On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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When SC2 came out, general population of gamers think of it as an "outdated" game by the RTS standard at that time (resource gathering, for example, is considered outdated by modern RTS).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 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?
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.
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.
So... everything's subjective and we should all just never compare anything...?
My reasons for why BW units are better: -BW units are better because it wasn't design by committee. Everything a unit in sc2 had an ounce of fun to watch/use (e.g. reaper + bunker harass) it was claimed "OP" and they nerfed it. -The units that carried over from BW to SC2 were mostly nerfed and lost their identity in the original game. Carriers (capital ship, game ender), zealots (hard to kill, relatively lower DPS), hydras (all purpose unit, you can tell especially from SC1/BW cinematic movies), etc etc... -You don't like how the overlord is a detector? A zerg ability that actually makes zerg a little different from the other races? Blasphemy, let's "enhance" the game by making it a morph ability. -A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities.
My reasons for why BW has deeper strategy than SC2: I'm not sure you remember the early days of BW. People actually came up with lots of rush strategies and (V-Gundam rush, lots of 4 pools and BBs's, manner hatch with a big sunken line in front of opponent base, tank drop/boxing, etc...). Why? Because there were so many possibilities for each race. Players also executed many strategies that used mind games, even to this day. Even the game didn't mature and players didn't have the concept of macro, hard timings, etc... in BW, you could literally sit down, write on a piece of paper your plan for winning and then try to execute it. In SC2, it's just a big math problem. How do I get the most amount of Unit X at Y minutes while disregarding mind games and player reaction.
I think the medium of Brood War actually allowed players to beat their opponents in a personal way. By knowing Yellow always 12 hatch expands, Boxer beat him 3-0 by bunker rushing him in a final. More recently, by knowing Flash's scan patterns, Stardust or whatever beat him PvT. The medium of brood war is superior because the medium itself is not as restrictive. You can take a chance and not lost to a superior mathematical equation involving a roach timing.
I think SC2 is a very popular version of Warcraft 3. I play it and occasionally watch it but it's not a phenomenon I'm interested in following ahead of football, basketball, etc... like BW was.
plz stop being stupid, BW has deeper gameplay, this is a fact, subjective my ass... such statement can only be said from someone, who did not play BW, at serious level every players that reached at least rank B(from B- to B+) know this, BW is much much deeper as a game
thanks for the interview, nice to read what some old school thinks about future... sadly people always feel like ruining everything with their stupid fights.. you dont like a game? you like the other one? glhfgg just shut up already.. sigh
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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:
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote:
On May 29 2012 02:47 gillon wrote:
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?
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.
-A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities. .
I never remember single player, but protoss was kind of mystic and magical--I mean a dragoon is like a reincarnated zealot, etc etc. Then bw of course had templars and their respective archons that certainly feel magical/mystic. Arbiter as well. A sentry fits in with that (force fields, and useful hallucinations). Warpgates are more mystical. They made the mothership to be a central magical unit. Collossi doesn't have anything mystic to it as opposed to "me big shoot lasers". I think the sentry makes sense for their direction of protoss (independent of how it affects the game).
they also redesigned zerg on purpose. I don't think anyone should argue sc2 zerg and bw zerg is remotely the same; sc2 zerg is the swarmy zerg (turtle on your own creep, slowly expand, then overrun with like 100 lings or banelings) while bw zerg was the positional battle with lurker/defiler/scourge to pick off drops (though I forget any of the lore for bw zerg; bw zerg is actually not that swarmy when played). I agree that the roach sucks as it's too beefy and added mainly just because otherwise warpgate would be too strong (same with marauders being so beefy; giving protoss a way to have early game units instantly reinforce the enemy's base means terran/zerg have to have beefy early game units to hold).
I have all respect for his expertise, but when anybody says "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" I just can't take them serious. Top SC2 events regularly draw in over 100,000+ concurrent viewers. Are these people implying that those viewers all just sadomasochists? It's fine to argue that Broodwar is more fun to watch than SC2, I'd even agree. But the constant argument of Broodwar elitist that "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" is just stuck up bullshit in the light of the hundreds of thousands of fans who do think SC2 is fun enough to not only watch, but pay money for the privilige of watching.
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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:
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote:
On May 29 2012 02:47 gillon wrote:
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?
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.
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.
So... everything's subjective and we should all just never compare anything...?
My reasons for why BW units are better: -BW units are better because it wasn't design by committee. Everything a unit in sc2 had an ounce of fun to watch/use (e.g. reaper + bunker harass) it was claimed "OP" and they nerfed it. -The units that carried over from BW to SC2 were mostly nerfed and lost their identity in the original game. Carriers (capital ship, game ender), zealots (hard to kill, relatively lower DPS), hydras (all purpose unit, you can tell especially from SC1/BW cinematic movies), etc etc... -You don't like how the overlord is a detector? A zerg ability that actually makes zerg a little different from the other races? Blasphemy, let's "enhance" the game by making it a morph ability. -A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities.
My reasons for why BW has deeper strategy than SC2: I'm not sure you remember the early days of BW. People actually came up with lots of rush strategies and (V-Gundam rush, lots of 4 pools and BBs's, manner hatch with a big sunken line in front of opponent base, tank drop/boxing, etc...). Why? Because there were so many possibilities for each race. Players also executed many strategies that used mind games, even to this day. Even the game didn't mature and players didn't have the concept of macro, hard timings, etc... in BW, you could literally sit down, write on a piece of paper your plan for winning and then try to execute it. In SC2, it's just a big math problem. How do I get the most amount of Unit X at Y minutes while disregarding mind games and player reaction.
I think the medium of Brood War actually allowed players to beat their opponents in a personal way. By knowing Yellow always 12 hatch expands, Boxer beat him 3-0 by bunker rushing him in a final. More recently, by knowing Flash's scan patterns, Stardust or whatever beat him PvT. The medium of brood war is superior because the medium itself is not as restrictive. You can take a chance and not lost to a superior mathematical equation involving a roach timing.
I think SC2 is a very popular version of Warcraft 3. I play it and occasionally watch it but it's not a phenomenon I'm interested in following ahead of football, basketball, etc... like BW was.
That is why many things are subjective. If you said "my reasons...", then that means it's already subjective because you present your own personal opinions, which might not be true to other people.
And being subjective does not mean they are not comparable. It just means you need to be more careful when you want to compare things. For example, comparing which game has a deeper strategy is easier than which game is more fun to watch, because there's more evidence of how strategy evolves in the game and how long the game has been played. Saying one game is more fun to watch is purely based on the feeling and cannot be presented as objective.
On May 29 2012 04:48 nadafanboy42 wrote: I have all respect for his expertise, but when anybody says "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" I just can't take them serious. Top SC2 events regularly draw in over 100,000+ concurrent viewers. Are these people implying that those viewers all just sadomasochists? It's fine to argue that Broodwar is more fun to watch than SC2, I'd even agree. But the constant argument of Broodwar elitist that "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" is just stuck up bullshit in the light of the hundreds of thousands of fans who do think SC2 is fun enough to not only watch, but pay money for the privilige of watching.
They were just spoiled by a decade of top level BW...all for free btw.
SC2 isn't doing well in Korea at all, think about why instead of calling them idiots. Though I do see potential in SC2, I still respect his honesty.
I would disagree with a lot of what he said in particular about what he said about how watchable SC2 is and the future of E-Sports but from his prospective id say that would be how he sees it. Its hard not to look at just under 100k watching an SC2 grand finals or 300k watching LoL and think that the glory days are over for E-Sports.
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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:
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote:
On May 29 2012 02:47 gillon wrote:
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?
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.
-A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities. .
I never remember single player, but protoss was kind of mystic and magical--I mean a dragoon is like a reincarnated zealot, etc etc. Then bw of course had templars and their respective archons that certainly feel magical/mystic. Arbiter as well. A sentry fits in with that (force fields, and useful hallucinations). Warpgates are more mystical. They made the mothership to be a central magical unit. Collossi doesn't have anything mystic to it as opposed to "me big shoot lasers". I think the sentry makes sense for their direction of protoss (independent of how it affects the game).
they also redesigned zerg on purpose. I don't think anyone should argue sc2 zerg and bw zerg is remotely the same; sc2 zerg is the swarmy zerg (turtle on your own creep, slowly expand, then overrun with like 100 lings or banelings) while bw zerg was the positional battle with lurker/defiler/scourge to pick off drops (though I forget any of the lore for bw zerg; bw zerg is actually not that swarmy when played). I agree that the roach sucks as it's too beefy and added mainly just because otherwise warpgate would be too strong (same with marauders being so beefy; giving protoss a way to have early game units instantly reinforce the enemy's base means terran/zerg have to have beefy early game units to hold).
Mystical? Yes, but I think you're interpreting the dragoon incorrectly. Protoss warriors are supposed to live a life of servitude. The sentiment is not mysticism as it is fanatical support/honor like space samurais or Klingons or osmething. If you read the backstory behind the reaver and it's touched a bit on the Colossus, Protoss did not like creating war machines. The reaver was a modified mobile manufacturing facility. The sentry itself, is a battle drone or something and that's already weird. The Protoss also have very precise, high tech but clunky weapons. Look at goon fire, arbs, etc... they never had weird continuous lasers, that sentries shoot.
Zerg swarm though in the current metagame is not as swarmy, but sauron zerg style did exist in professional bw for many years. And even if professional metagame is different, the zerg was clearly designed to be swarmy.
My point is, the original designed each race with a central theme and feel, and then turned around to balance the game. This created 3 races that were completely different (or at least, zerg completely different from the other 2). SC2's design approach is backwards.
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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:
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote:
On May 29 2012 02:47 gillon wrote:
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?
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.
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.
So... everything's subjective and we should all just never compare anything...?
My reasons for why BW units are better: -BW units are better because it wasn't design by committee. Everything a unit in sc2 had an ounce of fun to watch/use (e.g. reaper + bunker harass) it was claimed "OP" and they nerfed it. -The units that carried over from BW to SC2 were mostly nerfed and lost their identity in the original game. Carriers (capital ship, game ender), zealots (hard to kill, relatively lower DPS), hydras (all purpose unit, you can tell especially from SC1/BW cinematic movies), etc etc... -You don't like how the overlord is a detector? A zerg ability that actually makes zerg a little different from the other races? Blasphemy, let's "enhance" the game by making it a morph ability. -A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities.
My reasons for why BW has deeper strategy than SC2: I'm not sure you remember the early days of BW. People actually came up with lots of rush strategies and (V-Gundam rush, lots of 4 pools and BBs's, manner hatch with a big sunken line in front of opponent base, tank drop/boxing, etc...). Why? Because there were so many possibilities for each race. Players also executed many strategies that used mind games, even to this day. Even the game didn't mature and players didn't have the concept of macro, hard timings, etc... in BW, you could literally sit down, write on a piece of paper your plan for winning and then try to execute it. In SC2, it's just a big math problem. How do I get the most amount of Unit X at Y minutes while disregarding mind games and player reaction.
I think the medium of Brood War actually allowed players to beat their opponents in a personal way. By knowing Yellow always 12 hatch expands, Boxer beat him 3-0 by bunker rushing him in a final. More recently, by knowing Flash's scan patterns, Stardust or whatever beat him PvT. The medium of brood war is superior because the medium itself is not as restrictive. You can take a chance and not lost to a superior mathematical equation involving a roach timing.
I think SC2 is a very popular version of Warcraft 3. I play it and occasionally watch it but it's not a phenomenon I'm interested in following ahead of football, basketball, etc... like BW was.
That is why many things are subjective. If you said "my reasons...", then that means it's already subjective because you present your own personal opinions, which might not be true to other people.
And being subjective does not mean they are not comparable. It just means you need to be more careful when you want to compare things. For example, comparing which game has a deeper strategy is easier than which game is more fun to watch, because there's more evidence of how strategy evolves in the game and how long the game has been played. Saying one game is more fun to watch is purely based on the feeling and cannot be presented as objective.
Dude... I know my post is subjective, and I'm saying it should be when comparing two things as different as BW and SC2... and then I went ahead and gave my reasons. You come to the internet not expecting opinions or something?
Nice interview. It is always nice to hear from one of the insiders with a different perspective. His views regarding the whole "esports" (bw, sc2, lol) are expected from one of the old guards, although I can't really agree with them.
Maybe they haven't opened up to SC2 yet because they don't want BW to die. When I first saw/played SC2, I didn't like it either because it was so new and different. I immediately said BW was a better game, but now that I've watched most SC2 tourneys, it is really enjoyable. They're both different and enjoyable, I just think most pro BW players hate the fact that they have to switch to SC2. I don't blame them for hating it because it's their careers on the line, they've been doing it for years and now they're going to be out of a job if they don't succeed in a different game. Especially, if it's not fun as well.
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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.
Which explains why the most casual e-sport by far (LoL) is huge in Korea?
On May 29 2012 01:05 rotinegg wrote: Q As Proleague is now switching over to SC2, history must be rewritten. How would you want SC2 PL to progress from this point on? A When compared to BW, the biggest difference is that SC2 just isn't fun to watch [Ouch]. For BW, you could know jack about the game but still enjoy it because there was a ubiquitous element of fun throughout the game. In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games. That's the reason why WC3 ultimately failed. Who would watch when the game itself isn't fun to watch. And where would the motivation for casuals to learn the game come from. Casual fans judge a game based on how fun it is to watch. In that sense BW's appeal is more direct.
I'm going to kind of ignore the SC2 vs BW flamewar going on and just say that SC2 is a significantly better game than WC3.
On May 29 2012 04:48 nadafanboy42 wrote: I have all respect for his expertise, but when anybody says "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" I just can't take them serious. Top SC2 events regularly draw in over 100,000+ concurrent viewers. Are these people implying that those viewers all just sadomasochists? It's fine to argue that Broodwar is more fun to watch than SC2, I'd even agree. But the constant argument of Broodwar elitist that "SC2 just isn't fun to watch" is just stuck up bullshit in the light of the hundreds of thousands of fans who do think SC2 is fun enough to not only watch, but pay money for the privilige of watching.
On May 29 2012 01:42 Veldril wrote: Great article. The only part I disagree is "In the case of SC2, people who aren't familiar with the game can't follow the games" because there's so many new fans in the western scene that don't play the game but still watch professional matches. If foreign scene can achieve that, it should be entirely possible for Korean scene to emulate that.
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:
On May 29 2012 03:23 Asp wrote:
On May 29 2012 02:47 gillon wrote:
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?
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.
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.
So... everything's subjective and we should all just never compare anything...?
My reasons for why BW units are better: -BW units are better because it wasn't design by committee. Everything a unit in sc2 had an ounce of fun to watch/use (e.g. reaper + bunker harass) it was claimed "OP" and they nerfed it. -The units that carried over from BW to SC2 were mostly nerfed and lost their identity in the original game. Carriers (capital ship, game ender), zealots (hard to kill, relatively lower DPS), hydras (all purpose unit, you can tell especially from SC1/BW cinematic movies), etc etc... -You don't like how the overlord is a detector? A zerg ability that actually makes zerg a little different from the other races? Blasphemy, let's "enhance" the game by making it a morph ability. -A bunch of BS units that Blizzard just made up that doesn't even fit the theme of the races. Seriously guys, the roach and the sentry seem like 2 BS units that the designers just threw in there for balance. They don't fit at all into the look/feel of the races. Protoss is supposed to be overly high tech, clunky and expensive, kind of like the modern US army or something. Zerg is supposed to be swarmy, fast, lots of blood and death but beat you by quantity, starship troopers style. The roach, sentry don't exhibit any of these qualities.
My reasons for why BW has deeper strategy than SC2: I'm not sure you remember the early days of BW. People actually came up with lots of rush strategies and (V-Gundam rush, lots of 4 pools and BBs's, manner hatch with a big sunken line in front of opponent base, tank drop/boxing, etc...). Why? Because there were so many possibilities for each race. Players also executed many strategies that used mind games, even to this day. Even the game didn't mature and players didn't have the concept of macro, hard timings, etc... in BW, you could literally sit down, write on a piece of paper your plan for winning and then try to execute it. In SC2, it's just a big math problem. How do I get the most amount of Unit X at Y minutes while disregarding mind games and player reaction.
I think the medium of Brood War actually allowed players to beat their opponents in a personal way. By knowing Yellow always 12 hatch expands, Boxer beat him 3-0 by bunker rushing him in a final. More recently, by knowing Flash's scan patterns, Stardust or whatever beat him PvT. The medium of brood war is superior because the medium itself is not as restrictive. You can take a chance and not lost to a superior mathematical equation involving a roach timing.
I think SC2 is a very popular version of Warcraft 3. I play it and occasionally watch it but it's not a phenomenon I'm interested in following ahead of football, basketball, etc... like BW was.
That is why many things are subjective. If you said "my reasons...", then that means it's already subjective because you present your own personal opinions, which might not be true to other people.
And being subjective does not mean they are not comparable. It just means you need to be more careful when you want to compare things. For example, comparing which game has a deeper strategy is easier than which game is more fun to watch, because there's more evidence of how strategy evolves in the game and how long the game has been played. Saying one game is more fun to watch is purely based on the feeling and cannot be presented as objective.
Dude... I know my post is subjective, and I'm saying it should be when comparing two things as different as BW and SC2... and then I went ahead and gave my reasons. You come to the internet not expecting opinions or something?
Not at all. I just wanted to address your first sentence and used your post as an example to show that many things are subjective, which some people tried to claim it as objective from both sides of argument.
From what I see, the problem right now is not people having opinions, it is people trying to present opinions as facts. And I think that's where the fight mostly start from.
On May 29 2012 04:55 FlukyS wrote: I would disagree with a lot of what he said in particular about what he said about how watchable SC2 is and the future of E-Sports but from his prospective id say that would be how he sees it. Its hard not to look at just under 100k watching an SC2 grand finals or 300k watching LoL and think that the glory days are over for E-Sports.
and what other SC2 events do you think are happening at the same time as this "grand finals" then for example.
EPT
