|
That Starcraft is the peak of RTS is based on the, as of yet uncommunicable, ratio of micro to macro to tactics to strategy and the means of maintaining an optimal balance of that ratio over time.
Any sequel or immitation which does not maintain strict adherence to this ratio will remain inferior. Note that I do not maintain to know the degree of this ratio but nonetheless that ratio does exist and has very obviously been altered in the current builds of SC2.
SC2 cannot trump its ancestor in any category except death animations and different colored minerals.
Starcraft was developed from an RTS gamer's wet dream.
Campaign was developed at the end. It was thrown together and very forgetable compared to the obviiously prioritzed immortal multiplayer mode. Thank you Bill Roper (nice guy. I met him in Beijing last year).
Starcraft II was developed from a CEO's wet dream.
Three seperate releases which will sell only new campaigns? Starcraft II is only being released because some executives thought, "Hey, can't we make some money from all that old Starcraft intellectual property?"
The team that designed Starcraft is not the team designing Starcraft II- not by a long shot. They are mostly recycled or washed up designers from other (lackluster) studios whose resumes' all boast contribution to long since obsolete games.
Assuming the AI is not too smart I forsee Brood War being reborn into the SC2 shell. If gamers were still in charge at Blizzard then there would simply be a a new "patch," namely Starcraft 2.0! It would be the same soul animated by a new engine. The only debate would be to keep all the same units/structures or to introduce the new ones.
In closing, let us imagine if, say, Lord of the Rings Book 4 appeared this year as written by Tolkien's great grandson? Would we expect anything other than shoddy, rehashed conceptual simulacra? Sure, it would be a solid airplane read but would it be LOTR?
I will surely play my fair share of SC2 and it will be awesome. But, how can we really expect this game to compete with the original in terms of overall gameplay and legacy. SC2 is gonna be "really cool" but it will not eclipse its predecessor in the annals of RTS history. A simple fact, perhaps even an agreeable fact? Nonetheless, vastly overlooked on these forums.
Additional Readings
+ Show Spoiler +
PS
+ Show Spoiler +The original post of this in the SC2 Forum was DELETED not 1 minute after being posted by Frozen Arbiter. A cold blooded judicator indeed. At least he was kind enough to suggest, "Blog this if you must" before he viviously deleting my work. Having a history with TLnet, its Mods (both human and BOT), and post deletions, I was able to anticipate such foul play and thus copied and saved my post prior to posting it. It is presented in its entirety above.
 
|
You could have went to the closed threads section and excavate your post.
|
On February 05 2009 22:17 deathgod6 wrote:
You could have went to the closed threads section and excavate your post.
Comments appreciated. I'll remember that next time my writings are deleted without warning.
|
On February 05 2009 22:18 Kunty wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 22:17 deathgod6 wrote:
You could have went to the closed threads section and excavate your post. Comments appreciated. I'll remember that next time my writings are deleted without warning.
Maybe you should put them in the right section next time.
|
On February 05 2009 22:24 Loanshark wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 22:18 Kunty wrote:On February 05 2009 22:17 deathgod6 wrote:
You could have went to the closed threads section and excavate your post. Comments appreciated. I'll remember that next time my writings are deleted without warning. Maybe you should put them in the right section next time.
I don't follow. The original post was in the SC2 category. I am under the impression that it was deleted because it was too "subjective" or perhaps even "emotive".
Regardless, please comment on the issue discussed above the PS. The postscript merely serves as a warning to all would be posters of interesting yet unsettling ideas.
@ loanshark. By the way what part of China are you in? I live in beijing.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
It was too bloggy/ranty, yes.
|
On February 05 2009 22:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:
It was too bloggy/ranty, yes.
Bloggy and ranty.
These two words I have always reserved for writing which lacks focus and veers toward unfounded or even irrational claims. Even so, there are plenty of those posts. Alas, we have spontaneoxically started a new blog topic!
But, you are the mod. I accept your verdicts by the power vested in you by your mod superior. Still no comments on my argument.
Are their like-minded individuals on this site looking for more than the counter to a 9 pool?
|
Yea, I kinda agree with you.
But mostly because I think that luck is the main reason BW is so well crafted. Think of all the bugs in the engine and unintended stuff that make the game nearly perfectly balanced.
I just don't think its very likely that it will happen again no matter how long they work on it.
Should be really fun though ^^.
|
On February 05 2009 23:55 Zortch wrote:
Yea, I kinda agree with you.
But mostly because I think that luck is the main reason BW is so well crafted. Think of all the bugs in the engine and unintended stuff that make the game nearly perfectly balanced.
I just don't think its very likely that it will happen again no matter how long they work on it.
Should be really fun though ^^.
Hell yea man. this is exactly what i wanted to convey to people. Starcraft owes much of its endurance to the sheer brillance of accidental genius or luck. In otherwords, the stuff that is not designed but rather that which naturally results from a well designed foundation.
I mean, the probe drill or clicking minerals to gain minor speed boosts and pathing transparency is so accidently clever... This "exploit" was designed to prevent harvesters (especially gas miners) from bumping into each other... they certainly never set out with the intention of it to be used as a way to keep probes alive and if they did... let us bow our heads and speak no more for we are unworthy to comment on such virtuosity.
And yes. sc2 will be fun as shit. hopefully for at least three $39.99 releases.
|
On February 05 2009 23:07 Kunty wrote:Bloggy and ranty. These two words I have always reserved for writing which lacks focus and veers toward unfounded or even irrational claims.
Bingo
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 05 2009 22:05 Kunty wrote:
That Starcraft is the peak of RTS is based on the, as of yet uncommunicable, ratio of micro to macro to tactics to strategy and the means of maintaining an optimal balance of that ratio over time.
Any sequel or immitation which does not maintain strict adherence to this ratio will remain inferior. Note that I do not maintain to know the degree of this ratio but nonetheless that ratio does exist and has very obviously been altered in the current builds of SC2.
SC2 cannot trump its ancestor in any category except death animations and different colored minerals.
That's great that you've reached this conclusion before the game is even in fucking BETA. If someone were to make similiar judgements on SC without having as much as played the game, they'd be lynched and the cops wouldn't even care. In fact, they'd be part of the damned lynch mob.
Starcraft was developed from an RTS gamer's wet dream.
Campaign was developed at the end. It was thrown together and very forgetable compared to the obviiously prioritzed immortal multiplayer mode. Thank you Bill Roper (nice guy. I met him in Beijing last year).
Starcraft II was developed from a CEO's wet dream.
Three seperate releases which will sell only new campaigns? Starcraft II is only being released because some executives thought, "Hey, can't we make some money from all that old Starcraft intellectual property?"
Oh please, 2 games vs 3 games big fucking whoop - every Blizzard game has expansion(s). And the fans of the original game have been bloody begging for a sequel for the past 8 years.
And so you know, they've (from day 1) said that multiplayer is the first thing they started working on. When they showed the game the first few times they said they hadn't even moved past the storyboard for single player (while having fully functional multiplayer).
The team that designed Starcraft is not the team designing Starcraft II- not by a long shot. They are mostly recycled or washed up designers from other (lackluster) studios whose resumes' all boast contribution to long since obsolete games.
Aaaaaaand the team that made SC1 were just a bunch of guys before they made SC.... Give people a chance --
Assuming the AI is not too smart I forsee Brood War being reborn into the SC2 shell. If gamers were still in charge at Blizzard then there would simply be a a new "patch," namely Starcraft 2.0! It would be the same soul animated by a new engine. The only debate would be to keep all the same units/structures or to introduce the new ones.
I forsee you being wrong. (Although this depends on if you mean this BW2.0 taking over SC2 or if you simply mean there'll be a BW version in SC2.. if it's the latter then yes, obviously).
In closing, let us imagine if, say, Lord of the Rings Book 4 appeared this year as written by Tolkien's great grandson? Would we expect anything other than shoddy, rehashed conceptual simulacra? Sure, it would be a solid airplane read but would it be LOTR?
Great point except SC2 is being made by professionals who actually happen to be interested in making a good game --;
I will surely play my fair share of SC2 and it will be awesome. But, how can we really expect this game to compete with the original in terms of overall gameplay and legacy. SC2 is gonna be "really cool" but it will not eclipse its predecessor in the annals of RTS history. A simple fact, perhaps even an agreeable fact? Nonetheless, vastly overlooked on these forums.
Only part of this post I don't find to be complete bullshit.
Additional Readings+ Show Spoiler +PS + Show Spoiler +The original post of this in the SC2 Forum was DELETED not 1 minute after being posted by Frozen Arbiter. A cold blooded judicator indeed. At least he was kind enough to suggest, "Blog this if you must" before he viviously deleting my work. Having a history with TLnet, its Mods (both human and BOT), and post deletions, I was able to anticipate such foul play and thus copied and saved my post prior to posting it. It is presented in its entirety above.
I didn't delete it, I closed it. Check the closed forum at the bottom of the forum index and you can find it there..
It's a blog post because you are adding absolutely 0 new content, nothing to discuss and people have said what you said since the day the game was announced.
SC is great, a truly brilliant game, possibly it was all luck that it became as great as it did. But to just outright dismiss SC2 without giving it a few patches and an expansion worth of a chance? Not fair.
I don't want to discourage you from posting so sorry if you felt offended by the closing of the topic - I assumed everyone knew about the closed forum.
|
On February 06 2009 01:29 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2009 22:05 Kunty wrote:
That Starcraft is the peak of RTS is based on the, as of yet uncommunicable, ratio of micro to macro to tactics to strategy and the means of maintaining an optimal balance of that ratio over time.
Any sequel or immitation which does not maintain strict adherence to this ratio will remain inferior. Note that I do not maintain to know the degree of this ratio but nonetheless that ratio does exist and has very obviously been altered in the current builds of SC2.
SC2 cannot trump its ancestor in any category except death animations and different colored minerals.
That's great that you've reached this conclusion before the game is even in fucking BETA. If someone were to make similiar judgements on SC without having as much as played the game, they'd be lynched and the cops wouldn't even care. In fact, they'd be part of the damned lynch mob. Show nested quote +
Starcraft was developed from an RTS gamer's wet dream.
Campaign was developed at the end. It was thrown together and very forgetable compared to the obviiously prioritzed immortal multiplayer mode. Thank you Bill Roper (nice guy. I met him in Beijing last year).
Starcraft II was developed from a CEO's wet dream.
Three seperate releases which will sell only new campaigns? Starcraft II is only being released because some executives thought, "Hey, can't we make some money from all that old Starcraft intellectual property?"
Oh please, 2 games vs 3 games big fucking whoop - every Blizzard game has expansion(s). And the fans of the original game have been bloody begging for a sequel for the past 8 years. Show nested quote +
The team that designed Starcraft is not the team designing Starcraft II- not by a long shot. They are mostly recycled or washed up designers from other (lackluster) studios whose resumes' all boast contribution to long since obsolete games.
Aaaaaaand the team that made SC1 were just a bunch of guys before they made SC.... Give people a chance -- Show nested quote +
Assuming the AI is not too smart I forsee Brood War being reborn into the SC2 shell. If gamers were still in charge at Blizzard then there would simply be a a new "patch," namely Starcraft 2.0! It would be the same soul animated by a new engine. The only debate would be to keep all the same units/structures or to introduce the new ones.
I forsee you being wrong. (Although this depends on if you mean this BW2.0 taking over SC2 or if you simply mean there'll be a BW version in SC2.. if it's the latter then yes, obviously). Show nested quote +
In closing, let us imagine if, say, Lord of the Rings Book 4 appeared this year as written by Tolkien's great grandson? Would we expect anything other than shoddy, rehashed conceptual simulacra? Sure, it would be a solid airplane read but would it be LOTR?
Great point except SC2 is being made by professionals who actually happen to be interested in making a good game --; Show nested quote +
I will surely play my fair share of SC2 and it will be awesome. But, how can we really expect this game to compete with the original in terms of overall gameplay and legacy. SC2 is gonna be "really cool" but it will not eclipse its predecessor in the annals of RTS history. A simple fact, perhaps even an agreeable fact? Nonetheless, vastly overlooked on these forums.
Only part of this post I don't find to be complete bullshit. Show nested quote +Additional Readings+ Show Spoiler +PS + Show Spoiler +The original post of this in the SC2 Forum was DELETED not 1 minute after being posted by Frozen Arbiter. A cold blooded judicator indeed. At least he was kind enough to suggest, "Blog this if you must" before he viviously deleting my work. Having a history with TLnet, its Mods (both human and BOT), and post deletions, I was able to anticipate such foul play and thus copied and saved my post prior to posting it. It is presented in its entirety above. I didn't delete it, I closed it. Check the closed forum at the bottom of the forum index and you can find it there.. It's a blog post because you are adding absolutely 0 new content, nothing to discuss and people have said what you said since the day the game was announced. SC is great, a truly brilliant game, possibly it was all luck that it became as great as it did. But to just outright dismiss SC2 without giving it a few patches and an expansion worth of a chance? Not fair.
This post is perfectly on point so I really hope the author of this blog can read it without being dismissive and admit to himself that he is wrong.
|
FrozenArbiter has a great point. Back in 1998 when SC1 came out for the first time, the game was beyond imbalanced. There were TONS of problems and no forseeable fix in the future. However, the game play was soo much fun, that people preservered anyway, and managed to stick it out until 7 patches later, and an expansion set. This game was not made perfectly at all, so I don't know why you expect SC2 just to pop off the shelf and be a perfect game. Give it a solid year on the scene, with patches and input, and im certain the game will be amazing.
|
Physician
United States4146 Posts
You get a 5/5 from me, but with one caveat, nothing you have said, we don't know already ; )
A few corrections though: although Bill Roper is indeed a great guy, and had a good part into why StarCraft became what it is today, the fact remains the real genius behind it all, the master of the glorious MATH behind the game was BOB FITCH, the guy who almost single handily coded StarCraft, glory hallelujah, praise his very soul! AND HE IS STILL AT BLIZZARD coding his heart away. So have faith you UNBELIEVER : )
so spoke Physician aka Entropy
|
On February 06 2009 02:22 Physician wrote:
You get a 5/5 from me, but with one caveat, nothing you have said, we don't know already ; ) 。。。
so spoke Physician aka Entropy
yes, i expect anyone with a brain to know this. but the matter hasnt been discussed in such a way. everyone is talking about particular details, e.g. "how to fix the macro" etc.
The problem lies at the very essence of what SC2 is trying to accomplish. What are its goals?
To be profitable? Or, to create a better and more longlasting legacy than the original ? The latter would be the only legitamate reason to make a sequel.
Assuming they are trying to make a better game to supplant BW then I see this effort as futile based on the fact that what makes the original BW immortal is, in part, the result of sheer providence. This implies that SC2 has the same chance at "getting lucky" but when there are public contests to fix the game's macro... that reveals a serious weakness on the part of the designers.
@frozen arbiter.
As it stands, the second and third SC2 releases are not expansions. The first package will feature one race's campaign, the seconds featuring another races and so on. So these three releases differ only insofar as they feature an additional race's campaign. So they are all the same and qualify as mere portions of what will eventually become SC2. They are more like $39.99 installments to "unlock" the campaigns. Expansions feature new units for each race and additional campaigns for each race. Now, if the new releases add more units/structures to the already existing multiplayer builds for each race then perhaps we have something similar to an expansion.
Regarding your comment that SC2 is not even in beta and I have made these judgements. You are correct. But my critique is not based on any particular aspect but is rather a formal one based on the idea of a sequel to what is unianimously praised as the pinnacle of RTS, i.e. BW.
@Physician
Faith, my friend, is trusting in something despite having contrary impressions from the senses. I do not "believe" sc2 is in trouble, rather, I have deduced so. SO we can continue to have faith but that will only comfort us for so long.
@exigent
Your's is a conservative estimate that I would tend to agree with but the recent macro contest really makes me think we are dealing with inept designers. I am an online game developer. we don't outsource such essential portions of games as "how to fix the macro". contests for new units, or other particulars can be really cool and i applaud blizzard for its community efforts but really. the macro system is something that should be priority number one for a design team...
@inreach
*cunty casts lvl 3 banish* "back to your cave, foul troll!".
arbiter gives reasons and attempts a counter argument. please attempt to do so next time you post.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
As it stands, the second and third SC2 releases are not expansions. The first package will feature one race's campaign, the seconds featuring another races and so on. So these three releases differ only insofar as they feature an additional race's campaign. So they are all the same and qualify as mere portions of what will eventually become SC2. They are more like $39.99 installments to "unlock" the campaigns. Expansions feature new units for each race and additional campaigns for each race. Now, if the new releases add more units/structures to the already existing multiplayer builds for each race then perhaps we have something similar to an expansion.
As it stands, you are completely wrong  They will include multiplayer updates to all races, the editor, maps etcetcetc. Blizzard has even called them expansions.
Besides, the expansion to WC2 did very little except unlock a new campaign, it's still an expansion tho, but it doesn't matter since the SC2 campaigns WILL add units. Hell, they've even mentioned the possibility of adding a new race in the expansions.
Oh and you are wrong about the contest too, it's not hosted by Blizzard, it's hosted by SCLegacy.com. The winners get sent in to Blizzard, if they like it they use it, if they don't, they don't.
Worrying is fine, but you seem to have gotten the wrong idea about a few things.
|
|
|
When SC was about to come out, people weren't hailing it as the second coming of christ. People were complaining about every little detail and making blog posts exactly like this.
|
United States47024 Posts
On February 06 2009 08:33 Kunty wrote:
As it stands, the second and third SC2 releases are not expansions. The first package will feature one race's campaign, the seconds featuring another races and so on. So these three releases differ only insofar as they feature an additional race's campaign. So they are all the same and qualify as mere portions of what will eventually become SC2. They are more like $39.99 installments to "unlock" the campaigns. Expansions feature new units for each race and additional campaigns for each race. Now, if the new releases add more units/structures to the already existing multiplayer builds for each race then perhaps we have something similar to an expansion.
Any evidence for this? As far as I know, Blizzard has stated several times they will be expansions in the traditional sense. I can't seem to find the interviews right now, but you can find this quote from the Starcraft II FAQ:
The StarCraft II Trilogy consists of the base StarCraft II game and two subsequent expansion sets.
I also do believe that they have said that each installment does have new units for single- and multiplayer. Regardless, there's not enough tangible evidence for you to be making this kind of assumption, down to even the price.
On February 06 2009 08:33 Kunty wrote:
Regarding your comment that SC2 is not even in beta and I have made these judgements. You are correct. But my critique is not based on any particular aspect but is rather a formal one based on the idea of a sequel to what is unianimously praised as the pinnacle of RTS, i.e. BW.
You've given a great description of what makes Starcraft great to you (and to many other people, including myself). But that does not by any means make it an objective standard for what makes Starcraft great. Failing that standard does not objectively mean Starcraft II will be a bad game, or that it won't live up to Starcraft as a sequel. Many different things make Starcraft great to many different people. It is treated as the pinnacle of RTS design, but as to WHY its so, I think you are mistaken in thinking there is unanimous agreement (indeed, MOST of the RTS-playing population doesn't think of things in terms of the micro/macro ratio).
On February 06 2009 08:33 Kunty wrote:
Faith, my friend, is trusting in something despite having contrary impressions from the senses. I do not "believe" sc2 is in trouble, rather, I have deduced so. SO we can continue to have faith but that will only comfort us for so long.
Not quite right. You can have faith in God, despite no evidence confirming or denying his existence.
On February 06 2009 08:33 Kunty wrote:
Your's is a conservative estimate that I would tend to agree with but the recent macro contest really makes me think we are dealing with inept designers. I am an online game developer. we don't outsource such essential portions of games as "how to fix the macro". contests for new units, or other particulars can be really cool and i applaud blizzard for its community efforts but really. the macro system is something that should be priority number one for a design team...
What?
As far as I know, the SCL Macro Contest wasn't done by Blizzard to pool ideas. My impression was that it was nothing more than a cute contest being held by a fansite? Where did the idea that Blizzard is trying to "outsource" their own design come from? Yeah they're sending the winning entries to Dustin Browder, but that doesn't mean he asked for them.
|
On February 08 2009 00:41 Cunty wrote:
Regarding your comment that SC2 is not even in beta and I have made these judgements. You are correct. But my critique is not based on any particular aspect but is rather a formal one based on the idea of a sequel to what is unianimously praised as the pinnacle of RTS, i.e. BW.
On February 08 2009 00:41 TheYango wrote:You've given a great description of what makes Starcraft great to you (and to many other people, including myself). But that does not by any means make it an objective standard for what makes Starcraft great. Failing that standard does not objectively mean Starcraft II will be a bad game, or that it won't live up to Starcraft as a sequel. Many different things make Starcraft great to many different people. It is treated as the pinnacle of RTS design, but as to WHY its so, I think you are mistaken in thinking there is unanimous agreement (indeed, MOST of the RTS-playing population doesn't think of things in terms of the micro/macro ratio).
I was talking about what allows for starcraft's immortality. Starcraft doesnt meet any such criteria, it provides the criteria. Starcraft is unanimously praised as the best RTS by people whose considerations matter. Why it is the best is an open ended question since critical analysis of such dynamic systems as BW can only return quantitative results. The real quality of SC is its endurance which manifests itself over and over and thus requires no further explanation. S][C will be spectacular and it will have great death animations but consider the following thought experiment + Show Spoiler +
scenario 1
We take the BW guts and run it on the new engine.
scenario 2
We take the S][C guts and run it on the old engine.
On February 06 2009 08:33 Cunty wrote:
Faith, my friend, is trusting in something despite having contrary impressions from the senses. I do not "believe" sc2 is in trouble, rather, I have deduced so. SO we can continue to have faith but that will only comfort us for so long.
On February 08 2009 00:41 TheYango wrote:Not quite right. You can have faith in God, despite no evidence confirming or denying his existence.
Yes. I see you grasp this principle well. As soon as you have evidence of God then your faith disappears. I should have said "trusting the reality of something despite a total lack of sense impression.
On February 06 2009 08:33 Cunty wrote:
Your's is a conservative estimate that I would tend to agree with but the recent macro contest really makes me think we are dealing with inept designers. I am an online game developer. we don't outsource such essential portions of games as "how to fix the macro". contests for new units, or other particulars can be really cool and i applaud blizzard for its community efforts but really. the macro system is something that should be priority number one for a design team...
On February 08 2009 00:41 TheYango wrote:What?
As far as I know, the SCL Macro Contest wasn't done by Blizzard to pool ideas. My impression was that it was nothing more than a cute contest being held by a fansite? Where did the idea that Blizzard is trying to "outsource" their own design come from? Yeah they're sending the winning entries to Dustin Browder, but that doesn't mean he asked for them.
All game corps, especially Blizzard, have people whose job it is to sit in front of a computer and read teamliquid and other such sites to "pool ideas". they deliver a report every friday. perhaps my language was over suggestive in the OP but the point is the fact that there is a contest at all means that there is an implicit deficiency with the current macro situation. That this idea is even part of our discussion implies so as well.
__________________________________________
Thanks for all the comments. This is less of a polemic directed towards SC2, which I will accept with open arms and probably wet my pants, and more of a celebration of BroodWAR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
