|
On March 22 2017 16:12 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 15:45 Woobz wrote:On March 22 2017 11:40 BigFan wrote:On March 22 2017 11:37 Probemicro wrote:
high res do affect balance. for example. protoss goons will have a harder time directly a clicking on mines (which is an important skill toi have when dealing with vults) since every unit in the game is now smaller (comparatively screen wise) than usual. yep, high res will make a major impact. Everything from spotting drops, macroing and microing units. Just because you expand the screen resolution does not mean you have to expand the field of view or make the units smaller. The entire purpose of doing high resolution graphics would mean you can scale them up rather than expand the field of view. The reason they expand the field of view in remasters such as Age of Empires II HD is because they aren't actually using higher resolution graphics. Most likely you will see a little more horizontally with widescreen resolutions, but it's not like you will see the entire map and your units will be smaller. Your graphics are already being stretched when you play on fullscreen using modern LCD monitors. It'd be like if you stretched it the way it already is on a modern monitor and then painted over all the graphics in a higher resolution. They may even go as far as stretching the sprites for widescreen displays rather than expanding the field of view which also already happens if you go fullscreen on a widescreen monitor and aspect ratio isn't maintained. I don't think anyone here is arguing against a higher resolution that maintains scale and ratio. That would just be stupid. What some people here are against is 16 : 9 and unscaled resolution changes. For the record, in AoE2, you can change the "zoom" of the game. Not so in Brood War.
If they were doing that there would be no reason to do high resolution sprites.
|
On March 22 2017 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
One hilarious observation from all this:
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
Just an observation
It's even more hilarious.
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
*BW fan: Go play SC2 then*
*SC2 fan: WTF do you want? You still have your "pure" BW, right?*
|
On March 22 2017 03:48 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:39 ortseam wrote:
I love how Jealous makes big post about the bigger screen issue , then people with not other argument than modernization come here saying he needs therapy. Guess that's what you get for explaining things, getting repeatedly insulted from people who ignore how the game works preeeetty sure I played at a much higher level than he did and all that he tried to explain was pretty much bollocks, it won't affect balance, won't affect gameplay much at all, if anything it's just going to be a little bit harder to keep track of the mini map because of the wide screen
Thank you, exactly what I thought.
|
On March 22 2017 17:14 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 03:48 ROOTFayth wrote:On March 22 2017 03:39 ortseam wrote:
I love how Jealous makes big post about the bigger screen issue , then people with not other argument than modernization come here saying he needs therapy. Guess that's what you get for explaining things, getting repeatedly insulted from people who ignore how the game works preeeetty sure I played at a much higher level than he did and all that he tried to explain was pretty much bollocks, it won't affect balance, won't affect gameplay much at all, if anything it's just going to be a little bit harder to keep track of the mini map because of the wide screen Thank you, exactly what I thought.
We have found a supporter for this very strong counter-argument. That's now 2 vs. 1, democracy wins, guess I don't have a leg to stand on here and all of my points are "bollocks." gg wp
|
On March 22 2017 17:12 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
One hilarious observation from all this:
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
Just an observation It's even more hilarious. SC2 in development*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War* *SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!* BWHD in development*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2* *BW fan: Go play SC2 then* *SC2 fan: WTF do you want? You still have your "pure" BW, right?*
Best part is that all this "discussion" is meaningless if the game is nearly complete and a preview will be made on Sunday.
|
On March 22 2017 17:26 Wrath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 17:12 hitthat wrote:On March 22 2017 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
One hilarious observation from all this:
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
Just an observation It's even more hilarious. SC2 in development*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War* *SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!* BWHD in development*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2* *BW fan: Go play SC2 then* *SC2 fan: WTF do you want? You still have your "pure" BW, right?* Best part is that all this "discussion" is meaningless if the game is nearly complete and a preview will be made on Sunday.
I will reiterate how this discussion is not necessarily meaningless in the long-term perspective. If people who know more about Brood War through experience correct misconceptions about what "should" be in the HD remake before it even comes out and put out enough evidence that supports their claims, then when the HD remake arrives people with less experience might understand why something is or is not right, why someone should or should not complain on the forums to Blizzard for a patch as many modern RTS players are want to do, so on and so forth. It's called nipping it in the bud, I believe. This is of course an uncharacteristically optimistic viewpoint for me, but one that is not harmful to uphold and maintain.
As such, I believe that single sentence posts denouncing the value of an entire thread that has demonstrated the necessity for discourse on the subject contribute less than zero to the overall quality of the thread itself.
|
I like how there's always one guy per page going "ell oh ell why are you even discussing this" like clockwork, even though participating is completely optional.
Very good response by Jealous above.
|
On March 22 2017 17:58 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 17:26 Wrath wrote:On March 22 2017 17:12 hitthat wrote:On March 22 2017 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
One hilarious observation from all this:
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
Just an observation It's even more hilarious. SC2 in development*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War* *SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!* BWHD in development*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2* *BW fan: Go play SC2 then* *SC2 fan: WTF do you want? You still have your "pure" BW, right?* Best part is that all this "discussion" is meaningless if the game is nearly complete and a preview will be made on Sunday. I will reiterate how this discussion is not necessarily meaningless in the long-term perspective. If people who know more about Brood War through experience correct misconceptions about what "should" be in the HD remake before it even comes out and put out enough evidence that supports their claims, then when the HD remake arrives people with less experience might understand why something is or is not right, why someone should or should not complain of the forums to Blizzard for a patch as many modern RTS players are want to do, so on and so forth. It's called nipping it in the bud, I believe. This is of course an uncharacteristically optimistic viewpoint for me, but one that is not harmful to uphold and maintain. As such, I believe that single sentence posts denouncing the value of an entire thread that has demonstrated the necessity for discourse on the subject contributes less than zero to the overall quality of the thread itself.
There is no "right or wrong" though. At least not in the strict sense. It all depends on what you wanna achieve in the end. Typically you want to sell copies, and that money factor is probably the only thing really tangible. Personally i find this pov to be unsatisfactory though, i would rather discuss game mechanics and the likely impact of it. That's where we need to define goals though. Not the goal to sell copies, but what gameplay we wanna have. I like bw's priorities in gameplay or rather how everything together plays out. I like that units have micro potential, i like the specific unit interactions. It's nice to have fights all over the map. That's all more abstract though, i am not sure if the gameplay mechanics (like having no mbs, having only a low number of units/buildings per group, etc) are necessary to create that experience.
Why do i still think that BWHD should be gameplaywise 1:1 BW? Because i doubt that blizzard would be able to get the essence of bw without copying 1:1 atm. I am still almost positive that you could create a game which has all the strengths of bw and still is more accessible for new players. It's just not what BWHD should try to achieve because it imo can only fail in that regard (most likely)
|
Basically this:
There is no "right or wrong" though. At least not in the strict sense. It all depends on what you wanna achieve in the end. Typically you want to sell copies, and that money factor is probably the only thing really tangible.
Also, why would Blizzard care for what TL say when they have the major solid target audience in SK to get info on what the remake should be like?
I mean, they are the one who had tournaments and kept the scene alive for over 10 years and the pros still there playing.
|
On March 22 2017 18:49 Wrath wrote:Basically this: Show nested quote +There is no "right or wrong" though. At least not in the strict sense. It all depends on what you wanna achieve in the end. Typically you want to sell copies, and that money factor is probably the only thing really tangible. Also, why would Blizzard care for what TL say when they have the major solid target audience in SK to get info on what the remake should be like? I mean, they are the one who had tournaments and kept the scene alive for over 10 years and the pros still there playing.
Blizz does what Blizz wants these days.
See how long it took them to include basic chatroom functionality in Bnet 2 despite massive numbers of requests and when they brought it in they still fucked it up.No full screen chatroom windows only a postage stamp sized box.
|
Congrats to Wrath and The_Red_Viper for not reading what Jealous wrote and instead coming up with generic statements that miss the point entirely but which you somehow hallucinate as contradicting it.
|
On March 22 2017 17:15 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 17:14 ZenithM wrote:On March 22 2017 03:48 ROOTFayth wrote:On March 22 2017 03:39 ortseam wrote:
I love how Jealous makes big post about the bigger screen issue , then people with not other argument than modernization come here saying he needs therapy. Guess that's what you get for explaining things, getting repeatedly insulted from people who ignore how the game works preeeetty sure I played at a much higher level than he did and all that he tried to explain was pretty much bollocks, it won't affect balance, won't affect gameplay much at all, if anything it's just going to be a little bit harder to keep track of the mini map because of the wide screen Thank you, exactly what I thought. We have found a supporter for this very strong counter-argument. That's now 2 vs. 1, democracy wins, guess I don't have a leg to stand on here and all of my points are "bollocks." gg wp
I asked what would change with resolution and nobody answered :D.
Edit: I'm sure you talked about it before so if you could point me to your post or just repeat your main points for why you think 16 : 9 would destroy the game, that would be great.
|
On March 22 2017 18:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 17:58 Jealous wrote:On March 22 2017 17:26 Wrath wrote:On March 22 2017 17:12 hitthat wrote:On March 22 2017 08:35 prOxi.swAMi wrote:
One hilarious observation from all this:
SC2 in development
*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War*
*SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!*
BWHD in development
*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2*
Just an observation It's even more hilarious. SC2 in development*Brood War fan makes suggestion that SC2 be more like Brood War* *SC2 fan: Go play brood war then!* BWHD in development*SC2 fan makes suggestion that BWHD be more like SC2* *BW fan: Go play SC2 then* *SC2 fan: WTF do you want? You still have your "pure" BW, right?* Best part is that all this "discussion" is meaningless if the game is nearly complete and a preview will be made on Sunday. I will reiterate how this discussion is not necessarily meaningless in the long-term perspective. If people who know more about Brood War through experience correct misconceptions about what "should" be in the HD remake before it even comes out and put out enough evidence that supports their claims, then when the HD remake arrives people with less experience might understand why something is or is not right, why someone should or should not complain of the forums to Blizzard for a patch as many modern RTS players are want to do, so on and so forth. It's called nipping it in the bud, I believe. This is of course an uncharacteristically optimistic viewpoint for me, but one that is not harmful to uphold and maintain. As such, I believe that single sentence posts denouncing the value of an entire thread that has demonstrated the necessity for discourse on the subject contributes less than zero to the overall quality of the thread itself. There is no "right or wrong" though. At least not in the strict sense. It all depends on what you wanna achieve in the end. Typically you want to sell copies, and that money factor is probably the only thing really tangible. Personally i find this pov to be unsatisfactory though, i would rather discuss game mechanics and the likely impact of it. That's where we need to define goals though. Not the goal to sell copies, but what gameplay we wanna have. I like bw's priorities in gameplay or rather how everything together plays out. I like that units have micro potential, i like the specific unit interactions. It's nice to have fights all over the map. That's all more abstract though, i am not sure if the gameplay mechanics (like having no mbs, having only a low number of units/buildings per group, etc) are necessary to create that experience. Why do i still think that BWHD should be gameplaywise 1:1 BW? Because i doubt that blizzard would be able to get the essence of bw without copying 1:1 atm. I am still almost positive that you could create a game which has all the strengths of bw and still is more accessible for new players. It's just not what BWHD should try to achieve because it imo can only fail in that regard (most likely)
My thoughts exactly.
It is perfectly undestandable that people are skeptical about any changes made to BW, both gameplay or non-gameplay, given recent Blizzard track record I tend to agree that there is high risk in Blizzard interfering with BW so it might be better to not touch it at all in that regard.
On the other hand I also agree with quoted statement:
On March 22 2017 18:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I am still almost positive that you could create a game which has all the strengths of bw and still is more accessible for new players.
and I feel that some people are asking for this even if not exactly sure what it should look like. Is it realistic to expect Blizzard to do so? Idk. It might not matter in the end as Blizzard will do their stuff anyway so maybe the best we can do is to judge them by the results.
|
On March 22 2017 18:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I like bw's priorities in gameplay or rather how everything together plays out. I like that units have micro potential, i like the specific unit interactions. It's nice to have fights all over the map. That's all more abstract though, i am not sure if the gameplay mechanics (like [...] having only a low number of units/buildings per group, etc) are necessary to create that experience.
Way to ruin an impresion that you understand why the game works like it works. Mutalisk stacks were given example many times here in debates, and blob battles are also a little bit toned down becouse of that limitation.
|
There is nothing to "fix" about BW. SC2 fans act like BW was somehow held back by 98 tech and the devs did not create the game they truly wanted to make.....WRONG! MBS/Unlimited unit control/automine could of easily been included in BW but they chose not to as a design choice and they were right!
Any new player that has a real interest in RTS will have no trouble adjusting to BW...all it takes is a little effort and this is easy to do when you're having fun. This constant push by some devs/fans to waterdown EVERY genre in video games is regressive.
Some games can still be mechanically demanding/difficult in 2017 and that's OK!
|
On March 22 2017 19:21 hitthat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 18:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I like bw's priorities in gameplay or rather how everything together plays out. I like that units have micro potential, i like the specific unit interactions. It's nice to have fights all over the map. That's all more abstract though, i am not sure if the gameplay mechanics (like [...] having only a low number of units/buildings per group, etc) are necessary to create that experience. Way to ruin an impresion that you understand why the game works like it works. Mutalisk stacks were given example many times here in debates, and blob battles are also a little bit toned down becouse of that limitation.
You don't understand my point. I am not suggesting that you can just remove it from the game without changing other things as well to get the same essence. I am saying that i think you can create a game which has the same strengths as bw without having to deal with the "limitations" (yes some of it were design decisions).
Ofc you would need to design the game somewhat differently. To sum it up: I care about the effect of these "limitations" on the gameplay, i don't think that you need exactly these things to get a very similar effect though, there could be other ways to get there.
|
On March 22 2017 19:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 22 2017 19:21 hitthat wrote:On March 22 2017 18:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:
I like bw's priorities in gameplay or rather how everything together plays out. I like that units have micro potential, i like the specific unit interactions. It's nice to have fights all over the map. That's all more abstract though, i am not sure if the gameplay mechanics (like [...] having only a low number of units/buildings per group, etc) are necessary to create that experience. Way to ruin an impresion that you understand why the game works like it works. Mutalisk stacks were given example many times here in debates, and blob battles are also a little bit toned down becouse of that limitation. You don't understand my point. I am not suggesting that you can just remove it from the game without changing other things as well to get the same essence. I am saying that i think you can create a game which has the same strengths as bw without having to deal with the "limitations" (yes some of it were design decisions). Ofc you would need to design the game somewhat differently. To sum it up: I care about the effect of these "limitations" on the gameplay, i don't think that you need exactly these things to get a very similar effect though, there could be other ways to get there.
I think BW's extreme RTS quality was also a product of luck. Not all of the cherished unit behaviors and emerging tactics were design decisions. A lot of it is also bugs and bad programming that somehow actually yielded a really interesting and balanced game.
Which makes this winning formula very hard to reproduce, or to tinker with. This should tell you something that 20 years later, this is still the top competitive RTS game. So I think BW fans are right when they say that any minor change to some gameplay design choices could just ruin the game.
I don't think they can legitimately defend keeping 4:3 resolutions and static hotkeys though :D.
|
Well i already said that i am on the side of people who say gameplay shouldn't be changed for this BWHD. I am simply stating that if we had to design a new game from ground up i do not necessarily believe that we need to use the same methods to get to the desirable end state.
|
On March 22 2017 20:09 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well i already said that i am on the side of people who say gameplay shouldn't be changed for this BWHD. I am simply stating that if we had to design a new game from ground up i do not necessarily believe that we need to use the same methods to get to the desirable end state.
I agree with that, I just think it would be very hard. Hell, it would probably not even be trivial to make a BW clone from the ground up with an approaching level of quality without using Blizzard's original code.
|
what is MBS everyone keeps mentioning? I don't know this abbreviation,could anyone help with this please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
