction of every casual starcraft player.
|
United States20661 Posts
Posted.
What a tiring and infantile post.
|
CA10828 Posts
hey, i got quoted! 
and nice post LR
|
|
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
|
United States20661 Posts
LOLLL
Tasteless go check the SC2 thread on it.
|
Hungary11291 Posts
It still baffles me that he was referring to "hate-mail".
|
He's not just ignorant. He is an idiot. He knows he is ignorant and that he is going to offend people because of that. But that's what he wants. He wants to provoke 'hate mail'. WTF man, he is worse than the trolls on the bnet forums. And he gets payed to do so and many many readers.
|
On May 02 2008 18:32 BlackStar wrote:
He's not just ignorant. He is an idiot. He knows he is ignorant and that he is going to offend people because of that. But that's what he wants. He wants to provoke 'hate mail'. WTF man, he is worse than the trolls on the bnet forums. And he gets payed to do so and many many readers.
Heh, QFT.
I also doubt, contrary to what he claims, that he played progamers in Korea. After all, he's called TL Blizzard attendees progamers. LOL
|
On May 02 2008 11:55 Kwark wrote:
My mechanics suck ass. Always have done. I'd give my classic example of my success at low apm except I said I'd stop doing that after some guy nagged me so pm me if you want to hear me brag.
To give a different example, K00lam beat Testie on Longinus with 90apm. He did it by having excellent game sense and strategy, even though his mechanics were, at 90 apm, pretty awful.
Mechanics =/= apm
And koolam mechanics are pretty good for a top BGH player (even if he is low apm style ), but if you check his gates, he is always producing units, and his micro is good. He beat testie who have really good mechanics too because at the same level of play strategy matters, but the noob who wrotes rhis article need to learn mechanics before whining.
|
On May 02 2008 18:44 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 18:32 BlackStar wrote:
He's not just ignorant. He is an idiot. He knows he is ignorant and that he is going to offend people because of that. But that's what he wants. He wants to provoke 'hate mail'. WTF man, he is worse than the trolls on the bnet forums. And he gets payed to do so and many many readers. Heh, QFT. I also doubt, contrary to what he claims, that he played progamers in Korea. After all, he's called TL Blizzard attendees progamers. LOL
Of course, he didn't.
|
when there is a large skill gap between players, mechanics > strategy (there is no need for strategy) but when the skill gap is small, strategy becomes more important until strategy > mechanics
|
Just read this topic now after the second thread on it opened up. Unbelievable. I am staggered by the ignorance displayed by the "journalist". As for labelling detailed constructive criticism of his article "hate mail," that's amazingly narrow-minded and unprofessional at the very least.
Props to all you TL guys who signed up to the forums to reply and especially to whoever sent the "hate-mail." It pisses me off how some of the ignorant fools in the PCG thread are also ignoring 90% of arguments and nitpicking on one or two sentences which aren't even the main f-ing point.
/erage
/edit-REOPEN-E-RAGE
ARGHHHH. Read this shit (page 5 of PCG thread):
I usually just laugh when I see some article about world CyberGames championships in StarCraft or WarCraft 3 because we all know it's totally about build orders and hotkeying, not strategy and to a lesser extent very little tactical acumen as well.
MORE IGNORANCE PLEASE. JESUS.
|
On May 02 2008 07:52 Jibba wrote:
chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft Interesting view.
|
Lol.. yeah funny.
Ever try playing even Starcraft 1 on normal? Painful indeed... people expect to play on fastest. I've never seen a game where they've purposely wanted to play on any slower setting other than fastest whether they be newbs or not.
PS: The editor is better playing "Supreme Commander." Now that is one fucking slow game lol.
|
8748 Posts
On May 03 2008 02:21 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 07:52 Jibba wrote:
chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft Interesting view.
shitty observation
|
On May 03 2008 03:52 NonY[rC] wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2008 02:21 qrs wrote:On May 02 2008 07:52 Jibba wrote:
chess is a super dumbed down version of Starcraft Interesting view. shitty observation
bad sarcasm-detection
|
8748 Posts
*bad bad sarcasm detection
i'm fine at detecting good sarcasm
|
On May 02 2008 04:06 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I really don't like how Dan was a complete dick about posting the "hate mail." The mail he posted was written well (at least on forum standards) and very respectful. Yes, I agree. In my eyes he loses credibility to qualify that mail as hate mail.
This is hate mail.
btw
|
Haha oh wow, that's probably one of the funniest things I've seen or heard all day.
|
United States20661 Posts
But really, that is quite important. It's the only reason I bothered posting at all.
|
My mind imploded.
We should TL.Net win the internet that thread =\
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i'm going to talk about this in my next cast. this needs to be responded to.
|
the guy who wrote this article has been 4pooled way too much
|
|
|
On May 03 2008 04:52 PePe QuiCoSE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2008 04:06 Kwidowmaker wrote:
I really don't like how Dan was a complete dick about posting the "hate mail." The mail he posted was written well (at least on forum standards) and very respectful. Yes, I agree. In my eyes he loses credibility to qualify that mail as hate mail. This is hate mail. btw
hahaha-Awesome!
|
We pwned their site so hard it imploded.
|
On May 04 2008 05:39 MyLostTemple wrote:
i'm going to talk about this in my next cast. this needs to be responded to.
DId Tasteless respond yet?
|
Hungary11291 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:16 b3h47pte wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2008 05:39 MyLostTemple wrote:
i'm going to talk about this in my next cast. this needs to be responded to. DId Tasteless respond yet?
He mentioned the issue several times in his audio cast, along the lines of "yeah, they do strategy while they move their hands that fast".
|
Germany2896 Posts
yes that xkcd image was one of the first things I thought of, when reading this thread. But I was to lazy to search it.
|
#RAGE.
Someone give this dude a lifelong WOW subscription plz.
|
It feels like he doesn't know what Real Time Strategy means. If you like slow strategic games, there are plenty of great Turn Based Strategy games out there
|
That editor is so ignorant and trying to force his views onto the reader.
Do people want 2 hour games or quick 10-20 minute games? I'd say the majority can only stand so many 2 hour games and that's on good conditions without people leaving during the game.
|
Min/maxers (people who bust out Microsoft Excel to figure out how to build the strongest possible force with the minimum possible time/resource investment) make the real strategic value of many RTS games debatable at normal speeds, but when sped up to two or three or four times as fast, it's not even a questions. It's no longer about out-thinking your opponent and the big picture, it's about reflexes, rehearsal of a super effecient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities-no higher-level thinking required.
God that is so wrong. I play sports competitively and I can say that many strategies and tactics are indeed "rehearse" in real life. This article is like the last person to talk about strategy to give out "how strategy should be." What a joke.
Not sure if it is because I play Starcraft, but in Starcraft the strategies are A LOT easier to notice than some physical sport. Very easy visible for someone to see the difference AND cause & effect of Reavers vs Templars.
|
BTW, can people complain to PCGamer Korea if it exist? 
A problem with that article is that it is not just attacking Starcraft, but gaming, esports in particular. It doesn't openly say "getting good at a game is bad", but it might as well mean the same thing. How is gaming going to grow when a huge establish magazine such as PCGamer attacks the success of Starcraft which finally allows a videogame to be shown on TV and spawn interest in games outside of even casual gamers? Now the negative stigmata of a gamer is once introduce again in PCGamer, of all magazines  . Majority of the people aren't good enough to judge for themselves how deep Starcraft is so they will just take the word of a so-called expert, PCGamer.
This is no different than an opinion show on ESPN which the guy said "soccer is not a sport" and goes on to list the negatives. At the time, I was ignorant of soccer and thought since this guy is a figure of authority then what he says must be true. Now soccer is one of my favorite sport to watch and play (videogames). I felt so foolish that was I brainwashed by that garbage.
|
lol wat a n00b, strat isnt just planning ok? in rts, strat includes how to make the best decision under time constrain. in rts theres a huge time issue so there r more strat going on in players mind, this guy thinks that strat is about sitting there for hours and planning everything ahead in a "big pic", well in rts thats not gonna happen and that doesnt mean there is no strat to it
|
This guy is a fucking idiot and fails so much. Unbelievable. Seriously that angers me to no end. Fucking idiot. I hope he dies.. omg-_-
|
On May 02 2008 02:12 Bub wrote:
chuckles
"For marines to move like that in enermous suits of power armor is ridiculous, unless those resource crystals are supposed to be crystal meth."
I know! the writer probably didn't even play the game long enough to realize he was fighting stimmed marines.. 
|
Hahaha, I bought this issue too, the first I bought of PCGamer. I saw this article first.. and it was the first I read and I regretted buying it lol. It's so awful.
|
The bastard missed the point of getting the game faster.
It makes you think faster and adapt faster you noob (referring to the article author).
|
Guys guys. Lets give Dan Stapleofhay a chance. I mean, how can you expect anyone to move and think at the same time! THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img368.imageshack.us/my.php?image=watjl5.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://bp0.blogger.com/_pAmDKEBYsxk/R_e2OM4b2FI/AAAAAAAACKA/ndadt2uHPEs/s400/duty_calls_overworked_socialnetworker.png)
