I have been thinking about the nostalgia argument that has been blatantly been slapped upon us broodwar fan and I thought about it really hard . Are we really nostalgic in nature ? It's true that my first encounter with starcraft 1 and broodwar it's because it's the "GAME" to play and everyone in primary school was talking about this game and playing the game is cool because we get to watch the awesome "cinematics " .
The eye Candy of my time
With that in mind is broodwar really such a nostalgic bandwagon thing that the other side of starcraft with a 2 talks about ? Lets look at the definition of nostalgic . According to the thefreedictionary.com nostalgic is a " a bitter sweet longing for longings for the thing for the past and situation . Well yeah you can say it's nostalgic , I am nostalgic about the past when I was owning Cs source pro's team online in our little Malaysia v Singapore online tournaments .
Skipping classes to play game isn't really that worth it in my opinion ,trust me you will regret it sooner or later
But am I really that nostalgic about broodwar ? Lets take a look a little about my history of starcraft , As a fan of games my from younger times playing game was a hobby and a thing to past time , ranging from pokemon to diablo 1 , however I think starcraft it self is a mystical game , not only has it captured countless hearts of gamers who experience for the first time and says "WOW " is this for real ? . I think the same can be said for me my realization of the starcraft pro scene was by chance and I mean chance by a stroke of curiosity rather than searching everywhere for it .
Klazart is my savior , without him, I wouldn't be screaming over this guy and tried searching the whole web for any replays with the name "Boxer on it "
Hearing people talking about broodwar , talking to my korean golf buddy and asking him do you play starcraft ?, Of course he said "YES" .In the end my whole journey of the starcraft experience can't be pinpointed as nostalgic in nature , Taking the quote from the thefreedictionary which states being nostalgic means longing for the pass however , I do not long for the past and I am not bitter sweet .
Although as a player who played really old games like starcraft and warcraft 1 and 2 . I do long for something that is simple in nature and not fancy " Eye candy " so I can rave about to my friends " Look my awesome game on the lcd , with the "Nvidia XXXXXXX the game looks so awesome ". Really do I really want to play games because it just looks epic ?
" Hello old buddy "
Meet the next generation
I think these applies to all of us who have been exposed to the simplicity of games ranging from Fallout 1 and 2 , Diablo 1 and 2 , Neverwinters night , Baldurs Gate , Torment . How many countless hours has our "well time spent " on this game has been poured in to a game that any kids these day that come pass by and look at this " hey what is this dinosaur age like game come from ? MW 67 is the best game and this sucks ".
It's truly plausible that we are probably the last of our kind to actually appreciate game play over graphics and I mean to those who have experience the game inside and out be it being spectator, a player and as a fan . I can finally conclude that my founding's that I am nostalgic in nature searching for single player games with content and not just flashy graphics in your face and every time when I kept looking at games this day's , I tried comparing them with the past and hold them in judgement of the old title's that still roam in my head clearly and the joy they have gave me .
Are we really the last generation ? Probably it will if new bloods don't pick up or watch the game that we live and scream in the middle of 2 am when we see those awesome art of works on screen and that I mean proleague broodwar of course .Maybe we are the last breed of old gamers indeed and will fade when time passes over for the next generation of gamers .
"YO ! Dad it's not cool to play with swords any more , it's just too outdated "
Edit : Fail grammar and dethroning holy Klazart with an extra "Z"
We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I prefer to think that we're the people that can overlook graphics and separate the fidelity of graphics from the aesthetics of a game like you said and I definitely don't think we're the last of our generation. The only difference between the current and the next generation is the methods employed to find the classics. They'll be playing CoD12 when they look up the metacritic score for it, because everyone loves their opinion validated. Then they'll see the 80 something score, go to the ranks, see that half-life 1 and 2 is much higher and play them. That's obviously a small fraction of CoD players doing that and a smaller fraction that will actually appreciate a game like half life. Replace CoD with any other modern game and the equivalent classic of that genre. The next generation will play it backwards, which is fine.
I had many moments when i opened "old" games like Baldurs/fallout/planescape (and countless other examples) and i got flashbacks of awesome memories(sometimes even little tear came out of my eye), in fact when i played starcraft 1 or c&c or wc2 for the first time i remember being blown away by the magnitude of art and story. NONE of new games even if they were technically superior could match the same art, audio/video, gameplay quality. For example Starcraft 1 was much more innovating, graphically and musically to the industry back then than SC2 today which seems like just new rts and good game but nothing more. My first online experience was BW, quake3 CS 1.5 (or was it 1.3), after 5 minutes i was "hooked", there was so much fun put into it, in fact after 5 minutes of playing counter-strike i knew im gonna play it. And i played it for many, many years. SC2 was just ok game, after week i muted the music (i still had bw music in my mind) and to this day its muted.
I think the art design of sc2 (not technical aspects) is the biggest thing that upsets me. Blizzard lost that dark sci-fi obscure feel in the game with flavor of black humor in the background imho.
Gameplay and fun to be had. I don't do nostalgia (I'm probably one of the younger members of TL).
Why does me being younger matter? Because I picked up the "oldschool," games later than you guys did and STILL PLAY THEM. I'm not a bounty seeker either. I'm terrible at most of them but there's something about how easy modern-gen games are that makes me puke. I say, fuck that shit, let's just mod SCBW and get a better graphics overhaul if it means that much to the new scrubs 'cuz us "older-gen," gamers don't care.
On December 27 2011 22:56 Count9 wrote: I prefer to think that we're the people that can overlook graphics and separate the fidelity of graphics from the aesthetics of a game like you said and I definitely don't think we're the last of our generation. The only difference between the current and the next generation is the methods employed to find the classics. They'll be playing CoD12 when they look up the metacritic score for it, because everyone loves their opinion validated. Then they'll see the 80 something score, go to the ranks, see that half-life 1 and 2 is much higher and play them. That's obviously a small fraction of CoD players doing that and a smaller fraction that will actually appreciate a game like half life. Replace CoD with any other modern game and the equivalent classic of that genre. The next generation will play it backwards, which is fine.
I'd like to believe you, but if we take a look at metacritic, MW3 is sitting at a comfortable 88%... while Half Life 2 is at 96%, far greater, it still stands that the critics give free passes to hyped games, despite them perhaps not being the best.
That being said, I am a younger generation gamer who actually is working backwards; this winter I am playing through LoZ:Ocarina of Time and FF7. Which I would hope you agree are great classics. So there is some hope for the future yet :p As long as metacritic/gamerankings are not bought out too often.
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
I would say, our generation would not be different if we had the same number of candy-like games available at our times. Average kid is silly throughout all times. We probably are the last generation.
On December 27 2011 22:56 Count9 wrote: I prefer to think that we're the people that can overlook graphics and separate the fidelity of graphics from the aesthetics of a game like you said and I definitely don't think we're the last of our generation. The only difference between the current and the next generation is the methods employed to find the classics. They'll be playing CoD12 when they look up the metacritic score for it, because everyone loves their opinion validated. Then they'll see the 80 something score, go to the ranks, see that half-life 1 and 2 is much higher and play them. That's obviously a small fraction of CoD players doing that and a smaller fraction that will actually appreciate a game like half life. Replace CoD with any other modern game and the equivalent classic of that genre. The next generation will play it backwards, which is fine.
I'd like to believe you, but if we take a look at metacritic, MW3 is sitting at a comfortable 88%... while Half Life 2 is at 96%, far greater, it still stands that the critics give free passes to hyped games, despite them perhaps not being the best.
That being said, I am a younger generation gamer who actually is working backwards; this winter I am playing through LoZ:Ocarina of Time and FF7. Which I would hope you agree are great classics. So there is some hope for the future yet :p As long as metacritic/gamerankings are not bought out too often.
Actually if you look at MW3's user score, its an absolutely atrocious <4 or something while HL 1 and 2 are both above 9. I don't like relying on critic scores nowadays, whether they're bought, biased or just plain wrong, most of the time they tend to overrate games. MW3 really doesn't deserve anything above 6 or 7, its just a rehash of MW2.
I hope you've played Chrono Trigger and other SNES classics. PS1/N64 is a good start, speaking of which i should really get an emulator to play LoZ Ocarina of time. Never got around to it.
On December 27 2011 23:21 Inori wrote: old games are awesome because you grew up with them. Sorry but this topic looks like one of those "It used to be great, now it's shit" and "I'm better cuz I was born earlier" bs.
Then how come I don't feel the same about KKND or C&C games? BW simply is far better, it's an exceptional game.
On December 27 2011 23:21 Inori wrote: old games are awesome because you grew up with them. Sorry but this topic looks like one of those "It used to be great, now it's shit" and "I'm better cuz I was born earlier" bs.
Especially "It's truly plausible that we are probably the last of our kind to actually appreciate game play over graphics" makes me laugh and feel like OP is actually one of the younger generations himself.
Let me tell you about graphics back then. All those games were considered state-of-the-art graphics wise, you needed to dish out a huge amount of money for your PC to handle beasts like Doom, NFS, Carmageddon, WC and D1. I sure as hell still remember how I puked rainbows after looking at q2, sc1 and d2 graphics for the first time.
It was never "Graphics or Gameplay", it was always "Graphics AND Gameplay". Was in the 80s. Was in the 90s. Is now. There are good titles released every year. Sure, you can count them with 1 hand usually, but you can't even imagine the amount of crap that was released & forgotten in the 90s. Only reason you feel it's different is because you have hipster syndrome. Hope you'll get better soon.
Tell me something I don't know , old games are old games , timeless classic .
On December 27 2011 23:21 Inori wrote: old games are awesome because you grew up with them. Sorry but this topic looks like one of those "It used to be great, now it's shit" and "I'm better cuz I was born earlier" bs.
Then how come I don't feel the same about KKND or C&C games? BW simply is far better, it's an exceptional game.
Because C&C is just kinda shit. I'm sorry but there wasn't a whole lot of the Strategy in the RTS component from what I remember. Although for a low-tiered LAN party, hilarious to have nonetheless.
Thing is, 'gameplay over graphics' also mean a gameplay you enjoy.
Not everyone will enjoy the same type of gameplay.
I will say that I personally think Starcraft 2 has better gameplay (while Brood:War had better story, and was better for competitions), but I think that some of the gameplay elements of brood war simply aren't good. Like the pathing for some units, like lack of multiple building select, amount you could hotkey, rally points, and so on.
Also, I am for other reasons, nostalgic about EverQuest when I play mmorpg's. But I can't honestly say it was because it was the better game ... in many ways, it was because it was the poorer game, with mechanics that wasn't well understood at the time when the genre was new, and the relatively poor balance. It felt more like an actual RPG - whereas newer MMORPG's to me feel more like 'games'.
A lot of people say that they love Eve (the mmorpg) because of gameplay over graphics ... but me, I never liked the gameplay in that game, so it wasn't for me.
Probably the best single player gameplay that's been invented is to me Tetris ... doesn't mean I enjoy it more than Skyrim.
ps: I was 18 when Starcraft 1 came out ... when I think back to me earlier gaming experiences, it's NES, Eye of the Beholder, Civilization 1, Sim City, Amiga 500 that stand out. Dune 2 I actually remember playing a ton of (and I don't think anyone will argue that it's anything but nostalgia that makes me think fondly about that game).
On December 27 2011 23:21 Inori wrote: old games are awesome because you grew up with them. Sorry but this topic looks like one of those "It used to be great, now it's shit" and "I'm better cuz I was born earlier" bs.
Especially "It's truly plausible that we are probably the last of our kind to actually appreciate game play over graphics" makes me laugh and feel like OP is actually one of the younger generations himself.
Let me tell you about graphics back then. All those games were considered state-of-the-art graphics wise, you needed to dish out a huge amount of money for your PC to handle beasts like Doom, NFS, Carmageddon, WC and D1. I sure as hell still remember how I puked rainbows after looking at q2, sc1 and d2 graphics for the first time.
It was never "Graphics or Gameplay", it was always "Graphics AND Gameplay". Was in the 80s. Was in the 90s. Is now. There are good titles released every year. Sure, you can count them with 1 hand usually, but you can't even imagine the amount of crap that was released & forgotten in the 90s. Only reason you feel it's different is because you have hipster syndrome. Hope you'll get better soon.
Tell me something I don't know , old games are old games , timeless classic .
First you say "It used to be all about gameplay and now it's graphics!!11", I note that it was always about both and you reply with "tell me something I don't know"? /thread?
P.S. rofl @ "timeless classic". Mozart, Beethoven, Pushkin, Shakespeare, da Vinci works are timeless classics. 10-15 year old games are 10-15 year old games. If it will be remembered 100-200 years from now, then it might be considered "timeless classic".
Let's compare football to games and even music ? Might as well flush my brain down the toilet besides that my definition of timeless classic may not suit you but whatever .
So only products which are actually 100 years and above can only be classified as timeless classics huh ? Than this guy who suggested this list of movies should also have his brain check because he doesn't suit the definition of your "timeless classic " http://community.flixster.com/blog/eight-movies-we-are-afraid-to-criticize
Seriously if you want to take on me , I would gladly take it in pm.
I started playing Brood War seriously in 2009. I have no nostalgia, it is just a better game (than other RTS games, including SC2). Thats it, it is the only reason I like it. The game itself. I grew up with Command & Conquer. That doesnt mean I think Command & Conquer is any better than it is. StarCraft is still way better.
I also played Deus Ex and System Shock 2 for the first time this year.
There will always be a few people like me who can enjoy something that is hard to get in to, but more rewarding.
Thanks for a nice read. I dont know why Broodwar or Starcraft in general has been my favourite game from the moment I saw it. But altho it was such a long time ago I can still remember me and my friend playing this for the first time and i belive that was around 99. My imagination back then was alot wider and as a child you only needed a glimse of something that realy cought your affection to create a experience byond what I can get myself into today. Sure, today I can still be mesmerized by the cinematics and how the saga unfolds, but the gaming feelings itself is not there, and I guess it hasnt been there for a long time for me when it comes to new games / other games.
It's not about the game but about the scene? Watching Jaedong, Bisu, Flash play the game to the fullest and compete for championships is what drives TL. BW is an old game. Mechanics and AI is dated and it's hard as hell to play. If you ever reach C- on ICCUP my hat is off to you. BGH and UMS maps are more fun to play for casual gamers. Nostalgia has nothing to do with it. The BW scene is current. sHy beat Sealast week using hallucination on arbiters to bait emp shots from Sea's science vessels. When the decoy arbiters were destroyed he recalled on his base. S-I-C-K play from the masters that makes the game fun even today. Nothing nostalgic about that tactic - it was cutting edge! As for what the game was in 2001 - I'm not as interested as in the current scene. Would be lovely if someone could do a Day9 daily type show and talk about it for the late comers.
Maybe overreacting a little bit? What makes you think that EVERYONE likes graphics and not gameplay, if the game is shit people wont play it. And the graphics of today will be complete crap in the future to so, how are we the last generation?
On December 27 2011 23:41 aebriol wrote: Thing is, 'gameplay over graphics' also mean a gameplay you enjoy.
Not everyone will enjoy the same type of gameplay.
I will say that I personally think Starcraft 2 has better gameplay (while Brood:War had better story, and was better for competitions), but I think that some of the gameplay elements of brood war simply aren't good. Like the pathing for some units, like lack of multiple building select, amount you could hotkey, rally points, and so on.
Also, I am for other reasons, nostalgic about EverQuest when I play mmorpg's. But I can't honestly say it was because it was the better game ... in many ways, it was because it was the poorer game, with mechanics that wasn't well understood at the time when the genre was new, and the relatively poor balance. It felt more like an actual RPG - whereas newer MMORPG's to me feel more like 'games'.
A lot of people say that they love Eve (the mmorpg) because of gameplay over graphics ... but me, I never liked the gameplay in that game, so it wasn't for me.
Probably the best single player gameplay that's been invented is to me Tetris ... doesn't mean I enjoy it more than Skyrim.
ps: I was 18 when Starcraft 1 came out ... when I think back to me earlier gaming experiences, it's NES, Eye of the Beholder, Civilization 1, Sim City, Amiga 500 that stand out. Dune 2 I actually remember playing a ton of (and I don't think anyone will argue that it's anything but nostalgia that makes me think fondly about that game).
wow looks like you are totally misunderstanding the meaning on the word "gameplay".
Perfect example is WoW with outdated graphics yet 10 billion ppl playing it day after day. Gameplay > graphics, no question, but after one point, graphics do need to bring a level of quality. I totally bealive SC2 can become what BW is now, if the gameplay gets to a perfect point after the last expansion, if it happens, sc2 will be played even in 10 years, and if iccup will be still here, then there will be one more person who plays BW in 2020~
On December 27 2011 23:41 aebriol wrote: Thing is, 'gameplay over graphics' also mean a gameplay you enjoy.
Not everyone will enjoy the same type of gameplay.
I will say that I personally think Starcraft 2 has better gameplay (while Brood:War had better story, and was better for competitions), but I think that some of the gameplay elements of brood war simply aren't good. Like the pathing for some units, like lack of multiple building select, amount you could hotkey, rally points, and so on.
Also, I am for other reasons, nostalgic about EverQuest when I play mmorpg's. But I can't honestly say it was because it was the better game ... in many ways, it was because it was the poorer game, with mechanics that wasn't well understood at the time when the genre was new, and the relatively poor balance. It felt more like an actual RPG - whereas newer MMORPG's to me feel more like 'games'.
A lot of people say that they love Eve (the mmorpg) because of gameplay over graphics ... but me, I never liked the gameplay in that game, so it wasn't for me.
Probably the best single player gameplay that's been invented is to me Tetris ... doesn't mean I enjoy it more than Skyrim.
ps: I was 18 when Starcraft 1 came out ... when I think back to me earlier gaming experiences, it's NES, Eye of the Beholder, Civilization 1, Sim City, Amiga 500 that stand out. Dune 2 I actually remember playing a ton of (and I don't think anyone will argue that it's anything but nostalgia that makes me think fondly about that game).
Oh yeah! Dune2! Now we're talking nostalgia. My favorite computer game from when I was a kid, untill SC came along. I remember when SC came out I was happy they copied(In my mind) Dune 2 and we got 3 choices on who to play.
I actually played through Dune 2 as Atreides about a week ago for nostalgic reasons. Got chills watching the opening video, and experienced dead awful controls, I didn't remember being that bad. BW is such an easy game compared to Dune 2. ;p
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
wow, this encompassed what I have said and thought on so many occasions. I truly hope that your last sentence holds true
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
On December 27 2011 23:21 Inori wrote: old games are awesome because you grew up with them. Sorry but this topic looks like one of those "It used to be great, now it's shit" and "I'm better cuz I was born earlier" bs.
Especially "It's truly plausible that we are probably the last of our kind to actually appreciate game play over graphics" makes me laugh and feel like OP is actually one of the younger generations himself.
Let me tell you about graphics back then. All those games were considered state-of-the-art graphics wise, you needed to dish out a huge amount of money for your PC to handle beasts like Doom, NFS, Carmageddon, WC and D1. I sure as hell still remember how I puked rainbows after looking at q2, sc1 and d2 graphics for the first time.
It was never "Graphics or Gameplay", it was always "Graphics AND Gameplay". Was in the 80s. Was in the 90s. Is now. There are good titles released every year. Sure, you can count them with 1 hand usually, but you can't even imagine the amount of crap that was released & forgotten in the 90s. Only reason you feel it's different is because you have hipster syndrome. Hope you'll get better soon.
Tell me something I don't know , old games are old games , timeless classic .
First you say "It used to be all about gameplay and now it's graphics!!11", I note that it was always about both and you reply with "tell me something I don't know"? /thread?
P.S. rofl @ "timeless classic". Mozart, Beethoven, Pushkin, Shakespeare, da Vinci works are timeless classics. 10-15 year old games are 10-15 year old games. If it will be remembered 100-200 years from now, then it might be considered "timeless classic".
Let's compare football to games and even music ? Might as well flush my brain down the toilet besides that my definition of timeless classic may not suit you but whatever .
So only products which are actually 100 years and above can only be classified as timeless classics huh ? Than this guy who suggested this list of movies should also have his brain check because he doesn't suit the definition of your "timeless classic " http://community.flixster.com/blog/eight-movies-we-are-afraid-to-criticize
Seriously if you want to take on me , I would gladly take it in pm.
Way to get defensive. Note that I didn't say anything about a "brain check", I only found it funny to call 10-15 year old games "timeless classics". And yes, calling 20-30 year old movies "timeless classics" is also funny. It's simply not for us to decide.
And I have nothing against you, just your elitist/hipster thoughts that you decided to express in public for everyone to view and agree/disagree.
Your argument about timeless classics sucks. Following that logic, 600 years for Beethoven and other musical dudes is insignificant compared to the however many billion years this earth has existed for. I don't believe anything can really be considered a "timeless classic" in the literal sense anyway, but that's not relevant to this discussion.
I think a lot of people are confused as to what graphics actually are and think it means whether the game has a high polycount or not. Art style is a huge factor into whether a game's graphics look good or not. That's why I think SC2's graphics are terrible because everything's all glittery and shiny, you can't tell what's what, the colors are all muddled together, and none of the units look particularly good theyre all kind of generic. Whereas in BW everything is simple, clean, crisp, and clear, and the colors are nice and contrast well with each other so you can easily tell what's going on, and each unit has a distinct, unique design that looks great.
What also gets me about the SC2 brigade is when they use that argument that its all nostalgia when we talk about BW. How can it be nostalgia if we're still playing and watching BW today and enjoying it? lmao
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
A lot of those games have taken a sharp decrease in quality from their predecessors. For example, Bioshock is heavily simplified and lamer when compared to the System Shocks.
Modern Warfare? Really? You mean the interactive movie that's not really a game? Maybe this game rivals hollywood blockbusters because it actually is a hollywood blockbuster, not a videogame.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
Show me a game that can rivals movies like Terminator 2 and Aliens in terms of memorable action pack sequences and adrenaline rush , I dare say none ....
On December 28 2011 00:33 maartendq wrote: Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters
I would consider that a very bad thing for gaming as a whole. Even though video games has always been a business, now its a lucrative business so people who don't understand anything about gaming will get involved and drive developers into making shitty games for insane profits.
I started playing Starcraft in the first year it came out. I took a long hiatus(3 or 4 years), but I eventually returned to it, because it was just so much fun. I still love the original Diablo, Contra from the NES, Battletoads(yes, Battletoads), Neverwinter Nights, Jagged Alliance 1 and 2, Age of Empires 1 and 2, and many others I can't name. Gameplay back then was so simple, yet amazing.
Fun fact: I was 7 when Starcraft first released. I'm glad I was raised with such a great game. Kinda wish I had kept playing it, I wouldn't be D right now haha.
Personally, I was drawn to bw because I bought sc2 on release date. Back home, when my dad noticed me playing it, I was told that there was a game named "brood war". At first, I didn't care because I took a glance at the graphics and thought it would suck.
I played sc2 at a very low level and got into bw through Sayle and his livestreaming. I found it much easier when he talked about the game and understood more of it. I still only watched brood war, didn't play at all. More time passed and I stopped playing sc2, but continued watching tournaments and I still watched Sayle's stream everyday.
When Sayle began streaming his fp-view while playing, I decided to start playing. I loved the game, I went 4-30 in my first season on ICCUP, but I couldn't stop playing. I read liquipedia until I knew many of the articles by heart, especially the history about players and teams.
The point is, I am not attached to bw because of nostalgia. I'm almost younger than the game itself and started playing this year. There is still new people coming to the scene and as long as sc2 lives, people will continue hearing about bw because of the "2" at the end.
I'm so happy someone mentioned Eye of the Beholder. I was just looking for some old game from the childhood to play again, fits perfectly! So gonna play it again. :p Not to talk about Elvira!
When does something qualify as a timeless classic? I find it hard to just measure it in time, imo it's more of how well the product (movie, game, music whatever) can stand its ground against the evolution of that genre. Shawshank Redemption for example, 20 years old, I would definately call that one a timeless classic. BW, not so sure. Computer games have evolved with incredible speed compared to other stuff, but with a subjective view I can definately stand behind that opinion. And isn't it all about subjectivity when measuring stuff like this? Shakespeare isn't a classic to me, but to maaaaany others. Difficult subject. Who decides?
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
Show me a game that can rivals movies like Terminator 2 and Aliens in terms of memorable action pack sequences and adrenaline rush , I dare say none ....
Terminator 2 and Aliens... OMG my childhood nightmares...
I think its hard to argue the quality of the game increasing. Most games these days have such a linear design and there are rarely any cleaver moments. I saw the extreme of this in Final Fantasy 13. The difficulties are too consistent and when everything is either easy or hard, it's difficult to create a memorable/bragging right moments.
Sure the menu, graphics and physics are getting better. But can we really say that Modern Warfare games are as fun as when we played Doom 1 and Doom 2 for the first time? I will never get the thrill and scare I've experienced with the very first Rainbow 6 in any of the new shooters.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
Show me a game that can rivals movies like Terminator 2 and Aliens in terms of memorable action pack sequences and adrenaline rush , I dare say none ....
Personally, that would be Gears of War 2. There wasn't a single sequence that I did not find extremely memorable. It's still the best game of the series, in my opinion, and one of the hallmarks of the current console generation. That game is one of the few that really give me that "blockbuster"-feeling. Everything just fits: the polish, the scale of what's at stake, the characters, the atmosphere, etc.
I'm only talking about the Single Player Campaign here, by the way. I don't really care for Gears' multiplayer.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
On December 27 2011 23:17 FFGenerations wrote: ssoo excitde cnat spel klazzart rigght zomg1 :D
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
The thing is, there's a generation of gamers that are already sad that there's a generation of gamers that considers FF7 the first seminal work in the Final Fantasy series that people should be sad that others will not grow up with.
FFIV and FFVI shaped my childhood. FF7 was like my SC2.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
I've been playing video games since Doom I (I was six years old at that time) and to be honest, I've only seen an increase in quality, not a decrease. Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting). Games like Skyrim, BF3, Modern Warfare series (yes, I love those, all three of them), Gears of War, Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, Bioshock series etc.
Games like that were just impossible to make in the nineties. I still play Doom 1 and 2 from time to time, only for nostalgia's sake. They're fun, but not nearly as fun as
Show me a game that can rivals movies like Terminator 2 and Aliens in terms of memorable action pack sequences and adrenaline rush , I dare say none ....
Personally, that would be Gears of War 2. There wasn't a single sequence that I did not find extremely memorable. It's still the best game of the series, in my opinion, and one of the hallmarks of the current console generation. That game is one of the few that really give me that "blockbuster"-feeling. Everything just fits: the polish, the scale of what's at stake, the characters, the atmosphere, etc.
I'm only talking about the Single Player Campaign here, by the way. I don't really care for Gears' multiplayer.
Playing system shock 2 is enough to give you chills , there is no incentive for the game to keep you alive, everything in that game wants to KILL You , No follow the blue line and reach the objective like deadspace , Conspiracies ? yes the scientist that you thought you are helping is actually the one behind the whole disaster , Aliens ? Humanoids ? Off springs ? Abomination ? You name it ,it's like a party for all the evils in the world has been invited in to the game .
Personally system shock 2 is enough to kick any competitors off it's list just base on it's storyline and game play that's if you can put graphics aside .
Listen to this and tell me when you get such a nice email from AI greeting you in the lonely corridor full of monstrosity and tell me that you won't scream in fear .
We're seeing lots of Indie developers creating games with bad graphics succeed. I don't think anyone can say that VVVVVV had good graphics, but that game did OK. Wii and DS both did really well, yet have inferior hardware to XBox, PS3, PSP etc. Well well, looks like casuals enjoy having fun over shiny graphics
As mentioned in previous posts, games have always been about shiny graphics. If anything, I feel gamers are moving further away from state of the art graphics in favour of fun gameplay than they used to (though that could be price related. Why buy a $60 game with great graphics when I can buy 10 equally good games with bad graphics for that price?).
On the one hand yes, as Gaming becomes more casual they have to attract the casuals, you can see this in all kinds of games, Modern Warfare, Starcraft 2 up to a certain degree, League of Legends. However on the other hand there are many gems among the big games, bear in mind that there are many and by many I mean a fuckton of developers and among them indie games aswell. Amnesia was a great game, Skyrim despite its criticism was still a very good game, Dragon Age was really good. I personally like Assasins Creed(although many would disagree I suppose) and Bioshock aswell.
The good(imo) games are still there, even among the most overhyped games, you just have to know where to look. However what makes a good game is open to interpretation ofcourse.
Also protip: Batman Arkham Asylum/City is a GREAT game.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
No, we are not the last generation. We are just simply paving the way for more people to realize that graphics does not define the quality of games. If anything, more attention to graphics usually lead to worse gameplay and other aspects of the game.
The weird thing is, for me at least, I love the SC:BW graphics. It's so in contrast with reality and has a distinct artistic swing to it which makes it extremely enjoyable to watch. Almost like seeing comic books come to life. The problem with newer graphics for me is the same with modern CGI. They try to focus too much on making it seem realistic, when in the end it's still a game and everyone knows it's a game they are playing. You won't be magically sucked into the gaming world so why not use the imagination to create something utterly mindblowing? I'm not saying I don't like newer graphics, some of it is absolutely stunning, but so much more could be done.
I guess the newer generation graphics with the improved textures are perhaps less of a strain to the eye, but then looking at a computer screen doesn't really make that go away anyway.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
Bnet 2.0 took everything that made Bnet 1.0 great and threw it out the window. It is really ugly but it is practical and easy to use which should be the emphasis when making a interface for making multiplayer match making.
The main problem i have is they keep making the games shorter, in order to please the casual community. As much as i liked skyrim, it was a bunch of short stories put in 1 huge game which had no link to each other. But that whole series always had appeal to me due to the fact of community based mods.
Also there's a weird conflation of "complicated" with "fun" and "casual" with "unfun".
Complicated mechanics can be fun. They simply can. BW is obviously fun. Full flight sims are fun. A "high skill cap" is a gameplay mechanic that can be fun. But it's not inherently fun.
Simplified mechanics can be fun. They simply can. Games like Angry Birds and Bastion are fun. Making a game have fewer complicating gameplay mechanics is a way to focus the game on its core systems. It's a tool that game designers for making games great.
This also means that if either choice does not work towards the game, it can be the wrong choice. Games can be inappropriately complicated or have no depth. But think of many of the best indie games or even some mainstream titles that just break a genre down to a single core system and just master it (maybe something like Super Meat Boy).
Some people see BW and SC2 and put forth the obvious truism ("SC2 is the easier game"). The issue is that this "casual" argument is not an end to itself. It doesn't prove anything. It doesn't even mean anything. The real question is: Is SC2, or whatever other game, so simplified that it cannot be fun to play or cannot be enjoyable to watch?
Because if the answer is "well, no, it is fun to play in its own way and fun to watch in its own way," then we've stumbled onto the true issue. It's not that SC2 or whatever other "modern" game is objectively worse, it's that you subjectively prefer another game. Partially that's due to nostalgia. Partially that's due to your own personal preferences. Partially that's due to the people that play each of the games. Whatever the reasons, those are all totally valid.
Preferences between what we enjoy to play and enjoy to watch are all great. You have to understand though that the whole "they don't make games like they used to" argument is really just an old person shaking their first at kids and lamenting about their "damn rap music".
Every generation thinks their TV, cartoons, music, and games were better than the current generation. All generations think that the next generation is losing their morals and becoming godless. Each generation thinks that when they grew up was a more peaceful time.
It's just natural. It's an effect of our biases coloring our experience. Many of these games that many of us are saying are classics that will never be topped are games we grew up playing when we were very young. Our formative gaming years. The years we played games with our parents and friends and when games were still new and fresh and exciting.
We've grown up, we've gotten a fair bit more cynical and a fair bit more wise. We don't quite see the world through "OMG AWESOME" and "OMG DESPAIR" lenses, but instead we see the world as a gradient of grays. It's natural then that the things that make us happy make us slightly less happy than when we were kids, and the things that made us sad make us slightly less sad than we were kids. This is perspective that kids simply cannot understand.
That's not to say that having these preferences is wrong. I'll probably always consider the SNES to be the greatest gaming system in history, and I'll never stop trying to convince people that will listen that 2D (or maybe pseudo-3D with cel shading) RPGs can make a comeback if someone gave them a shot. Those are my gaming preferences. I'll always be more of a Goldeneye guy than a MW or Halo guy. But that's ok. I'm not going to hoist my personal experiences onto others and try to convince them that they're somehow objectively better than theirs. It's a religious argument, and it's fruitless.
I greatly prefer shared nostalgia and reminiscing instead of inter-generational dick measuring.
This belief that all games these days have no content and are all about the look is a load of rubbish. Just because COD from MW2 onwards didn't care about its customer or story or gameplay doesn't mean all games don't, or moreso that the customer doesn't.
Batman Arkham Asylum - ground breaking game, awesome story and it had the luxury of amazing graphics. It didn't put the graphics first it's just that better graphics are part and parcel of the evolution of games. Always have been.
Starcraft 1 was a niche game just as Starcraft 2 is. FPS still dominates the markets and because FPS ships in an awful condition, crysis 2, Cod series after 4 to name but a few, people have got into this belief that all games are designed with the flashy graphics over the content. This isn't true, this has never been true.
This post brings a certain incident to mind. I was buying this game from my usual dealer and as expected we were talking about games, he was an old school gamer, he was 30 years old....and he said "nowadays you kids like graphics more than anything else..back then it was all about the gameplay.". That was back in 1999.
I started playing SCBW in 2010ish. Yeah, I played the campaigns a couple years after the game first came out, but it was a vod of nony that motivated me to pick it up again and try to play against other people. So it's really not nostalgia, but a search for a challenge. I'm competitive in just about everything I do, so SCBW was the way to go. It was the most hardcore thing I could do.
I played SC2 for about 5 months after it came out, and I had to abandon it. The game, while it had better AI, had lag in the mouse control, so it was actually harder to control the units and draw boxes. The maps have imbalances that can lead to pure build order wins/losses. None of the units have any kind of "wow" factor, and any that used to got nerfed. If the team that patches SC2 had worked on SCBW, we wouldn't have siege tanks, reavers, or defilers. MBS took me out of the game, it just seemed like it played itself, which is no fun. Having to tell SCVs to mine and F2 to my macro is part of what makes the game fun. And winning a SCBW game is SO much more rewarding. Plus, no lan latency. That was some b*******.
The bnet1 interface is vastly superior to bnet2 in terms of function. It looks old, but that's fine. It doesn't require any processing power to render, which makes it fast and clean. Plus, it's full screen it easy to read with high contrast, as opposed to bnet2 which is all flashy windows and white text over a tiny light blue window. It just doesn't work as well.
Gameplay will always prevail. Graphics, franchises, buzz are temporary, but in the end every kid wants the pure fun of gameplay, not just eye candy. Keep in mind that our generation is not the oldest gaming generation, and we did pick up much older games, whenever they were fun. So yeah, old or new, the gameplay is gonna be the decisive factor. Always.
On December 28 2011 00:49 whatusername wrote:
Is your password 'whatpassword' ? Congrats for 1k posts.
On December 28 2011 01:40 Purind wrote: We're seeing lots of Indie developers creating games with bad graphics succeed.
Indie developers are creating games that rely more on aesthetics and art direction rather than just rendering everything as realistically as possible. Good Graphics doesn't mean that you have to have more texture, polygons, better lighting and water effects. Art direction and Aesthetics are what makes Good Graphics.
There is a hipster syndrome and nostalgia involved in anyone who's been into gaming for a while. However, it's not just that. Most of the new games are designed so that 8 year old kids can buy them and beat them and they will never persuade me to play them just because of graphics.
Before, players designed games for other players. Now, games are designed for the customer. I choose to be the player, not a retard sitting at a game that plays itself and drool over graphics.
On December 28 2011 01:40 Purind wrote: We're seeing lots of Indie developers creating games with bad graphics succeed.
Indie developers are creating games that rely more on aesthetics and art direction rather than just rendering everything as realistically as possible. Good Graphics doesn't mean that you have to have more texture, polygons, better lighting and water effects. Art direction and Aesthetics are what makes Good Graphics.
Can't forget about good sound. Most sound design on games now is very dry and uninspired. Everything kinda has the same basic sound now, whereas everything really popped from the speakers in SCBW. You know how FPS games abandoned color and went for gray EVERYTHING? Same happened to sound design.
I'd like to believe you, but if we take a look at metacritic, MW3 is sitting at a comfortable 88%... while Half Life 2 is at 96%, far greater, it still stands that the critics give free passes to hyped games, despite them perhaps not being the best.
I'd just like to remember that when you're looking Metacritic scores up, always take a good look at the user score. The CoD series is a good example of this. The user score of their recent games goes well under 5 (out of 10).
It's hard to be nostalgic about something that is good right now. I mean that in terms of graphics too. I am watching games every week that were played that day. It's not like I'm looking at a VHS from the 80s and judging it only against other things of its time...
Honestly, StarCraft has a certain style of graphics that are enjoyable. They're not popular now (and honestly a lot of the new styles don't look that good to me), but just like pixel art they aren't necessarily bad. If something is old it doesn't automatically mean I can't judge it against today's standards and still like it. Shakespearean plays are old, is everyone just nostalgic for them? Is it just nostalgia that we read Shakespeare in its original forms, instead of updating the language to be more modern (at least in serious literature classes)? No, because you lose a lot. The graphics of Brood War have a lot of big advantages over the graphics of modern games. It's much easier to see each individual unit, the colours are more vivid, each explosion and death looks as important as it is. In modern games I find the units are small and their death animations understated. I can't tell what's going on. There's a hail of fire and then I'm not sure what happened but one side didn't die maybe? Blue goon soup on the ground is very helpful in seeing just what was lost. A tiny splat of a tiny marine on 1080p or whatever monitor looks like nothing happened. Maybe a bug was squashed. Even Broodlings in BW have more impressive deaths. Actually, it's not just modern games that had the problem of the understated death animation. Pretty much the entire command and conquer series (well, the 1 or 2 old ones I played) had this problem. A tiny insignificant thing died and there was no way to care because it just kind of flopped over and most of the time you did not even notice.
I think there are legitimate arguments to be made about what makes good graphics, but higher resolution and more polygons or an entirely different style (as the case was between BW, WC3, and SC2) are not by themselves good arguments. Between BW and SC2, it's a matter of opinion and what you look for in graphics. To me, SC2 on low settings is butt ugly and can hardly even be called more than an alpha version of a game (and yet many pros play on this setting because it has inherent advantages), and the max settings, while reasonably executed, have the disadvantages I listed above and don't really look pretty to me anyway. BW on the other hand is quite visceral and colourful and I genuinely like it and would probably play games with those graphics even if they were released today. Honestly all the new sidescrollers like donkey kong and mario that came out of wii would have looked better with pixels, and the 3d backgrounds and stuff were just overwhelming and distracting from the action. That's not nostalgia, it's literally just kind of nauseating to play when the art team packs as much random shit in the background as they can instead of letting it be a background. Half the time it was hard to tell what was a part of the game and what was just extraneous uninteractive content. Nostalgic? No. In art we have a word for putting random shit in something just because you can. It's called "busy" looking. Trim and purposeful usually makes the best art.
On December 27 2011 22:44 QooQ wrote: I agree that gameplay > graphics, but a game with good graphics doesn't automatically mean it has shitty gameplay. I say just adapt to the times.
100% agree.
I'd love blizzard to remake BW and give us two options when playing it Hardcore (with BW AI) and Softcore (with SC 2 AI), but with the same graphics and units
I get nostalgia playing KOEI games for the SNES... and maybe quake 1(quakeworld)... I remember actually trying to explain to ppl when i was 13 that the mouse was far superior to arrow key aiming... It just wasn't included in games until then.
I am pretty sure I can hum the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms 3 still.... summers wasted renting that game when I could have bought it 100 times over.
Other than that... I just expect newer, faster, prettier, more efficient games... That's the way the world works... It bugs me that ppl get stuck in "time periods(pockets)" and never want to let go. Ya, it was nice, but let go... The world is changing and so should you
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
B.net 2.0: multiplayer --> search game, start playing against people of your level B.net 1.0: seach games, try to join, game already started/host left, refresh. Repeat ad nauseam until you finally get to play against someone of whom you had no idea how good he or she was.
If the interface was so amazing Blizzard would not have completely overhauled and redesigned it, don't you think? Unlike what some very vocal people may think, developers actually spend a lot of time researching and testing this stuff.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
B.net 2.0: multiplayer --> search game, start playing against people of your level B.net 1.0: seach games, try to join, game already started/host left, refresh. Repeat ad nauseam until you finally get to play against someone of whom you had no idea how good he or she was.
If the interface was so amazing Blizzard would not have completely overhauled and redesigned it, don't you think? Unlike what some very vocal people may think, developers actually spend a lot of time researching and testing this stuff.
I'm pretty sure I take less time to find a game at D level than I did when I used to play sc2, being able to make is a useful talent toi have.
The ladder system is fine ( even if the division system is shitty ) but everything else from custom to team games is absolutly atrocious. You can't create and name your game, the only maps played are on the top of the list ( and hence it is always the same lol ), took them 6 months to make chat channels and they are still way too small since the whole ui is cluttered with all the "achievements".
Your problem with SC:BW is the lack of a ladder sytem with match making which is completly different of the overall interface.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
B.net 2.0: multiplayer --> search game, start playing against people of your level B.net 1.0: seach games, try to join, game already started/host left, refresh. Repeat ad nauseam until you finally get to play against someone of whom you had no idea how good he or she was.
If the interface was so amazing Blizzard would not have completely overhauled and redesigned it, don't you think? Unlike what some very vocal people may think, developers actually spend a lot of time researching and testing this stuff.
If deep thought and research led to facebook integration, increased delay and lan removal; they might be better off doing less of that.
Unfortunately As a Kid I played WoW and before that Runescape... but now after being top masters on SC2 and been playing since beta, I actually wish I grew up on broodwar because I Love the game but not many people are interested in it anymore, the only broodwar i played Presc2 was the demo lol..
Actually I once felt the same way about half a decade ago when new games kept coming out with the latest graphics and people kept arguing about how a game sucks as the graphics engines of older games became outdated. One of these people includes one of my seniors who was definitely better than the average scrub in whichever game he took up.
However, think about how this effect works in a more global fashion - movies, models etc. Fame goes to the better looking or at least the more appealing and accessible. Bieber, Twilight can be named as extreme examples.
On topic of games, the contemporaries of SC and CS might have similarly looked down upon other games:
Console games which were the "future" and "past" of that time were revived by injecting huge amounts of money and what I think is artificial demand for machines that had to be sold separately from the jack-of-all-trades PC and revive the TV (hardware) industry.
Rogue-like games (I played ADOM and thoroughly enjoyed it) like Nethack may have been similarly viewed by the "cool" gamers of the time with titles such as Quake 1 and 2 and Dark Reign 1 & 2 and Red Alert/Tiberian series. These have ASCII characters as the player and the enemies and work on a DnD like mechanism (just fyi, I'm pretty sure most will know).
How about browser games? I was once asked by a puzzled cybercafe cashier as to why my friend and I were playing TR (a well-moderated and re-balanced version of the old Archmage) in said cybercafe (the unsaid being that all the games they had available were so visually pleasing and modern).
Then again, how about sports? Today's "gamers" are stereotyped to be the antithesis of sports, yet many train physically (like programers) and reap the benefits of a healthy body. Would you say soccer is an outdated sport? How about petanque, or horseriding? The latter certainly has become more of a niche culture. Has pop music taken over classical, or breakdancing over ballet? To a certain extent, that which is more readily popular and "hip" will supplant the old, but only as long as the fad lasts. When tested with time, the games and activities with quality, difficulty and room for expansion and expression will tend to have the last laugh.
That being said, I vaguely remember one game developer saying that great games should fulfil 4 criteria, the first 2 i remembered were 1) easy to learn and 2) hard to master. Perhaps the essential components of a great game, when boiled down, transcend the superficial graphics and build a history around the following that sees past such fickle and ever-improving aspects.
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
B.net 2.0: multiplayer --> search game, start playing against people of your level B.net 1.0: seach games, try to join, game already started/host left, refresh. Repeat ad nauseam until you finally get to play against someone of whom you had no idea how good he or she was.
If the interface was so amazing Blizzard would not have completely overhauled and redesigned it, don't you think? Unlike what some very vocal people may think, developers actually spend a lot of time researching and testing this stuff.
BNet "2" is one of the crappiest online interfaces I've ever seen. Horrible custom game interface, bad chat functionality, idiotic league system (completely intransparent for competitive players, yet still frustrating for casuals), no clan support, no online replays, and so on.
There are a bunch of games that predate SC2, which have arguably (in most cases unarguably) better interfaces: BW (it only lacks AMM), WC3, Armies of Exigo, Age of Mythology, AoE3, HoN. I'm sure there's couple more.
BNet 2 is a significant downgrade from BNet 1 in almost every regard...
To those hipsters that say today's games does not compare to the old ones, try:
1) Portal 1/2 2) Skyrim 3) Half-life 2 4) Braid ...and some others that I won't mention for those might be debatable. These four however, does not give an inch to the best of the best games of the history.
Do it if you are tired of the Modern Warfares and Halos, and truly want to play a modern masterpiece. Now if what you want is not a good gaming experience, but a crap covered in sweet, sweet nostalgia and nothing post-2000 will ever satisfy your unhealthy obcession for the old, then I suggest Frogs.
Games from our childhood are NOT better than those coming out nowadays. When you compare BroodWar/Ocarina of time/Final Fantasy 7/other masterpieces from the past to Call of Duty/Final Fantasy 13/other crap game what you are doing is comparing the yesteryear's best to today's worst. Not a fair comparison if you ask me.
I suspect that we'll see a reversion. Right now, graphics are increasingly good increasingly fast, so they are the most impressive thing to wow people with. But at some point, graphics will be practically – not indistinguishable, but "good enough" – and there will be stability where gameplay comes to the front again, at least until the next wave of innovation.
I came to BW pretty damn late(around 2010). I certainly don't play it out of nostalgia. I pretty much started during a time when SC2 was right around the corner. Graphics are always nice, but they're definitely no substitute for good gameplay. I personally like the cartoon-like nature of BW units in that they look nice and are easily distinguished.
I dont think that will ever see those awesome games again, just cause nowdays the market plays a bigger role in game desing, they make games for noobs, i mean BG first time i played i sucked so much, i had never played D&D before, i wasnt used to play games that requiere to quicksave after every fight, an average guy(yes you mainstream character) would quit the game right there just cause it may be too hard.
The only way to see these kind of games again is have a company or brand that says fuck the sales i'll make a real game, from what i've seen the only ones that do something like that are indie developers...
Im 14 and i play brood war. Though im the only one who plays older hard games (or even rts games) in my school there are younger people who does enjoy gameplay over graphics . Its sad though what you say is true kids theese days man they only play easy games. IMO they could atleast play quake instead if they shall play fps .
I've seen several post here that claim that they are better than the average gamer because they play older and so harder game. I'm not sure this is entirely true. Sure Call of Duty/Halo/PES/Fifa suck, but they're not the game of an entire generation. Warcraft 3 isn't easy and have an amazing interface. Skyrim is great. Portal 1/2 are great. GW is supa supa good!
Also sorry but BG is only hard if you don't know how to abuse the game, like every single rpg.
I have just started playing deux ex for the first time in my life. Its old. I didn´t hear about it until just recently. I know of no one that has ever played it. Its one of the most amazing games i have ever tried. Nostalgia is great, but has little or nothing to do with BW being an amazing game.
The current industry is all about graphics, ask all your IRL friends and they will tell you that MW3 is far far superior than quake because it's better looking and has nice guns and likewise arguments.
I still think there will be good games because there is much more money around the video games industry in general, just look at Dota 2, it looks promising.
Also, I love Klazart, he made me fall in love with competitve BW and become a sAviOr fan.
I still play both old and new games. There are good new games, and there are bad ones. The same for the old.
Personally, i don't care if the game is "hard", if it's beginner friendly or anything close to that. First and foremost, i care how much i enjoy it. What's needed for me to enjoy a game? It's the feel i get when i noticed during playing the game that the developers cared about the game, tried to make it the best they can. For instance i get that feeling every time i play Super Mario World for SNES. I like the world build, the secrets, the soundtrack, just everything seems right about it. When i play it, i feel captivated. And i get the same feeling when i play Super Mario 64, or Super Mario Galaxy. Regardless of the graphics, the gameplay progress etc., i like all 3 of them equally much, because i feel they all have the same amount of "heart" into them.
And for me, BW is one of them. Every time i hear the Zealot grunt when he attacks with his blade, it feels right. Whenever Goons are being fucking stupid idiots, it still feels right. The Bnet chat channels, Lan etc.
Starcraft 2 isn't. I don't get the feeling out of it that Blizzard cared to create the best game they could for the community or to create the best thing they possibly could. It doesn't have the magic. I still like i a lot, still play it occasionally and watch it. But what's keeping me involved with Sc2 is the community, not the game itself.
On December 28 2011 03:21 Boblion wrote: The ladder system is fine ( even if the division system is shitty ) but everything else from custom to team games is absolutly atrocious. You can't create and name your game, the only maps played are on the top of the list ( and hence it is always the same lol ), took them 6 months to make chat channels and they are still way too small since the whole ui is cluttered with all the "achievements".
Your problem with SC:BW is the lack of a ladder sytem with match making which is completly different of the overall interface.
Haha dw man, i have practically converted from SC2 to BW, love the game and think it is 10x better, even without the nostalgia that you all share! dont worry, this game will live on forever
Not sure if nostalgia has anything to do with it. When I was at my parent's house I found the old nintendo 64 and played ocarina of time for a while. THIS was nostalgia, but i kinda got bored of it after a while. I play broodwar cause it's fun and challenging, when new games come out i play them and enjoy them most of the time, but i get bored pretty fast, only bw makes me return.
About the "last generation" thing.. I'm not sure. Gaming legends will probably get played by hardcore fans of the genre in the futur, but i don't think it will last for long. Maybe with websites like TL.net that keeps developing thanks to new generation games, but still keep "old games" comunitys alive, gamers will come in for the new game, but discover and fell in love with the old. I don't want to say there will be a last generation. You can bet I'm making my kids play broodwar in the future, wether they like or not!
The elitism is poking out a little through the spot where your fly is unzipped.
People have passions for different types of games. Graphics get better every few years with people making the same tired argument about how "back in the day it was all about gameplay".
I'm sure the exact same argument has been made by WarCraft 2 players about Brood War. And before that by Commodore 64 gamers about SNES, and by Tetris fanatics about all these shoddy new puzzle games with their fancy graphics, and so on.
In the future, there will come a day when SC2's graphics suck and people will talk about how at least SC2 has decent gameplay while SC3 is just trash. Then we'll move on to holographic/3-dimensional displays and then people will talk about how it's so gimmicky and the days of 2d graphics were at least about the game play. Then we'll have virtual reality simulations, and so on, and so forth.
Enjoy the games for what they are, cherish your memories. But you or we aren't the first or last of anything.
Ahhh, such a soothing post, I'm happy not to be alone in this forsaken world of modern games. I was so into games at school back then... d1 d2 fallout1/2, sc all those wonderful deep and challenging worlds. Those were the times. Now only bw is left on my hdd, I also play New Vegas, occasionally, but more and more I catch myself thingking "what the heck am I doing in this game?" I don't know, maybe we are getting older and nostalgic, I just don't know, but last time I thoroughly enjoyed a game was like 2-3 years ago... What the hell happened to me? I'm just not that guy anymore. BW is the only thing I can still play and don't feel dumb. Heh, last generation eh?
On December 28 2011 08:04 Newbistic wrote: I'm sure the exact same argument has been made by WarCraft 2 players about Brood War. And before that by Commodore 64 gamers about SNES, and by Tetris fanatics about all these shoddy new puzzle games with their fancy graphics, and so on.
In the future, there will come a day when SC2's graphics suck and people will talk about how at least SC2 has decent gameplay while SC3 is just trash. Then we'll move on to holographic/3-dimensional displays and then people will talk about how it's so gimmicky and the days of 2d graphics were at least about the game play. Then we'll have virtual reality simulations, and so on, and so forth.
Enjoy the games for what they are, cherish your memories. But you or we aren't the first or last of anything.
While I partially agree that the graphics vs gameplay argument is a bit of a rehash of "Back in my day," I don't think I agree with anything else you write.
I don't think so because I came from Warcraft 2/ Age of Empire 2 to Brood War. And I only started Brood War in 2007. So it's not nostalgia for me because I'm still playing it and only joined recently. Furthermore, while I am nostalgic about Warcraft 2 (awesome atmosphere and music) I can't really get into it like Brood War because the gameplay is not nearly so good. Good gameplay is good gameplay and memories don't really come into play with that.
In addition, there is a genuine critique to be made of the pc gaming industry beyond "Back in my day." Shamus Young and several others interested in game development have pointed out that pc games particular have one dimensionally been pushing for more realistic graphics without making better use of the tools they already have (console games usually stick with the same system for a while and get better at using the tools they have- pc industry will create new tools every time the make a new game.) There's a lot of potential development that has atrophied because AAA games have not bothered to back anything but good graphics. For instance some thing like procedural generation
On December 28 2011 03:21 Boblion wrote: The ladder system is fine ( even if the division system is shitty ) but everything else from custom to team games is absolutly atrocious. You can't create and name your game, the only maps played are on the top of the list ( and hence it is always the same lol ), took them 6 months to make chat channels and they are still way too small since the whole ui is cluttered with all the "achievements".
Your problem with SC:BW is the lack of a ladder sytem with match making which is completly different of the overall interface.
On December 27 2011 23:17 FFGenerations wrote: ssoo excitde cnat spel klazzart rigght zomg1 :D
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
The thing is, there's a generation of gamers that are already sad that there's a generation of gamers that considers FF7 the first seminal work in the Final Fantasy series that people should be sad that others will not grow up with.
FFIV and FFVI shaped my childhood. FF7 was like my SC2.
The SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 and FF6, but never FF5. I've played through all FF games up to 12 and I never saw the greatness in FF4. I think it's a great game, but I don't think it's better than FF5. They are the two most similar games in the series, and the reason why the SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 while neglecting FF5 is because of nostalgia. FF6 is a awesome game though. That game really set the bar high, but I think FF7 lived up to that. I know FF7 had flaws, mainly the dumbed down battle mechanics, but in terms of storyline FF7 was just great. It has the most complex story of the series to this day, and Sephiroth is the most interesting villain by far, and it's not just about the visuals. Sephiroth had layers. He had a interesting background, and his actions are very much an expression to who he was. That's something that was very groundbreaking. Most villains up to that point were just generic bad guys. I can say the same thing about Cloud, the main character. He was such a complex character.
I'm sorry, but I will never take a person bashing on FF7 seriously.
Anyway. Personally, the reason why I'm clinging to BW is because no game can replace it right now. I envy the SC2 players for being able to play a game that hasn't been figured out yet, but that's not enough for me to switch. SC2 just has nothing that appeals to me.
The reason why is that this is what every single gaming community says about the one that follows it
I am a serious dinosaur in gaming years - I've been playing games online since Quake in '96, and the only games that truly preceded it at all were MUDs and War2 on Kali. Anyway, as you can imagine, I've bobbled through a lot of communities over the years, and you can follow the bouncing ball throughout the years quite clearly
The Quake guys talk shit about CS endlessly The CS guys talk shit about Halo endlessly The Halo guys don't really have much to bitch about yet, only COD, but eventually a new game will come out for them to whine about
There is always some truth to whatever the complaint is - spread is bad, controllers are bad - but none of these communities can ever get out of the box and reflect on things that have changed that are actually good.
As far as I'm concerned, Starcraft is the only RTS game of merit, so it's not surprising this consistently recurrent attitude would take so long to surface. I'm sure you'll all get used to it.
The people who are noobs now, will be saying the same things about Starcraft 3 a decade from now.
Is BW the better game? Overall, yeah, probably, but it's not all junk, and there are certain things in the game that I think are good additions. The best example I could give you would be Blink.
I don't see how it can be argued as anything OTHER than nostalgia. I mean, we grew up with these games, thus our values have been shaped by them and the times where we grew up/played them. The current generation has their own games, and are experiencing a different childhood than we were, so to push our games on them because we think they are 'better' due to xyz, is nothing more than nostalgia.
good graphics are the shit. If I started sc2 before BW I also would hate on BW and believe the nostalgia argument. Fortunately I played BW first so I can look past the graphical flaws and enjoy playing a game in which the micro actually takes skill.
Honestly though I don't blame people for not liking games that look ugly. Graphics are a huge part of the experience. It's just a shame Blizzard catered to such a noob audience with sc2 to the point where the game feels boring for people who are used to a challenge.
On December 27 2011 23:17 FFGenerations wrote: ssoo excitde cnat spel klazzart rigght zomg1 :D
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
The thing is, there's a generation of gamers that are already sad that there's a generation of gamers that considers FF7 the first seminal work in the Final Fantasy series that people should be sad that others will not grow up with.
FFIV and FFVI shaped my childhood. FF7 was like my SC2.
The SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 and FF6, but never FF5. I've played through all FF games up to 12 and I never saw the greatness in FF4. I think it's a great game, but I don't think it's better than FF5. They are the two most similar games in the series, and the reason why the SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 while neglecting FF5 is because of nostalgia. FF6 is a awesome game though. That game really set the bar high, but I think FF7 lived up to that. I know FF7 had flaws, mainly the dumbed down battle mechanics, but in terms of storyline FF7 was just great. It has the most complex story of the series to this day, and Sephiroth is the most interesting villain by far, and it's not just about the visuals. Sephiroth had layers. He had a interesting background, and his actions are very much an expression to who he was. That's something that was very groundbreaking. Most villains up to that point were just generic bad guys. I can say the same thing about Cloud, the main character. He was such a complex character.
I'm sorry, but I will never take a person bashing on FF7 seriously.
Anyway. Personally, the reason why I'm clinging to BW is because no game can replace it right now. I envy the SC2 players for being able to play a game that hasn't been figured out yet, but that's not enough for me to switch. SC2 just has nothing that appeals to me.
Usually people don't reminisce about FFV because it wasn't released in America in order. FFIV was FF2 and FFVI was FF3. Then it skipped to FF7. It's only been recently (relatively) that FFIII and FFV were actually released in America.
FF7 is a great game. But it's not the de facto best game in the series. It's widely considered to be that by people that didn't play Final Fantasy until FF7, which is why I drew some parallels to BW and SC2. FF6, I believe, is all-around the best Final Fantasy game. But I understand that involves a fair bit of my own opinion so I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that fact.
I'm just saying that a lot of the people that say FF7 is the best Final Fantasy say that because it was the first game they played in the series. All of that fits into what I said earlier in the thread, though...
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
Nowadays we get games that easily rival hollywood blockbusters, that allow you to connect and play with people all over the world in a relatively painless fashion (sorry but SC:BW's Battle.net interface is just disgusting).
SC:BW Battle.net interface is absolutly amazing, it is simple and efficient. This is one of the main reason of bw's success, you can find games in like 3s. You just lost all your credibility lol. I mean just take a look at bnet 2.0... haha
B.net 2.0: multiplayer --> search game, start playing against people of your level B.net 1.0: seach games, try to join, game already started/host left, refresh. Repeat ad nauseam until you finally get to play against someone of whom you had no idea how good he or she was.
If the interface was so amazing Blizzard would not have completely overhauled and redesigned it, don't you think? Unlike what some very vocal people may think, developers actually spend a lot of time researching and testing this stuff.
regardless if we are the last generation or not, I think it's less about nostalgia and because we see these great Koreans and are much more in awe at what they are able to do given the limits of the game. It is simply amazing!
Art directory and visual style have little to do with grapics engines. In that sence gaming sometimes devolved. Being new players on the gamingmarket and limmited grapical possibilities forced creativity in the past. It is not only gameplay that has become cookiecutter in most games. And it seems developers use generic templates for the base of storylines and characters how sad.
Don't worry. You are not the last generation. New people watch broodwar and id be damned if i had children that didnt mandatorily watch starcraft(kinda sarcasm)
Starcraft is a really really good rts. Its nice and economy oriented with cool spells and stuff and a rediculous skill cap.
Starcraft 2 is economy but also much more army engagement oriented..
Is one better than the other? To some, yes. To some, no. But people from sc2 hear how great bw was and how it is also statcraft and they watch. I dont think gameplay will die without old gamers dieing. Worstcase scenario: bw dies next century. So chill, read candide, and cultivate the bw you have
first and last generation at the same time, since a generation is ~30 years. But just because there are more casuals and mmos are general hardcore gamer magnets, or atleast have been, since the new free 2 pay (not a typo) system will make those people search different games again. Anyway those hardcore gamers will still be there, and they will find older gamers and they will tell them about the good games from the past, and they will probably get them and play them and so it continues. Another point is, nostalgia packs, old games with a new price, so i think as long as there is communication the good old games will never fade and if you played one you want the rest. ff8 was my first rpg, now i possess all parts before that. Anyway blizzard games played this month, warcraft 1, warcraft 2, bw and sc2. And warcraft 1 is by far the hardest in multiplayer, bw is piece of cake against it. So i find this bw, sc2 battles quiet funny. Especially the bw is harder then sc2 thing, my opinion is a bit different on that point, but explaining would take to long. But like people said its natural to defend your game. Just like quitters will often just have hate for their old game they played so long. I enjoy all game unimportant of age, if people only play old game they miss out on good new ones, if they only play new games they will miss on old ones. Though its hard to find good new ones, but to be honest in the past it was way harder to find good ones as they were thrown out like crazy.
Damn now this whole thread makes me want to play freespace 1 and 2 ...
Nostalgia only really kicks in when you enjoy a game you liked before and had fond memories of it. Starcraft is an exceptionally well designed game, not that it has ever been shitty or anything. As young kids we tend to find ourselves enjoying games more than critique certain parts about it. Its been a long time since I've really enjoyed playing a game that wows me as I age (aside from jumping right into the next gen consoles at the beginning).
Its a little hard to get into SC now than before, with different expectations and standards in today's age, as well as with how UI is much more streamlined (though the SC UI wasn't bad, just limiting which you had to click and select each building to make units or can only select up to 12 units at any given time). Every game has its run before its generation "dies out" because there's no new blood in it, that's how games are like. One of the only viable ways to introduce new blood into an old game is for a remake to happen, in prettier graphics as well as miscellaneous factors that meets modern expectations.
Given how limiting and mechanically challenging BW was however, one cannot expect to remake the game with all of the core principles intact and expect it succeeding in the modern gaming era.
Every time an SC2 person does something BW related, there are a ton of SC2 people going "Oh wow, I didn't know BW was so cool", and like one or two people starts getting into it. Foreign BW has the most potential for growth it's ever had, if the community starts shilling it.
At some point, you grow out of the "shiny = good" mentality, and you start looking at old games more fairly. Some are amazing. Some were amazing for their time. Some were overhyped (I've been replaying the SC1 campaign, and it's actually kind of bad).
Besides, there's a growing trend of minimalism in games, which is why there are so many indie games doing well despite having not great graphics (Cave Story, Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress, off the top of my head). Graphics are advancing less and less, so inventive gameplay is becoming more important (Braid).
I think one of the more interesting things about the communities is how badly SC2 fans want SC2 to be BW. Not to replace it in popularity, but to literally emulate it as much as possible. They have a lot more respect for BW than you might assume, given all the trolls.
On December 27 2011 22:44 QooQ wrote: I agree that gameplay > graphics, but a game with good graphics doesn't automatically mean it has shitty gameplay. I say just adapt to the times.
100% agree.
I'd love blizzard to remake BW and give us two options when playing it Hardcore (with BW AI) and Softcore (with SC 2 AI), but with the same graphics and units
There's a mod for SC2 that does that. It's kind of fun.
On December 27 2011 23:17 FFGenerations wrote: ssoo excitde cnat spel klazzart rigght zomg1 :D
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
The thing is, there's a generation of gamers that are already sad that there's a generation of gamers that considers FF7 the first seminal work in the Final Fantasy series that people should be sad that others will not grow up with.
FFIV and FFVI shaped my childhood. FF7 was like my SC2.
The SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 and FF6, but never FF5. I've played through all FF games up to 12 and I never saw the greatness in FF4. I think it's a great game, but I don't think it's better than FF5. They are the two most similar games in the series, and the reason why the SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 while neglecting FF5 is because of nostalgia. FF6 is a awesome game though. That game really set the bar high, but I think FF7 lived up to that. I know FF7 had flaws, mainly the dumbed down battle mechanics, but in terms of storyline FF7 was just great. It has the most complex story of the series to this day, and Sephiroth is the most interesting villain by far, and it's not just about the visuals. Sephiroth had layers. He had a interesting background, and his actions are very much an expression to who he was. That's something that was very groundbreaking. Most villains up to that point were just generic bad guys. I can say the same thing about Cloud, the main character. He was such a complex character.
I'm sorry, but I will never take a person bashing on FF7 seriously.
Anyway. Personally, the reason why I'm clinging to BW is because no game can replace it right now. I envy the SC2 players for being able to play a game that hasn't been figured out yet, but that's not enough for me to switch. SC2 just has nothing that appeals to me.
Usually people don't reminisce about FFV because it wasn't released in America in order. FFIV was FF2 and FFVI was FF3. Then it skipped to FF7. It's only been recently (relatively) that FFIII and FFV were actually released in America.
FF7 is a great game. But it's not the de facto best game in the series. It's widely considered to be that by people that didn't play Final Fantasy until FF7, which is why I drew some parallels to BW and SC2. FF6, I believe, is all-around the best Final Fantasy game. But I understand that involves a fair bit of my own opinion so I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that fact.
I'm just saying that a lot of the people that say FF7 is the best Final Fantasy say that because it was the first game they played in the series. All of that fits into what I said earlier in the thread, though...
FF7's story was totally awesome when you were fifteen, though. Didn't make any goddamn sense, but it was kewl.
The Materia system, however, remains one of my favorite RPG gameplay mechanics ever. I can play FF7 however I want by customizing to a theme. Make Cloud a white mage and Aeris a Warrior, for instance. FF Tactics was also really good at the customization (less so the new Final Fantasy Tactics games). FF games didn't get bad until X-2, though 8 was pretty meh.
I play BW because not because of graphics but because of the korean scene and how this game is appealing to me as an e-sport. It's the only RTS e-sport I recognize after the decline of WC3.
SC2, on the other-hand, didn't live up to me. It was over-hyped, balanced poorly/wrongly, and a subpar professional scene.
Nostalgia isn't even a factor because I play both old and new games alike and judge them of their appeal to me. Some, like me, doesn't like Baldur's Gate but I loved DA1 and SW:Kotor, I didn't like Diablo 1 but I loved Diablo 2 and eagerly waiting for Diablo 3(w/c I think will be bad, but thats another matter).
Nostalgia is an analogy used by hipsters against BW fans because they doesn't understand BW. I wouldn't be worried about us being the last generation because we won't What I do think is that SC2 won't have it's "last generation" when Blizzard treat the SC2 scene like what they did to BW when SC3 comes out.
i somehow see it as unlikely that this next generation will be all into the great classics, even the recent classics such as final fantasy. i feel like final fantasy isnt even popular anymore for kids
On December 27 2011 22:43 writer22816 wrote: We don't play games like BW, CS 1.6, Quake, Fallout 1/2, PST, Baldur's Gate etc because of nostalgia. We play them because they're GREAT games, superior to most if not all of the games on the market today.
Labeling these games as outdated makes about as much sense as labeling classical music outdated. For that reason I also do not think we are the last generation.
Another question that I have often pondered about is: when will we start seeing games of BW-quality again? Given the recent trend of virtually all modern games being easy to play, targeted towards the casual gamer etc one cannot help but wonder if we will ever see a masterpiece like BW again. This issue is of course linked with the future of eSports as a whole. Personally I feel that, as video games lose their negative social stigma, and as the idea of competitive gaming becomes more accepted, eventually we will start seeing far more truly great games again.
oh dude, dont remind me. F2 doesnt even work on my computer and F1 has graphical problems /sad
My theory is: the game design is always limited by the available technology, in the past game designers were forced to put much more effort in the story and playability. They just had to make game itself interesting and unique to be competitive. The number of means of attracting people's attention is much bigger now, amongst them there are graphic engines, designers of the past would only dream of. Most serious drawback of having new shiny, awesome graphic engine, is the temptation to abuse it. You are not designing the game anymore, just produce a movie. And we are visual animals, easily attracted by the pictures and always ready to substitute our imagination with other's. Isn't it just fun to watch 2000 overlords covering the map? Moreover, what the game designers reporting to their bosses are supossed to show? Can they claim "You have more fun playing that", "This is hard to master, you will spend thousands of hours before you start to understand that","Look how well balanced it is". Or will they rather go "This is how our new world will look like". I don't think anyone can afford to care about the story as it was before. Until all the creatures are drawn, all worlds designed, all landscapes painted. Then we may return to "scenario" part.
Why do you play computer games? Some will like to feed their heads with new ideas, some will prefer to master ideas on their own. The former will play tons of different games, while the latter will stick to only few and explore them. It is like you either practice different sport every day, or decide to stick to running for a life. How can you call that "nostalgic"? Will you tell a runner "Hey, try basketball, it has more rules, and besides, it is a ball game" and then you will tell him to switch to paragliding, because views are better? Well, he can of course try, but if he returns to running afterwards, there is no way to call him nostalgic. And the fact that history of sports is over 2000 years old and history of games only little over 30 does not change anything.
There were only few games I played for a longer period of time. They were always challenging OR I could challenge myself with that game. It never had anything to do with the graphics (When I first saw SC it looked just ugly to me) or even game complexity (I am in world's Top 30 in playing Windows Speed Solitaire). There is something that makes you return to certain games - and that is perhaps nostalgia. But if you play it constantly, it is not nostalgia, just your sport.
AND there was nothing funnier than the title of the thread however. I have an unique perspective on that: I will be 40 next year I lived every gaming revolution until now. I was "last" so many times, I don't care, so you shouldn't do either. Just enjoy your game, whatever it is.
On December 28 2011 13:14 JiYan wrote: i somehow see it as unlikely that this next generation will be all into the great classics, even the recent classics such as final fantasy. i feel like final fantasy isnt even popular anymore for kids
That's because the new Final Fantasy games suck.
Anyway, kids never like the old stuff. That's inherent to kids always. It's not until you're older that you can look past dated graphics and enter the "hipster" phase where you like old things.
On December 28 2011 13:14 JiYan wrote: i somehow see it as unlikely that this next generation will be all into the great classics, even the recent classics such as final fantasy. i feel like final fantasy isnt even popular anymore for kids
That's because the new Final Fantasy games suck.
Anyway, kids never like the old stuff. That's inherent to kids always. It's not until you're older that you can look past dated graphics and enter the "hipster" phase where you like old things.
Why are we all Bill O'Reilly in this thread?
I thought FFXIII got good reviews?
Anyways, I've always been partial to FF8 over FF7. FFX is nice too. Are they up to FFXIV now?
You know what makes me feel nostalgic? My Sega Genesis. I watched my grandparents play 1v1 Tetris on it when they lived here, and I spent so many hours trying to save the Pride Lands in this one Lion King game I had. I also have this other game where you play as Michael Jackson and dance to destroy your enemies with magic sparkles. Good times, good times.
i dont know how FF got into this but, FFX was fucking awful, i've played all them until then, i just could'nt get past that one ... ...Yes FFVIII was not that good but, it was better than FFX, in FFX u know whats gonna happen since the beggining. my top 3 FF: 1-FFVI 2-FF9 3-FF7
If the people will be still normal and not with heads full of sh**, they WILL be always able to value the quality of the game of Starcraft : Brood War. One side is the consumer society, which is bad and which makes people to be "consumers", to consume games in a oh-hey-there-s-a-new-game-i-must-play-it-asap way instead of truly mastering them, even if it shrinks the number of games that you play. But the other side is... you just must believe in people, because not all of them are just "cells" of consumer society, even children, whose brains are being washed with 100500 tons of shouting advertisements at each corner of space/time, they too can be still normal people who have normal ability to be interested/master something.
If you show a person how to play chess and he sees that it's an unique game, he will learn how to play and like it. Same with SC:BW. If you just show it to person of no matter what generation and he sees that it's unrepeatable too, he too will learn and like it. It's one of the most "sportive" games ever. And among RTS it's probably The most.
And people like competition, they like to overcome difficulties too, you know. They in the DEEP of their soul like this MORE than "cool graphic", okay if you tell them 100500 times "you must like graphics" they will "like" it, but competition is an INSTINCT. It's always deeper and more real. And the game which gives more chance to compete with enemies... and with yourself... is better.
So.
PEOPLE
Y U NO JUST PLAY THE GAME YOU LIKE AND TELL EVERYONE HOW GOOD IT IS instead of predicting its downfall?
sincerely yours, Quasar.
P.S.: SC:BW ~= chess + poker in real-time. As I always say. (TvT = maximum chess, ZvZ/PvP = maximum poker)
On December 28 2011 13:14 JiYan wrote: i somehow see it as unlikely that this next generation will be all into the great classics, even the recent classics such as final fantasy. i feel like final fantasy isnt even popular anymore for kids
That's because the new Final Fantasy games suck.
Anyway, kids never like the old stuff. That's inherent to kids always. It's not until you're older that you can look past dated graphics and enter the "hipster" phase where you like old things.
Why are we all Bill O'Reilly in this thread?
I thought FFXIII got good reviews?
FF13 was 25 hours of running in a literal straight line, and the combat literally had an auto-pilot option.
Anyways, I've always been partial to FF8 over FF7. FFX is nice too. Are they up to FFXIV now?
Yeah, but it's another MMO and apparently really bad? Like, they outsourced the game to China so you stop getting EXP if you play for more than two hours at a time and all the text in the Japanese version only used Chinese characters even when it was awkward-sounding and thus Chocobos were called Horsebirds, which is as silly in Japanese as it is in English. They might have fixed that by release, though.
In terms of RPGs, FF is a tarnished franchise. I've always been partial to Suikoden (Suikoden II = Best PS1 RPG), and the Persona series has gotten popular lately for good reason.
You know what makes me feel nostalgic? My Sega Genesis. I watched my grandparents play 1v1 Tetris on it when they lived here, and I spent so many hours trying to save the Pride Lands in this one Lion King game I had. I also have this other game where you play as Michael Jackson and dance to destroy your enemies with magic sparkles. Good times, good times.
I just bought Shining Force 2 on Steam. Game was the shit, yo.
On December 28 2011 15:42 _Quasar_ wrote: what the.... why these topics still appear.(
If the people will be still normal and not with heads full of sh**, they WILL be always able to value the quality of the game of Starcraft : Brood War. One side is the consumer society, which is bad and which makes people to be "consumers", to consume games in a oh-hey-there-s-a-new-game-i-must-play-it-asap way instead of truly mastering them, even if it shrinks the number of games that you play. But the other side is... you just must believe in people, because not all of them are just "cells" of consumer society, even children, whose brains are being washed with 100500 tons of shouting advertisements at each corner of space/time, they too can be still normal people who have normal ability to be interested/master something.
If you show a person how to play chess and he sees that it's an unique game, he will learn how to play and like it. Same with SC:BW. If you just show it to person of no matter what generation and he sees that it's unrepeatable too, he too will learn and like it. It's one of the most "sportive" games ever. And among RTS it's probably The most.
I think one big flaw in that analogy is that Chess fans don't refer to Checkers fans as shitheads.
On December 28 2011 15:16 babylon wrote: You know what makes me feel nostalgic? My Sega Genesis. I watched my grandparents play 1v1 Tetris on it when they lived here, and I spent so many hours trying to save the Pride Lands in this one Lion King game I had. I also have this other game where you play as Michael Jackson and dance to destroy your enemies with magic sparkles. Good times, good times.
Heck yes, mine (my brother's) is sitting in my closet completely ready to go with SSF2 in it and a few other carts beside it for when I feel like playing some Sonic or whatnot (good Sonic, not that garbage they've put out since Adventure).
It always saddens me to think (though I am lucky) that realistically, people born the year I was, 1992 (perhaps 1993 as well) are the last people to actually get to experience the magic that was the NES when it wasn't a completely obsolete machine (IE: you could still rent games for it or buy games from stores new). I totally remember playing it when I was 3 and it was AWESOME. I was horrible at Super Mario Bros. 3 but that didn't stop me from playing it every day. Same with Blades of Steel. I don't even like hockey but I love that game. I still have fun playing it to this day. There was something so simple yet so cool about the NES, and old games in general that just feels lost in modern day games.
Too many modern games make things too complicated but at the same time are too easy, they throw a new feature at you constantly but at no point do they actually make you struggle. Old games were simple in concept but could be really hard in execution. Think of Contra. In concept it was a simple side scrolling shooter but it was difficult in practice, not because it had bad controls or anything that is frequently blames nowadays, but because it was supposed to be hard (Partly due to some games being based of arcade games).
This idea even applies to modern shooters. Prior to November 5th, 2007 (hint hint), most shooters limited your available options when it came to weapons etc. and this made the game a lot more fun because it was skill based, not time based (Time based meaning if you sink more time in you get an upper hand from unlocks instead of actually getting good at the game). Honestly, since CoD4 came out and introduced all that perk stuff, I haven't enjoyed a multiplayer shooter. None of them can compare to games like MOH:AA or BF1942, where players won by being good, not by having an upgrade that made it so they dropped a grenade each time they died or upgrades that made their weapons do more damage than everyone else's, simply because they spent more time playing.
I guess this is why I, and many others here I'm sure, like Starcraft and why I used to be a SF4 player. There are no advantages, you either win or lose based on your own skill.
I prefer SC2 to Broodwar but anyone who says "lol you only like x game more than it's sequel because of nostalgia" is a complete idiot. It really surprises me how many of these people I see on various gaming sites. There are legitimate reasons to like BW more than SC2 or most old games over their sequels.
On December 28 2011 16:26 Ribbon wrote: I think one big flaw in that analogy is that Chess fans don't refer to Checkers fans as shitheads.
no one in their sane mind says Checkers is deeper as a game than chess. So, rightfully, they aren't Maybe someone likes checkers more, no problem, but anyways chess is more difficult and therefore more challenging.
And more, i don't refer to anyone as a shithead. I think people's head are full of shit if they value only graphics and exterior arrangement, not the game itself. Only in that sense I was talking about people's heads in that sentence. And also, if one normal person can't value the quality of broodwar, there s no problem, but if MASS of people all think BW is bad (and new games with cool graphics are good even if they aren't that complicated and polished as BW) then there's something wrong with their heads.
Also if people just dont give a f... about BW it's NORMAL. Not normal is when they put it lower than it deserves simply due to the face that there are "newer" and "cooler graphically" games. But not giving a f... is a dealable matter. You can just tell someone how good this game is and in some cases he will listen to you. ^_^ Of course if he gives a f.... about video games in general.
Most of my favourite games of all time are old school classics. BW, Mario Bros, Mario Kart, Unreal Tournament, Diablo 1&2, FF4&6, Chrono Trigger, Baldur's Gate series....etc. They all have a special place in my heart. Now that doesn't mean I don't enjoy or even love the newer generation of video games or that they're necessarily worse. However, they just don't leave the same impression and lasting shine in my memory and heart. I guess that's something natural though since I was much more impressionable during my formative years. I'm sure a lot of the young kids growing up now will forever treasure their time with SC2, MW, DA:O....etc and that's just how it is.
Still, I sincerely hope that more and more young gamers discover some of the old classics and experience them as I had. Changing times doesn't mean history should be forgotten especially when it's so bloody good.
edit: Oh and to answer the question: no. We may be a dying breed in the shifting sands of time, but as long as there are those willing to try out the past, and those who are willing to tell them about it, it'll forever live on.
I believe fun game-play mechanics and innovation takes a back seat to accessibility these days, Not by accident either. Game developers know what made their classics great but if they simply remade them with better graphics they'd get panned as being boring so they have to do something new which we may not like. Problem is games cost tens of millions to make these days instead of two dudes making Doom in their apt so they make accessibility their first choice to widen the audience and money. Sometimes this destroys why some of us liked the game in the first place but that's okay sometimes too if they can gain two fans and lose you they made the right choice. Consolization is about the most glaring example of this widening the scope. And we all know BW fans complaints about SC2.
Also, Great games are an accident really. Out of thousands a year only a few will get that classic title like PST/BG/BW/Quake/HL/ etc. And there will be more we just don't know of them yet, have patience.
I agree I dont play BW because of nostalgia. Most of it is due to the fact that BW is more awesome than other games, even know. But having said this, yes, i fear we are the last generation of our kind
On December 28 2011 04:15 nokz88 wrote: To those hipsters that say today's games does not compare to the old ones, try:
1) Portal 1/2 2) Skyrim 3) Half-life 2 4) Braid ...and some others that I won't mention for those might be debatable. These four however, does not give an inch to the best of the best games of the history.
Do it if you are tired of the Modern Warfares and Halos, and truly want to play a modern masterpiece. Now if what you want is not a good gaming experience, but a crap covered in sweet, sweet nostalgia and nothing post-2000 will ever satisfy your unhealthy obcession for the old, then I suggest Frogs.
Games from our childhood are NOT better than those coming out nowadays. When you compare BroodWar/Ocarina of time/Final Fantasy 7/other masterpieces from the past to Call of Duty/Final Fantasy 13/other crap game what you are doing is comparing the yesteryear's best to today's worst. Not a fair comparison if you ask me.
wtf "old games do not compare"... No one said that. What was stated is that new games aren't better JUST because they are new and have modern overlay and graphics. If they are better as a GAME they are better (or not worse). Wtf arguments, I don't just get that kind of them...
Playing BW wasnt because of nostalgia. Heck I got into the game in 2010 when I heard about SC2. This is the same for many people around here. It annoys me to see some random 초보 going "owh they love/play it coz of nostalgia" or "nostalgia goggles"...
I played baldur's gate 2 for the first time this year. It is one of the greatest games I have ever played.
Granted, I am a true gamer at heart: I still own authentic working NES and SNES with all of the old classics. I just feel that truly great games stand the test of time. Games like Super Metroid, Baldurs Gate 2, and Brood War will always be amazing to me.
But that's not to say there are no new amazing games made these days. You just have to know where to find them. Marketing dollars are thrown at you and tell you to love games like MW3, BF3, UC3 etc. But there are sleeper hits, the ones that true gamers tell you about, the ones that you will want to play 5 years from now when by comparison MW3 will look like out-dated trash. Games like Amnesia, Batman Arkham City, Dark Souls and Witcher 2 will be classics, I assure you. MW3 will be buried in the dust.
What amazes me is that games like bg2 came with 4 cds worth of data. What was all that? 2gb of painted backgrounds? The amount of work, and its quality, are truly impressive compared to how little they charged the game.
Now there are indie developers that have the ideas but not the resources. Our "generation" is not dwindling, in fact I. Think our numbers are larger in absolute terms, but we are too few compared to the much larger "casual" audience which has become mainstream.
yea it's been gone over in this thread, but one thing old games have over new ones is stability. since they are simpler, they are just overall less buggy then the newer games. plus the newer games just cater to the casuals way too much. there arent any hard i wanna kill myself playing it games.
Same with me, I have played this game on and off since it first came out but only just started taking it seriously in 2009. The reason I am now totally it to SC BW is a few reasons, by the way may not be everyones idea which is fine, and I will remind you is in no order.
A- The Brood War Scene (Generally good manner and fun people to meet I have met some really cool friends on iCcup and at Pro-league games. Also the fact that there is an amazing Pro-scene that has respectable players unlike many other games where sponsors are scarce and the fans are most likely going to move on to a different game very easily and very soon.
B- Game Balance (The game has superb balance in terms of its mechanics and is taught at many game schools for it genious. The amount of graphics doesn't blanket its gameplay and there are nice counters and builds which make the game so interesting.
C- Availability (The game is playable on pretty much any computer and is on pretty much any Pc Cafe in Asia.
There are more reasons but I think this is a strong argument anyways. For these reason may Brood War live on!
I think it's kinda stupid to say starcraft II is a dumber and easier game just because it has auto-mining etc..
Was war3 a worse game then SC2? for many i bet it wasn't but people still changed, even the top pros. Why would they change when they had to learn a new game? Just for the money? I bet people wanted a new challenge, a new game with much more people.
People are nostalgic, i get that, and BW really is a good game. But people also like new challenges and new "adventures". Playing a game video game for 10 years it's not like playing football(soccer for that weird part of the world) or playing basketball. It's a video game, you can play at home, you don't need anyone. It's just you and the machine so why play always the same game? Do you always see the same movie? Do you always eat the same food? Do you always sleep with the same girl(eventually you will.. but it's because she won't let you sleep with others ?
So yeah BW is and always was a great game, was the most successfull e-sport ever! But it wasn't for us foreigners. Actually war3 was more important to e-sports outside of SK then BW was, atleast in europe.
When i played CS in a somewhat "pro" level i eventually got tired of playing the same maps over and over again and faded. I can't imagine playing the same maps allday long for more then 10 years.. It's kinda miracle how it's still strong.
CS and BW really are the best games ever in the genre, that's why they made it this far but atleast for BW i feel there is a good game to follow, maybe it's not so hard like BW is but it's harder in other aspects. CS for instance still is the reference in FPS and that won't change until there is a valid rival.
My point is that the BW people should be happy the game hold on for this long, if it wasn't for SKorea where it really was important it would have faded long ago. Keep following your leagues and stop shiting on SC2 and people that enjoy a foreign competitive scene.
I don't know if you noticed this but SKorean leagues don't care about you. You can't watch it live from them, you don't have any comentary. I could have been a fan but i'm stuck with GSL becase they care if i watched them.
Think about it.. does BW and Kespa care about foreign fans?
On December 27 2011 23:17 FFGenerations wrote: ssoo excitde cnat spel klazzart rigght zomg1 :D
it is sad to know that kids arent growing up with ff7 anymore ;( i guess when WE become parents itll be up to us to introduce our kids to it and spawn a new generation. same with cartoons (if disney can do it..!)
The thing is, there's a generation of gamers that are already sad that there's a generation of gamers that considers FF7 the first seminal work in the Final Fantasy series that people should be sad that others will not grow up with.
FFIV and FFVI shaped my childhood. FF7 was like my SC2.
The SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 and FF6, but never FF5. I've played through all FF games up to 12 and I never saw the greatness in FF4. I think it's a great game, but I don't think it's better than FF5. They are the two most similar games in the series, and the reason why the SNES generation keeps mentioning FF4 while neglecting FF5 is because of nostalgia. FF6 is a awesome game though. That game really set the bar high, but I think FF7 lived up to that. I know FF7 had flaws, mainly the dumbed down battle mechanics, but in terms of storyline FF7 was just great. It has the most complex story of the series to this day, and Sephiroth is the most interesting villain by far, and it's not just about the visuals. Sephiroth had layers. He had a interesting background, and his actions are very much an expression to who he was. That's something that was very groundbreaking. Most villains up to that point were just generic bad guys. I can say the same thing about Cloud, the main character. He was such a complex character.
I'm sorry, but I will never take a person bashing on FF7 seriously.
Anyway. Personally, the reason why I'm clinging to BW is because no game can replace it right now. I envy the SC2 players for being able to play a game that hasn't been figured out yet, but that's not enough for me to switch. SC2 just has nothing that appeals to me.
Usually people don't reminisce about FFV because it wasn't released in America in order. FFIV was FF2 and FFVI was FF3. Then it skipped to FF7. It's only been recently (relatively) that FFIII and FFV were actually released in America.
FF7 is a great game. But it's not the de facto best game in the series. It's widely considered to be that by people that didn't play Final Fantasy until FF7, which is why I drew some parallels to BW and SC2. FF6, I believe, is all-around the best Final Fantasy game. But I understand that involves a fair bit of my own opinion so I'm not going to try to convince anyone of that fact.
I'm just saying that a lot of the people that say FF7 is the best Final Fantasy say that because it was the first game they played in the series. All of that fits into what I said earlier in the thread, though...
I don't disagree with FF6 being possibly the best in the series. FF6, 7 and 9 are my personal favorites, but I can't say which one is my favorite.
On December 29 2011 00:55 shell wrote: ... Think about it.. does BW and Kespa care about foreign fans?
You can see almost every white guy or girl, present at SK BW event, zoomed on camera. This tells something. Koreans are proud that there are foreign people that care about proscene too.
I know there are definitely some games I no longer feel like playing through anymore because of how aged they are. That is, regardless of how many hundreds of my childhood hours I spent enjoying every second of them along the way. That said, there are still about an equal amount I still relive once in a while because they're simply great in their own way. I'm a graphics whore at heart, but that still doesn't mean everything.
Think about it.. does BW and Kespa care about foreign fans?
Personally, I think KeSPA would have cared more about foreigner fans if actual foreigners played. But in truth, all foreigners were not good enough to challenge Koreans in BW so the scene outside SK died. Look at SC2 for example. Plenty of Non-Koreans are doing well enough so GOM thought that it was worth investing in Foreign scene. If SC2 had no foreign players just like BW, then I can pretty much guarantee it would have been same as BW scene
Here is my take on what is being discussed throughoutly the thread posts:
1) FF6 is the best Final Fantasy of them all. 2) SC2 is an aberration, a RTS horribly designed but even so its 3rd best RTS available for us. 3) Is SC2 really easier than BW? Personally I find that SC2 is way easier in every single aspect, but thats just my experience. 4) Is SC2 less fun than BW? Yes, I find BW much more fun than SC2. 5) I play BW because of nostalgia? No, only those who don't play BW would possibly think that the people playing BW are there just because of nostalgia. Those people are silly to not say worse.
And yes, I've played a lot of games of SC2, and its a huge dissapointment. There are 2 more expansions coming out, but from what we have seen, it is not going to get any better.
Thats my opinion, if you don't agree thats because you are yourself and I am myself.
This is not nostalgia. This game is just better. l am really infuriated by all who says its only nostalgia. NO! You guys dont know a shit! This is one of those exceptions when i'm pretty sure a game is just more fun.
BW Music > SC2 music BW Multi > SC2 multi BW single < SC2 single BW joy of watching >>>>>> SC2 joy of sleeping BW > SC2
On December 29 2011 03:52 fabiano wrote: Here is my take on what is being discussed throughoutly the thread posts:
1) FF6 is the best Final Fantasy of them all. 2) SC2 is an aberration, a RTS horribly designed but even so its 3rd best RTS available for us. 3) Is SC2 really easier than BW? Personally I find that SC2 is way easier in every single aspect, but thats just my experience. 4) Is SC2 less fun than BW? Yes, I find BW much more fun than SC2. 5) I play BW because of nostalgia? No, only those who don't play BW would possibly think that the people playing BW are there just because of nostalgia. Those people are silly to not say worse.
And yes, I've played a lot of games of SC2, and its a huge dissapointment. There are 2 more expansions coming out, but from what we have seen, it is not going to get any better.
Thats my opinion, if you don't agree thats because you are yourself and I am myself.
Are you seriously implying War3 > Star2?
Star1 and Star2 are moving in different directions. BW is about doing hard things well, and SC2 is slowly moving in the direction of doing as many easy things at once as possible. And then, once it becomes clear to all SC2 has no chance of being BW mark 2 (which a lot of SC2 fans actually want), maybe the animosity between the two communities will lessen. Still, a direct comparison between the two doesn't look good for SC2.
BW good micro
SC2 Good Micro
BW Good Storms
SC2 good storms
(Though, in fairness, he also derped away the prism by flying it over marines, so it's not that great)
BW player disrespecting his opponent
SC2 player disrespecting his opponent
BW Fuck up:
SC2 Fuck up:
Yeah :|
Still, both games have their appeals. I play both, and I think that'll be more common as more SC2 players become BW-curious. Provided the BW community can be cool about it.
Think about it.. does BW and Kespa care about foreign fans?
So you want KOREAN organisation 2 care about foreign fans? while the foreign fans are like so small that there is no reason for them 2 care? and yet they let us restream and everything.
and GOM TV cares about foreigners because koreans dont care enough about GOM TV.
Actually, thats a lie. I started on the original empire game, however I failed to actually find any pictures of the game play. It was done in glorious 8 colors. Not 8bit you spoiled nintendo players, it literally only had 8 colors to display.
When Dune2/C&C/WC/WC2/SC1 came out in that order, you know what first grabbed everyone's attention at each release?
The graphics, the new improved capabilities of delivering a new war game experience with better graphics than the last. Sure back then we all played the genre because we liked the idea behind it and the mechanics but we were absolutely floored by the eye candy back then too. (I giggle when the sc1 crowd brags about how it 'discovered' things like apm and sophisticated economy management).
Hell, i remember people telling me how the cinematic was SC1 were so well done that they looked better than movies and so 'incredibly close' to real life. LOL
In the end I find all this hate on games being eye candy oriented to be a little hypocritical.
I think the popularity of minecraft is evidence that kids these days don't just care about graphics.
I've also encountered many younger people who've played some classic games that I haven't and speak of their greatness. There are just people who have an appreciation for good things (good taste) and people like Donald Trump who want everything to be gold plated or solid gold (tacky and bad taste despite being shiny and expensive).
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention we all have the right to choose as consumers and even those consumers with bad taste need things to consume.
On December 29 2011 06:55 dUTtrOACh wrote: I think the popularity of minecraft is evidence that kids these days don't just care about graphics.
I've also encountered many younger people who've played some classic games that I haven't and speak of their greatness. There are just people who have an appreciation for good things (good taste) and people like Donald Trump who want everything to be gold plated or solid gold (tacky and bad taste despite being shiny and expensive).
EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to mention we all have the right to choose as consumers and even those consumers with bad taste need things to consume.
I'd also point out that the first thing anyone ever does on minecraft after playing it for any amount of time is to get a texture pack to cover up how ugly that game can look.
I don't get what people hating games cos they're "easier" are on about.
I don't play BW myself, but I played quake 1/2/3, qwctf/TF, TF2 all competitively. I don't think one game is "better" than the other. I think one is more fun than the other, but that's my opinion. Saying BW is better is just as incorrect as an SC2 fan saying SC2 is better. They are different games, it's all up to your own personal opinion.
I didn't like TF2 at first because of the insanely low learning curve compared to all the other games I had played since. But does that mean the top level players/clans are not skilled? No. Soon after I learned there is a different kind of skill in TF2 - teamwork. It relies very heavily on teamwork compared to the previous team fortress. This brings a new dimension of excitement, playing with your clan on skype/vent/whatever against a similar skilled clan, pulling off a really nicely planned out strategy with good teamwork is just as rewarding as splitting your marines perfectly against banelings or whatever.
The problem with games that have a huge learning curve is that people are afraid to get into it. They see people play and think it will be too hard to play. That's why you rarely see FPS games with bunnyhopping/strafejumping etc anymore, because it's hard to learn for the casual gamer. Game developers earn just as much revenue (if not more) from the casual gamer than the hardcore gamer, because there are more of them. That's also why you see all those facebook/iOS games. I wouldn't be surprised if Popcap have made more profit off Plants vs Zombies than Blizzard have made off SC2.
If you were a game developer and created two identical games; one with some technical aspect such as bunnyhopping and one without then did a survey on x people (combination between hardcore gamers and casual gamers from different games) and turned out the non-bunny hopping game was more favored, would you release the one with bunnyhopping just because you liked it more? No. Game developers have to make a living, and whether you accept it or not it will be a more popular game.
I don't play BW so there's probably not much depth/validity to this argument, but yes it's harder to do the simple tasks like keep up production and control your army in BW, but why does that make it a better game? One could argue that you should have been able to hotkey buildings, and should have been able to hotkey more than 12 units, which would have made it a better game.
tl;dr it's about opinion. You think BW is better, others think other games are better. Game developers have to appeal to the majority, which unfortunately is the less-technical games. That's all there is to it.
We've all been a part of games that have died, or are dying. It's sad indeed, and we will do anything to tell others that the game is better than other games, but we all have to move on sooner or later.
Actually, thats a lie. I started on the original empire game, however I failed to actually find any pictures of the game play. It was done in glorious 8 colors. Not 8bit you spoiled nintendo players, it literally only had 8 colors to display.
When Dune2/C&C/WC/WC2/SC1 came out in that order, you know what first grabbed everyone's attention at each release?
The graphics, the new improved capabilities of delivering a new war game experience with better graphics than the last. Sure back then we all played the genre because we liked the idea behind it and the mechanics but we were absolutely floored by the eye candy back then too. (I giggle when the sc1 crowd brags about how it 'discovered' things like apm and sophisticated economy management).
Hell, i remember people telling me how the cinematic was SC1 were so well done that they looked better than movies and so 'incredibly close' to real life. LOL
In the end I find all this hate on games being eye candy oriented to be a little hypocritical.
When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
No, you're not the last generation that appreciates substance over shinys. There has never been such a generation in gamings history. Big blockbusters always have been state of the art; sc1 was no exception. And the games that gather cult followings through the years have always been games with substance.
There are also a lot of good games still being released. From the hardcore demon souls, to the story & atmosphere driven batman arkham games to the offbeat idea of minecraft.
Plenty of quality is released if you know where to look, but popularity has never been a good indicator of the quality of entertainment. After all, the average IQ is only 100; so don't expect the masses to be wise. Even if they're nerds.
On December 28 2011 13:14 JiYan wrote: i somehow see it as unlikely that this next generation will be all into the great classics, even the recent classics such as final fantasy. i feel like final fantasy isnt even popular anymore for kids
Really? We're in the golden age of remakes and ports. Companies have figured out that they can make big bucks releasing games they've already made a decade ago. Take a look at how many Chrono Trigger ports there are. Remakes/ports of SNES/NES Final Fantasies and Dragon Quests. Look up and down the lineup of popular DS titles. Look at the Virtual Console lineup on the Wii. I've even been seeing huge Sega Genesis bundles on Steam.
Kids these days may even be likelier to play the classics than before. Instead of going to a store and paying $80 for a SNES game that they didn't even know was good (they're only interested in it because Nintendo Power gave it good reviews!), they can go on the internet and buy one for a few bucks. Everyone has such easy access to a lot of classic games. I wouldn't be surprised if the original Mario Bros was played more often today than during the PSX days. In fact, I'd be shocked if that wasn't the case
Yeah, but Hyuk was famous for it, which is why I really liked him. And then he all-killed STX, and it was all the more awesome because Cholera was flipping out. Hyuk is my favorite BW player because he has a story besides just "He wins a lot by playing as boringly and as safely as possible" like Flash does. Flash wins so much I don't care any more. He's the Triple H of Brood War.
On December 29 2011 06:55 dUTtrOACh wrote: I think the popularity of minecraft is evidence that kids these days don't just care about graphics. .
Also note all the games with sick graphics that DIDN'T do amazingly, like Crysis.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
I'm going to glaze over the "They move just like REAL Zerglings!" comment and focus on that last sentence.
The biggest difference between BW and SC2, the one that makes all the others meaningless, if that Jeadong's 11 Mutas can be infinitely more powerful than my 11 mutas. SC2 units can indeed be microed (particularly the fast ones like Mutas, Marines, Hellions. Less so Thors, BCs, and Colossi except for Hero), but it's kind of binary. You either micro properly, or you mess up.
If two equal armies meet in SC1, the winner will be the one who microed better. In SC2, the loser will be the one who fucked up first. You don't see an SC2 player do everything right and lose because his opponent did everything right but better. Some of this can be alleviated with maps (Cloud Kingdom is explicitly designed to make 1A fail), some of it can't. Some of the expansion stuff will help with this (The oracle is the best designed unit in SC2 by far), some of it won't (The tempest is just stupid).
BW is a game of executing things better than your opponent. SC2 is becoming a game of giving your opponent has much to do as possible and getting him to screw up. I think, as SC2 continues to evolve, this aspect will be more and more prominent and the game will look less and less like a poor man's BW, and just kind of be some other game that BW fans still aren't going to like. And I think that'll actually be good for BW, because a lot of SC2 fans, the new ones, think that SC2 will look just like BW as the skill level increases (which, in fairness, is the current trend), and once they realize that it won't, will start looking as BW as another game worthy of interest on it's own merits.
On December 29 2011 06:24 Newbistic wrote: Using youtube videos to misrepresent skewed opinions doesn't help your argument -_-
WC3, BW, SC2 are all good games, the pros at the highest level are all very skilled.
Man, just tune him out whenever he talks about War3. He's a War3 hater. What's terrible is that he hates the game without really understanding it at all and always tries to spew out some ignorant bullshit about it whenever people mention it on these boards.
Of course, it's fine to dislike the game -- I know plenty of people who don't like War3 because it's not their cup of tea -- but it's sad to see someone dislike the game when he clearly knows jackshit about it. It's like whenever you see someone say, "PvP in SC2 is War3 fast-forwarded!" You just end up wanting to facepalm.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
i like the old 2d graphics of brood war/d2/all the early DnD games etc. more than the early 3d graphics. newer stuff like Witcher 2 looks fantastic, but i hated the ugly, jagged ass graphics of warcraft 3 and the like
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
Funny... you say that on a foreign starcraft site.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
Funny... you say that on a foreign starcraft site.
what do you mean? I have no idea what you are talking about.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
How is that elitist at all? New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage and they can't see past the dated textures. How you can deny that is beyond me. If you gave a kid who grew up playing halo a gameboy color, he'd probably toss it in the trash. The only people who appreciate old games for their quality are older gamers 90% of the time (obviously).
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
Funny... you say that on a foreign starcraft site.
what do you mean? I have no idea what you are talking about.
I think he's trying to say by making the statement "good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans." on a website dedicated to getting foreigns into starcraft is ironic.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
How is that elitist at all? New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage and they can't see past the dated textures. How you can deny that is beyond me. If you gave a kid who grew up playing halo a gameboy color, he'd probably toss it in the trash. The only people who appreciate old games for their quality are older gamers 90% of the time (obviously).
I grew up playing pokemon on game boy colour and playing halo in college . I can say this is not true....
I think the whole "you play BW because of nostalgia" thing is wrong. Nostalgia describes a yearning for the past and yet here we are playing/watching the game along with thousands of others in the present. In short, nope its not nostalgia, its fun.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
I watched a 2009 game of Jaedong vs Fantasy on youtube this morning. If it weren't for the fact that I've pretty much watched all the gomTV classic games a year or two ago, I wouldn't have known what was going on since the game was cast in Korean. Tasteless is pretty much the main reason why I got into starcraft (and to an extent still is the main reason why I still watch tournaments like MLG and Dreamhack).
The game itself was awesome and beyond anything you see in SC2, but I don't see a lot of people picking up Brood War anymore. The game is almost fifteen years old and hardly popular outside of korea or Teamliquid.net.
Then again, I find it hard to fire up any game besides Skyrim nowadays. My other xbox games are collecting dust. I only play once or twice a week anymore due to school and other activities anyway, but when I do, it's an hour or two hours of skyrim, which quite matches Morrowind in terms of stuff to discover and lore to be learned. Bethesda's done a really great job on this one, which could not be said of Oblivion (that game was graphics > gameplay all the way). Skyrim is the perfect example of a modern game done right. It's receiving GOTY awards left and right, and rightfully so.
On December 27 2011 22:44 QooQ wrote: I agree that gameplay > graphics, but a game with good graphics doesn't automatically mean it has shitty gameplay. I say just adapt to the times.
No, but when production value is spent on graphics rather than anything else, you get what you get. This is, of course, assuming a constant production value, which if course will differ between games and studios.
[/QUOTE] Bethesda's done a really great job on this one, which could not be said of Oblivion (that game was graphics > gameplay all the way). Skyrim is the perfect example of a modern game done right. It's receiving GOTY awards left and right, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]
If Skyrim only had a better UI -.- I hate it so much, its like Battlenet 2.0.
i liked skyrim even less than oblivion you cant even make your own spells, the magic system was so weak. was so bummed that they removed attributes completely too.
honestly, oblivion held my attention for longer than skyrim
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
How is that elitist at all? New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage and they can't see past the dated textures. How you can deny that is beyond me. If you gave a kid who grew up playing halo a gameboy color, he'd probably toss it in the trash. The only people who appreciate old games for their quality are older gamers 90% of the time (obviously).
I grew up playing NES as my first gaming system, and i would probably toss a gameboy color in the trash too, its old, get with the times. I remember playing pokemon blue on the big fat gameboy that had no color. If someone gave it to me now i wouldn't touch it. It was the best we had at the time, but now there is better. You said it yourself " New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage". Graphics are not everything, but when you compare a gameboy or any old system to what we have acess to now, its an easy choice. Everyone in this thread references old classic games and always compare it to CoD, when in reality there are a bunch of great games that have been made in the past few years.
On December 29 2011 20:03 c3rberUs wrote: I think the whole "you play BW because of nostalgia" thing is wrong. Nostalgia describes a yearning for the past and yet here we are playing/watching the game along with thousands of others in the present. In short, nope its not nostalgia, its fun.
None of them knows what the definition of nostalgia is.
Bethesda's done a really great job on this one, which could not be said of Oblivion (that game was graphics > gameplay all the way). Skyrim is the perfect example of a modern game done right. It's receiving GOTY awards left and right, and rightfully so.[/QUOTE]
If Skyrim only had a better UI -.- I hate it so much, its like Battlenet 2.0.[/QUOTE] I play it on the Xbox360, so the UI doesn't bother me at all, on the contrary.
The BW graphics are a bit shocking if you've only played SC2. After watching a couple of games, though, and after you adjust to the GIANT GEYSERS AND SUPPLY DEPOTS, you start to see why BW is a great game. I play SC2 and mainly watch SC2, but I definitely see the appeal of BW.
Idra was recently interviewed and he said that BW is a superior game (at least at this juncture) because the skill ceiling is SO HIGH that the better player almost always wins. From a purely competitve standpoint I agree with him. However, I believe that as SC2 players develop, we will see new techniques that separate the really good players from the BEST players. I do not believe the deathball will reign forever.
As for developers focusing on casual games, they go where the money is. I recommend Demon's Souls and Dark Souls to console gamers looking for a game that rewards skill.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
How is that elitist at all? New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage and they can't see past the dated textures. How you can deny that is beyond me. If you gave a kid who grew up playing halo a gameboy color, he'd probably toss it in the trash. The only people who appreciate old games for their quality are older gamers 90% of the time (obviously).
I grew up playing NES as my first gaming system, and i would probably toss a gameboy color in the trash too, its old, get with the times. I remember playing pokemon blue on the big fat gameboy that had no color. If someone gave it to me now i wouldn't touch it. It was the best we had at the time, but now there is better. You said it yourself " New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage". Graphics are not everything, but when you compare a gameboy or any old system to what we have acess to now, its an easy choice. Everyone in this thread references old classic games and always compare it to CoD, when in reality there are a bunch of great games that have been made in the past few years.
Lmao, way to quote what I said and actually not read it. I said to THEM, it looks like shit, but for older people that have played it and and know that it's a great game, they don't care about graphics. There's nothing wrong with playing old games that are good, and there's no need to "get with the times". I would rather much sit down and play Ocarina of Time on the N64 than play Wii tennis or whatever the fuck comes out nowadays.
Old games were better, I don't really care for nostalgia, patiently waiting in front of my tv, waiting for the thunderbirds to start or my old Atari is what I might consider nostalgic.
On December 30 2011 03:59 Mr. Black wrote: The BW graphics are a bit shocking if you've only played SC2. After watching a couple of games, though, and after you adjust to the GIANT GEYSERS AND SUPPLY DEPOTS, you start to see why BW is a great game. I play SC2 and mainly watch SC2, but I definitely see the appeal of BW. ...
And the other way around as well. I hadn't watched sc2 for some time until today and the difference in design is big.
Can you really blame the kids for not wanting to play some game like FF7 after playing Mass effect 2? FF7 my favourite game of all time, but I don't blame my cousin for not wanting to play it after he has played a game with 300000x better graphics and that's also VERY good. I started watching SC2 and then I got into BW, and I love it. But I'm used to seeing old graphics, to me BW is still a good looking game because I started playing when games were 2 rectangles and 1 square bouncing around in a screen.
Also, I've forgotten about all the bad games I've played on my PS one. But I remember a lot of those from PS3, simply because they are fresher on my mind. Time will pass and I'll forget them too, leaving a false idea that PS3 is a godlike console with only great games.
Another thing is, with platforms like steam, bad games stay a for a lot longer on the market, but in 1998, I wouldn't even get in touch with most of them, because they were not sold long enough for me to reach them.
There's also, I think, a limit to how many games you can squeeze out of one particular concept. Especially single player games. A later game may do the same thing better, but it's the same thing. I think Mass effect is an example; the second chapter is simply better than the first under every aspect, but I got tired of it very fast despite putting a good deal of hours in the first.
This does not only apply to sequels. I enjoyed the first single-player fps "campaign" I played, and it was not an especially good one. Now each and every fps is pure boredom to me. Of course I instinctively feel that my first game was the better one.
Thing is with the majority of the non -competitive population into LoL (varies for this one), BF3, MW3, Skyrim, Portal, etc., they are too ignorant to enter the eSports realm, which is mostly old games. So the answer to your question is yes, this is the last generation for games like BW.
On December 30 2011 06:25 Ribbon wrote: BTW: Nostalgia is when you played BW 10 years ago and think the campaign was really amazing when in fact it has a lot of flaws you forgot about.
Nostalgia is not when you've been doing something religiously for years and still like it.
No, nostalgia does not necessarily indicate a flaw viewed of the past, merely a yearning for the past, though I agree that BW play doesn't necessarily count as nostalgia because many still play it because it's still fun now.
On December 29 2011 07:28 ninini wrote: When ppl are saying SC2 is eye candy they are not saying that they dislike it because of the graphics, they are implying that graphics is all it's got, and that the actual gameplay is bad. Starcraft might have been considered eye candy back in the day, but it also had substance.
Everything about SC2 is worse than BW. It has terrible unit physics (movements). Compare how a group of zerglings moves in the different games. The BW zerglings are much more realistic to how they would move in a real battlefield. The graphics in SC2 are advanced but poorly made, I mean you can barely distinguish individual units. There are also less tactical units in SC2, and the tactical units is what makes BW so great.
BW is just better in all aspects, including physics, graphics and gameplay.
Am I the only one that thinks graphic in SC2 is NOT even that good, even if we take RTS standards into consideration? After CoH and DoW2, SC2 looks just ugly. Hell, Supreme Commander is not worse than SC2 with its graphics. No, I'm not trolling anyone, thats exacly what my opinion is! In the contrast, SC2 single player is MORE fun. Missions are more difficult and diversed than those from BW [all cheese scenario and warcraftesque shit like "good corrupted overmind" doesnt take the good impresion]
The graphics of SC2 aren't impressive, but they aren't bad enough that they will turn off newer players. Despite what people say about graphics, it is the main reason why nobody new plays or watches the Brood War. Younger kids nowadays think games like FF7 or BW look like shit because they grew up with ps2 or xbox as their first gaming console, and cannot appreciate good games with dated graphics.
Main reason why no one watches brood war? you are a funny guy. You are correct about the graphics being outdated, considering the game is over a decade old, but really you think the main reason is the graphics? The main reason no one watches broodwar is because its casted at awful times for NA and EU, oh and its casted in Korean, good luck getting anyone into a game when its only catered to koreans.
Also what are the chances someone bothers to pick up a game made in 98, or any game from the 90s. your BW elitism is terrible, you play broodwar so you look down upon anyone that doesn't play it? I remember back in the day when we poked eachother with sticks because thats all there was! now kids these days got all these gizmos and gadgets! they can't even apperciate a good stick poking now!
How is that elitist at all? New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage and they can't see past the dated textures. How you can deny that is beyond me. If you gave a kid who grew up playing halo a gameboy color, he'd probably toss it in the trash. The only people who appreciate old games for their quality are older gamers 90% of the time (obviously).
I grew up playing NES as my first gaming system, and i would probably toss a gameboy color in the trash too, its old, get with the times. I remember playing pokemon blue on the big fat gameboy that had no color. If someone gave it to me now i wouldn't touch it. It was the best we had at the time, but now there is better. You said it yourself " New players don't play dated games because they are turned off because to them, the game looks like garbage". Graphics are not everything, but when you compare a gameboy or any old system to what we have acess to now, its an easy choice. Everyone in this thread references old classic games and always compare it to CoD, when in reality there are a bunch of great games that have been made in the past few years.
Lmao, way to quote what I said and actually not read it. I said to THEM, it looks like shit, but for older people that have played it and and know that it's a great game, they don't care about graphics. There's nothing wrong with playing old games that are good, and there's no need to "get with the times". I would rather much sit down and play Ocarina of Time on the N64 than play Wii tennis or whatever the fuck comes out nowadays.
Funny that you bring up garbage on Wii. "Casuals" seemingly like BAD games with BAD graphics. Neither gameplay nor graphics matter anymore, apparently.
On December 30 2011 07:30 dementrio wrote: There's also, I think, a limit to how many games you can squeeze out of one particular concept. Especially single player games. A later game may do the same thing better, but it's the same thing. I think Mass effect is an example; the second chapter is simply better than the first under every aspect, but I got tired of it very fast despite putting a good deal of hours in the first.
This does not only apply to sequels. I enjoyed the first single-player fps "campaign" I played, and it was not an especially good one. Now each and every fps is pure boredom to me. Of course I instinctively feel that my first game was the better one.
I don't know how you can say ME2 > ME1 in every aspect. The games are sufficiently different that you can't definitively say one is better than the other. ME2 was more shooty, ME1 was more explory. The two games shined in different aspects
(not disagreeing with your point, just disagreeing with your example)
On December 30 2011 06:25 Ribbon wrote: BTW: Nostalgia is when you played BW 10 years ago and think the campaign was really amazing when in fact it has a lot of flaws you forgot about.
Nostalgia is not when you've been doing something religiously for years and still like it.
No, nostalgia does not necessarily indicate a flaw viewed of the past, merely a yearning for the past, though I agree that BW play doesn't necessarily count as nostalgia because many still play it because it's still fun now.
It's not nostalgia and nor are we the last generation. In fact, a lot of "Indie" game developers are making a killing creating games that prioritize gameplay over all else. Hello, Dwarf Fortress? Minecraft? These games consume more of my time than most new games that come out, including Starcraft. I still like the new stuff too, don't get me wrong-- a lot of them are fun and have value/potential, but gameplay (and also story) definitely comes first in the "true gamer" market and some developers realize that. That being said, there are still developers who craft engaging games with great gameplay, graphics and story too that manage to appeal to the larger gaming market-- Metal Gear, Uncharted, Civilization, etc. are some series that are just downright great games that have adapted with the times. So in the end, these games will forever be played not out of a longing for the past but for an appreciation of quality-- these are fantastic games that will stand the test of time so long as there are gamers who demand such quality, which there will continue to be for a good long time I believe.
So, in short, do your part for quality gameplay gaming-- make your child play Dwarf Fortress and experience the horror of a Catsplosion first hand!
its what you grow up with and the broodwar generation of the late 90s and on who experienced gaming to what its become today will probably always prefer what they loved. Im 16 and i can say that i played broodwar growing up, little at that and today i went back to see the game i liked and even though i play sc2, i still stay up to watch broodwar streams. I went out of my way to play diablo 2 and saw how great it was. These games are timeless and even if they might come to an end of being the mainstream games, they will always be played in someway somewhere. Whether or not broodwar will ever die in korea is another thing though
While I agree there is a wave of gamers that are: "Omg minecraft I'm a gamer" "lolol CoDMW3 56 prestige I'm hardcore MLG pro xXx" "look at my farm guiz I'm a pro farmville gamer nerd xD" and "anything besides FPSs are for nerds and is gay"
I can agree that this wave or waves of "gamers" if you can call them that do just pick up the most mainstream and sparkle pretty pretty directed by michael bay. There are still plenty of "underground" gamers that DO appreciate and enjoy gameplay > graphics. Such players are those who play Deus Ex for it's story, regardless of the 2008 quality textures and animations, or Company of Heroes for it's strategy, regardless of slow pace.
Same can be said about Brood War and SC2, however, SC2 is MUCH more appealing to view, and draws in more people and grows eSports MUCH better than Broodwar EVER will in this day and age. I feel this post was a clever way of saying "Starcraft 2 is all graphics no skill", which I take offense to, but there is a point to where you do need the appeal of graphics to create a larger audience and playerbase.
For example, someone is in a coffee shop playing broodwar at a professional level (why? don't ask, it's a hypothetical situation), someone that's a gamer glances over, doesn't know what it is, and mistakes it for a flash game, or something really old and insignificant, and walks away. Scenario 2: Same guy plays SC2 instead on medium graphics, same observer glances over, sees colossi melting away marines and vikings and there's warp gates warping units in and all this crazy shit is happening. He's more interested because it looks more intense, and more fascinating. He asks "what is this?" blah blah blah you get the picture. eSports needs a modern game to grow, otherwise non-gamers will not be interested in observing. I feel a lot of BW vets need to stop being such hipster nerds, making their community exclusive only to BW, a game with 13 year old graphics, which little to no one except SC2 players will even bother looking up.
I completely do not remember where I was going with this, but my main point is, is that times change, graphics improve, good graphics =/= good/bad gameplay, as bad graphics =/= bad/good gameplay. It's a little hard to relate, I can respect, but again, it's hard to relate to the viewpoint of a lot of diehard BW vets. Sure BW is a great game, that's balanced (only because of how long it lived. 13 years you better hope so), and took a great amount of skill to play, and that's why you look down upon modern shiny games like CoD, which I do as well, I feel your pain brother as these shiny games are literally killing the gaming industry. This does not mean though that "all modern games are shit for gameplay." as I can name off a ton. CoH, SC2, BF2 (old but w/e), EVE, Dota 2, LoL is fairly balanced, Deus Ex.
I really hope my post makes sense.
Edit: grammar and flow of my ideas
P.S. A thought just crossed my mind that I need to rant about.
Command & Conquer ladies and gentlemen, one of the best games I ever played, ever. This game DEFINED my ages 3-10. (I actually played the demo in 1996) I will never forget the days, playing on my windows 98 in the garage (no room in the house for my computer ), playing skirmishes against the computer in Red Alert, as I had no internet connection in my early days of living in this modern world. Tryi9ng my hardest to beat the NOD campaign in C&C, fighting the good fight as GDI, taking over Europe as the Soviets, and then having my computer die on the last Allied mission, which I have never beat to this day. I never played much Tiberian Sun, but the little I did, I was happy with. And then came along EA games, the great superpower of the gaming industry... Ok the great destroyer of gaming companies*.
Red Alert 2, that monstrosity made me vomit as my 11 year old self, RA2:YV, I didn't even acknowledge that was happining. When a fucking 11 year old thinks a game is silly you know it's terrible. Every new game that came out in that series had better and better graphics, not top of the line, but above average for the day, and every game that came out was significantly more terrible than the last. I cried while playing WC3 as I knew my childhood was violated and abused. C&C3 was promising, and then the expansion killed that promise, and I do not to this day believe C&C4 is anything more than a trolling attempt by the internet.
I guess this helps me relate to the BW vets a little, seeing a game they played back in the day be raped by modern expectations and mega-corps. I still do not believe though that Starcraft is a victim of this.
On December 28 2011 16:26 Ribbon wrote: I think one big flaw in that analogy is that Chess fans don't refer to Checkers fans as shitheads.
I loled so hard at this.
I think we need to begin with a positive attitude to keep this game alive for as long as possible. Don't give into the BS that people say like "Oh sc2 is the real deal now, stop playing that crap game of yours" like my sc2 friends always say. Are we the last generation? Maybe. But if we think we are, we start to give up. Just play this game and spread it. Show it to friends, they might get interested and spread it more. If we can spread the word of how great this game is, BW may never end.
There are good games all the time, and some are more replayable and memorable than others. BW because it has multiplayer, it's deep, balanced, strategic and has a huge pro scene in Korea. CS because it has huge pro scene, it's fast, exciting, and skillful. Deus Ex because it has varied approaches and memorable settings, music, environments, and that RPG FPS hybrid which is oh so popular these days.
But there are plenty of crap old games that fade out into the blackness which I've never even heard of. It's just the continued Darwinian evolution of the gaming industry.
BW is an amazing thing, it's been around for so long that many new gamers don't get to experience the magic, and many do not want to experience it because it looks outdated and has old conventions that we are not used to in modern RTS games and that console gaming has become far more popular. However, your opinions are being overly hipster-y/"get off my lawn". It is a great game that has a dwindling player base, and its new sequel has not lived up to the great expectations and hype, but that does not mean the new "generation" of games will be all crap and over commercialised filler. Plenty of great games stand out from the crowd and they will be played and replayed until the new "generation" of gamers are old and end up posting longingly about them on the internet.
But of course, I'm being entirely too cold and unemotional. BW is incredible, and this is Teamliquid. To TL, BW is the equivalent of soccer and football and baseball and basketball and racing and Olympics combined. It's a lifestyle, it's a love, it's a significant other.
On December 30 2011 12:01 FlaShFTW wrote:But if we think we are, we start to give up. Just play this game and spread it. Show it to friends, they might get interested and spread it more. If we can spread the word of how great this game is, BW may never end.
I often feel like a not insignificant percentage of the Brood War community actually WANTS to be the last generation. I think it's one of BW's biggest problems right now, that there's so much anger and negativity. BW should be fun.
On December 30 2011 12:01 FlaShFTW wrote:But if we think we are, we start to give up. Just play this game and spread it. Show it to friends, they might get interested and spread it more. If we can spread the word of how great this game is, BW may never end.
I often feel like a not insignificant percentage of the Brood War community actually WANTS to be the last generation. I think it's one of BW's biggest problems right now, that there's so much anger and negativity. BW should be fun.
BW is fun well except getting bm by player who steam rolled you easily and made queens to infest your CC T_T .
On December 30 2011 12:01 FlaShFTW wrote:But if we think we are, we start to give up. Just play this game and spread it. Show it to friends, they might get interested and spread it more. If we can spread the word of how great this game is, BW may never end.
I often feel like a not insignificant percentage of the Brood War community actually WANTS to be the last generation. I think it's one of BW's biggest problems right now, that there's so much anger and negativity. BW should be fun.
BW is fun well except getting bm by player who steam rolled you easily and made queens to infest your CC T_T .
I was playing on ICCUP the other night and lost some marines to mutas because I was off on my timings and generally bad (sidenote: The biggest thing making BW harder than SC2 is the lack of clock, not the lack of MBS), and he starting raging at me for being a noob.
Who does that? I get being angry that you lost, or that you didn't win as easily as you "should have", or even a pre-emptive gg, but people getting angry at me for losing to them seems to be unique to the BW community.
EPT![[image loading]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100809013517/starcraft/images/b/b5/Battlecruiser_SC1_CineInauguration1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/4430/75276058.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.sc2blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/hydra.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lrtv4bIsUA1r35n3wo1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.filmcritic.com/assets_c/2010/02/The-Last-Samurai-thumb-560xauto-26057.gif)
Want a hug or a cookie? :D
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DQrFr.jpg)
. Its sad though what you say is true kids theese days man they only play easy games. IMO they could atleast play quake instead if they shall play fps 
), playing skirmishes against the computer in Red Alert, as I had no internet connection in my early days of living in this modern world. Tryi9ng my hardest to beat the NOD campaign in C&C, fighting the good fight as GDI, taking over Europe as the Soviets, and then having my computer die on the last Allied mission, which I have never beat to this day. I never played much Tiberian Sun, but the little I did, I was happy with. 
