|
On June 17 2010 04:46 Misrah wrote:
blizz does not need to create a competitive game because no one knows what a competitive game is anymore. If you play SCBW, SSBM, SF, CS then yet you know what a steep learning curve feels like.
Blizz just needs to create a false sense of competition for their entertainment.
SC2 is entertainment, because that is what is going to appeal to the masses, and have everyone eating up sc2 part 2 and sc2 part 3.
What are you even talking about any more? You don't give any examples for any thing you say, you just preach, "The entertainment industry, omg! No more competition! Ah!" Blizzard needs to create competition to keep people playing their game, and for it to be considered quality. Not only that, but the casual gamer looks to gaming websites a lot when buying games, and the hardcore audience is what dominants these sites. The reviewers of top sites like IGN, Gametrailers, Gamespot, GiantBomb are all hardcore gamers, if you don't appeal to these people, they will rate your game low and your sales will hurt.
|
When reading this, "conspiracy theorist" screams in my head. So, I know that any argument in the contrary is not going to sway the opinion of your ludicrous theory.
Video games, to me, have not changed too much sinceonline multiplayer was introduced. There are hard games, easy games, corporate games, indie games, competitive games, community games...
In fact, video games are now becoming extremely more diversified and unique with the market being so large. We're actually heading into a great era of gaming.
Go play Darkfall if you want a game you can't win or even succeed at.
|
On June 17 2010 04:48 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Easy to learn, difficult to master. It's possible and it's out there. If the skill ceiling is too low, why are there still players and teams that stand out from the rest? Until there are tournaments with 20+ people who have about an equal chance of winning, skill ceilings aren't a problem.
nony- come on, with the apm machines that are korean pro gamers, you don't think that they will hit the ceiling quickly?
|
The main issue I have with this essay is that it basically accuses all modern games of having "fake competition" for no real reason. What exactly does SC2 have that makes it fake? What does fake even mean? None of this is defined, but you toss it around as fact. Just because a game isn't on BW's level doesn't mean it can't still be competitive.
And what's worse is that you accuse Blizzard of sabotaging competition with no proof of it whatsoever, although I'm sure the reasons you will give will probably be something completely subjective and baseless. I mean I can understand the frustration at the over-casualization of several games, but I really don't see a reason why competition suddenly has no place.
|
I just had this conversation with someone else who was lamenting the end of true gaming and the rise of casualware. I just don't agree. So much of it smacks of old people lamenting the "good old days." I mean I was born not at the birth of gaming, but in the mid-eighties to early-nineties my father was also young enough that he enjoyed playing things like Zelda and Metroid and Mario and Duck Hunt with me. So I've been gaming since 8-bit days. I don't think I'm particularly nostalgic of a lost age of mega-gaming.
I think it's always been the goal of game designers to make games that would appeal to everyone. They just haven't always been that successful at it. It's seldom that a game designer would say to themselves, "hey, forget the public at large, I'd like to dramatically narrow the appeal base for my game and selectively block the enjoyment of anyone else." It just doesn't happen. Sure some games are made to be easier than others, some are made to be more difficult, some are made "hardcore", some are made more casual. It's not different than saying some games are puzzle games, some are platforms, and some are shooters.
They had that one game that came out and everyone went gaga over it because it was so hard, Demon's Souls. Does it make that game the best of all time because it's so difficult and hardcore? Not really. It's enjoyable in it's own way, but certainly not to the exclusion of everything else.
Besides, I think there are different ways to even enjoy the same game. Sometimes I may want to just play through a game. I just want to extract the fun elements I can, partake of it's story, and then move on to other things. I may just select the "normal" difficulty to that end. Sometimes, I may want to really struggle against the game and put it on the "very hard" difficulty. Sometimes, my buddies and I want to make a weekend of it and throw co-op into the "impossible" difficulty and laugh about how unfair the game is. However, we're getting different things from different difficulty levels. And that's fine.
As it relates to SC2, I really don't see any foundation for your wild assertions that balance suggestions are not being listened to. They definitely are being listened to. But you're right that not all balance suggestions are being put through the deciding lens of "is this best for esports." They certainly step back and say "is this bad for esports?" and they may thereafter decide to find another fix, but I don't think the primary design goal of the game is esports. Reasonable minds may differ on this one, but I don't think that's necessarily wrong. I don't think BW was designed in that way either. Certainly with an eye towards the competitions that were going on, but I don't think Blizzard sat down to make SC1 and said "let's make a game built for online competitions and leagues they'll have someday in Korea, and let's tack on a single-player so we can squeeze some extra units out of lore-nerds without any skill while we're at it." So, I don't see why they'd also suddenly sit down to SC2 and say the same thing.
I suppose this is just a lot of rambling to say I don't disagree with some of the ends that you say exist, but I definitely disagree on the causes. I think you've given a lot of effects without clearly drawing the link to the causes. And because this causality is at the heart of your thesis, it overall undermines your argument.
|
On June 17 2010 04:46 Misrah wrote:
blizz does not need to create a competitive game because no one knows what a competitive game is anymore. If you play SCBW, SSBM, SF, CS then yet you know what a steep learning curve feels like.
Blizz just needs to create a false sense of competition for their entertainment.
SC2 is entertainment, because that is what is going to appeal to the masses, and have everyone eating up sc2 part 2 and sc2 part 3.
As far as I know all of those examples were made for entertainment. Hardcore players make the game seem hardcore and competitve. You will always have the mix of the player base (Hardcore not hardcore) in every game(Sorry to burst your bubble but the smaller mix is the hardcore crowd).
You can prove to us that your logic is sound when you become the best player or can beat the best players 50% of the time in the game because it has a small skill ceiling and everyone can be the best.
|
8748 Posts
In my opinion, gaming needs to be as broad and as mainstream as possible without sacrificing competition. It's getting more broad and more mainstream. Competitive gaming is still fine. So things are actually improving.
It's true that developers could go too far and eventually make some decisions that are fatal to competition. But is there any reason to believe they'll do that? I don't think so. There are already games that are, to use the OP's terminology, just entertainment. That demographic is already being tapped into. It might be more profitable than competitive gaming, but as long as competitive gaming is profitable at all, doing both entertainment games and competitive games will be more profitable than just doing entertainment games.
|
On June 17 2010 04:50 Spawkuring wrote:
The main issue I have with this essay is that it basically accuses all modern games of having "fake competition" for no real reason. What exactly does SC2 have that makes it fake? What does fake even mean? None of this is defined, but you toss it around as fact. Just because a game isn't on BW's level doesn't mean it can't still be competitive.
And what's worse is that you accuse Blizzard of sabotaging competition with no proof of it whatsoever, although I'm sure the reasons you will give will probably be something completely subjective and baseless. I mean I can understand the frustration at the over-casualization of several games, but I really don't see a reason why competition suddenly has no place.
they sabotage competition by having their hand in every single aspect of competition. From no LAN, to all the other shit they are going to pull in online line 'turnies' Can you honestly tell me that they are looking to created a competitive game- when they have never taken anything the competitive community has said to them?
|
I believe that what he means by an entertainment game, is equivalent to MW2. This is a game where you can use an unlimited ammo grenade launcher with 1hitKO as an attachment to your spawn weapon. It is a game where you can hide around a corner killing people who walk by until you have gotten your 11 kill gunship-that-flys-around-the-map-killing-people reward. Yet even in this retarded environment, i still get consistently killed by better players.
|
If gaming wasn't entertainment then Starcraft 2 couldn't exist.
Is anyone making a sequel to chess?
Moreover, one could not make a sequel to chess. It is entirely self contained with no media element.
|
You truely fail, I'm sorry but i have to say it that bluntly. Just because a game is easy to learn and accessible doesn't mean that it can't be played competetively, I mean look at chess, everyone knows how to move those pieces across the board, yet it's pretty hard to play well.
And why is it hard to play "well", ye right, because a huge lot of people put their mind into it and came up with great ways to utilize those easy and simple moves effectively. So as long as people can think about the different moves in sc2 or whatever rts there is people will improve and games will be competetive.
p.s. I apologize for my bad english, i'm not a native speaker :>
|
On June 17 2010 04:30 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:28 Backpack wrote:
You fail to realize that a game can be easy and remain competitive at the same time.
Look at any non e-sport. Kids start playing soccer or baseball or hockey when they're 6 years old. Does that mean the sport is made for little kids? Try telling that to the professional athletes and die-hard fans.
Just because it's available to more than just the top elite players doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Nope that's called entertainment. Stop kidding yourself- understand what everything has becoem in the pursuit of money...
WRONG, you are COMPLETELY wrong, you had not a single good point in your article.
ill throw out Quake as an example, which you seemed to completely missed in your article. Which is hard, since its about E-sports and competition. You used halo as a point? rofl, anwyays back on point. Quake is easy as balls to get started. You can run around like a chicken with no head and get kills in a FFA server, or Clan Arena. But it, like SC, and CS is one of the most high skill demanding to get GOOD at and be competitive at. But do you need to be godly good to have fun? hell no, you can just run around in Clan Arena and do some wicked shit.
You (and a lot of others for that fact) are completely missing that game designers aren't making a game just for money. They are making something that they are truly proud of.. For example...an artist can just throw paint at a piece of paper and sell taht shit (some do) , but most sit down and make a painting from their heart, make it look the best. Where does this fit in to gaming? Quite simple...game designers and programmers play the game that they make, they want to make it a game they like to play. Its their game, they put their heart into it. Its not just a money grab, contrary to popular belief. one of their main goals is to feed their family, yes. but its not the only goal.
edit, lmao wow...i started typing this before any responses were made...now its on the third page...
|
On June 17 2010 04:54 Liquid`NonY wrote:
In my opinion, gaming needs to be as broad and as mainstream as possible without sacrificing competition. It's getting more broad and more mainstream. Competitive gaming is still fine. So things are actually improving.
It's true that developers could go too far and eventually make some decisions that are fatal to competition. But is there any reason to believe they'll do that? I don't think so. There are already games that are, to use the OP's terminology, just entertainment. That demographic is already being tapped into. It might be more profitable than competitive gaming, but as long as competitive gaming is profitable at all, doing both entertainment games and competitive games will be more profitable than just doing entertainment games.
Nony i feel that they are going to far. In the interest of time and money, making entertainment- is faster cheaper and more profitable then spending hours and hours creating something that will last for years.
|
8748 Posts
On June 17 2010 04:50 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:48 Liquid`NonY wrote:
Easy to learn, difficult to master. It's possible and it's out there. If the skill ceiling is too low, why are there still players and teams that stand out from the rest? Until there are tournaments with 20+ people who have about an equal chance of winning, skill ceilings aren't a problem. nony- come on, with the apm machines that are korean pro gamers, you don't think that they will hit the ceiling quickly?
They didn't with BW -- why would they with SC2? Are you saying your whole OP relies on theorycraft? =/
I know Halo 3 is, in a sense, less competitive than Halo 1. I was there for that. I was a very competitive Halo 1 player and I was totally disappointed with the direction the sequels went. But Halo 3 is still perfectly fine as a competitive game. The skill ceiling is high enough. The skill ceiling for WoW Arena is also high enough. I'm not sure what failure games you can point out...
|
Mirash, seriusly. Removeing th LAN aspect is done purely to protect the game. SCBW was heavly pirated and if Blizz can avoid that by simply removing LAN, i dont see the problem. More or less every single house in the world has inet. Sure, it can be a challange at large LAN gatherings. But you know what, we also has to suffer abit for us to get a new game. We cannot get everything we want.
|
Skill ceiling... oh how I hate those words. They need their own thread like troll and metagame. I expect you made at least a few thousand from the tournaments during beta with SC2's extremely low "skill ceiling"?
Did you not all realize that they have not taken a single shred of your advice?
I must have dreamed all those changes that were changed exactly as the community suggested like:
# Pathing has been improved so units can now properly block ramps and choke points.
# Concussive Shells now require an upgrade.
|
Stop saying, 'Making Entertainment', that's the purpose of a video game in case you didn't know. Whether you find the competition gratifying, or just the accessibility, or mindless fun of UMS', it's all entertainment.
|
Games can be "easy but competitive" at the same time, the only reason you think that they can't is because your used to SCBW. Competition in a game is always between two players, which is what makes these kinds of games difficult. However, in SCBW, there was an added element of having to overcome the interface to be able to play correctly and competitively, adding more to the learning curve. Only at the top of the learning curve though (C-/A+) could skill on SCBW be actually measured, in which your skill with the interface was largely irrelevant because everyone had these skills if they were at your level. Now that SC2 is out, that added learning curve has been removed and people think that SC2 is "easier," but the only reason it seems to be easier is because no one knows what they are doing, not because of a lack of difficulty. Your difficulty is determined by who you play against and only who you play against, not your own skill with the game's interface. It allows more competition, but it also allows noobs to think they are awesome at the game. Think of it like this, playing SCBW is like speed running castlvania without dying while playing counterstrike, while SC2 is like playing counterstrike alone; it may be "easier," but it's also easier for your opponent so you better be watching the mini map... Heh just my two cents!
|
On June 17 2010 04:56 OpRaider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:30 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:28 Backpack wrote:
You fail to realize that a game can be easy and remain competitive at the same time.
Look at any non e-sport. Kids start playing soccer or baseball or hockey when they're 6 years old. Does that mean the sport is made for little kids? Try telling that to the professional athletes and die-hard fans.
Just because it's available to more than just the top elite players doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Nope that's called entertainment. Stop kidding yourself- understand what everything has becoem in the pursuit of money... WRONG, you are COMPLETELY wrong, you had not a single good point in your article. ill throw out Quake as an example, which you seemed to completely missed in your article. Which is hard, since its about E-sports and competition. You used halo as a point? rofl, anwyays back on point. Quake is easy as balls to get started. You can run around like a chicken with no head and get kills in a FFA server, or Clan Arena. But it, like SC, and CS is one of the most high skill demanding to get GOOD at and be competitive at. But do you need to be godly good to have fun? hell no, you can just run around in Clan Arena and do some wicked shit. You (and a lot of others for that fact) are completely missing that game designers aren't making a game just for money. They are making something that they are truly proud of.. For example...an artist can just throw paint at a piece of paper and sell taht shit (some do) , but most sit down and make a painting from their heart, make it look the best. Where does this fit in to gaming? Quite simple...game designers and programmers play the game that they make, they want to make it a game they like to play. Its their game, they put their heart into it. Its not just a money grab, contrary to popular belief. one of their main goals is to feed their family, yes. but its not the only goal.
You don't understand business if you honestly think that a game company would make a game that does not sell well- but they felt good about it.
I never said that a game that is easy to get into is bad- just one that has a very attainable ceiling. That is called entertainment.
|
On June 17 2010 04:58 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:56 OpRaider wrote:On June 17 2010 04:30 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:28 Backpack wrote:
You fail to realize that a game can be easy and remain competitive at the same time.
Look at any non e-sport. Kids start playing soccer or baseball or hockey when they're 6 years old. Does that mean the sport is made for little kids? Try telling that to the professional athletes and die-hard fans.
Just because it's available to more than just the top elite players doesn't mean it can't be competitive. Nope that's called entertainment. Stop kidding yourself- understand what everything has becoem in the pursuit of money... WRONG, you are COMPLETELY wrong, you had not a single good point in your article. ill throw out Quake as an example, which you seemed to completely missed in your article. Which is hard, since its about E-sports and competition. You used halo as a point? rofl, anwyays back on point. Quake is easy as balls to get started. You can run around like a chicken with no head and get kills in a FFA server, or Clan Arena. But it, like SC, and CS is one of the most high skill demanding to get GOOD at and be competitive at. But do you need to be godly good to have fun? hell no, you can just run around in Clan Arena and do some wicked shit. You (and a lot of others for that fact) are completely missing that game designers aren't making a game just for money. They are making something that they are truly proud of.. For example...an artist can just throw paint at a piece of paper and sell taht shit (some do) , but most sit down and make a painting from their heart, make it look the best. Where does this fit in to gaming? Quite simple...game designers and programmers play the game that they make, they want to make it a game they like to play. Its their game, they put their heart into it. Its not just a money grab, contrary to popular belief. one of their main goals is to feed their family, yes. but its not the only goal. You don't understand business if you honestly think that a game company would make a game that does not sell well- but they felt good about it. I never said that a game that is easy to get into is bad- just one that has a very attainable ceiling. That is called entertainment.
The Witcher made 2450$ in profit as of May 2010 and was considered a success by both producer and the studio.
Why? Because it established them as a producer of quality products and a dedicated support for their fanbase.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
