|
On December 24 2015 18:19 B-royal wrote:
What you see is what you get doesn't sound like a good philosophy for most type of games.
- When playing a game like civilization, there's plenty of things that are going on of which you have no knowledge. You have to actually think about your strategy and try to come up with a plan based on limited information.
- Games that are too straightforward are by definition less complex and thus less sustainable. There's mechanisms in civilization that took years for people to figure out. Getting good at the game is a journey, the way it's supposed to be.
- When games are too straight forward, there's less potential for players to become good.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept, but how does this not fall under "what you see is what you get?" If we can bring it back to BW with a relevant example, Zerg players thought for a while that going 1 base 1 Hatch play for like 8 minutes was a solid strategy. Nowadays we know that is absolutely retarded unless you are cheesing hard, but we are still using the same Hatchery and the same tech that we had back then*, but we realized that Zerg can get away with making a second Hatchery pretty damn early in the game most of the time unless THEY aren't being cheesed. This is just a development in skill and understanding of the tools given to us by the game, tools that have been unchanged, just like in your Civ example. What you see is what you get: those 1 Hatch Lurkers didn't get any weaker, they just became strategically obsolete as people figured out how to counter them. They did this with tools that were also in the game back when 1 Hatch Lurkers worked, just people weren't good enough to use the tools they had access to. That takes time, as you said.
* Let's ignore the minor balance changes from patches.
|
On December 24 2015 17:19 Thaniri wrote:
Why are you so bad at arguing?
sorry "fangay".
plus everything i stated is true. Amusingly you need somone like Jealously to spoonfeed you basic ideas, just like how modern gamers get spoon fed this days. Is it so difficult to tell yourself, simply, "git gud"? sigh.
On December 24 2015 18:27 Jealous wrote:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the concept, but how does this not fall under "what you see is what you get?" If we can bring it back to BW with a relevant example, Zerg players thought for a while that going 1 base 1 Hatch play for like 8 minutes was a solid strategy. Nowadays we know that is absolutely retarded unless you are cheesing hard, but we are still using the same Hatchery and the same tech that we had back then*, but we realized that Zerg can get away with making a second Hatchery pretty damn early in the game most of the time unless THEY aren't being cheesed. This is just a development in skill and understanding of the tools given to us by the game, tools that have been unchanged, just like in your Civ example. What you see is what you get: those 1 Hatch Lurkers didn't get any weaker, they just became strategically obsolete as people figured out how to counter them. They did this with tools that were also in the game back when 1 Hatch Lurkers worked, just people weren't good enough to use the tools they had access to. That takes time, as you said.
* Let's ignore the minor balance changes from patches.
thats metagame shift, not what you see is whatever
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Japan11286 Posts
To expand on this point, there will always be a certain demographic that is attracted to unnecessarily difficult feats, but because esports as a whole is entirely uninspiring visually unless the people watching also have played the game
Thousands of screaming fangirls say hello. (check the Psi Storm video)
Also WYSIWYG? This is not a document processor application, it's a game. Go look at chess without prior knowledge of how things word then tell me what pieces do. I can't even... smh.
|
On December 24 2015 15:11 Thaniri wrote:Show nested quote +On December 18 2015 19:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote:I think people who come to BW for the first time should first play some 3v3 and make BW friends ^_^ that's how I started! getting straight into ICCup 1v1 is pretty brutal... even for a SC2 player unless you are Diamond/Master. It's too hard. Or, pick your opponents / go to D-. Or endure and get better but yeah you might not enjoy it too much at first. Well should keep in mind "D" is not really "D". Think of D as "Diamond"  haha ; seriously it's just unpredictable the skill level of someone you play at D if you don't pick personally I think it's a real problem for newcomers or people who are actually D level on Iccup, isn't it? it's the uncomfortable skill level to be at I remember my friend who had quite a bit of BW experience, about 1000 games of 1v1 (on bnet + Iccup), he only reached D+ and that's not for lack of trying to get C- you just need a lot of experience and most importantly skill to play at D/D+ level on ICCup. I'm masters SC2 and I don't think BW is that great. If I was 14 I might have fallen in love with the game just as much as I loved SC2 when I was a teen. I have beaten some D/D+ players without ever watching a full BW vod and using liquipedia for build orders that were likely 5 years out of date. Here are my two gripes with BW: - Lack of WYSIWYG. This is objectively bad game design regardless of medium, be it videogames, tabletop, or some other game. BW, by being the first RTS of its kind, has poor attack animations, unintuitive movement patterns, and seems to like to lose my building hotkeys. edit: It's also difficult to tell apart high and low ground at first/no-one tells you about high ground advantage.
- Hard to learn, hard to master, and little reward outside of the intrinsic reward of being really good at something. It isn't hard to kick a football, it's hard to be Messi. The easy to learn, hard to master concept is something BW misses. Again though, if I was 14 I'd probably love it because I spent 8 hours a day playing games at that age.
- To expand on this point, there will always be a certain demographic that is attracted to unnecessarily difficult feats, but because esports as a whole is entirely uninspiring visually unless the people watching also have played the game, BW will lack that thrill of being able to pull off some difficult play and have people notice. The type of person who played broodwar religiously would have also played battletoads had bw not existed for the sake of mastering it in private. Perhaps the only esports that get the intuition right are FPS games like quake and cs because they are war simulations.
Which attack animations are poor and why? I've always found it easy to tell when a unit is attacking and when it is not.
How is the movement not "what you see is what you get"? Brood War units are very predictable and simple in their behaviour. The only thing that takes more than a few instances to be observed in order to be understood, is scarabs. Understanding scarabs was a gradual process, and I learned of their traits one at a time.
If you lose your building hotkeys, it's because you slip and you accidentally input a hotkey command that you don't want to.
High ground advantage was always obvious to me. You saw that some of the shots missed when firing upward. After that, I knew that some shots would always miss when firing upward.
It is hard to get a hang of, I will grant you that - a necessary evil which makes the game better once the basics are learned. Depth is purchased with complexity. The goal is to get as much depth with as little complexity as possible.
Brood War goes for a lot of depth, and therefore suffers the consequence of having complexity.
A triangle is easier to play than a guitar, but less fulfilling once you get good at guitar.
The feats are not unnecessarily hard. If they were easier, then Brood War would have less depth. You've probably already heard the arguments about multi tasking and apm as a limited resource, and about micro battles.
Edit: I will address some specifics that I saw earlier in this thread.
Marine kiting: Stop assuming that it's going to be like StarCraft 2. Come in to the game with an open mind, and observe the behaviour of the units. Then you will see that units have a recovery animation after leaving attack mode. You have to wait for this animation to finish before you can take further actions. StarCraft 2 has animation cancelling. StarCraft 1 doesn't. Both are "WYSIWYG", just different mechanics.
As you would expect intuitively, you can move your unit after the recovery animation is completed. You can also make your unit move in the middle of an attack animation before it has fired, but that will make the recovery play backwards (a marine will lower his gun, a dragoon will close its cannon, etc) and the unit will not fire. This is not counter intuitive. This is simple predictable behaviour that can be observed in the game and understood after having seen it one or two times.
TLDR:
When units start attacking, an animation of raising a gun, opening a cannon, etc will play.
When units stop attacking, the animation will play backwards.
The short animation which lasts for a few frames must finish before the attack comes out.
This is simple predictable behaviour that can be observed, like reading from the open book of nature
|
On December 24 2015 15:11 Thaniri wrote:
Perhaps the only esports that get the intuition right are FPS games like quake and cs because they are war simulations.
I think that's inaccurate. The reason is because you're saying that this
![[image loading]](http://architectstables.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/uxbridge1.jpg)
isn't a war simulation. It's a small point, and probably, in essence, semantics, but I think it's worth drawing a larger conclusion.
People aren't cautious enough when making pronouncements about game play. Game design is not straight forward and while the rational is important, it is limited in what it can usefully say. So when attempting to make sweeping pronouncements which you believe are rational caution is the name of the game.
I'd say the difference between CS/Quake and MOBA/RTSs is camera lock. If you lock the camera to a single avatar you're creating a game that is different from one in which the camera is unlocked. You could call it more "intuitive" if you like, but anyone who has spent time writing stories or planning strategies might disagree and it would be hard to refute fully.
|
Did I really just see a quote containing the words quake and war simulation in the same sentence?
Getting trolled into oblivion here, and if not, I hope you spelled any other fps game wrong because quake certainly isn't a war simulation haha, jesus, can't believe I actually read that..
Played quake for many many years (competitively) alongside brood war, nothing about it screams war simulation, RTS games such as brood war will always be more war simulation-ish than quake (along with warsow, painkiller,........). Want something war simulation-ish and a FPS together? ARMA.
Unless we see some army boots being developed making it possible for soldiers to sj and doing rj's & pj's along with all the other kinds of jumps, oh, and collecting armor, and let's hope they do make different kinds of armor, armor shards, red armor, yellow armor, megahealth as well + the 25 & 50 health bubbles while we're at it...
Please, don't make me witness such a comment ever again.
|
On December 24 2015 16:20 Probemicro wrote:
why are you so obsessed with the need for WYSIWYG? this is gaming not programming.
besides like i said game developers have pretty much make games these days as easy and accessible as can be, and the gamers lap them up happily. You will never see games of the likes of Brood War being successful on the market again in this sort of industry, thats nice isn't it?
about intricacies, the main reason why people are so wowed by BW is because of the insane mechanical skill required to pull off feats at the highest level. I think anyone that actually played BW extensively for a decent amount of time (not someone who just copied 2fact all-in from liquipedia and just use that all the way to C, which i think you did) will be able to appreciate the kind of skill/timing/moves, at every point of the game, needed to excel at the highest level. Players will adopt different strategies for different maps, there are feats of micro/macro that not any random amateur can also do as well. in sc2 theres hardly any difference between reaper micro of a diamond/master and that of a pro. in BW there are outliers that simply outclasses even their professional peers, Flash/JD/Bisu are basically the equivalent of messi/CR7 of BW.
All i see in sc2 is just accumulate blob, blobs fight each other, large blob wins, person with large blob therefore wins.
game is mechanically easier so skill ceiling is lower, one day a Korean wins code S and be top of the world, next month he crashes out of code A like a noob, no real legends to speak of because game is too volatile. anyone can win anyone on a good day.
I actually find it ok to play with, just that game is boring as hell to watch. In korea it is said that only gamblers and people who support the old Kespa pros still watch sc2
also labelling yourself as sc2 "fangay" (is that another new childish meme) helps no-one either.
You fucking nailed it for me.
Seeing people play at the highest level is something I can relate to because I know I couldn't pull it off. Watching close to perfect play in BW is like watching a professional sport - I could kick a soccer ball like a beginner but I could never a day in my life play like a pros on the field.
|
On December 24 2015 16:32 Thaniri wrote:
When I played broodwar, I get bothered by trying to micro my marines vs fast zealot + dragoon pressure against my 1 rax expand because it's difficult to tell when I can cancel a zealots attack animation, when the zealots actual damage is actually applied, how long it takes my marine to move given whether or not he has just stopped moving or shooting, and he probably hates that his zealots refuse to chase my marines where he clicks them to go, and his dragoons do a weird diagonal pathing even for straight walks.
Without seeing the replay, it sounds like you aren't performing the build correctly. When you one rax expand (in TvP) you need to build a bunker at you front. By the time they get dragoons you should have a bunker with 4 marines at front with scvs ready to repair so you can safely get tanks to ward them off. You don't really micro vs early zealots the same way you do in SC2- you should build a simcity (see the TvP wallins on fighting spirit here) and pull back your marine through the gap between the wallin when the zealot targets you. Because its zealot tight but not marine tight, the zealot has to go all the way around and you can get extra shots off. As to the last part about toss pathfinding, the dragoon pathfinding isn't like that exaggerated Starcrafts cartoon and zealots are completely fine, don't know why you say they refuse to chase your marines.
After some SC2/BW pros said BW was a better game, I've noticed a lot of /r/starcraft people try to countersignal that BW is worse and the only reason anyone plays it is nostalgia, but these people invariably know very little about BW. My advice to sc2 ppl who want to try brood war is to play a few games, post some replays in the strat forum, and ask questions rather than arrogantly claiming your loss was due to bad game design.
|
On December 24 2015 17:44 Thaniri wrote:
I still think though that the average viewer can't even remotely comprehend what a progamer is doing. As such, the argument of appreciating higher skill diminishes until it's essentially zero.
- 1) Depending on what specifically your point is, I think that's just inherent to strategy games to some extent. If I watch two chess guys playing that are top pros, I don't really know why they are making the moves they do.
- 2)I suppose some games make this a little easier, such as FPS games where you understand the goal is to shoot the other guy and win. Or in a traditional sport like american football where the object is to get the ball to the other side and score points. Then again, that's clear for starcraft too...wipe the other guy out. The "why" aspect is what can't be comprehended easily. When I watch FPS I don't know why the guy is making the movements around the map he is, picking the locations he is, etc. Or in the case of football I don't understand at all why those defensive guys are running around in the back or why the quarterback went the direction he did, etc. Same of course is true of a strategy game like Starcraft, where I'm not going to necessarily know why jaedong decided to move his mutas back to defend instead of continuing to counter, or why Bisu decided to attack the bot left as opposed to the bottom right.
- 3)Just like regular sports though, you can still appreciate aspects of the skill even if you're an extremely casual viewer. Just like it's massively impressive to watch a basketball player leap 4 feet in the air and dunk over another player with his off hand it's equally impressive watching Bisu target fire every damn mine on the way back from Flash's natural on Heartbreak ridge without breaking stride.
- The bottom line is that for any game that involves any strategy...which is, well just about every game, you're only going to be able to understand what is going on if you invested the time to understand the strategy. I can no better understand the strategy in a velodrome cycling race or game of basketball than I can a game of LoL because I've invested literally zero time in understanding those games. I don't see any big leap from BW -> traditional sports or SC2 -> BW, or RTS -> FPS, or anything else.
On December 24 2015 17:44 Thaniri wrote:Here are my two gripes with BW:
Lack of WYSIWYG. This is objectively bad game design regardless of medium, be it videogames, tabletop, or some other game. BW, by being the first RTS of its kind, has poor attack animations, unintuitive movement patterns, and seems to like to lose my building hotkeys. edit: It's also difficult to tell apart high and low ground at first/no-one tells you about high ground advantage.
- Aspects of this I agree with. High/Low ground isn't inherently clear on certain tilesets, valid point.
- Pathing in BW is not necessarily intuitive based on what may have been experienced from other games. However, once you understand the admittedly simple concepts of how BW is programmed, pathing actually becomes quite intuitive in most cases.
- Poor attack animations I definitely disagree on, and to be honest I'm not sure what you even think is poor about them. They are about as clean and simple as any game I've ever played.
- All of these though strike me as little things that you'd quickly figure out in your first 10-20 hours of play. So, absolutely they could be better from an intuitive sense, but at the same time they are so easily learned it's something I wouldn't think of as a major issue or concern. If this stuff was problematic after say 100 or 500 hours of play...that would make it a much more glaring issue in my opinion.
- It's also worth noting that some of these movement patters are actually critical in BW becoming as strategical nuanced and complex as BW is. Cleaning up the pathing without any changes would make BW a fundamentally worse game from a depth of gameplay/strategy/balance standpoint.
On December 24 2015 17:44 Thaniri wrote:
Hard to learn, hard to master, and little reward outside of the intrinsic reward of being really good at something. It isn't hard to kick a football, it's hard to be Messi. The easy to learn, hard to master concept is something BW misses. Again though, if I was 14 I'd probably love it because I spent 8 hours a day playing games at that age.
- 1) Not sure the argument here. If you're arguing esports in general, I think that premise is fundamentally incorrect as I address below. If you're arguing that SC2 gets this "more correct" than BW...I don't think you developed that argument well as I'm not seeing any reasons why you believe that.
- 2) Aside from that, I guess I don't really understand that argument at all for games like Starcraft. It's you against an opponent. There is literally nothing you have to learn to try and kill your opponent. It's very easy to know to send workers to mine, build buildings, make units, and order said units to attack. That's just as easy to learn as the basic concepts of how to shoot a basketball or the idea that you need to make the ball go into the net.
Saying that BW is "hard to learn" applies equally to any sport whether it be golf, or bowling, or soccer. Anyone can pick up a mouse and start making some dudes to go and kill the other guys dudes, just like anyone can pick up a basketball and start throwing it upwards at the hoop. It's the getting proficient at it part that takes the investment.
On December 24 2015 17:44 Thaniri wrote:
but because esports as a whole is entirely uninspiring visually unless the people watching also have played the game, BW will lack that thrill of being able to pull off some difficult play and have people notice.
- This gets singled out because it esports is no different than any other sport. Watching a guy sprint at 27mph or Messi execute an incredibly play is not inherently visually inspiring. It's only so because we have experience with trying to do these things ourselves, or at the least observing other humans trying to do these things.
- In other words, the only difference between esports/trad sports is that people are invariable exposed to real sports and develop the requisite context to see athletic feats as impressive. Viewed in isolation there is nothing more impressive about a person high jumping a 2.4m bar than their is watching Jaedong dual stack muta micro against FlaSh.
|
all i see is a sc2 person crying because of bad micro
Then giving very funny excuses and insult game, and not learn to play proper.
no need to argue with people with such bad mental, they never learn ^ ^
|
I don't really like the title of this thread. A lot of people (including myself) really loved BW when first joining. I didn't mind the fact that it was so hard because at that stage of my life I was looking for a challenging game to invest in and was happy to find one.
I think the only issue is when people come in with false expectations. This game really isn't for everyone and that is no way a dis on people uninterested in BW.
|
On December 25 2015 12:13 ggsimida wrote:
all i see is a sc2 person crying because of bad micro
Then giving very funny excuses and insult game, and not learn to play proper.
no need to argue with people with such bad mental, they never learn ^ ^
How often you win does not determine whether the game is fun or not. Guy did not like BW, gave his reasons. You don't get to tell him that he actually should like BW. How people feel about something is not something decided by other people.
|
|
|
On December 26 2015 01:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2015 12:13 ggsimida wrote:
all i see is a sc2 person crying because of bad micro
Then giving very funny excuses and insult game, and not learn to play proper.
no need to argue with people with such bad mental, they never learn ^ ^ How often you win does not determine whether the game is fun or not. Guy did not like BW, gave his reasons. You don't get to tell him that he actually should like BW. How people feel about something is not something decided by other people.
of course BW is not for every person
but who do i believe, a person that ragequit after fail simple marine micro, make excuse and blame system with wrong reasons
or many people in the past who played show their love and praise for this game?
i see people above say earlier, new generation gamer prefer easy game, thus i no blame him. They are used to easy games
instead make funny reason excuses he can post rep, ask for help on marine micro and 1rax expand, but he choose not to and would rather whine and cry. i believe hard work and persist is key to success not just in game but in real life, not whine and cry. quit he rather give funny excuses and blame system which has work proper for 15 years than leave silently. This not only insult the game but also players who have work hard and try improve in this game they like.
if u supprt his kind of mental, gl to you in life too you need it
|
On December 26 2015 02:10 hugitout wrote:
I loved bw since day 1.
I, too, enjoyed it from the beginning, even though I never won vs other humans.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Silly thread imo. My philosophy is if you don't like a game, don't play it. If you feel that you'll like it with more time, give it more time then quit afterwards if you still don't like it. It's simple really. If you are passionate about something, you'll improve a lot more than the other guy who's only forcing himself to play it.
I enjoyed BW from day one and the game has never felt it was a chore. I mostly played FMP games after trying several ladder games back in 2000 and losing them all and never had fun problems or hated the game. Even nowadays after losing a really close TvZ due to a macro or micro mistake, I place the blame squarely on myself for it because I forgot to macro, I chose to engage that way, I made the wrong decision, etc...
|
On December 26 2015 12:55 BigFan wrote:
Silly thread imo. My philosophy is if you don't like a game, don't play it. If you feel that you'll like it with more time, give it more time then quit afterwards if you still don't like it. It's simple really. If you are passionate about something, you'll improve a lot more than the other guy who's only forcing himself to play it.
I enjoyed BW from day one and the game has never felt it was a chore. I mostly played FMP games after trying several ladder games back in 2000 and losing them all and never had fun problems or hated the game. Even nowadays after losing a really close TvZ due to a macro or micro mistake, I place the blame squarely on myself for it because I forgot to macro, I chose to engage that way, I made the wrong decision, etc...
If you think that games shouldn't reward or punish players based on mechanical skill, then you should refrain from playing games in which mechanical skill is a major part.
You should not go on forums and whine about it.
|
On December 26 2015 10:24 ggsimida wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 01:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 25 2015 12:13 ggsimida wrote:
all i see is a sc2 person crying because of bad micro
Then giving very funny excuses and insult game, and not learn to play proper.
no need to argue with people with such bad mental, they never learn ^ ^ How often you win does not determine whether the game is fun or not. Guy did not like BW, gave his reasons. You don't get to tell him that he actually should like BW. How people feel about something is not something decided by other people. of course BW is not for every person but who do i believe, a person that ragequit after fail simple marine micro, make excuse and blame system with wrong reasons or many people in the past who played show their love and praise for this game? i see people above say earlier, new generation gamer prefer easy game, thus i no blame him. They are used to easy games instead make funny reason excuses he can post rep, ask for help on marine micro and 1rax expand, but he choose not to and would rather whine and cry. i believe hard work and persist is key to success not just in game but in real life, not whine and cry. quit he rather give funny excuses and blame system which has work proper for 15 years than leave silently. This not only insult the game but also players who have work hard and try improve in this game they like. if u supprt his kind of mental, gl to you in life too you need it
Once again. Data points should be taken individually.
Person A liking the game does not counteract person B disliking the game.
It's not about believing one or the other, but being accepting on both opinions being valid. In the end, games are not our lives. If you treat games like you treat your life then most likely you're treating the game too seriously.
|
On December 26 2015 14:51 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2015 10:24 ggsimida wrote:On December 26 2015 01:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 25 2015 12:13 ggsimida wrote:
all i see is a sc2 person crying because of bad micro
Then giving very funny excuses and insult game, and not learn to play proper.
no need to argue with people with such bad mental, they never learn ^ ^ How often you win does not determine whether the game is fun or not. Guy did not like BW, gave his reasons. You don't get to tell him that he actually should like BW. How people feel about something is not something decided by other people. of course BW is not for every person but who do i believe, a person that ragequit after fail simple marine micro, make excuse and blame system with wrong reasons or many people in the past who played show their love and praise for this game? i see people above say earlier, new generation gamer prefer easy game, thus i no blame him. They are used to easy games instead make funny reason excuses he can post rep, ask for help on marine micro and 1rax expand, but he choose not to and would rather whine and cry. i believe hard work and persist is key to success not just in game but in real life, not whine and cry. quit he rather give funny excuses and blame system which has work proper for 15 years than leave silently. This not only insult the game but also players who have work hard and try improve in this game they like. if u supprt his kind of mental, gl to you in life too you need it Once again. Data points should be taken individually. Person A liking the game does not counteract person B disliking the game. It's not about believing one or the other, but being accepting on both opinions being valid. In the end, games are not our lives. If you treat games like you treat your life then most likely you're treating the game too seriously.
Life itself is also a game ^ ^
you like your data points,
Statistics itself is no meaning unless you put into perpectives. i can say i will treat the data points of hard and smart workers more seriously than data points of whiners blamepusher or ragequitter. This perpective will be same for everyone.. unless you are a person with shit attitude too ^ ^
|
I feel I have created a monster post! Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
