EPT![[image loading]](http://www.fomos.kr/board/issue/1319623451_6.jpg)
asdfkl;jafd look at all those fries god i am so hungry
Bisu's not even eating his burger. Put down your phone, boy, and pay attention to what matters: the goddamn burger.
Bisu, Jaedong, Jangbi, Fantasy to Blizzcon 2011 - Page 83
| Forum Index > BW General |
Kiett
United States7639 Posts
asdfkl;jafd look at all those fries god i am so hungry Bisu's not even eating his burger. Put down your phone, boy, and pay attention to what matters: the goddamn burger. | ||
|
Elite__
Canada976 Posts
| ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On October 27 2011 08:08 jtbem wrote: nothing special http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/26/why-blizzard-invited-the-worlds-best-starcraft-brood-war-players-to-blizzcon-2011/ this article is kind of biased though, while I was reading I could see that the guy who wrote this is just another SC2 fan (not in an offensive way) who just wishes them to transition. SC2 has 3 major disadvantages when comparing to BW (excluding the gameplay/balance): 1) BW is infinitely cheaper than SC2 2) BW runs on any PC, SC2 only runs on newer PCs 3) BW has LAN, freedom to implement decent laddering systems and much more, SC2 is bound to Bnet 2.0, SC2 scene is hostage of Blizzard's will (horrible map pool, no LAN, blabla) Edit: well, actually I meant BW isn't necessarily bound to Bnet so you can have different servers and what not >.> | ||
|
Kal_rA
United States2925 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:05 fabiano wrote: this article is kind of biased though, while I was reading I could see that the guy who wrote this is just another SC2 fan (not in an offensive way) who just wishes them to transition. SC2 has 3 major disadvantages when comparing to BW (excluding the gameplay/balance): 1) BW is infinitely cheaper than SC2 2) BW runs on any PC, SC2 only runs on newer PCs 3) BW has LAN, freedom to implement decent laddering systems and much more, SC2 is bound to Bnet 2.0, SC2 scene is hostage of Blizzard's will (horrible map pool, no LAN, blabla) Edit: well, actually I meant BW isn't necessarily bound to Bnet so you can have different servers and what not >.> Well the first two are just inherit and unavoidable consequences of having a game released in 2010. Nothing to really complain about. The third point however............. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
They were there to see how StarCraft II – and esports in general – is consumed in the west. Weird reason for expensive travel - they could have realized how it's going over the Internet, watching some VODs and visiting TL. | ||
|
Kaxon
United States117 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:10 sGs.Kal_rA wrote: Well the first two are just inherit and unavoidable consequences of having a game released in 2010. Nothing to really complain about. The third point however............. The third point is only true for laddering and Blizzcon. Other tournaments can and do use better maps. Edit: that's just for the maps. Lack of LAN is embarrassing when there's lag in big tournaments, but aside from occasional problems it's not really important. | ||
|
Onox
United States1072 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:05 fabiano wrote: this article is kind of biased though, while I was reading I could see that the guy who wrote this is just another SC2 fan (not in an offensive way) who just wishes them to transition. SC2 has 3 major disadvantages when comparing to BW (excluding the gameplay/balance): 1) BW is infinitely cheaper than SC2 2) BW runs on any PC, SC2 only runs on newer PCs 3) BW has LAN, freedom to implement decent laddering systems and much more, SC2 is bound to Bnet 2.0, SC2 scene is hostage of Blizzard's will (horrible map pool, no LAN, blabla) Edit: well, actually I meant BW isn't necessarily bound to Bnet so you can have different servers and what not >.> @1st point. I think I've heard you can play sc2 for free in pc cafes, I could be mistaken though Doesn't change the price if you want to play at home though. | ||
|
jmbthirteen
United States10734 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:14 figq wrote: Weird reason for expensive travel - they could have realized how it's going over the Internet, watching some VODs and visiting TL. keep in mind, this is the only info that they could get confirmed. They could have been there for other reasons that we don't know. | ||
|
ahbeez
56 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:05 fabiano wrote: this article is kind of biased though, while I was reading I could see that the guy who wrote this is just another SC2 fan (not in an offensive way) who just wishes them to transition. SC2 has 3 major disadvantages when comparing to BW (excluding the gameplay/balance): 1) BW is infinitely cheaper than SC2 2) BW runs on any PC, SC2 only runs on newer PCs 3) BW has LAN, freedom to implement decent laddering systems and much more, SC2 is bound to Bnet 2.0, SC2 scene is hostage of Blizzard's will (horrible map pool, no LAN, blabla) Edit: well, actually I meant BW isn't necessarily bound to Bnet so you can have different servers and what not >.> not trying to argue or anything but wouldn't SC2 attract more sponsors because of this? For example I could see nvidia sponsoring a tournament or team based on the fact that sc2 actually requires people to upgrade their gfx cards yet in broodwar it would be pointless to upgrade. | ||
|
DeepBlu2
United States975 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:14 figq wrote: Weird reason for expensive travel - they could have realized how it's going over the Internet, watching some VODs and visiting TL. They were paid by Blizzard to go so why wouldn't you accept. They definitely enjoyed it though, and if they weren't interested to see how it is in the west, they wouldn't have gone... I'm really glad they had a good time but I don't think people have to worry about them switching anytime soon. They really were only there to see what Starcraft 2 was like in a tournament environment, especially in the west, because they were curious about it. Again, they obviously showed some interest. | ||
|
PhoenixDark
United States286 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:10 sGs.Kal_rA wrote: Well the first two are just inherit and unavoidable consequences of having a game released in 2010. Nothing to really complain about. The third point however............. Agreed; plus like all Blizzard games, the system requirements are pretty lenient; many SC2 players play on low to medium settings. SC2 is more cpu dependent imo In terms of accessibility, BW might as well be Angry Birds in Korea. Anyone can play if they want, there are no technical limitations. And while Korean places could buy SC2 and lower the graphics settings, that's not the only hurdle. Demanding online play is an annoyance in the US and Europe, but it can be a complete turn off in Korea since a kid (or whoever) would need to sign online with their social security number (or whatever it's called in SK) instead of being able to just start playing asap, and once they sign on everything is controlled by Blizzard (ladder, maps, etc). sigh Blizzard seems to be intent on fixing some of the things that doomed WOL in Korea, but the game will never has LAN. SC2 is going to take over eventually, but it will never match BW, which was/is more of a phenomena than anything | ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
| ||
|
Daudr
Sweden275 Posts
On October 27 2011 09:05 fabiano wrote: this article is kind of biased though, while I was reading I could see that the guy who wrote this is just another SC2 fan (not in an offensive way) who just wishes them to transition. SC2 has 3 major disadvantages when comparing to BW (excluding the gameplay/balance): 1) BW is infinitely cheaper than SC2 2) BW runs on any PC, SC2 only runs on newer PCs 3) BW has LAN, freedom to implement decent laddering systems and much more, SC2 is bound to Bnet 2.0, SC2 scene is hostage of Blizzard's will (horrible map pool, no LAN, blabla) Edit: well, actually I meant BW isn't necessarily bound to Bnet so you can have different servers and what not >.> The ladder map pool is actually pretty damn good atm. More geared towards tournament-play (no close-position etc.). I absolutely agree with the rest though. BW has a certain amount of accessibility that SC2 NEVER will have, or at least not in the foreseeable future. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
| ||
|
Arco
United States2090 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:22 nalgene wrote: There's also something about not having LAN... in the event that their company ever dies... you can't play on bnet 2.0 anymore... but BW ( even if the company died, you can still play LAN )... you could even play the game even in places with no internet... Because Blizzard is going to die, WoW makes bad revenue, and no one will buy any SC2 expansions or Diablo 3. Haha, not gonna happen anytime soon. | ||
|
NationInArms
United States1553 Posts
Plays game for 12 seconds, better than 99% of pro's already. 100+ likes | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:29 Tump wrote: Because Blizzard is going to die, WoW makes bad revenue, and no one will buy any SC2 expansions or Diablo 3. Haha, not gonna happen anytime soon. They have a pretty tight noose on the competition. They need competition though and other developers really have to stop copying them (most notably with the WoW Design). I hate monopolies. Companies never do as good without good competition. ;/ | ||
|
Herper
501 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:36 NationInArms wrote: Love this quote about Jangbi and fantasy playing SC2 that I found on youtube: 100+ likes That was Bisu though... | ||
|
TwoToneTerran
United States8841 Posts
On October 27 2011 10:37 StarStruck wrote: They have a pretty tight noose on the competition. They need competition though and other developers really have to stop copying them (most notably with the WoW Design). I hate monopolies. Companies never do as good without good competition. ;/ Lol, companies need to stop copying Blizzard's WoW design. You know why they do? Because WoW was copied from Everquest, which itself was a rip off. Innovation is so much more difficult to get you somewhere than copying with a little glitter! | ||
| ||
