|
Starcraft is a great esport because it is a flawed game.
Just recently, I posted an article on why an upcoming came called Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, and why it won't be a *ahem* GOOD esport.
It can be found here, but you don't have to read it.
http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=405931
Basically, it shows why the game sucks. You don't even need 100 apm to be perfect at the game. Economy sucks. Everything. It sucks. No doubt it'll be announced as a game in WCG, though. Hopping on the band wagon of the next EALA RTS that they pull out of their asses.
In that article, I explain the greatest 'factor' in an esport. The audience. Its something that I think is obvious, but it still seems like no one gets it. People are complaining about the MSL doing 1 game, then the next games a week later. It's to increase viewers.
"People who are good are suffering for this"
Woah woah woah. Since when are the players pulling the strings in esports all of a sudden?
Why is it that we get bored of great games like "Super mario bros", but not starcraft? What is the pro-scene doing to constantly revitalize our interest?
First, the metagame. We aren't rooting for the protoss or Terran, we're rooting for Jaedong or Samsung Khan.
And second, because of those things that make us go "HOLY SHIT STARCRAFT IS AWESOME"
Those things. What are they? They're the things that blizzard never even imagined when they made the game. Muta micro, Dropship micro (to evade scarabs and dragoons), using reaver splash damage to kill an undetected lurker. These things weren't intentionally made into the game, yet they amaze us. We are amazed by starcraft because it is a broken game.
Another point is show is after you've figured out that starcraft is a great esport. You see the huge skill differential. You can only select 12 units at a time. You have a terrible field of view compared to other RTS (it feels so zoomed in), and obvious imbalances. A zerg complains of psistorm being way overpowered. However, a protoss would also say a zerg is overpowered because 4 lings, can beat the one zealot, even though they cost the same.
This may seem like a messed up unorganized list with no points to back it up, but my point is that Starcraft is very broken compared to every other RTS that has made its way to Esport-prestige.
TeamLiquid, first, as a whole, should understand these points, and make their own RTS. One that has:
-Huge skill differential
-Unique micro possibilities
-Rewards for creative plays
-Making things such as expanding a risk/reward, rather than a necessity
-Imbalances on both sides, that don't counter eachother, but remains balanced. (like the psistorm + ling example), which is something that starcraft has down perfectly. Mutamicro and dark swarm against terran, for example, yet you can always win. Spider mines in PvT. Etc..
-Have rarely used units (ghosts) continue to be rarely used, but when used, be omfg-wtf-awesome.
-Mirror matches that aren't a snore fest, and are just as exiting to watch as any other one.
-Bestest graphix evar.
-Greatest eyecandy evar.
-Filled with same exiting moments like scourge chases.
You get the idea.
Get on it.
  
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
Well TL has in part helped make Starcraft what it is now.
TL is already shaping SC2 with community feedback. 
|
|
|
For one, making a game is an immense task.
For two, It's not that the game's 'broken'. It's called emergence. Look it up.
For three, I'm sorry for sounding jerky, I agree with most things you said.
|
On October 22 2008 09:32 Mikilatov wrote:
For two, It's not that the game's 'broken'. It's called emergence. Look it up.
"In philosophy, systems theory and the sciences, emergence refers to the way complex systems and patterns arise out of a multiplicity of relatively simple interactions. Emergence is central to the theory of complex systems. "
Is that the right one?
Its... an emergent game?
Haha... I guess.
|
Yep, that's it. Almost all games have emergent gameplay of some sort. It's basically what you were talking about, however it's not really 'broken'. Many times systems are put into place on purpose to create emergent gameplay. Splash damage, for example, damages everything in an area regardless of what it is. How players use this in combination with other systems is up to them, such as hitting burrowed/invisible/friendly units.
|
So, why did starcraft end up being so awesome?
Lots of patching yes, but holy hell was Blizzard lucky!
I find it very unlikely that a game like starcraft will be intentionally created any time soon.
|
10810 Posts
Your grasp of StarCraft and Sociology are both weak.
StarCraft is popular because when it came out in S.K., it was the only game anyone played. That's what made it highly competetive (combined with a dedicated technological culture with public broadband internet access).
It could have been any game. I mean fuck, look at Kart Rider... The only thing it has in common with StarCraft that you mentioned is the high skill differential. But really... So many games have that. Of course being accessible to an audience is important too, but I think most games are capable of that too. StarCraft is where it is by coincidence. I love the game, but it's only so good because so many people kept playing it (I believe I remember reading an interview about how lots of other games were banned at the time, and SC was the only thing people could really play... So they played it.)
|
PsycHOTemplar is right. There are quite a few other games which simply aren't played enough so that their competitive potential will never be "discovered". SC1 is an exception here because it just happened to become a phenomenon in S.Korea because it was the right game at the right time.
I'm positive that if S.Korea hadn't started with SC1 at all, SC1 would be dead now, just like all other RTS games ("dead" as in "not being played enough", like Warcraft 2 or Quake 1 or something).
And yes, some bugs in SC are now considered features (e.g. muta stacking), but other bugs have never been fixed and were never features (e.g. scarab pathing), and then there are also features which are almost never used because the game is too fast/hard to use them or because they're not worth using because of poor price/performance ratio (e.g. ensnare, lockdown, hallucination (and don't mention  BoxeR games from 2000 now - these things DO NOT WORK anymore against the current high skill level)). All this could have been fixed years ago already - but it wasn't, probably because Blizzard didn't want to break even more by accident.
So we're stuck with a partly broken game which just happens to work somewhat fine. It's not optimal though, it doesn't live up to its potential. It could be better, more like Blizzard imagined it from the start. Many game features are being ignored because it's easier to just mass a certain unit mix which happens to be incredibly strong (e.g. M&M vs Zerg, tank+vulture vs Protoss, ultra/ling vs everything). You'd be a fool to mess around with micro-intensive spells like Ensnare when it's much easier to just mass the standard unit mix and A-click with everything. Besides, there's always a limit to human multitasking ability, and even at 400 APM it's *STILL* better to just mass the standard unit mix and A-click instead of trying to include a micro-intensive spell into your game.
So yeah.. these are some of the shortcomings of SC.
And trying to create an AAA title that can compete with the likes of Blizzard RTSes (or even crappy RTSes like the ones from EA) as a community effort - I'll laugh later.
Zileas (1998 Protoss gosu who "invented" a few of our current tactics like good reaver/shuttle micro) tried doing something like that 10 years ago, a "next generation" RTS that builds on the strengths of SC1 but makes it better... I think he even started a game company or something like that, but guess what, the project died without bringing anything usable to the table.
|
On October 22 2008 09:13 RoieTRS wrote:
TeamLiquid, first, as a whole, should understand these points, and make their own RTS. One that has:
-Huge skill differential
-Unique micro possibilities
-Rewards for creative plays
-Making things such as expanding a risk/reward, rather than a necessity
-Imbalances on both sides, that don't counter eachother, but remains balanced. (like the psistorm + ling example), which is something that starcraft has down perfectly. Mutamicro and dark swarm against terran, for example, yet you can always win. Spider mines in PvT. Etc..
-Have rarely used units (ghosts) continue to be rarely used, but when used, be omfg-wtf-awesome.
-Mirror matches that aren't a snore fest, and are just as exiting to watch as any other one.
-Bestest graphix evar.
-Greatest eyecandy evar.
-Filled with same exiting moments like scourge chases.
You get the idea.
Get on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess
Huge skill differential
Unique micro possibilities
Rewards for creative plays
Making things such as expending a risk/reward rather than a necessity
Imbalances on both sides (white goes first, black gets to respond)
Rarely used units (rook pawns that are omfg wtf awesome sometimes)
Mirrormatches that aren't a snore fest-check
great graphix-its so good its real
filled with exciting moments-throwing pieces at your opponent
GG
|
If it wasn't for South Korea, Starcraft would be dead 
There are a lot of great games at the time. It could had been any game that become as big. The timing was fortunate that the right game at the time happen to be Starcraft.
I often hear a lot about RTS developed with help by players, but they often flop. Being a good player doesn't mean being a good game developer. And who is this "TL" what will undertake the whole development of a RTS? It is alot easier to say than do. At least the Total Annihilation community has come up with something called TA Spring.
|
|
|
|
|
United States47024 Posts
To the OP on the issue of RA3:
Have you even played any of the other Red Alert games? They're the farthest thing from a competitive RTS and were meant to be that way. I enjoyed the first two Red Alert games (the x-pack for the 2nd game was a travesty, though) because of their cheeky humor and "look cool" factor, not really because of any real strategic or mechanical value. Comparing Red Alert 3 to Starcraft 2 is like comparing Scary Movie to The Ring. WCG game? Yeah right. I'd be rather disappointed if they did that (as I was when they pushed CnC3 into WCG).
Yes, the Command and Conquer games are terrible from an e-sports perspective, but to say they are overall bad RTS games is a stretch. In my mind they epitomize the casual RTS, and I respect them for that (and go out to pay 50 dollars for a boxed copy of the game).
No micro? Infantry vs. Tanks takes micro, since you can force-move over infantry with tanks to run them over (questionably balanced, but again, part of the cheeky, lighthearted nature of the game).
|
now that we showed that chess has micro element to it, wheres the macro aspect of the game? Look at wc3, a lot of micro, not so much of macro.
|
Chess it turn-based though, not real-time 
|
First, the metagame. We aren't rooting for the protoss or Terran, we're rooting for Jaedong or Samsung Khan.
Speak for yourself. I cheer for protoss 95% of the time.
|
On October 23 2008 02:20 TheYango wrote:
To the OP on the issue of RA3:
Have you even played any of the other Red Alert games? They're the farthest thing from a competitive RTS and were meant to be that way. I enjoyed the first two Red Alert games (the x-pack for the 2nd game was a travesty, though) because of their cheeky humor and "look cool" factor, not really because of any real strategic or mechanical value. Comparing Red Alert 3 to Starcraft 2 is like comparing Scary Movie to The Ring. WCG game? Yeah right. I'd be rather disappointed if they did that (as I was when they pushed CnC3 into WCG).
Yes, the Command and Conquer games are terrible from an e-sports perspective, but to say they are overall bad RTS games is a stretch. In my mind they epitomize the casual RTS, and I respect them for that (and go out to pay 50 dollars for a boxed copy of the game).
No micro? Infantry vs. Tanks takes micro, since you can force-move over infantry with tanks to run them over (questionably balanced, but again, part of the cheeky, lighthearted nature of the game).
Indeed.
I have played RA2. I never played it competitively, at all. From what I hear, though, it was whoever got rhino/grizzly tanks out the fastest won.
As for RA1, I played a skirmish when the anniversary free-thing came. That's it.
But EA was definitely going for a competitive tone to RA3. They introduced CNC3 with the big letters on the box: "RTS AS A SPORT". And then they 'fixed' everything that was wrong with cnc3 and packed it into a new game, essentially. Bad economy, unit spam, more micro potential. Yeah, there is SOME micro. but in all honesty, you don't need to be that fast to be as good as everyone else.
And trust me. If it isn't in the next WCG, I'll pay you money (only not really).
|
United States47024 Posts
On October 23 2008 06:21 RoieTRS wrote:
I have played RA2. I never played it competitively, at all. From what I hear, though, it was whoever got rhino/grizzly tanks out the fastest won.
As for RA1, I played a skirmish when the anniversary free-thing came. That's it.
But EA was definitely going for a competitive tone to RA3. They introduced CNC3 with the big letters on the box: "RTS AS A SPORT". And then they 'fixed' everything that was wrong with cnc3 and packed it into a new game, essentially. Bad economy, unit spam, more micro potential. Yeah, there is SOME micro. but in all honesty, you don't need to be that fast to be as good as everyone else.
And trust me. If it isn't in the next WCG, I'll pay you money (only not really).
Well thats rather a shame.
I played the original Red Alert at release on a friend's computer. It was a good game and I think it gets overshadowed by Starcraft for all the wrong reasons. Yes Starcraft has a better story, more diverse sides, and is more mechanically/strategically demanding, but that's not the game that Westwood was really going for IMO. Frankly, how serious can a game based on Albert Einstein going back in time to kill Hitler be? Red Alert and Red Alert 2 represented casual RTSs for me (I actually got several people who didn't play RTSs into Starcraft through Red Alert first). Big explosions, easy controls, and not afraid to make fun of itself.
The Red Alert series is the WRONG series to be rolling out as an e-sport. Macro is non-existent, and balance is pretty weak. As I said earlier, I kind of think of it as the "Scary Movie" of the RTS genre. Kind of mocking of normal RTS conventions, but endearing in its own unique way.
I was worried about the CnC series when EA decided to make CnC Generals the way they did. CnC 3 was a good step in the right direction (back to the good old ridiculous plot, b-rate actors, and very much simplified unit controls). I haven't been keeping up with the series, but if EA seriously intends to pursue it as an E-Sport, that is the wrong move.
P.S. - Sorry for derailing your thread.
|
That game was so much freaking fun until Zileas started going nuts on all the patches whenever he lost a game. Haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
