EPTBW on the other hand will always have the devoted following and in the end outlast SC2! :D
And then it will be BW vs WC4 and then BW vs SC3 and then...(infinity)
The Problem With Esports - Page 9
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Anomarad
Canada565 Posts
BW on the other hand will always have the devoted following and in the end outlast SC2! :D And then it will be BW vs WC4 and then BW vs SC3 and then...(infinity) | ||
|
TurtleBay
United States4 Posts
On October 01 2010 18:25 robertdinh wrote:Yep, it's silly to watch people argue about how much blizz cares about esports when sc2 and WoW don't even have lan modes that give them lan ping. And any true gamer knows how important latency is when you strive for perfection. The only time SC2 lags is when somebody in the game is lagging. I wonder if anyone has done an IP traffic analysis to see is SC2 sends all of the packets straight to Battle.net which hosts the game or sets up an ad-hoc network once the game starts. Piracy plays a huge role here. Battle.net is much harder to crack than any of the online systems with dedicated servers and LAN support. So far people have made cracks for the game, but it is harder to find a good game on the fake Battle.net servers because almost nobody is on there. So the message I think Blizzard intends to send with requiring Battle.net is that multi-player requires a legit CD key. | ||
|
KingAce
United States471 Posts
| ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
people trying to make starcraft 2 the same level of awesomeness as brood war and e-sports are just forcing it. It won't work, it does not have the comparable balance of races or exciting battles to watch. The people trying to set up starcraft 2 as a successor or mimic the esports industry in korea are just wasting their time. | ||
|
sLiMpoweR
United States430 Posts
| ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
Like say soccer, all you need is a freakin ball and you can play it see it and know wtf is going on. Then here we have starcraft, which you'll need: computer internet 1 day if not days to understand wtf is going on Frankly I think balls are more accessible than computer/internet so the audience for starcraft can never be as huge. Korea however, where computer IS accessible, and soon china hopefully, will be the way to go. However, I do not think one game will persist. BW will have to die at some point, I'm afraid. There are some "timeless" qualities of a real sport, where the limits are set by the much more expansive real world physics, rather than the limits constraint by some arbitary code... I don't think BW has that real "timeless" qualities to it. Maybe it has a huge longevity which we have witnessed, but def. not timeless. What I am hoping for though, is for cpu to be a gaming medium. Like how mma killed boxing, but u still see people fighting so there's little difference. So as long as we can go this way, which I don't doubt at all (computer only getting more popular). It'll be a good future. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
While poker has been around forever, it's only been the last few years that we've have national broadcasts of poker tournaments and things like that. A lot of people enjoy watching awesome poker matches. For a more nerdy audience, there's Magic The Gathering, which has a huuuuge worldwide following with very high money prizes in a lot of countries. SC2 and eSports could easily do the same thing (though probably not on TV). For people saying that BW going away would make it a "fad," I would disagree. I would simply say that eSports are going to be far more dynamic and changing that normal sports. It's part of the "e" in esports. Everything online and electronic moves faster and quicker. If brood war dies, it does not mean esports will never be taken seriously. Simply that it will change faster. | ||
|
Bangduck
Netherlands13 Posts
Baseball shouldn't change now, neither should soccer or whatsoever. Those already had their changes. Want to know how soccer started out? Played by the hundreds on kilometer long fields. It got changed to 100/110m by 50/65m and played by 22 players. Quite a change no? E-Sports are pretty damn new. Ofcourse they're going to be changes, and they're going to be needed for E-Sports to progress. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
FindingPride
United States1001 Posts
On October 02 2010 04:52 Garaman wrote: BW never had a scene outside of korea that was professional in the sense of korean e-sports because THE FREAKING WESTERN CITIZENS DON'T CARE FOR RTS. we are more obsessed wiht WoW and counterstrike, halo and other garbage games before BW. ppl would rather invest in FREAKING GUITAR HERO before they invest in a RTS game. SC2 is building off the hype of how great a game BW was, but the fact of the matter remains, BW is still a much better game. why try to kill the more mature scene that keeps interest alive in the starcraft universe just because you think BW has outdated graphics? gameplay wise, it is the best in the fucking world. i hate all these new people. all they do is harp on how good the graphics are for new games. but when i play them, they have complete garbage gameplay but sick graphics. i think i speak for most ppl on these forums, gameplay is much more important than graphics. i hate this obsession with aesthetics in games. if you want to look at beautiful stuff, go to a goddamn museum. SC2's gameplay is in the complete opposite direction of bad. | ||
|
GrooveOverdose
United States19 Posts
On September 29 2010 14:05 LegendaryZ wrote: Blizzard needs to learn from Capcom and release "Starcraft Brood War: HD Remix" While they're at it, they can also release "Warcraft 2: HD Remix". I would enjoy that very much. Ahahah Now only if they did that with a couple more games and release it in the HD Blizzard Combo Pack. Classic capcom | ||
|
Vierd
United States49 Posts
| ||
mustaju
Estonia4505 Posts
On October 18 2010 09:22 FindingPride wrote: SC2's gameplay is in the complete opposite direction of bad. You are actually not arguing with what he said. He said BW is the best game gameplay wise. He says SC2 has good graphics and and builds off it's hype. While not "in the direction of bad", it's not AS good from his subjective viewpoint. | ||
|
McDonalds
Liechtenstein2244 Posts
That being said, there is much more of a physical challenge involved in Starcraft than there is in chess. But in my opinion the existence of the meta-game or whatever you want to call it disqualifies it from being considered a sport. I find the term e-sport to be sort of masturbatory but at the same time it is useful as a description and a good way to brand. | ||
|
Gummy
United States2180 Posts
| ||
|
Sniffy
Australia290 Posts
On October 02 2010 04:52 Garaman wrote: BW never had a scene outside of korea that was professional in the sense of korean e-sports because THE FREAKING WESTERN CITIZENS DON'T CARE FOR RTS. we are more obsessed wiht WoW and counterstrike, halo and other garbage games before BW. ppl would rather invest in FREAKING GUITAR HERO before they invest in a RTS game. SC2 is building off the hype of how great a game BW was, but the fact of the matter remains, BW is still a much better game. why try to kill the more mature scene that keeps interest alive in the starcraft universe just because you think BW has outdated graphics? gameplay wise, it is the best in the fucking world. i hate all these new people. all they do is harp on how good the graphics are for new games. but when i play them, they have complete garbage gameplay but sick graphics. i think i speak for most ppl on these forums, gameplay is much more important than graphics. i hate this obsession with aesthetics in games. if you want to look at beautiful stuff, go to a goddamn museum. Yeah! Screw the new people! That'll surely help esports grow and become mainstream one day! The sequel was totally awful, look how many new players are interested in Starcraft and esports. It's just terrible what is happening really.  On October 18 2010 13:06 Gummy wrote: For the growth of E-sports, one thing that you never want is a fragmented community. Any sport, from the perspective of longterm viability, boils down to a game of coordination. The more people who play the game at a competitive level, the better. SC2 has brought a metric ton of new people. Fragmented or not, the community is much larger than it previously was, and now Western countries are actually interested in it. So I don't really see how that's a good point. | ||
|
Woosung
65 Posts
And we all see how many people ended up playing CS:Source after the initial hype... | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On October 02 2010 05:47 TurtleBay wrote: The only time SC2 lags is when somebody in the game is lagging. I wonder if anyone has done an IP traffic analysis to see is SC2 sends all of the packets straight to Battle.net which hosts the game or sets up an ad-hoc network once the game starts. Piracy plays a huge role here. Battle.net is much harder to crack than any of the online systems with dedicated servers and LAN support. So far people have made cracks for the game, but it is harder to find a good game on the fake Battle.net servers because almost nobody is on there. So the message I think Blizzard intends to send with requiring Battle.net is that multi-player requires a legit CD key. To add on to this, I think China has its fair share of blame for that. In China since its so secluded from rest of the world due to lag issues and internet censorship they actually have all online games pirated over their and use something similar to Hamachi (but with much larger player support) where they can play offline and never actually have to buy the game. I know the Chinese BW players played like that because they had to. The thing is the company that users that LAN interface is profiting off of it by charging players a very small fee. I remember there was a great article someone wrote about it on here once. But basically that was Blizzards intention with cutting out LAN support. To prevent the Chinese and others from running third party servers and profiting off their game by abusing LAN support. Although if there are cracks that force LAN support which I imagine there must/will be then their plan backfires anyway and we get fucked for it. No LAN support really does blow, and I think in the long run it fails as an anti-piracy measure because skilled coders will crack the game and force LAN support and get cracked servers up which might gain them some sales short term but will really fuck the players later on. It came down to money, and even if its just another 50,000 copies of the game sold that would still be a huge amount of revenue that otherwise wouldn't be possible. But maybe I am just giving Kotick too much credit. The guy is a shithead. | ||
|
RebirthOfLeGenD
USA5860 Posts
On October 18 2010 09:22 FindingPride wrote: SC2's gameplay is in the complete opposite direction of bad. I disagree to an extent. I understand that the game is new and its pretty fun, but I just can't see the cookie cutter solid builds coming out like they did in BW. There is such a dynamic nature in SC2 which I blame on two aspects, the first being a system of hard counters, the second being forced macro mechanics. A solid macro foundation in BW is what usually made a players very consistent. Pusan would be a great example of that, the guy would flood Terran's with mass zealot/goon and win just because of how incredible his macro was. Imagine trying to go mass stalker/zealot in any single match up. They get ridiculously hard counter by so many things. It makes SC2 very decision/build/strategy based which isn't terrible it just makes it more inclined to be a rock/paper/scissors game. Now when we look at macro mechanics I would prefer to focus on the match up of PvZ, namely warp gates vs larva injection. The dynamic is very very interesting in my opinion. A protoss does have other viable options besides a 4 gate however none are as strong for a few reasons. 4 gate gives a protoss player the initiative and forces a zerg to play on the defensive, what this means is that you CONTROL how he spends his larva. The zerg COULD get drone but they he risks getting over run, so you are forcing him to make units because of your constant pressure while you are more or less free to expand and get your macro going. The combination of being able to alter your unit composition on the fly with 4 gate makes it incredibly potent as an opening strategy where doing anything else is much less safe. When we contrast 4gate with other early expansion builds you can see how much more efficient it is. 4 gate sets the game tempo and allows the Protoss to control the flow of the game which makes scouting less necessary. Now with a fast expansion build the Protoss has to CONSTANTLY scout and count drones and try to tell if the Zerg's larva injection is going towards unit production or economic development. The thing is that information becomes expired almost instantly, assuming the Zerg expo's he can switch direction with insane speed and apply pressure which puts a protoss in an overly adaptive situation where if you make one tiny mistake you are fucked. It is an EXTREMELY unforgiving way to play and not really worth the risk since you are not generally gaining an economic advantage, nor are you gaining an initiative. You let the Zerg take control. What actually fucks that match up imo is the fact that warp gates give way too much mobility to a protoss to be ignored, while larva injection allows way too much flexibility meaning if you don't abuse one your opponent will abuse the other and you lose. I can't really ever see this dilemma truly being overcome, but the whole reason these macro mechanics were included was to give high level players something to truly excel in over "casual" players. The way I look at it is like this. I could play Flash//Jaedong in BW 101 times and I sincerely doubt I could even luck out a single win, hell even IdrA when he was at his best I would have a hard time to even take a game from. However with the system of hard counters, I can't honestly see myself getting 100-0'd in SC2 by really any player barring bad luck and I am only a mid range diamond player. | ||
|
mprs
Canada2933 Posts
On October 18 2010 18:26 Woosung wrote: The only reasonable game to compare SC:BW / SC2 with is CS1.6 / CS:Source. And we all see how many people ended up playing CS:Source after the initial hype... You have no idea how dumb this comparison is. Lets ignore the fact that you picked the least successful sequel in terms of fan retention. Why not pick something of the same genre? Lets see: Starcraft --> Broodwar Warcraft 1 --> Warcraft 2 Warcraft 2 --> Warcraft 3 Warcraft 3 --> Frozen Throne These are just the Blizzard games. Not going to mention the C&C and RA games. These were all improvements. But you know, lets instead use a failed sequel to make our point. In fact, you probably could have done better by using the UT99 --> UT3 card since that was an infinitely worse jump. | ||
| ||
