|
On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:05 TheYango wrote: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.
Maybe that's because SC2 has a lower skill ceiling, meaning skill differences are levelled out more
|
On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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.
How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle.
How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle...
I can go on with random comparisons as well.
|
On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well.
Exactly.
People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is.
|
On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is.
Why settle for checker when we can make it into chess 2?
|
On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is.
No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction?
|
On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction?
Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW.
IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback.
|
On April 26 2011 06:54 EsX_Raptor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 06:51 red4ce wrote:On April 26 2011 06:47 EsX_Raptor wrote:On April 26 2011 06:42 Yurie wrote:On April 26 2011 06:12 EsX_Raptor wrote:
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. How come a checkers player can beat a go player at checkers? Thus the claim that go is harder is very brittle. How come a tennis player can beat a golf player in hockey? Thus the claim that tennis is harder is very brittle... I can go on with random comparisons as well. Exactly. People should stop comparing these two games and accept SC2 for what it is. No, we shouldn't. How else is Blizzard supposed to know what to fix if we don't voice our dissatisfaction? Our perception of SC2 is biased by BW. As a consequence, we'll try the best we can to turn SC2 into a 3D version of BW. IMO: The key to any sequel lies entirely on its storyline, not user feedback.
What does the storyline have to do with multiplayer? SC2 could have the most amazing single player ever, but it would do nothing for the game's advancement as an E-sport.
|
If i were dustin browder right now i'd feel like victor frankenstein
|
Why do you guys need to argue against these SC2 fanatics who doesn't have the slightest idea of what Patrol-Micro is?
It's pretty useless because they dont have this kind of micro strat, they might even think that it's just a simple micro tactic like what they have in SC2.
And regarding macro aspect being not 'fun to watch', thats not the point SC2 fans. They point here is that, It's a hella hard to macro these buildings to pump units but progamers do this effortlessly and WHILE DOING THAT, THEY ARE TECHING AND MICROING UNITS WITH DUMB PATHING AI! That after a certain battle, you get to see fresh units from 312908472938472984 gateways, factories and hatcheries. Watch the latest Best vs Flash if you think Macro isn't fun to watch. The screaming girls in the background beg to differ.
Regarding the O.P., well to me after the end of 2010, SC2 was bound to be a disaster of an RTS just like WC3. They are patching it. Balancing it like a lot just like WC3 to a point where it's dull and balance TO BLIZZARD'S EYES. BW was balanced because the community has balanced it after BW was left out by blizzard.
|
I have to agree with people who say not to give credit to Blizzard for BW balance. Firstly, it's not even balanced perfectly like some people suggest. Especially at low levels some matchups are blatantly easier, and at pro level the stats overall show a pattern of 'easier matchups'. Secondly they gave up patching it at a point where people still sucked at the game... if they carried on patching it based on statistics and the methods they are using to balance SC2 now, they would have changed tons of shit that's in BW right now.
I've pretty much given up on SC2 now. It's never going to be the type of game i'd like after playing BW, and to be honest they don't seem to care about it as a sport much at all. What's with Bnet 2 still being terrible to host tournaments on this long after release? The way they keep going on about eSports, you'd think it'd be a priority.
I think it's embarrassing the fact the lead designer of the game apparently couldn't even comprehend the idea of a competitive RTS. Or at least considering it's his job, how about actually getting GOOD at BW to be able to accurately judge why it works as a competitive game? He's not even 'good' at the game hes a lead designer on. A game that's his job and a major part of his life for years. Would it be that much effort to make some time to get to a decent level of play and understand the game if you're making the fucking sequel to it? :/
|
Dustin Browder helped design the crap from EA after they ate Westwood, wrecking the charm of both the C&C and Red Alert series. Little wonder his handling of Starcraft seems subpar. It would be like handing your reputable brand to Uwe Boll to make into a movie.
|
People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives.
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ).
Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar.
I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans.
There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc...
All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike.
edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game.
|
On April 25 2011 21:33 maybenexttime wrote:
Well, personally I think he did not understand what made BW great in the least. He/they removed all the fun/exciting units from BW (Vultures, Wraiths, Lurkers and so on) and replaced them (mostly) with boring a-move units (Marauders, Vikings, Hellions, Immortals, Colossi, etc.). They also screwed up some of the old units (Hydra comes to mind).
Then there's the lack of highground advantage, defender's advantage and positional play. The lack of micro is also pretty apparent, and so is the hardcounter gameplay, very un-StarCraft-like. Not to mention the ball vs. ball gameplay and horrible maps/their ladder mappool policy, as well as the fact that they deliberately refuse to fix those aspects of gameplay that can be fixed (like micro, look up Project Micro on TL) and patch interesting micro tricks because they're conflicting with their design policy...
Instead of trying to understand something as deep as BW on their own, they should've consulted some of the more knowledgable players, who have shown that their understanding of what's made BW so great and what's sc2 lacking is superior to that of blizzard designers (I'm talking about the articles on positional gameplay, spells, etc. we've had on TL).
All in all, the game is OK (TvZ and TvT are actually on par with BW MUs), but it could've been so much better. I think Browder failed because he tried to appease two drastically different groups - competitive and casual players - by trying to make sc2 play the same way for both of them. He should've taken a different approach - instead of getting rid of any non-obvious features (like Muta stacking, patrol micro, mineral jumping, Void Ray micro, positional play, etc.), he should've embraced them. Casual players would be unaware of them (unless blizzard made some tutorials) and they'd keep playing the game "the simple way," while competitive players would be able to go deeper and explore other aspects of the game.
Well said, SC1 was full of exciting, gamebreaking units who could be considered overpowered in their own way. Sure, SC2 has banelings and reapers who are also spectacular, but if you compare for example Vultures vs Hellions, or Reaver vs Colossus, many SC2 counterparts feel bland, static and boring.
But to be fair, SC1 became much better with BW so I can't wait to see how SC2 will be like in 4-5 years.
|
sometimes self-imposed restrictions are in place because what might sound like fun -- or even actually be fun -- could ruin or over-complicate the design of a competitive game.
Ohhh, so that's why there's no cool units in SC2 and it's so boring and generic. Good ideas for units that could have been like Reavers, mines, and arbiters were thrown out in exchange for units that don't do anything interesting because they were afraid they couldn't design a balanced game with interesting units.
It kind of makes sense when you think about it. They want really badly for it to be an eSport.... But then, did anyone invent basketball, soccer, etc because they thought it was going to be a competitive sport watched by millions? No, they created something they thought would be fun. It should be the same way with eSports in my opinion. Make something that is fun first. Let fate decide whether or not it's possible to balance.
|
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote:
People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives.
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ).
Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar.
I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans.
There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc...
All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike.
edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game.
WC3 TFT had its food limit increased to 100. Blizzard might do same thing with expansion packs. Perhaps 250 and finally 300.
|
On April 26 2011 10:41 Too_MuchZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote:
People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives.
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ).
Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar.
I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans.
There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc...
All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike.
edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. WC3 TFT had its food limit increased to 100. Blizzard might do same thing with expansion packs. Perhaps 250 and finally 300.
It was more than just food limit though .. There was upkeep if players get to certain amount of food count, heavily decreasing the macro aspect of the game.
|
On April 26 2011 08:59 where wrote:
Dustin Browder helped design the crap from EA after they ate Westwood, wrecking the charm of both the C&C and Red Alert series. Little wonder his handling of Starcraft seems subpar. It would be like handing your reputable brand to Uwe Boll to make into a movie.
As I've said before, Browder mainly worked on Red Alert 2, C&C Generals, and Battle for Middle Earth before leaving EA.
RA2 can be considered the peak of classical C&C.
Generals, though not necessarily a traditional C&C game, is still quite fun and is a good RTS.
Battle for Middle Earth combined a lot of interesting and radical ideas with a cinematic presentation to create a pretty nice game that, though it didn't meet Browder's expectations, I found to be fun.
BFME2, C&C3, RA3, and C&C4 all came after Browder's leave.
BFME 2 was announced in July of 2005. C&C3 was announced in 2006. Browder left in March of 2005.
|
There is something missing in SC2 and that is racial strategy.
You don't form grand tank lines with spider mines and try to control space around the game.
You don't try to stasis a good bunch of enemy units and then recall into his vulnerable back, or break defenses with carpet storms.
Neither do you stall chokes with lurkers and wait for swarm to be up so you can slowly inch forward.
Most games just involve a mix of 4-5 unit types mashed into a ball and hope yours counters his. The only thing close to what BW was is TvT in SC2, but tanks are 3 supply, so the matchup can get even more volatile.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES51083 Posts
expansions will make SC2 interesting...I'll believe in that...like I said before the original game is for Blizzard to reel people in.Expansions add depth.all in all I do think that eventually SC2 can do BW proud,but right now I don't care because it isn't doing so.
|
On April 26 2011 09:34 Boblion wrote:
People are blaming Browder way too much. The Sc2 team has made many mistakes but i think that the real problem is the top executives.
Sc2 isn't a bad game and it is a real financial success but for broodwar veterans well frankly there aren't many new things in this game. Yea for sure they have upgraded/dumbed down the UI but that's pretty much it. I think that they didn't try to make something really different and that's why many broodwar players feel that the game is boring or for noobs. I mean the two games share a lot of similarities ( except the ui ). So yea i blame the top guys because they didn't want to take any risks ( of course i know that they have their own $ reasons ).
Lot of people also dislike War3 but at least it seems that Blizzard really tried to make something new with that game and it is not competing with broodwar.
I wish they could have made this game more different with real new concepts like for bw and war3. All we got is some "flashy" macro mechanics that they added because of the backslash over MBS. I don't think it is enough for many bw veterans.
There are so many things in this game that are "arbitrarily" like in bw. Why a 200/200 limit ? Why no bigger armies ? Why only two ressources ? etc...
All we got is a 90's oldschool RTS with a modern UI and 3D and even if the game is decent/good that's quite shallow. Remind me a bit of SFIV vs Third Strike.
edit: also i feel that the engine is inferior to bw for micro and there are way too many boring units in that game. Well look at the RTS genre as a whole. It is mature. IT has had its experiments since the early 90s up to its current state. And frankly the non-standard rts economy system games have been disasters. The control point systems of thq games and and the mineral mining systems of blizz&westwood games or variations thereof have been the only ones producing excellent gameplay, which is why they have stuck with it. So there really hasnt been a whole lot to innovate while maintaining a good game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
