EPT[Interview] KTF Coach Jung Soo Yeong - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
SlowBullets
United States839 Posts
| ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On May 29 2012 02:03 Black[CAT] wrote: True that. At least he said it out directly and not beat about the bush. SC2 isnt fun to watch. I dont get the feeling of excitement from it despite watching quite a while. You say it as if it's objectively true? | ||
|
hydrogg
United States377 Posts
If yo look at the audiences while games are going on, you can see that there are a lot of empty seats when Proleague is on compared to last season and the Starleague. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On May 29 2012 02:52 hydrogg wrote: If yo look at the audiences while games are going on, you can see that there are a lot of empty seats when Proleague is on compared to last season and the Starleague. You realize that this means absolutely nothing right? If I were to put on an SC2 tournament in EU/NA I'd most probably get more viewership than if it was a BW one. You can't say that SC2 is, or isn't, fun to watch just as you can't objectively say that hockey is or isn't fun to watch. Some people find it fun to watch and other people don't. He said a lot of VERY wise things and I completely agree that with a lot of them, but just because he doesn't enjoy watching SC2 doesn't mean that no one else does. | ||
|
RageCommodore
Germany912 Posts
On May 29 2012 02:52 hydrogg wrote: If yo look at the audiences while games are going on, you can see that there are a lot of empty seats when Proleague is on compared to last season and the Starleague. You realize that the timing slot that PL is in at the moment is very bad for the most live spectators, right? The biggest part of the people that would attend PL matches are either working or at school at that time. I'm pretty sure that the attendance will go back to normal when they fix that. | ||
|
DyEnasTy
United States3720 Posts
| ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
On May 29 2012 02:52 hydrogg wrote: If yo look at the audiences while games are going on, you can see that there are a lot of empty seats when Proleague is on compared to last season and the Starleague. This says nothing about objectivity. | ||
|
J1.au
Australia3596 Posts
| ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
The debate about sc2 and the PL audience is fascinating nonetheless. | ||
|
hydrogg
United States377 Posts
On May 29 2012 03:06 RageCommodore wrote: You realize that the timing slot that PL is in at the moment is very bad for the most live spectators, right? The biggest part of the people that would attend PL matches are either working or at school at that time. I'm pretty sure that the attendance will go back to normal when they fix that. Wasn't the proleague timing slot at the beginning of last season also bad yet people continued to attend? | ||
|
Asp
Korea (North)19 Posts
There are objective components. BW has objectively deeper strategy. SC2's units are objectively inferior in design. The unit AI objectively makes battles less interesting to watch. You can say you enjoy these inferior qualities about SC2, anyone can enjoy anything, but there is some objectivity behind what the coach said. | ||
|
Oreo7
United States1647 Posts
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote: There are objective components. BW has objectively deeper strategy. SC2's units are objectively inferior in design. The unit AI objectively makes battles less interesting to watch. You can say you enjoy these inferior qualities about SC2, anyone can enjoy anything, but there is some objectivity behind what the coach said. Nope, those are all subjective. If you can't stick a ruler against it, it's probably subjective. In other words, if the viewer is a factor in the measurement, then it's subjective. "BW has objective deeper strategy" theirs no ruler for strategy. What you think is deep isn't deep by everyone's definition. Subjective. "objectively inferior in design" your measure of how good unit design is isn't the same as everyone else's. Subjective. "makes battles less interesting to watch" what makes battles interesting differs from person to person. Subjective. You can bitch about sc2 all you want, but don't be a moron about it. | ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote: There are objective components. BW has objectively deeper strategy. SC2's units are objectively inferior in design. The unit AI objectively makes battles less interesting to watch. You can say you enjoy these inferior qualities about SC2, anyone can enjoy anything, but there is some objectivity behind what the coach said. Nicely said and I agree with you . | ||
|
gn0m
Sweden302 Posts
| ||
TenJin`Lucian
Costa Rica158 Posts
| ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On May 29 2012 02:35 RavenLoud wrote: He was harsh, but you have to consider the Koreans' position. I hate to sound elitist, but SC2 didn't took off in Korea because they simply know better. Foreigners mostly don't know about BW or brushed it off because it's old and have SD graphics. The reason SC2 didn't take off in Korea is because of many reasons but it does not have anything to do what I disagree with him. When SC2 came out, general population of gamers think of it as an "outdated" game by the RTS standard at that time (resource gathering, for example, is considered outdated by modern RTS). But it still took off in the foreign scene despite many people do not play it because there are many people who introduced the games to the mass, such as Day[9] and Husky. Good casters that can explain the basic of the game as the match goes on and adding excitement to the casting can make a game enjoyable to watch for someone who doesn't play the game. On May 29 2012 03:29 Oreo7 wrote: Nope, those are all subjective. If you can't stick a ruler against it, it's probably subjective. In other words, if the viewer is a factor in the measurement, then it's subjective. "BW has objective deeper strategy" theirs no ruler for strategy. What you think is deep isn't deep by everyone's definition. Subjective. "objectively inferior in design" your measure of how good unit design is isn't the same as everyone else's. Subjective. "makes battles less interesting to watch" what makes battles interesting differs from person to person. Subjective. You can bitch about sc2 all you want, but don't be a moron about it. I would say BW's strategy is deeper than SC2 right now, which is natural because the game is out longer. Unit design is debatable, most BW units are really good, while some are not (I still hate Overlord having detection and scout not fitting in any role). Battle interesting to watch is purely subjective because BW and SC2 appeal on different parts. | ||
|
N.geNuity
United States5112 Posts
You probably don't just watch LoL/other mobas and understand much about the items/what is going on except that it's a 5v5 and some spells/team fights go on, that can be fun to see without knowing the details. But to get into the game you probably want to play with a friend who is already into it. | ||
|
OpticalShot
Canada6330 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On May 29 2012 03:43 Veldril wrote: The reason SC2 didn't take off in Korea is because of many reasons but it does not have anything to do what I disagree with him. When SC2 came out, general population of gamers think of it as an "outdated" game by the RTS standard at that time (resource gathering, for example, is considered outdated by modern RTS). But it still took off in the foreign scene despite many people do not play it because there are many people who introduced the games to the mass, such as Day[9] and Husky. Good casters that can explain the basic of the game as the match goes on and adding excitement to the casting can make a game enjoyable to watch for someone who doesn't play the game. I would say BW's strategy is deeper than SC2 right now, which is natural because the game is out longer. Unit design is debatable, most BW units are really good, while some are not (I still hate Overlord having detection and scout). Battle interesting to watch is purely subjective because BW and SC2 appeal on different parts. Let's just put it this way for a new comer to the starcraft scene sc2 is really appealing and I was watching nuke criticising sc2 visual and it having animation for every action that is on screen even the nexus have particles and things moving in . Seems really attractive and I have to admit it is really an amazing game for players who have already learn to grown the game with 3d rts such as wc3 and etc . In the end however like nuke said because of bw pre rendered 3d graphics there is limitation to the detail of the units and basically what we have on screens are units like chess pieces left to be interpreted and it can be anything depending on your perception . However sc2 is so detail in everything it makes everything seems like an overkill which is wonderful for today's generation of gamer . You can't argue that sc2 units design are much more creative enough to topple down broodwar unit design it's simple yet if you are able to micro your units with more care it will live longer thanks to your extra love to that unit .Sc2 on the other hands has really awesome damage per second units killing everything in a matter of seconds this is not helping when players jumble up their units in to ball which effectively increase their damage output for some reason which in the end makes battle last really short compared to bw long engagement. Well you say that bw strategy is deeper because of the history of the game ? Yeah I have to agree with you that because it's the player who made changes to the game today .Terran was weak until boxer started playing the race , Savior made the zergs race who they are today, Nal Ra pioneered FFE which was used extensively by Bisu in his fight against savior .So let's just say that sc2 will improve strategically than all by means go ahead I am already done with the arguing over a game and I won't be surprised if sc2 will not reach the level of strategic play bw has brought to the table . | ||
|
rift
1819 Posts
| ||
| ||
