|
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?
You are proving yourself wrong. No worker / fight rally, no automine, no mbs, no unlimited selection are not at all the reasons starcraft is such a competitive game. Actually the fact that these exist in SC2 and still it is a very mechanically demanding game means that there will be even more things that you can do if you are good enough.
|
Simplicity of a game does not begat a lack of depth or competitive nature. Some of the most simplisitic and easy to understand games are the most competitive, deep, and interesting games.
Look at Super Street Fighter II: Turbo
The game is a very simple fighting game, there's no parry system, or air-blocking, or some complex faultless or barrier guard, or special cancelling system that takes meter. It's been lauded in the fighting game community as an immense competitive game because of it's risidual and relative balance. And despite the fact that the game really doesn't have crazy systems or super difficult things to learn like the False Roman Cancels of Guilty Gear, it has historically been a legitimately competitive game with zero updates for 14 years, despite the sequels.
Complexity =! Depth
Accessibility =! Death of Skill
|
Most of the gaming population is growing younger and younger each year. Do these kids really want to play a game where they have to lose again and again to get better? NO!
Nowadays- the 'gamer' is something that every high school student is. Every home has a game console- and you would be hard pressed to not find a high school student that has not played MW2 or Halo. Gaming has now become something cool. Something that everyone can do. No longer is playing games is obscure, or something that only geeks do. So what happened? How have games changed?Whats even better is the younger. Yes I am talking to you middle school kids. Why do they play games? Its not going to be for the competition...
The new entertainment industry is filled with false competition, and everyone from middle schoolers, to high schoolers all thinking they are the shit. Gone are the days of SSBM, HALO, SCBW, CS and all of the other wonderful games that made gaming fun.
I agree with you to an extent on most accounts, although I dont think this effect is quite as prominent in SC2 as in some of the other games you have mentioned. Members of Blizzard insist that they do care about the competitive nature of the game. The way I see it blizzard believes that they can make big money on a competitive, difficult game by making a game competitive at all levels. They want to make the game "easy to learn but difficult to master". Whether this is actually true or just a marketing strategy is arguable,but I dont feel obliged to simply assume they are lieing. There is no doubt that SCBW was a more difficult game to pick up and play competently, but its not like people have already reached SC2's skill ceiling. I'll admit that it doesnt feel like as complex of a game as BW, but we really dont know yet, and wont know untill a significant period of time after release.
The quotes above are you repetatively pointing out middle school to high school children as the primary consumer for this kind of entertainment focused game. While I realize that this age group could account for a significant percentage of the consumers of big name money makers, it seems like you are placing way too much blame on this group considering that you didnt support the idea with anything other than common steriotypes of that age group. If you were to provide a link to any kind of study or statistic supporting your claim I would be more likely to believe you. Without real evidence beyond common steriotypes, it just seems like you are insulting people without reason. You continue to say that the SC2 forums are exactly the kind of people you are talking about. So you are saying that the average SC2 forumer is a10-16 year old kid? You have absolutely no way to really know that. If thats not what you are implying why did you say earlier that the people causing the problem are in that age group. Sorry for kind of ranting here, but you are too accusative of the supposed culprits of this without sufficiently supporting yourself.
|
On June 17 2010 05:01 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:On June 17 2010 04:50 Misrah wrote: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... 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?
You're really really underestimating the importance of strategy, decision making and things not completely related to mechanics. The current SC1 progamers at even the B-level hardly ever miss their workers or buildings being inactive yet they're nowhere close to being as good as Flash.
WC3 had those things there and the game was far from SC in mechanics, however the game has never been played at even close to perfect level. I doubt SC2 will ever reach a stage where anyone can play it completely "optimally". Not in less than multiple decades.
|
On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:03 Spawkuring wrote:On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote: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? "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.
I'll consider Macro mechanics a joke when I see a Protoss player in a tournament remember to Chronoboost all the time.
|
My own random thoughts...
I completely disagree with "gaming is dead". If it's all about the money, it shows that gaming is alive and well. Players of all skill levels are playing to win, and if they are playing to win it's much more than just "entertainment". As for competitive gaming, I do agree it has been on the decline in recent years.
I would not fault the gaming industry targeting "casual players", but I would fault them for discontinuing support for competitive gaming. Not in the way of making the game easy to pick up, but not including features and functions needed to support a competitive scene (pro or amateur). For example in MW2 the lack of dedicated servers and the lack of built-in recording (cheater prevention). In Battle.net 2.0 the lack of cross realm, the lack of chat channels, and the pain of the friend's list. Many of these features aren't worth much to casual players, but they are heavily used by more involved gamers.
Another thing that I believe that's hurting competitive gaming is the shear amount of games. Look at the massive number of FPS games, many of them have there own competitive scenes. It does split up the amount of people that's into any given title. But in SC2's case, with the lack of good RTS, I think SC2 can be dominate for years to come.
The current system in Battle.net, IMO, heavily focuses on creating a competitive system that's easily accessible for anyone. Play the placement matches, get reasonably paired with similar players, and stand having a good chance at winning. That's the very definition of competition, going in to a match, and not knowing who's going to win.
And... new breed of gamer? Playing for fun? That's a new type of gamer? I guess new titles are all fun and games until someone gets nostalgic.
|
On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:03 Spawkuring wrote:On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote: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? "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.
How are they a joke? You too bad to become pro and gone bitter? So in 5 weeks of beta everything that is possible with the new macro mechanics such as Chronoboost is figured out? You are completely unaware of how games develop over time, so much I wonder if you have been playing one game for a long period of time and seen the trends, and how everything can change.
This thread has turned into nonsense with this post. I'm not gonna continue reading with arguments like those.
|
I'm no nony, but I don't think having mindless apm instead of the actual strategy as the "skill-ceiling" is the right way to go.
|
On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:03 Spawkuring wrote:On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote: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? "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.
But WHY is it "false" competition? This is something you keep dodging. If Blizzard truly didn't care for the hardcore, they wouldn't have put macro mechanics in the game in the first place, because there's certainly no need to "stifle" the hardcore. Why would they? It's not like the casual cares.
|
On June 17 2010 05:06 Half wrote:I don't think you've addressed this point. Youe core conclusion is an illogical piece of steaming crap. 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"? Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:04 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:59 Half wrote:On June 17 2010 04:58 Misrah wrote: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. 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 Show nested quote +
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. .
that little game company did make a profit. They are a small business, and small business make small profits... What do you expect? When you have a big business you are constantly looking for bigger and bigger profits- and you will get them anyway you can. Besides blizz has been sucked up by activision- more corporate yay!
|
On June 17 2010 05:09 Silver~Guy wrote:
Hello,
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.
I've never seen such a better inverse relationship between postcount and wisdom.
+1
that little game company did make a profit. They are a small business, and small business make small profits... What do you expect? When you have a big business you are constantly looking for bigger and bigger profits- and you will get them anyway you can. Besides blizz has been sucked up by activision- more corporate yay!
I don't have a point other then you don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. You made a statement "All game studios care about is profit margin". I refuted said statement.
Also, please refute the contradiction I pointed out in your thesis. You don't have much of a point.
|
Ah now i can go back to my sega and play teenage mutant ninja turtles or sonic adventures because its soo competitive.
|
Game companies need to make a game that is fun to play, not hard to play. They need to make a game that is easy for players to pick up and they need gamers to feel good about themselves. So how does one do that? In short its making a game eaiser to play, and making sure there is a skill ceiling that is very attainable. Think of Super Smash Brothers Brawl compared to Super Smash Brothers Melee. Think of HALO compared to HALO3. Think of SCBW to SC2. Think of the Modern Warfare Series... WOW ext... all of these games have something in common- and that is a false sense of competition. As the new generation of games debut- they slowly and slowly lower the skill ceiling. Yet even when the skill ceiling is lowered, competitive gaming circuits still pick up games that are vastly inferior to others.
I actually agree 100% on this, especially with regards to Melee's de-evolution into Brawl. Those of you who may believe that Brawl is some sort of competitive fighter did not witness or experience the incredibly competitive Melee scene. And Misrah is right, Melee was never meant to be a truly competitive fighter (it was made by nintendo, I mean, come on), but it became one because the players in the community found various advanced techniques that completely obliterated the envisioned skill ceiling. Becoming a competitive Melee player was one of the most difficult things to achieve in my gaming career, and its up there with getting to C- on Iccup for BW.
Then came the advent of Brawl. The sequel was highly anticipated by both the casual and the hardcore alike, until the hardcore realized that the game was being developing SOLELY for the casual market. The speed of the games was horribly nerfed. The advanced techniques that served as pillars for competitive Melee were instantly taken out and replaced with something no fighting game has even SEEN before: tripping, which randomly tripped players stunned them while running. It is hard to describe the transition from Brawl to Melee as anything but a complete abandonment of the hardcore gamer in favor of the massive, casual audience. And guess who won? Nintendo did. The game sold incredibly well; hell, IGN gave it a 9.5. But the release of Brawl introduced a gaping dichotomy in the Smash community, and most of the hardcore smash players continue to play Melee even now. The only losers in this equation are the hardcore gamers that did not receive a fully functioning sequel. Both the gaming companies and the casual gamers got exactly what they wanted.
The pull is undeniable, even for a hardcore gamer. My roommate used to play Counter Strike with me; in fact, he was the one who got me into it. I used to be amazed at his skills, and I just get practicing because I wanted to be good at the game. And trust me, if you have ever played Counter Strike before, you know that the first couple of weeks you play that game you are going to get owned. Over and over again. But I persisted because the competitiveness of the game and its steep learning curve drove me to keep playing, rather than pushing me away because it was too hard. I am now much better than my roommate at CS and continue to play in CEVO CSS leagues.
But the real point of the story is why my roommate stopped playing CS. He started to pick up other shooters like TF2, and eventually Modern Warfare. He started playing Modern Warfare and never looked back to CS because (he even said this to me) "I'm really good Modern Warfare, I love owning these kids". And so I started playing it, and within an hour I was getting the same KDR's as he was. It wasnt because I was some god like FPS gamer. It was simply because the guns have no recoil, the entire KDR is based upon Kill Streak rewards, and most of the community was 10-16 year old kids. It simply wasn't that compelling for me. But my roommate loved it. It was entertaining. However, MW2 came out and the community slowly got better and better. Soon my roommate hated the regular team deathmatch because he simply wasnt getting the KDR he wanted. So what did he do? Try and get better at the game so he could be more competitive? No. He now exclusively plays the Ground War playlist because "Its easier cause people who play Ground War are noobs". This is a classic example of someone who just wants to succeed, even if succeeding requires no effort.
However, I have to disagree with the OP on one thing: I still believe in SC2. I know that there have been some mechanics that make the game easier for the casual (MBS, smart cast, automine), but there exists a large discrepancy between the good players and the great players of the game. The skill ceiling, as it stands right now, is undoubtedly lower than the SCBW, but I still believe that Blizzard knows that SC2 must appeal to the hardcore gaming base that has built the SC community. Have faith in Blizzard, they really do deliver quality games.
Thank you for proving my point.
Starcraft is competitive. The pros play on a competitive level. A 6 year old (or a copper player) will be playing the game for entertainment. But they are playing the same game.
Starcraft BW was fine, SC2 will be fine.
I think you are missing the point. It is obvious that there can be a game that is easy to pick up but hard to master. SSBM was a game like that, tailored for the casual, but the hardcore drove the metagame until it was highly competitive. What Misrah is saying is that gaming developers now are consciously trying to limit the competitiveness of a game in order to attract a larger casual audience and generate more profit. For example, imagine a company that comes up with the game of Soccer. Then the company comes up with Soccer 2.0, and builds into the game rules that are specifically designed to make the game non-competitive, such as no running, the goals are bigger, etc etc.
Also, no pro goes out and challenges a 6 year to a soccer match, beats him badly, and then scars the kid for life. However, on an online platform, advanced gamers are matched up with noobs constantly; game companies are afraid of the noobs becoming wary of a game because he or she cannot play the game without being beaten badly by an experienced player online.
|
On June 17 2010 05:12 Madkipz wrote:
Ah now i can go back to my sega and play teenage mutant ninja turtles or sonic adventures because its soo competitive.
I'm heading back to tetris, or Orcs vs Humans! 4 unit selection at a time!! TAKE THAT CASUALS!!!
|
On June 17 2010 05:10 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:01 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:On June 17 2010 04:50 Misrah wrote: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... 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? You're really really underestimating the importance of strategy, decision making and things not completely related to mechanics. The current SC1 progamers at even the B-level hardly ever miss their workers or buildings being inactive yet they're nowhere close to being as good as Flash. WC3 had those things there and the game was far from SC in mechanics, however the game has never been played at even close to perfect level. I doubt SC2 will ever reach a stage where anyone can play it completely "optimally". Not in less than multiple decades.
flash blows everyone out of the water with mechanics- and a B player is not even on the same scale. coupled with that his insane strategic mind, and excellent 'feel' of the game and you have flash. there is no way you are trying to compare a B player to flash.
I argue that sc2 will reach a perfect level quite quickly. I give it 2 years- by then flash and all of the other pro gamers will reach a skill ceiling no problem.
|
On June 17 2010 05:09 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Valve didn't make CS 1.6 (edit: sorry I just meant CS on Halflife 1). They did however make CS:Source and TF2 which have a fairly strong competitive scene. And if you think L4D is not a difficult game, you're playing it wrong.
Oh, are games only suppose to be multiplayer, strategic games for you to consider them applicable?
|
On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:Show nested quote +
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?
You are proving yourself wrong. No worker / fight rally, no automine, no mbs, no unlimited selection are not at all the reasons starcraft is such a competitive game. Actually the fact that these exist in SC2 and still it is a very mechanically demanding game means that there will be even more things that you can do if you are good enough.
SC2 is not mechanically demanding. You must be kidding me right? Many people share the sentiment that sc2 doesn't not require as much mechanical skill as sc1.
But at least you have APM technology now... so i could be wrong.
|
|
|
The biggest Problem that I see here is that you are comparing FPS to RTS. The difference in the genres make your point (while well thought out) a pile of rubbish. Yes games are made simpler and easier to learn but thats to get people playing them. The game takes on a mind of its own once it gets into the players hands.
Look back at BW - the Reaver is a classic example because when it came out people thought it was a worthless unit by and large. Then some guy decided to put it in a Shuttle and now it is a mainstream strategy. Once the game is released it is developed by the players, and Blizzard then has to react to how we play the game and patch what the true imba's are - case in point the spawning pool's cost on Starcrafts release.
FPS games dont have that element because (and don't take offence to this) but like with Halo you have a gun and grenades, there is a strict limit on the level of creativity that can come out of there. Whereas with an RTS and the units and compositions and spells etc... We wont know those limits for several years.
An RTS can evolve where a FPS or "Sports" genre games cannot.
|
I'm slightly confused on some of the points being argued over. To me Competition=Entertainment. I get a rush when I'm competing in anything, and I am entertained by competition. Perhaps Competition to you is subjective? But I can find entertainment and competition in the most simple of things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
