| Forum Index > BW General |
|
XenOsky
Chile2356 Posts
On December 20 2018 19:12 Burned Toast wrote: There's an ASL 7 Wildcard match going on right now between Rain, Sharp, Action and Mini. Anybody got any news about this ? + Show Spoiler + Rain lost after 2-0 lead + Show Spoiler + Action 2-1 mini atm | ||
|
NoS-Craig
Australia3135 Posts
| ||
|
Alpha-NP-
United States1242 Posts
| ||
|
Rodya
546 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
| ||
|
konadora
Singapore66359 Posts
holy shit, the two games in this vod (Light vs Larva on Sniper Ridge and Piano vs JD on Grand Line) are both amazing | ||
|
Navane
Netherlands2751 Posts
On December 21 2018 01:17 Alpha-NP- wrote: Do you guys thing SCR will possibly rekindle some interest in the RTS genre? Do you think we might see another AAA big budget RTS game in the next year or two? I don't reckon. I also reckon that everyone who is still playing broodwar today, is not anticipating any new RTS. | ||
|
InfestedNeurone
18 Posts
 | ||
BLinD-RawR
ALLEYCAT BLUES50898 Posts
On December 22 2018 08:39 InfestedNeurone wrote: A French personality is playing BW with 12k+ viewers That's great except you forgot to post a link. | ||
|
InfestedNeurone
18 Posts
On December 22 2018 12:52 BLinD-RawR wrote: That's great except you forgot to post a link. https://www.twitch.tv/zerator 😄 Playing with https://www.twitch.tv/moman | ||
|
linda2000
2 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10710 Posts
On December 21 2018 01:17 Alpha-NP- wrote: Do you guys thing SCR will possibly rekindle some interest in the RTS genre? Do you think we might see another AAA big budget RTS game in the next year or two? Grey Goo got me hyped and then let me down, we can all hope for one but they already tried to make a BW RTS Clone into an eSport, it was called SC2. | ||
|
Cele
Germany4016 Posts
On December 29 2018 02:40 GGzerG wrote: Grey Goo got me hyped and then let me down, we can all hope for one but they already tried to make a BW RTS Clone into an eSport, it was called SC2. Except it turned out to be very different from bw. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On December 29 2018 04:19 Cele wrote: Except it turned out to be very different from bw. And no game which will be released these days and be somewhat successful will ever be close to bw in its game mechanics, noone would play it. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On December 29 2018 04:45 The_Red_Viper wrote: And no game which will be released these days and be somewhat successful will ever be close to bw in its game mechanics, noone would play it. Can you be more precise what you mean by BW's game mechanics? Do you mean like the QoL features that were better than WarCraft II but not yet multiple building selection or infinite unit selection? To be honest I think BW would have been just another game if it weren't for Battle.net and being one of the first games with very good and easy to use multiplayer online services. It was hitting at a time when people were just barely starting to have their own computers at home, and just barely had good enough internet to sort of play online. Its longevity stemmed from the unexpectedly strong communities that built themselves on top of that service. The game itself had just the right level of polish and wackyness to it that players felt good about the interface. Diablo II was a quite similar phenomenon, it just lacked a truly e-sport competition side to it. To say nothing of the circumstances in Korea that made StarCraft practically the only game worth playing for a few years. I usually find the argument that people want games to be easy these days or whatever to be pretty suspicious. I would say though that although BW does have some finger intensive mechanics that are part of what make it interesting and what it is, I kind of think anything that reduces RSI is important, especially as games are sold more and more to an aging gaming population (as in all us people who played StarCraft as teenagers are hitting 30 or well past it). I don't think I'd want to play a new game as intensive as BW on my hands, and I loved BW to bits. Teenagers would probably still tolerate a lot of clicking though. I would also mention that for the first few years of StarCraft, pretty much no one had 300 apm and we did play the game at a fairly relaxed, high concept strategy kind of level. The mechanics that would win people games really grew on top of an increasingly sophisticated level of strategic understanding, first by seeing what people could do to win key battles with great micromanagement, and later by seeing how people could get very far ahead with increasingly good macromanagement. StarCraft really did not start out as the wrist destroying game we know it as today. We were eased into it lol. | ||
|
ggsimida
1156 Posts
On January 02 2019 05:24 Chef wrote: I usually find the argument that people want games to be easy these days or whatever to be pretty suspicious. its not suspicious, its just the mainstream line of thought for any modern game fan or developer wanting to make their game a popular success, the need to make the game as easy to pick up as possible so that even casuals that play 1-2 hours a day can still enjoy it to a decent level with minimum frustration. Even without seeing hard evidence im pretty sure the general playerbase is heavily shifted towards those kind of players than to nerds who can play 6+ hours a day. the latter is a bigger chunk of the playerbase size back in the late 90s/early 00s when computers aren't as accessible. | ||
|
ggsimida
1156 Posts
| ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 02 2019 05:24 Chef wrote: Can you be more precise what you mean by BW's game mechanics? Do you mean like the QoL features that were better than WarCraft II but not yet multiple building selection or infinite unit selection? To be honest I think BW would have been just another game if it weren't for Battle.net and being one of the first games with very good and easy to use multiplayer online services. It was hitting at a time when people were just barely starting to have their own computers at home, and just barely had good enough internet to sort of play online. Its longevity stemmed from the unexpectedly strong communities that built themselves on top of that service. The game itself had just the right level of polish and wackyness to it that players felt good about the interface. Diablo II was a quite similar phenomenon, it just lacked a truly e-sport competition side to it. To say nothing of the circumstances in Korea that made StarCraft practically the only game worth playing for a few years. I usually find the argument that people want games to be easy these days or whatever to be pretty suspicious. I would say though that although BW does have some finger intensive mechanics that are part of what make it interesting and what it is, I kind of think anything that reduces RSI is important, especially as games are sold more and more to an aging gaming population (as in all us people who played StarCraft as teenagers are hitting 30 or well past it). I don't think I'd want to play a new game as intensive as BW on my hands, and I loved BW to bits. Teenagers would probably still tolerate a lot of clicking though. I would also mention that for the first few years of StarCraft, pretty much no one had 300 apm and we did play the game at a fairly relaxed, high concept strategy kind of level. The mechanics that would win people games really grew on top of an increasingly sophisticated level of strategic understanding, first by seeing what people could do to win key battles with great micromanagement, and later by seeing how people could get very far ahead with increasingly good macromanagement. StarCraft really did not start out as the wrist destroying game we know it as today. We were eased into it lol. In essence i mean the game mechanics which make the game less accessible (i don't say harder because the difficulty of playing comes from the opponent, not the game). So yes mainly things like only 12 units per control group, no multiple building selection, the pathing, stuff like that. Definitely agree with you on why bw got as popular as it is, just being produced at the right time with enough quality to make people play it. Well it is about accessibility, whenever artosis says that bw is the hardest game ever in the esports sector what he is really saying is: "man you have to be somewhat crazy to even play it because the game mechanics are just so outdated". The difficulty doesn't come from these, the moment i play a player who isn't any good at sending his workers to mine i don't need to be good at it either. What one has to consider though is how much fun there is if you are bad at the game, and there bw makes it harder to actually enjoy it. This isn't proven or anything, but in general i think it is far to say that in player versus player games the fun comes from engaging with your opponent, to make decisions, execute them and see how it pans out vs the human enemy you are up against. BW's game mechanics actively fight against the human vs human interaction and thus make it less accessible. You just have to do a lot of thing and press a lot of buttons to have any meaningful interaction with the opponent and even these interactions might be not extremely intriguing because of the pathfinding and the general clunkiness. This is partly a problem of rts design in general though, there simply are no real objectives in the game which would force you to engage your opponent outside of the winning condition, which is only stated but never pushed towards. If you compare that to a lot of other, now successful games there is a difference of night and day, in these games you not only have easier access through the controls, you also have objectives and game mechanics which actively make sure that you come to the pvp part on a regular basis. While in rts games like bw you might just have a game where both parties don't do anything all game long other than building their base and army (which definitely is part of the fun, but one can do this alone or vs a bot as well). An example would be the minion waves in mobas which bring you near to the enemy hero, the clear round system in csgo which makes sure that one team has to attack, in battle royales the circle which gets smaller and the loot everyone wants to have, etc. (now you could say that additional bases usually bring the opponents closer together and out on the map, but compared to other games this is still a rather weak system). In conclusion i have a hard time seeing any game which is 1) as unaccessible as bw in its mechanics and 2) as weak in its enforcement of pvp interactions as this kind of rts games to have any success these days or ever again. There simply are other standards these days and even though i play bw regularly and enjoy it i wouldn't even call these standards "worse" by any means, quite the contrary tbh, it's better design. (this doesn't mean that everything newer games do is "better design" and also doesn't mean that one has to enjoy it more, especially because a lot of people were brought up by these old games and learned to love them) | ||
|
ggsimida
1156 Posts
On January 02 2019 22:33 The_Red_Viper wrote: This isn't proven or anything, but in general i think it is far to say that in player versus player games the fun comes from engaging with your opponent, to make decisions, execute them and see how it pans out vs the human enemy you are up against. BW's game mechanics actively fight against the human vs human interaction and thus make it less accessible. You just have to do a lot of thing and press a lot of buttons to have any meaningful interaction with the opponent and even these interactions might be not extremely intriguing because of the pathfinding and the general clunkiness. lol i always wondered how this sort of argument arise, probably from low apm players who got pwned in too many games in a row. 'holy fuck i lost because my goons got stuck on a ramp waaa, this is strategee game we should not fighting against da systemmmm". to me one of the satisfactions of BW is THE mechanical aspect. that high apm can present distinctly remarkable results on the battleground. my 200-300 apm i can make the goons go smoothly up the ramp. the 50 apm dude gets his stuck and wandering, he deserves it and gets punished short and sweet. in sc2 for instance i actually hated how the units move, everything is too smooth and the units move around like hivemind sardines in a perfect ball thats its mildly disconcerting. i know its obv a mindset from players in the top % of the playerbase but thats a inkling on its appeal from the hardcore perspective. the perfect mix of mechanics and strategy while most games often lean towards one side (rhythm games) or the other (chess) | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 02 2019 22:57 ggsimida wrote: lol i always wondered how this sort of argument arise, probably from low apm players who got pwned in too many games in a row. 'holy fuck i lost because my goons got stuck on a ramp waaa, this is strategee game we should not fighting against da systemmmm". to me one of the satisfactions of BW is THE mechanical aspect. that high apm can present distinctly remarkable results on the battleground. my 200-300 apm i can make the goons go smoothly up the ramp. the 50 apm dude gets his stuck and wandering, he deserves it and gets punished short and sweet. in sc2 for instance i actually hated how the units move, everything is too smooth and the units move around like hivemind sardines in a perfect ball thats its mildly disconcerting. i know its obv a mindset from players in the top % of the playerbase but thats a inkling on its appeal from the hardcore perspective. the perfect mix of mechanics and strategy while most games often lean towards one side (rhythm games) or the other (chess) See instead of engaging the argument you immediately try to make fun of it because you think you being good at the current game and its workings makes your subjective opinion worth more. It doesn't. All you told me is that you need more apm to execute certain things (and very basic ones at that), that's already part of my argument, it makes the game less accessible. If you think that is a good thing, so be it. | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs GgMaChine
Rogue vs Maru
WardiTV Invitational
IPSL
Ret vs Art_Of_Turtle
Radley vs TBD
BSL
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs TriGGeR
NightMare vs Solar
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
