|
yeah I like how chat is in 1.18 too would be perfect with few fixes (friend list bug, show channel first in right tab, icons?  , profiles)
|
On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky.
Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense.
|
ALLEYCAT BLUES50584 Posts
On July 02 2017 00:59 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 00:45 BLinD-RawR wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. I'm not sure I follow you're argument, you accept that its comfortable and inviting and we know its functional...I mean if it ain't broke. if you're looking for an "updated" experience then this isn't the game for you, its supposed to be the same as it always was, and for what its worth I like the 1.18 chat channel design. It isn't supposed to be the same that it always was. If it was supposed to be the same then they would have no reason to put 18 months of work into and then sell it. It's meant to update several aspects of the game to let it better fit in the modern world, and the chat is part of that right along with a ladder, matchmaking, new art, modern resolution, etc.
let me reiterate,chat isn't broken, you telling me chat is broken isn't worth anything, 1.18's chat is a reorientation while still making it the core, I'm really not fond of the modern take of chat in SC2/D3/WoW/OW. I like my chat channels to be the center of my lobby experience.
I'm fully aware that don't need to ping people to look for standard games anymore, but the chat experience in BW is so much more than that, in fact most people play UMS over standard laddering, even when we have matchmaking that will not change much.
|
On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense.
I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s.
|
On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s.
You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing.
|
On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing.
Which goes back to the very beginning.
On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all.
"Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad."
That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't.
If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. Edit: SC2 isn't "bad" either. It isn't flawless, but it is fairly modern.
|
On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. Show nested quote +On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded.
You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement.
And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old"
|
On July 02 2017 01:24 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement. And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old"
In the case of SC:R the entire reason they are putting all of their energy and money into it as a product is to make it newer and better fit into the modern gaming space and modern esports space, and in order to pay for that work they need to get funding, and in order to get funding they eventually need a product worth selling.
Blizzard wants to sell BW again. In order to sell a game, it has to be modernized. Blizzard is modernizing BW, so that they can sell BW.
Without updating BW, there is no point in working on and selling BW again.
|
|
|
Looking forward to the remastered version 
|
On July 02 2017 01:28 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:24 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement. And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old" In the case of SC:R the entire reason they are putting all of their energy and money into it as a product is to make it newer and better fit into the modern gaming space and modern esports space, and in order to pay for that work they need to get funding, and in order to get funding they eventually need a product worth selling. Blizzard wants to sell BW again. In order to sell a game, it has to be modernized. Blizzard is modernizing BW, so that they can sell BW. Without updating BW, there is no point in working on and selling BW again.
Except lack of true modernizations is going to bite them in the ass. At least half of new players are going to not like it.
And there is a certain number of old players like me that also expected more changes than we got.
I fear all they are going to get is same small group of people that already played it for years and Blizzard is going to abandon it after that.
Even worse, they might think twice about making Diablo 2: Remastered which is what I want even more.
|
On July 02 2017 02:16 -Archangel- wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:28 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:24 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement. And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old" In the case of SC:R the entire reason they are putting all of their energy and money into it as a product is to make it newer and better fit into the modern gaming space and modern esports space, and in order to pay for that work they need to get funding, and in order to get funding they eventually need a product worth selling. Blizzard wants to sell BW again. In order to sell a game, it has to be modernized. Blizzard is modernizing BW, so that they can sell BW. Without updating BW, there is no point in working on and selling BW again. Except lack of true modernizations is going to bite them in the ass. At least half of new players are going to not like it. And there is a certain number of old players like me that also expected more changes than we got. I fear all they are going to get is same small group of people that already played it for years and Blizzard is going to abandon it after that. Even worse, they might think twice about making Diablo 2: Remastered which is what I want even more.
I have faith that it will bring in enough western fans to play the campaign and have a short go online and bring in enough Korean fans who are growing tired of seeing the same old graphics that it will be well worth it. There is a need for them to change but without going full-on, staying in an odd middle territory, which I think could do what you fear, but not in a huge way.
I'm optimistic about it as a whole, maybe in two years we'll see D2 news when they're finishing up another expansion people have been whispering about. (or War1...?)
|
On July 02 2017 01:28 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:24 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement. And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old" In the case of SC:R the entire reason they are putting all of their energy and money into it as a product is to make it newer and better fit into the modern gaming space and modern esports space, and in order to pay for that work they need to get funding, and in order to get funding they eventually need a product worth selling. Blizzard wants to sell BW again. In order to sell a game, it has to be modernized. Blizzard is modernizing BW, so that they can sell BW. Without updating BW, there is no point in working on and selling BW again.
Since neither of us is involved with Blizzard's decision making, I wouldn't speak as if I knew exactly what they are thinking.
You have to look at who they are selling the game to as well. Korea rejected SC2, even though all the progamers switched, the regular gamers prefered BW. Of course SC2 declined because of its flaws and now BW is bouncing back.
And personally I think a big one of Blizzard's objectives is to keep Starcraft relevant in Korea, because it's a huge market for them, so they're updating the parts of the game that can be updated without upsetting the korean base. I think that's where their priorities lie, with the korean starcraft scene, and their 'modern esports space' very much want it to stay the same, save for the graphics.
But as I said, none of us work at Blizzard so any comment about their desicion making is just speculation.
|
The weird thing about making the chat channels more like sc2, is that they've already designed and tested a version of chat channels that feels very authentically bw. So what was that all about?
|
On July 02 2017 02:53 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 01:28 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:24 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:19 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:13 KungKras wrote:On July 02 2017 01:10 blunderfulguy wrote:On July 02 2017 01:03 ortseam wrote:On July 02 2017 00:29 blunderfulguy wrote:
Maybe comfortable and inviting because it feels like the 90s, but that leads me back to everyone arguing that the only reason it's better is because they prefer 1998s BW over any modern RTS and 2010-17s SC2. I don't see any good reason not to update it along with everything else they are doing unless Blizz wants people to forever need rose tinted glasses in order to thoroughly enjoy their experience without feeling that the game is incredibly dated and/or clunky. Updating just for the sake of it, when the updated version is worse for most people just isn't right.I understand you don't like the old UI, but "comfortable and inviting" is a thing for a lot of people, including me, who haven't played the game for a long time, and definitely not since 1998, so the nostalgia argument is just nonsense. I'm not saying you can't like the old UI, what I'm saying is there's no good reason to say things like "oh, it's going to be like X? well that's not a good change at all". There are reasons things are getting updated, just because some prefer one thing and others prefer another doesn't mean it can't nor shouldn't get changed to better fit modern UI/UX design principles. The old UI and chat look and feel straight out of the 90s. The point of this is to take the game out of the 90s. You're basically telling people to not give their subjective opinion on something while you're giving your subjective opinion on the same exact thing. Which goes back to the very beginning. On July 01 2017 23:16 DeepElemBlues wrote:
...chat is going to be more similar to SC2?
Well that's not a good change at all. "Change is bad. They are changing X. Therefore, X will be bad." That logic assumes that "Change is bad" is true, which it isn't. If you think something is bad, say why it's bad. If it's just because it's different then you're whining while also being closed-minded. You're missing that when people say that something is bad, there is almost allways an implied "I think" before the statement. And you're guilty of the same thing because if I were to try and interpret your statements from a logical angle all you're saying is "new is better than old" In the case of SC:R the entire reason they are putting all of their energy and money into it as a product is to make it newer and better fit into the modern gaming space and modern esports space, and in order to pay for that work they need to get funding, and in order to get funding they eventually need a product worth selling. Blizzard wants to sell BW again. In order to sell a game, it has to be modernized. Blizzard is modernizing BW, so that they can sell BW. Without updating BW, there is no point in working on and selling BW again. Since neither of us is involved with Blizzard's decision making, I wouldn't speak as if I knew exactly what they are thinking. You have to look at who they are selling the game to as well. Korea rejected SC2, even though all the progamers switched, the regular gamers prefered BW. Of course SC2 declined because of its flaws and now BW is bouncing back. And personally I think a big one of Blizzard's objectives is to keep Starcraft relevant in Korea, because it's a huge market for them, so they're updating the parts of the game that can be updated without upsetting the korean base. I think that's where their priorities lie, with the korean starcraft scene, and their 'modern esports space' very much want it to stay the same, save for the graphics. But as I said, none of us work at Blizzard so any comment about their desicion making is just speculation.
Of course it's speculation, yeah. I disagree that SC2 declined because of its flaws, I believe it declined for the same reasons that BW declined in the west, notably it being damn hard to play and being on focused on 1v1 instead of teams, but I would agree, and the Korean-only CE is evidence of this, that they put their focus on that audience. The campaign changes seem directed more so to the west.
Now, BW bouncing back again in Korea makes it a great time to launch SC:R regardless of the rest of the world's esports or casual gaming spaces. It really makes me wonder not just how it's going to do but what would be good for War1/2/3, D2, or other old games that don't seem to have the same "Renaissance" eras that BW has in Korea. Games like Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Age of Empires have gotten HD remasters but not to this scale/quality and kind of just make it off of GOG/Steam sales. Planescape: Torment has gotten similar HD treatment (iirc) and even a "spiritual successor/remake" in Torment: Tides of Numenera, which was hyped to the extreme during the incredibly huge Kickstarter but not so much at launch.
Getting off topic though.
|
On July 02 2017 04:26 blunderfulguy wrote:
notably it being damn hard to play and being on focused on 1v1 instead of teams
That never stopped any of the shitloads of people who only played BGH / even fancier UMS in the past... just saying bro. And in my experience Quake, UT, CS 1.6 were the same. Most of the people in the community only played simple, custom modes like Clan Arena, Rocket Arena, TAM in UT 2k4, and usually simpler maps in CS like fy_snow, de_dust2_long etc. Even Team Fortress 2 had its own variant, 24/7 ctf_2fort servers.
It doesn't matter how hard the game is at a competitive level, or whether the eSports side is team-focused or not. What matters if there's something fun for the casual player to do, preferably with friends.
Now SC2, despite having an absolutely incredible map editor, had atrocious garbage support for custom maps for at least the first 2 years of its launch.
|
On July 02 2017 02:57 Dazed. wrote:
The weird thing about making the chat channels more like sc2, is that they've already designed and tested a version of chat channels that feels very authentically bw. So what was that all about?
I assume the chat channels will be exactly like what they showed off in the official preview article, which was very similar to the chat in 1.18 except with more features.
|
On July 02 2017 04:37 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 04:26 blunderfulguy wrote:
notably it being damn hard to play and being on focused on 1v1 instead of teams That never stopped any of the shitloads of people who only played BGH / even fancier UMS in the past... just saying bro. And in my experience Quake, UT, CS 1.6 were the same. Most of the people in the community only played simple, custom modes like Clan Arena, Rocket Arena, TAM in UT 2k4, and usually simpler maps in CS like fy_snow, de_dust2_long etc. Even Team Fortress 2 had its own variant, 24/7 ctf_2fort servers. It doesn't matter how hard the game is at a competitive level, or whether the eSports side is team-focused or not. What matters if there's something fun for the casual player to do, preferably with friends. Now SC2, despite having an absolutely incredible map editor, had atrocious garbage support for custom maps for at least the first 2 years of its launch.
I didn't say it was bad that the games are hard. 
|
On July 02 2017 04:48 blunderfulguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2017 04:37 207aicila wrote:On July 02 2017 04:26 blunderfulguy wrote:
notably it being damn hard to play and being on focused on 1v1 instead of teams That never stopped any of the shitloads of people who only played BGH / even fancier UMS in the past... just saying bro. And in my experience Quake, UT, CS 1.6 were the same. Most of the people in the community only played simple, custom modes like Clan Arena, Rocket Arena, TAM in UT 2k4, and usually simpler maps in CS like fy_snow, de_dust2_long etc. Even Team Fortress 2 had its own variant, 24/7 ctf_2fort servers. It doesn't matter how hard the game is at a competitive level, or whether the eSports side is team-focused or not. What matters if there's something fun for the casual player to do, preferably with friends. Now SC2, despite having an absolutely incredible map editor, had atrocious garbage support for custom maps for at least the first 2 years of its launch. I didn't say it was bad that the games are hard.
My point was that it's irrelevant whether they're hard or not...
|
I really dislike some of the death/building destruction animation.
They last way too long and deters from the gameplay. But otherwise, everything else is okay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
