EPTNote to self: Stop reading the forums!
Entertainment =/= Gaming - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Talic_Zealot
688 Posts
Note to self: Stop reading the forums! | ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
It's a balancing act, sure - there might be features which lower the skill cap but make the game more enjoyable initially, but I think most agree by now things like that (MBS, automine, whatever) don't really have any huge impact on the competitiveness of the game. Granted, the weights you may place on "initial enjoyability" vs "high skill cap" may be different, but obviously everyone wants both of these as much as possible. Other things like making the series a trilogy, charging for this or that, etc is just company business as usual, but that has little to do with the grandiose statements about the "death of competitive games." | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On June 17 2010 04:56 Liquid`NonY wrote: 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... APM mattered so much in BW because of no worker / fight rally, no automine, no mbs, no unlimited selection. Nony your a way better player than me- don't you think that if that was in SC1 that you and many other pro gamers would have hit the ceiling many many years ago? | ||
|
Response
United States1938 Posts
I feel like I just rambled on about nothing, sorry  | ||
|
mnck
Denmark1518 Posts
On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote: 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 think your last point here is completely disproven by the fact that they changed the Phoenix. And how can you say, that such a specific and isolated change, is not a result of Lalush's great write up on exactly that unit? While this may not be what he wanted specificly, this is what Blizzard thought was a cool feature. Also, Blizzard have announced that there will be a Professional Edition for StarCraft 2 that supports lan. How is this not listening to the community and the pro scene? Blizzard listens to forums, and the community, and always has. They don't just use the official forums to make changes, they read fan sites and community sites just like TL.net. If you cannot see this yourself you're stupid and havn't been paying attention to the evolution of Blizzard games. Sources: Micro, where art thou? [News] OS2L + LAN | ||
|
Ghin
United States2391 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote: 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? "Never taken anything the competitive community has said to them"? Do the words "macro mechanics" ring a bell to you? A set of game mechanics added to the game purely because the hardcore community requested a way to make up the improved UI. Or perhaps the fact that they made large changes to the graphics because we complained about overly bright graphics and low readability. Or maybe the new replay features which have things like APM, something we specifically asked for. Or perhaps the fact that they have repeatedly held events, many in Korea, where they specifically ask fansites and pro-gamers to come test their game, chat with the developers face-to-face, and provide feedback. Or hell, the fact that they kept the core Starcraft gameplay the same instead of dramatically innovating it because they knew it would upset hardcores if Blizzard changed it (because casuals certainly haven't been happy about Blizzard not innovating). You also bring up taking control of tourneys, but in all honestly you have absolutely no idea how it will all work out. None of us do. Blizzard is definitely taking a HUGE risk here, but nobody can assert that they will either succeed or fail. Maybe it will crash and burn and e-Sports dies forever, or perhaps it's a massive success that expands e-Sports to the rest of the world instead of just Korea. Either way, it's far too early to assert, and it's irritating to see people act like they can see the future. Seriously, a lot of this is just you venting out steam. I understand some of the frustration, but again, it's ridiculous to be making such broad claims especially when most of them are baseless speculating. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On June 17 2010 04:59 Half wrote: 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. ya blizz started that way too. But then they realized they could make lots of money. small companies start out small, and they grow bigger and bigger. that is how blizz started, bungie started and everything else in this world. I am not sure i understand where you are coming from | ||
|
OpRaider
United States307 Posts
reject everyones opinions but yours. lmao. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On June 17 2010 05:03 Spawkuring wrote: "Never taken anything the competitive community has said to them"? Do the words "macro mechanics" ring a bell to you? A set of game mechanics added to the game purely because the hardcore community requested a way to make up the improved UI. Or perhaps the fact that they made large changes to the graphics because we complained about overly bright graphics and low readability. Or maybe the new replay features which have things like APM, something we specifically asked for. Or perhaps the fact that they have repeatedly held events, many in Korea, where they specifically ask fansites and pro-gamers to come test their game, chat with the developers face-to-face, and provide feedback. Or hell, the fact that they kept the core Starcraft gameplay the same instead of dramatically innovating it because they knew it would upset hardcores if Blizzard changed it (because casuals certainly haven't been happy about Blizzard not innovating). You also bring up taking control of tourneys, but in all honestly you have absolutely no idea how it will all work out. None of us do. Blizzard is definitely taking a HUGE risk here, but nobody can assert that they will either succeed or fail. Maybe it will crash and burn and e-Sports dies forever, or perhaps it's a massive success that expands e-Sports to the rest of the world instead of just Korea. Either way, it's far too early to assert, and it's irritating to see people act like they can see the future. Seriously, a lot of this is just you venting out steam. I understand some of the frustration, but again, it's ridiculous to be making such broad claims especially when most of them are baseless speculating. Macro mechanics are a great way for some false competition, it's nice entertainment. Hardcore requested something because the game is too easy- so blizz comes up with something on their own that will stifle the hard core, and yet still make the entertainment great for their target market. Macro mechanics are a joke- and you know it. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
If you argue that games cannot simultaneously exist as competition and media (what you erroneously refer to as entertainment), that requires Starcraft 1 not to be a game. If Starcraft 1 was a complete experience unto itself, then going onto Starcraft 2 why do I want more content? Not just me, but a lot of other plays. Content is something that necessitates an experience as media. I want more content. How can this fact coexist with your thesis that "entertainment is not gaiming"? On June 17 2010 05:04 Misrah wrote: ya blizz started that way too. But then they realized they could make lots of money. small companies start out small, and they grow bigger and bigger. that is how blizz started, bungie started and everything else in this world. I am not sure i understand where you are coming from Because you just said 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. Which is wrong. There are tons of game companies making products and making limited/no profits, not out of failure, but just out of the limited size of the target audience. . | ||
|
Arcticc
United States203 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
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. Well said. Some guy from Denmark said it best. To paraphrase, the gaming industry hasn't changed per say, but Misrah's viewpoint on gaming has. | ||
|
Alou
United States3748 Posts
 | ||
|
Kralic
Canada2628 Posts
The fix to wireframe casting is intentional and will not be reverted in the foreseeable future. The designers really like the idea of having the player need to get back to their base and take care of these special abilities instead of being able to control them remotely while looking elsewhere. Hopefully, this will give the player a better feeling of actually managing their base, rather than just clicking pictures on your hotkey bar or selection frames. -Malrath | ||
|
Skeyser
Canada219 Posts
User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On June 17 2010 05:06 Arcticc wrote: I think if you need an example of a large company still making competitive games: Valve. lol- LFD? Portal? TF2 is not competitive because of the randomness... So what has valve made recently that is great competition? CS 1.6 is really where its at... but can you say that valve is still 100% behind that community? | ||
|
OpRaider
United States307 Posts
On June 17 2010 05:08 Alou wrote: Guys, we need to all go back to the roots of gaming. Lets start doing Pac-Man and Donkey Kong nintendo is releasing a new donkey kong for the wii, it looks awesome :D | ||
|
hellokitty[hk]
United States1309 Posts
I find that during the beta, when I started losing a few games on SCBW, I just went to beta and won. And you know what, it was fun and easy. I'm just a lazy little child. | ||
|
Silver~Guy
Canada45 Posts
I think you are being cynical about the state of gaming. In fact I think nostalgia is the main emotion of your post. I think perhaps you need to take a break from gaming, enjoy some other parts of life and look at it again with a fresh perspective and you will find it the same as ever; easy to play and hard to compete. | ||
| ||
