|
I was going to post this on some dudes thread on creep-theory in the sc2 thread but i figured it deserves a blog post.
What I fear most about this sc2 'theorycraft' forum section is that they remind me of dota hero character suggestion threads on dota forums.
I do NOT want sc2 to turn into dota, an over complicated game with 5 billion variables.
A game will break down (e-sports-wise) if there are far too many details embedded in it. Look at SC, the game is already so simple yet it is so fucking deep and intricate at the same time without being the intention when the game was released/created.
Likewise with quakeworld (quake 1) or quake3, or cs, these games are SO simple on the surface yet are endorsed by the e-sports world because people realize the deep intricacies that they posses. Movement in quake games evolved to a point of strafe jumping and bunny hopping but these were accidents/bugs found by players then later exploited and used by the top tiers. Quake 4 jumps in the game and no one gives it as much appreciation as the previous titles. Why? Take a guess.
Where now, you have your rubbish nowadays like BF2142?? or COD5,COD6, or whatever they have now. They have 500 different little buttons to press. Sure knowing each and every one does something special and unique but there is just way TOO MUCH SHIT to properly appreciate the game in an e-sports sense.
It's the same story with every single 'new' idea that someone tries add to a game.
A good analogy i know is with girls and makeup. Girls = the game we play, make up = the features.
Japanese ganguro girls keep adding make up thinking that these little features they add, like tan cream, eye whip cream or whatever the fuck you call it makes them pretty.
The picture is here, you be the judge.
But a girl who goes easy with the make up, dabs on very light gloss, no foundation, some blush for cuteness
You tell me which girl you want to play.
Keep It Simple Stupid.
<\rant>
 
|
Ehm, are you telling me CoD and BF2142 was hard to grasp? If so lol.
But in a sense I kind of agree, but this seems to be mostly over reacting.
|
i want to play both of those girls
|
So in essense it appears that you don't want them to overcomplicate the game. Which I guess makes sense... But can you give some examples of this overcomplication you've been seeing?
Also. DOTA is an overcomplicated game? ... Since when?
|
On November 17 2008 14:17 nihil2501 wrote:
i want to play both of those girls
Well we know that some people will play anything, even dota. And that Japanese people can be over the top. It's what makes Japanese culture so interesting...
You are definitely right about the simple=good. (and that too much make-up is ugly, I lol at girls who so much make up on...)
|
LOL - terrible OP for the SC2 forum. should have been a blog. And that, my friend, is what I call SIMPLE STUPID
|
Blizzard always, always keeps their games simple. Gameplay-wise simple (but in multiplayer it might become very competitive none the less), visually simple (Blizzard always makes the graphics and units very clear and unique, sacrificing realism or sanity for a better visual feedback which apparently is a good thing to do for multiplayer), UI-wise simple, and so newbie-friendly that your grandma could jump right in.
That's why there are so many retards playing their stuff. 
It's very rewarding to make games casual gamer friendly. It's the biggest market after all.
I also think that the market has changed significantly in the past 10 years - these days it's more rewarding for companies to design for casual players because more and more start playing games, while 10 years ago it was mostly hardcore users, technically adept youngsters and all kinds of geeks/nerds playing PC games.
|
I agree that a small amount of makeup on girls is preferable. Otherwise they start to look like clowns. Its kinda funny when some fatty thinks if she doubles up her makeup it will make her look less gross, when in reality it does the opposite.
|
the simple girl with the less makeup~ :D
|
Definitely agreed. My overall stance is that games shouldn't govern what should take place.
Golden minerals are going to make certain areas of the maps focal points that is going to be the same in every game on that map. It's going to allow less diversity between strategies and games. Golden minerals can be compared to gas expos and the natural layout of the map; however, there are going to be a lot less of them, which might be a problem. Luckily this can be solved by map makers, but Golden Minerals seem like they're going to direct the flow of gameplay too much. Gameplay should be directed by the players.
Stalker Blink is another issue. Blink is going to force players to use Stalkers in a fairly specific way. There will be some diversity, but it's still an ability that doesn't leave much room for micro. Unit abilities are necessary, but those abilities should be spider mines and psi storm, etc.. Not something that governs how you control a unit.
Those are just two examples and they're not going to be game breaking or anything like that, but hopefully they get my point across. Not sure how clear this statement is, but hopefully someone understands what I'm trying to express  .
|
Russian Federation4235 Posts
You tell me which girl you want to play.
The thing is there is sooo much make-up and other work invested in making the second photo. Lights, camera, it takes several hours to make a photo like this. You're kinda killing your own argument because the girl below is something that looks way simpler because it's way more complicated. To achieve the most natural, fresh feeling in photos is a science.
Btw, 5 billion variables is at least 5 gb if it's a single boolean array. =)
|
you know, those girls reeally deterred the thread a bit haha. what the heck yo.
|
|
|
|
|
On November 17 2008 16:56 Raithed wrote:
you know, those girls reeally deterred the thread a bit haha. what the heck yo.
Haha yeah 
But, look at games like Dawn of War, Command and Conquer (the newer ones) and maybe like Lord of the rings RTS and such games, they aren't complicated but so hmm how do I put it, messy?
Starcraft is so simple and clean, yet very deep. It's quite easy to understand unlike WC3, which for me is a bit messy at times but not THAT hard to know what's going on.
When I visited WCG with my friends we watched SC and WC3 at the main stage, and they told me that SC was the most easiest game to follow, they understood quite well what was going on. Of course they didn't understand nice micro movements and good macro but they understood what was going on atleast. They also pointed out that they didn't understand shit about WC3, it was so messy.
Conclusion: Keep the games clean and simple, the graphics can be upgraded, sure!
|
MrHoon
10183 Posts
COD4 was awesome
others were shit though.
|
I agree Blizzard shouldnt go too deep, but the thing is Blizzard went really deep with sc1, if you look on Blizzards strategy guides they have all the basics strats already. Like harassing the mineral line or bunker rushing (after they found out bunker rushing was so strong they gave sunkens a little range longer than marines in bunkers)
btw its </rant>
On November 17 2008 22:21 MrHoon wrote:
COD4 was awesome
others were shit though.
LOL newschooler cod 1 was the shit, I remember playing it 24/7 with my clan.. ahh the memories... cod 2 was so newschool and fucked everything up and then cod 4 omg....
|
My brain is simple. That is why I like simple games like Starcraft.
|
You know what i fear beside sc2?
sc3? and sc4? omg, can you imagine the ammount of automatizations they will implant in the next starcraft games?
get ready to die flaming blizzard and get angry ,cause in a matter of 10 years you wont controll anything in your rts anymore
kekekeke~
/joking
/joking about joking, im serious tbh
|
United States47024 Posts
On November 18 2008 01:16 Ki_Do wrote:
You know what i fear beside sc2?
sc3? and sc4? omg, can you imagine the ammount of automatizations they will implant in the next starcraft games?
get ready to die flaming blizzard and get angry ,cause in a matter of 10 years you wont controll anything in your rts anymore
kekekeke~
/joking
/joking about joking, im serious tbh
By the time they get to Starcraft 4, you'll just be able to plug a wire into your brain and think your way through the game.
One other point to make that for a game with relatively simple mechanics, its far easier to balance. When you only have a few variables to work with, its easy to pick out which ones make which things overpowered.
|
United States3824 Posts
|
On November 17 2008 14:19 Mikilatov wrote:
So in essense it appears that you don't want them to overcomplicate the game. Which I guess makes sense... But can you give some examples of this overcomplication you've been seeing?
Also. DOTA is an overcomplicated game? ... Since when?
Last hitting and denying is supposedly a hard skill -_________________________-
|
I think the girls was a horrible analogy. Making games more complicated doesn't make them worse, and same with the reciprocal. It is mostly the quality of the gameplay.
|
I don't really see what pretty girls have to do with dota and SCII but OK, i guess. I dont think this is going to be much of a problem in SCII.
|
I definitely want SC2 to be simple in the spirit of SC. But complexity is not always a bad thing. Consider Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends. It is a very complex game because it has ramping costs; 4 different "dominances" (special powers) you can get, some of which require you to have a resource float; a 'research' category that is parallel to your material progress; various neutrals you have to deal with. Yet, this very complex game was actually pretty good and died out more due to technical issues than gameplay. There is no overriding principle that makes some games better than others, and a very complex game isn't bad if you can implement it was well as Rise of Legends did. That said, I'd still prefer a simple SC2 to go with tradition.
|
On November 18 2008 08:16 Hippopotamus wrote:
I definitely want SC2 to be simple in the spirit of SC. But complexity is not always a bad thing. Consider Rise of Nations: Rise of Legends. It is a very complex game because it has ramping costs; 4 different "dominances" (special powers) you can get, some of which require you to have a resource float; a 'research' category that is parallel to your material progress; various neutrals you have to deal with. Yet, this very complex game was actually pretty good and died out more due to technical issues than gameplay. There is no overriding principle that makes some games better than others, and a very complex game isn't bad if you can implement it was well as Rise of Legends did. That said, I'd still prefer a simple SC2 to go with tradition.
just so you know
Rise of Legends sucked
-.-
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://dynamic.images.indigo.ca/PostAttachmentImage.ashx?imageId=3857&temp=false&width=275)
![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_waVFXpfkmRc/R4GaVZP9BjI/AAAAAAAAA5s/nBpZfi7UfEE/s320/korea-girls-0--0-kim-tae-hee-0-789164.jpg)
