|
On April 26 2011 01:21 frodoguy wrote: maybe blizz decided that they will start off with something easy to understand to cater for those who do not know sc at all (wings of liberty) and then gradually make it more complex like BW in the future (heart of the swarm and legacy of the void) so those newbies who make up like 90% of the sc2 community will be abled to understand the more complex things (just my theory though).
^ Pressing individual factories and spamming buttons doesn't really concern the viewers in terms of entertainment.
After Reading FrozenSolid post i came to same conclusion, wings of liberty could be just a start to forge the community , after the comunity is there, they could really focus on making the game more complex .
|
On April 26 2011 03:53 Greem wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 01:21 frodoguy wrote: maybe blizz decided that they will start off with something easy to understand to cater for those who do not know sc at all (wings of liberty) and then gradually make it more complex like BW in the future (heart of the swarm and legacy of the void) so those newbies who make up like 90% of the sc2 community will be abled to understand the more complex things (just my theory though).
^ Pressing individual factories and spamming buttons doesn't really concern the viewers in terms of entertainment. After Reading FrozenSolid post i came to same conclusion, wings of liberty could be just a start to forge the community , after the comunity is there, they could really focus on making the game more complex . this would probably be a good business decision as well. make as many people buy it when it comes out, then down the road make sure it has e-sports to back it by making it cater to a more elite crowd
that's at least what i'm hoping
|
On April 26 2011 01:14 KevinIX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 21:58 Drey wrote:On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol.
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open."
Warcraft 3 is pretty old now and it aint balanced. You cant explain that  Warcraft 3 had 4 races. That means 16 matchups, almost double what SC has. You balance one matchup and the others get messed up. Even then, WC3 was pretty damn close to balance. There wouldn't have been a pro scene if it weren't.
Not true.
There are 4 nCr 2 non-mirrors and 4 mirrors, making 10 overall matchups SC has 3 nCr 2 non-mirrors and 3 mirrors, making 6 overall matchups
|
On April 26 2011 03:29 nepeta wrote: They sold out to casuals, because their business is to sell games, and there are more casuals than pros, get over it. Browder isn't paying a cent more than lip-service to e-sports, because e-sports is worth very little compared to copy sales. It is by no means useless; big tournaments generate publicity, and increase the length of attraction in a sizeable part of the buyers, but underneath the black line named "$ profit" the e-sports gains are, in my very humble opinion, peanuts.
If you were to pay €25 + €5/month, blizz would have an incentive to aim for longevity, but the entire model of personal computer development and game sales is against it, so it's not going to happen any time soon. SC2 is not like WoW, its main attraction is pvp, which means adding content is a very limited tool to ensure customer loyalty. They need a radically different setup of income from e-sports, i.e. a HUGE increase of revenue from e-sports, to bring it on the same level as that from copy sales, period.
Yeah, we at TL.net like to see gosu micro, epic low econ battles, cunning plans and meta metagames, but all the scrubs out there just want to see pretty things shoot and explode when they click and don't give a damn about units which require more than 2 clicks to operate. SC2 could have been a lot worse, from an e-sports view, try envisioning a pvp environment run like the sp campaign. Scary, isn't it?
Browder/Blizz/Activision are balancing like crazy, but first and foremost they do so financially, all other objectives are secondary.
Lord almighty forgive my entering this discussion, but I suppose I'm crazy enough to argue in it, and my point is its pointlessness :p Absolutely agreed. E-sports is a marketing tool to get more casuals and to keep the casuals playing. And hell Blizz is doing a damn good job with it.
|
this kind of talk about sc2 being made to be an esport is just for publicity. WoW arena had Blizzcon, and large prize tournaments, and i think everyone can understand that appeal to casuals in WoW had more influence on the game's design than any desire for it to be an "esport". the same goes for sc2. blizzard is more than capable of producing games exactly the way they intended, and sc2 was clearly intended to be dumbed down (lower skill cap) compared to sc:bw.
|
On April 26 2011 00:56 FrozenSolid wrote: You have to remember that SC2 was also designed so that it is easy to watch and to understand.
A newer player may not understand exactly how hard it is to move a squad of dragoons fluidly, and if spectators aren't aware of what's going on they are missing out on what's happening. While fluid unit movement lessens the need for good micro when moving an army, it makes for a less complicated viewing experience, which many argue, will translate to a bigger audience for the progaming scene.
Broodwar features lots of engine-based limitations that do make the game much harder to play and giving it a much higher mechanical skill ceiling, but it's important to note that implementing those limitations was most likely not a premeditated choice. If mechanical difficulty was the only consideration when designing a game, units would probably all have to be controlled individually without any kind of group selecting method, hotkeys, camera controls or mini-map. We can all agree that a game like that would quickly turn out to be boring, so a game designer has to make a hard choice between what he can or cannot implement into his game based on the expectations of his target audience.
Another necessity for a game to become a known e-sport is to achieve massive popularity. This is likely why Broodwar never took off in the west. The game is absolutely amazing and remains one of the best games ever made even after SC2's release, but it was never popular outside Korea when compared to games like Halo, Call of Duty, Counter-Strike, Guitar Hero and other triple A titles. These games had so many more people playing them than Broodwar because they were much easier to play, but also had the depth necessary to produce a professional scene (with the exception of maybe guitar hero, which ended up being rote-learning based). Nobody in their right mind would argue that any of those games is more complicated than Broodwar, but sheer complexity isn't what has made Counter-Strike massively popular around the world. Counter-Strike didn't feature advanced movement modes so it was actually less complicated than many games in its own genre, and a new player could take out a pro instantly with a lucky spray & pray headshot. Professionals would still overtake newer players over the course of many rounds, so the random aspect wasn't detrimental to the professional scene. Top players could still establish themselves and make a living playing the game.
Therein lies another reason why SC2 was made easier to pick up and play than Broodwar. For a professional scene to develop, it needs sponsors that are interested in marketing their products specifically to that game's community. If the community in itself is larger, then sponsors will be more inclined to finance teams, tournaments, or even leagues. The sad truth in the e-sports world is that the game with the most money will be the most successful, and the game with the biggest fan base will get the money. As long as a certain criteria for difficulty and skill is upheld, it becomes irrelevant how high the game's skill ceiling is in terms of having that game become a successful e-sport. What matters is having long term consistency in results between two players of different skill level. Much of Broodwar's popularity in Korea can be attributed to the PC bang culture and holding tournaments to see who was the top player in the area. Korean e-sports evolved around Starcraft because the game was popular, not because the game was hard to play or because it was a better game than the competition (which it was by a huge margin). Those certainly contributed to its popularity, but they weren't the selling points of sponsorship deals for the players.
Blizzard has clearly designed SC2 not only as a modern RTS with a powerful engine for their modding community (which created DotA on the War3 engine), but also as a game with massive potential to become popular in the west. Even in the event that the standard game itself wouldn't take off, the SC2 engine is powerful enough that the modding community could create a custom map that could become an e-sport of its own. Blizzard also promotes the game within their own huge gaming community (which remains largely WoW based) and restricts third parties from holding tournaments so they can be fully aware of SC2's popularity (which may or may not be a good thing). They are very serious about having SC2 or a community mod based on it succeed as an e-sport, and everything about the game from design to marketing seems to be fixated on that. That means having to make sacrifices and compromises in order to cater to all players. While SC2 has a lower skill ceiling than its predecessor, it can be expected that the game will evolve beyond how we understand it now if it becomes huge. Players will always find ways to innovate and gain even the smallest advantage over their opponents when there's enough money on the line.
This is one of the first posts in a long time that I have read that has made me think differently about what blizzard is doing. I think it is very well thought out.
I would like to add that one drawback that they are experiencing now with the changes they have made to the game is a pro scene that is extremely fickle. I think it is pretty clear that every sport needs legends and consistently awesome players to cheer for. Sc2 is struggling with this.
|
Hey Dustin, you penis is full of shit.
By the way, everybody should read the FrozenSolid post, I would quote it but it turns out the person before me did it ^^
User was warned for this post
|
I started this thread. Please can somebody delete it. I regret making it. Please nobody comment in it any more. Lets leave it there for now.
|
On April 25 2011 21:35 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol.
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open."
This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o.
The customer only sees a few. The developers have to make hundreds.
|
There is no such thing as a hard game.
How can you know a game is hard? Is the computer too hard? Well, the computer is not a real opponent.
You instead compare yourself against other players. Are they better than you? If they are, is it difficult to play like them?
If I invent a new sport where the winner is the guy who can first take down all three of his cans with rocks from a distance, is that easier than football? Well, then let me match you up against a guy who never misses and see if you can beat him.
There will always be experts in any game. Stone-to-can throwing is not harder nor easier than football because the two games have different rules, ergo, no game is harder than another; there is no such concept at all.
If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome...
+ Show Spoiler +
... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me.
|
Not this fallacy again, please. ;/
|
5003 Posts
On April 25 2011 21:35 Kipsate wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 21:22 ShadeR wrote: Found this gem comment in the source article lol.
"Vincent Goossens 22 Apr 2011 at 1:10 pm PST SC1 and BW have had hundreds of patches before it became good and it took years. And only then it became popular with the Koreans. Don't forget that. A good game takes time, and it has to be shaped while it's in the open."
This is factually wrong, it didn't have hundreds of patches O.o.
Not only that but SC1 was a game that was immediately popular mostly because of its timing and Korea's culture at that time. it didn't become popular just because it was a good game, it became popular because it was released in Korea at a really really nice time.
|
Loli
60 Posts
On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote:If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler +... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me.
Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 25 2011 23:12 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 23:08 Rampager wrote: I love both games equally, obviously brood war requires far superior mechanics but both are easy to learn hard to master games. Can't everyone just <3 Some people settle for sc2 being just good, while others want it to be just as good if not better than BW. What's wrong with the latter? The fact that it's unrealistic?
Even if you had a dream game development team, unlimited budget, and took the insight from the minds most intimately connected to BW's success, I don't think you could make a game as good as BW on your first attempt. As has been said by many people throughout SC2's development, BW was a lucky fluke and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
While I'm not really 100% happy with the state of SC2, I accept that it's still probably the best they could have accomplished given the resources allotted to them and Activision's profit expectations. I can't fault the development team for that.
|
On April 26 2011 05:47 Loli wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote:If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler +... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either. I'm pretty sure BoxeR and NaDa are much better Broodwar players than any player in the TSL...
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 26 2011 06:02 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 05:47 Loli wrote:On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote:If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler +... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either. I'm pretty sure BoxeR and NaDa are much better Broodwar players than any player in the TSL... You mean other than the other ex-BW players that were doing at least as well as/better than them at the ends of their BW careers too?
|
On April 25 2011 21:35 Legatus Lanius wrote: whoa lets not go nuts, nothing is as good as a brood war tvz
BW tvz is pretty much cookie cutter, what are you talking about? any match up with P in BW leads to pretty interesting games though.
|
On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote:If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler +... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me.
This is nonsensical to the point of flamebaiting, honestly.
|
On April 26 2011 06:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:02 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 05:47 Loli wrote:On April 26 2011 05:32 EsX_Raptor wrote:If SC2 is "much easier" than BW, then howcome... + Show Spoiler +... got their asses handed to them 3-0? Please somebody explain that to me. Well honestly, they weren't doing so hot towards the end of their BW careers either. I'm pretty sure BoxeR and NaDa are much better Broodwar players than any player in the TSL... You mean other than the other ex-BW players that were doing at least as well as/better than them at the ends of their BW careers too? We're actually derailing from the point... what i'm trying to say is, for example, both IdrA and Mondragon got beaten by a WC3 player. Does this mean WC3 has a higher skill ceiling than BW?
Thus the claim that BW > SC2 in skill level is very brittle.
|
On April 26 2011 05:54 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 23:12 maybenexttime wrote:On April 25 2011 23:08 Rampager wrote: I love both games equally, obviously brood war requires far superior mechanics but both are easy to learn hard to master games. Can't everyone just <3 Some people settle for sc2 being just good, while others want it to be just as good if not better than BW. What's wrong with the latter? The fact that it's unrealistic? Even if you had a dream game development team, unlimited budget, and took the insight from the minds most intimately connected to BW's success, I don't think you could make a game as good as BW on your first attempt. As has been said by many people throughout SC2's development, BW was a lucky fluke and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. While I'm not really 100% happy with the state of SC2, I accept that it's still probably the best they could have accomplished given the resources allotted to them and Activision's profit expectations. I can't fault the development team for that.
How is fixing the glaring issues that have been apparent ever since playable alpha unrealistic? Sure, BW was a fluke, but that doesn't mean we can't analyze is and see what made it so good post factum. Various community members have accurately determined various key aspects that made BW good that are missing in SC2. Blizzard could start from there.
|
|
|
|