|
Capcom is a game company that make good money off of competitive gaming. Street Fighter 4, Tatsunoku vs. Capcom, and the upcoming Marvel vs. Capcom 3 all fighting games, all games that are easy to play and require some pretty intense dedication to compete in.
I don't think all companies have abandoned this, heck look at current Ninja Gaiden series. It's tough as nails and will beat most new players into the ground even on the novice settings.
Starcraft 2's problems are more structural than anything else. The actual "game" proponent is quite intact, and the skill ceiling is quite high enough that a pro will in fact completely stomp an intermediate player.
Besides, competitive gaming is really kept alive by fans of the games who keep it alive. That's why you still have Mortal Kombat 3 tournaments being run to this day.
|
On June 17 2010 05:38 Misrah wrote:
people become pro gamers for the dream and money of making a living playing video games.
I also am not here to talk about the merit of sc2 as a game, because i don't think its a game- but simply entertainment. If you have not already guessed i don't like sc2- but this is not what the OP is about.
I am simply trying to point out the fact that sc2 is not a competitive game, and in fact may of the very popular games released by game companies are not competitive. they have false competition, and are great entertainment.
Making a game that is entertaining, and will sell very well is great for game designers.
game 1 (gm)
n.
1. An activity providing entertainment or amusement; a pastime: party games; word games.
2.
a. A competitive activity or sport in which players contend with each other according to a set of rules: the game of basketball; the game of gin rummy.
b. A single instance of such an activity: We lost the first game.
c. games An organized athletic program or contest: track-and-field games; took part in the winter games.
d. A period of competition or challenge: It was too late in the game to change the schedule of the project.
A Game is meant to Entertain.
Competition is born for two reasons:
1. The players get a sense of accomplishment in being better than the opponents.
2. The spectators enjoy watching those two players compete, creating another form of entertainment.
Playing a game provides fun and pleasures for me, it is a form of entertainment.
Watching a game provides fun and pleasures to me, it is a form of entertainment.
Playing a game makes me want to win and prove that I am better, it is a form of competition.
Watching a game makes me want to cheer for a player/side because I believe he's better, it is a form of competition.
Your logic is sort of flawed... Curling is a game and a competition, yet the mechanics are really dumb and it's easy to hit the skill ceilling, all you need is some good muscle memory and pratice.
|
On June 17 2010 05:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote: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. You just can't be serious. I've read the OP and your posts throughout this thread and you sound like a moonlanding-conspiracy theorist.
what? you have to really tell me frozen- you think that macro mechanics are a good substitute for the real thing? I just thought that it was funny: Sc2 is lacking in macro- so they had to make a specific mechanic because supposedly the hardcore group wined about it? Could we not just have regular macro back or what? Instead we get this gimmicky thing?
|
On June 17 2010 05:50 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:49 Silent`Assassin wrote:
Comparing SC -> SC2 to SSBM -> SSBB is just completely wrong. Blizzard is listening to the community and making balance changes based on many of the complaints made by TL. They even made a change to the game to make it harder to macro (remove wireframe clicking for chrono boost/inject larva).
Your argument has some truth to it, but you can't put SC2 in the same group as those other "entertainment" games you listed. It has a high skill ceiling and it is being designed to be competitive. This is pretty clear if you payed attention to any of the beta tournaments as you don't just see random people winning tournaments. I think that i have said many times that blizz is not listening... on many things. b.net comes to mind- but there is just so much more.
And I think that I have thought to myself through reading every response you've made in this thread "Wow, this guy is retarded". Does that make it true, too?
|
On June 17 2010 05:46 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:41 Backpack wrote:On June 17 2010 05:38 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:34 Sakkosekken wrote:
While you present a valid text, your arguments does not imply the conclusion you are trying to make, and to be frank with you, this is just a load of crap coming from a person with obvious nostalgia.
I would like to point out the following paragraph: "I wanted to scream and yell at all of the game testers of this recent SC2 craze. Did you not all realize that they have not taken a single shred of your advice? Don't you all see that all of the hard work you put into 'imbalance' topics, or 'this seems weak' is ignored? Don't you understand that blizz and other game companies only want your opinion- so THEY KNOW HOW NOT TO MAKE THIS GAME! They never wanted a competitive game, they always wanted a popular game... ENTERTAINMENT Your constant nit picking and eager help, clearly showed blizz and other game companies how exactly not to make a game."
You do not present any examples of these imbalances, nor weak parts of the game. Then comes the really funny part: I have no idea how you can draw a conclusion like that based on your arguments, I actually laughed while I read it. Of course Blizzard wants to make a popular game, when a game is popular, it usually implies that the game is entertaining, great, you drew an obvious conclusion, but you fail to mention what makes a game competive, and why people want to get good at it.
To me it is obvious: the players like the game so much that they want to become good at it and beat the opponent as it provides ENTERTAINMENT to them. Why do you think people become progamers in the first place? Money?... people become pro gamers for the dream and money of making a living playing video games. I also am not here to talk about the merit of sc2 as a game, because i don't think its a game- but simply entertainment. If you have not already guessed i don't like sc2- but this is not what the OP is about. I am simply trying to point out the fact that sc2 is not a competitive game, and in fact may of the very popular games released by game companies are not competitive. they have false competition, and are great entertainment. Making a game that is entertaining, and will sell very well is great for game designers. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Please explain why SC2 is not competitive and it is false competition. You keep saying it is, but you don't say why exactly. There is a ton of proof that is competitive (High level players, big tournaments, big skill gap) so go ahead and prove all of that wrong. This is more than SC2 you know. it's about halo3, it's about SSBB and it's about all the other 'entertainment' that is coming out. sc2 is not a game. it's entertainment- it will die in a year or two, because the skill ceiling will be easily reached. It is a known fact that diamond level players are a joke. I have seen countless posts of people talking about how a D / D+ player in SC is now in diamond league lol how can you even say sc2 is competitive? it is false competition
So a game in beta (not arguing that its not finished, but that its not open to the public) has more high ranked players? Most of the top level SC players are still playing BW. D players won't be in the highest league once the player base expands.
You still havn't given any good evidence.
|
On June 17 2010 05:50 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:49 Silent`Assassin wrote:
Comparing SC -> SC2 to SSBM -> SSBB is just completely wrong. Blizzard is listening to the community and making balance changes based on many of the complaints made by TL. They even made a change to the game to make it harder to macro (remove wireframe clicking for chrono boost/inject larva).
Your argument has some truth to it, but you can't put SC2 in the same group as those other "entertainment" games you listed. It has a high skill ceiling and it is being designed to be competitive. This is pretty clear if you payed attention to any of the beta tournaments as you don't just see random people winning tournaments. I think that i have said many times that blizz is not listening... on many things. b.net comes to mind- but there is just so much more.
Have you considered for one minute that Blizzard had a plan throughout the entirety of beta and that while they are listening and anticipating changes based on the feedback, they have to clear their stack first? don't you think it's alittle premature to jump to conclusions on the intentions of a game that isn't even out?
|
On June 17 2010 05:53 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:50 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:49 Silent`Assassin wrote:
Comparing SC -> SC2 to SSBM -> SSBB is just completely wrong. Blizzard is listening to the community and making balance changes based on many of the complaints made by TL. They even made a change to the game to make it harder to macro (remove wireframe clicking for chrono boost/inject larva).
Your argument has some truth to it, but you can't put SC2 in the same group as those other "entertainment" games you listed. It has a high skill ceiling and it is being designed to be competitive. This is pretty clear if you payed attention to any of the beta tournaments as you don't just see random people winning tournaments. I think that i have said many times that blizz is not listening... on many things. b.net comes to mind- but there is just so much more. And I think that I have thought to myself through reading every response you've made in this thread "Wow, this guy is retarded". Does that make it true, too?
That's fine- you can call me a retard as much as you want. But how does that further any argument?
|
On June 17 2010 05:50 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:49 Silent`Assassin wrote:
Comparing SC -> SC2 to SSBM -> SSBB is just completely wrong. Blizzard is listening to the community and making balance changes based on many of the complaints made by TL. They even made a change to the game to make it harder to macro (remove wireframe clicking for chrono boost/inject larva).
Your argument has some truth to it, but you can't put SC2 in the same group as those other "entertainment" games you listed. It has a high skill ceiling and it is being designed to be competitive. This is pretty clear if you payed attention to any of the beta tournaments as you don't just see random people winning tournaments. I think that i have said many times that blizz is not listening... on many things. b.net comes to mind- but there is just so much more.
This is spiraling out of control. While I agree there is a huge profit incentive to simply make fun "entertainment" (Farmville's $150M revenue, for example), you are wrong to blatantly assume that the Blizz execs haven't come up with a business model to justify developing a "competitive game".
|
Sometimes it's not that the games are made easier, but sometimes the sequal just doesn't capture the spirit of the first game.
One MMO that is that way is Asheron's Call. Asheron's Call was incredibly successful by it's own standards, and Asheron's Call 2 was mildly successful as well. However, AC1's community actually far outlived AC2's community and AC2 is now shut down, but AC1 continues on.
It's ok if SC1 outlives SC2. I think they can give SC2 the longevity and success people crave, but it's not a crime if it lives 5 years and dies out while BW endures with a small but loyal community. That's a testament to an incredible achievement in BW, instead of an indictment of failed design for SC2.
Some games are just transcendently good, most of the time by accident. That doesn't mean that having a lesser sequel is a sign of decay or greed. Sometimes lightning just doesn't strike twice.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 17 2010 05:53 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote: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. You just can't be serious. I've read the OP and your posts throughout this thread and you sound like a moonlanding-conspiracy theorist. what? you have to really tell me frozen- you think that macro mechanics are a good substitute for the real thing? I just thought that it was funny: Sc2 is lacking in macro- so they had to make a specific mechanic because supposedly the hardcore group wined about it? Could we not just have regular macro back or what? Instead we get this gimmicky thing?
It's not realistic to expect them to ignore what the entire world outside of SC considers progress (U.I enhancements).
Blizzard were quite restrained in this regard, clearly conscious of the physical skill requirement, and the fact that they were actually willing to put something like the macro mechanics in... is frankly amazing.
No, no we really can't have the UI of a game from 1998 in a game released in 2010, not if you want the game to succeed. Which, if you value esports, you do.
You are just taking this whole thing way too far - Blizzard have made some competitively disastrous decisions in SC2, but I can almost guarantee you that competition is something that weighs many times heavier on their mind now than it did 12 years ago when they made the first game.
|
im assuming you havent played sc2 -_-. its kinda easier but still competitive.
|
On June 17 2010 05:53 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:46 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:41 Backpack wrote:On June 17 2010 05:38 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:34 Sakkosekken wrote:
While you present a valid text, your arguments does not imply the conclusion you are trying to make, and to be frank with you, this is just a load of crap coming from a person with obvious nostalgia.
I would like to point out the following paragraph: "I wanted to scream and yell at all of the game testers of this recent SC2 craze. Did you not all realize that they have not taken a single shred of your advice? Don't you all see that all of the hard work you put into 'imbalance' topics, or 'this seems weak' is ignored? Don't you understand that blizz and other game companies only want your opinion- so THEY KNOW HOW NOT TO MAKE THIS GAME! They never wanted a competitive game, they always wanted a popular game... ENTERTAINMENT Your constant nit picking and eager help, clearly showed blizz and other game companies how exactly not to make a game."
You do not present any examples of these imbalances, nor weak parts of the game. Then comes the really funny part: I have no idea how you can draw a conclusion like that based on your arguments, I actually laughed while I read it. Of course Blizzard wants to make a popular game, when a game is popular, it usually implies that the game is entertaining, great, you drew an obvious conclusion, but you fail to mention what makes a game competive, and why people want to get good at it.
To me it is obvious: the players like the game so much that they want to become good at it and beat the opponent as it provides ENTERTAINMENT to them. Why do you think people become progamers in the first place? Money?... people become pro gamers for the dream and money of making a living playing video games. I also am not here to talk about the merit of sc2 as a game, because i don't think its a game- but simply entertainment. If you have not already guessed i don't like sc2- but this is not what the OP is about. I am simply trying to point out the fact that sc2 is not a competitive game, and in fact may of the very popular games released by game companies are not competitive. they have false competition, and are great entertainment. Making a game that is entertaining, and will sell very well is great for game designers. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Please explain why SC2 is not competitive and it is false competition. You keep saying it is, but you don't say why exactly. There is a ton of proof that is competitive (High level players, big tournaments, big skill gap) so go ahead and prove all of that wrong. This is more than SC2 you know. it's about halo3, it's about SSBB and it's about all the other 'entertainment' that is coming out. sc2 is not a game. it's entertainment- it will die in a year or two, because the skill ceiling will be easily reached. It is a known fact that diamond level players are a joke. I have seen countless posts of people talking about how a D / D+ player in SC is now in diamond league lol how can you even say sc2 is competitive? it is false competition So a game in beta (not arguing that its not finished, but that its not open to the public) has more high ranked players? Most of the top level SC players are still playing BW. D players won't be in the highest league once the player base expands. You still havn't given any good evidence.
Ok come to your own conclusions then about lack of evidence. seemed to me that most bw players were playing the beta- and tons of good ones, but meh.
|
Cheers to the OP, but that social trend far exceed the reach of only games. It has an impact of most of our everyday life, where people want to have everything (In games, that would refer to being skilled and winning) without having to do anything (Very low skill ceiling). I has always been this way for the masses. The change that happened was as you stated that gaming was a niche market for people that actually wanted challenge (Weird I know), and switched to being a mainstream market for the lazy and ignorant (The ignorance referred to here would be refusal to acknowledge the extremely low difficulty of current games) masses.
Edit: I particularly like how you blame to lack of opposition from the gaming community to be major factor instead of saying that Blizzard changed and game designers are horrible nowadays.
|
First of all, companies are out to make money. They were when they made SCBW and SSB etc. etc. etc. The money factor is not new, so your overarching argument - that great games cannot be made because of the money factor - is trivially false.
Secondly, there's the argument that SC2 can't target both the casual and the competitive player simultaneously. This problem is addressed in SC2 in two ways: ladder matchmaking and UMS. First let's make clear that what the OP considers to be "SC2" is a subset of what SC2 actually is. There's competitive ladder and there's UMS and the impact of UMS on the viability of the game in the marketplace is HUGE. Moreover, UMS lies *completely* outside the realm of competitive play. It is an entirely distinct feature set targeted at casual players and it has no impact on ladder play whatsoever. There will be a whole slew of great casual UMS games. There will be maps the likes of DOTA which themselves actually help to drive SC2 sales. Within the competitive game, a good matchmaking system helps to segregate the players who are interested in entertainment vs those that are interested in competition. You don't need to dumb down the game, you just need to put the "dumbed-down" players in their own group and you'll naturally acheive the same result without negatively impacting the top tier. I'd argue, in fact, that competitive ladder EXPLICITLY does not try to "make players feel good" because it always attempts to pair you with a reasonably competitive opponent. In other words, it attempts to make you lose 50% of your games. Only the very top tier will escape this fate. How on earth you could come to the conclusion that this is a casual feel-good system is beyond me. It's verifiably incorrect.
Third, there seems to be this notion that a competitive game can't be profitable, which is trivially false, as you can look at just about any pro sport and the mountains and mountains of cash upon which it's perched.
I find my work softball league extremely entertaining, and yet pro baseball is tremendously competitive and profitable. Fundamentally, these are the same game. The difference is, I am segregated from the professional players and allowed to enjoy it. This does not preclude competition on the part of the professional.
Fourth, I like the facebook feature. I'm not sure how letting me easily find my friends online is somehow an afront to competitive gaming???? I think most of the people arguing against it are doing so because "facebook" is a synonym for "common folk" in this context and that it really has nothing to do with the feature.
People are not flaming you because, as you apparently believe, you are opening their eyes to a world they don't wish to see. That's a delusion of grandeur at best - we've sort of known for years that Blizzard is a company which sells games for money. They're flaming you because none of your arguments are correct (well, also, some are probably just trolls). I think there are some bits and pieces of reasonable criticisms in there, and I don't deny the potential for SC2 to be less than a smashing success. But the OP is little more than a poorly thought-out "get-off-my-lawn" rant.
|
to the OP...
so did you think that Starcraft 1 was originally made with the intention to create a competitive system, like iccup or osl, msl, or any of those competitive competitions?
cus if you ask me, and most likely any Blizzard representative, they'll likely tell you that they made Starcraft 1 with one intention...to make a game that their customers would enjoy...
things haven't changed...sure, now that the competitive game community exists, they might put a little more thought into the competitive aspect of the game...but if that happens, your point is nullified....
so in fact your argument itself is nullified by the fact that there was no e-sports before starcraft 1...hence your misconception that games were geared for and toward competition before doesn't fit...
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 17 2010 05:56 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:53 Backpack wrote:On June 17 2010 05:46 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:41 Backpack wrote:On June 17 2010 05:38 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:34 Sakkosekken wrote:
While you present a valid text, your arguments does not imply the conclusion you are trying to make, and to be frank with you, this is just a load of crap coming from a person with obvious nostalgia.
I would like to point out the following paragraph: "I wanted to scream and yell at all of the game testers of this recent SC2 craze. Did you not all realize that they have not taken a single shred of your advice? Don't you all see that all of the hard work you put into 'imbalance' topics, or 'this seems weak' is ignored? Don't you understand that blizz and other game companies only want your opinion- so THEY KNOW HOW NOT TO MAKE THIS GAME! They never wanted a competitive game, they always wanted a popular game... ENTERTAINMENT Your constant nit picking and eager help, clearly showed blizz and other game companies how exactly not to make a game."
You do not present any examples of these imbalances, nor weak parts of the game. Then comes the really funny part: I have no idea how you can draw a conclusion like that based on your arguments, I actually laughed while I read it. Of course Blizzard wants to make a popular game, when a game is popular, it usually implies that the game is entertaining, great, you drew an obvious conclusion, but you fail to mention what makes a game competive, and why people want to get good at it.
To me it is obvious: the players like the game so much that they want to become good at it and beat the opponent as it provides ENTERTAINMENT to them. Why do you think people become progamers in the first place? Money?... people become pro gamers for the dream and money of making a living playing video games. I also am not here to talk about the merit of sc2 as a game, because i don't think its a game- but simply entertainment. If you have not already guessed i don't like sc2- but this is not what the OP is about. I am simply trying to point out the fact that sc2 is not a competitive game, and in fact may of the very popular games released by game companies are not competitive. they have false competition, and are great entertainment. Making a game that is entertaining, and will sell very well is great for game designers. You are beginning to sound like a broken record. Please explain why SC2 is not competitive and it is false competition. You keep saying it is, but you don't say why exactly. There is a ton of proof that is competitive (High level players, big tournaments, big skill gap) so go ahead and prove all of that wrong. This is more than SC2 you know. it's about halo3, it's about SSBB and it's about all the other 'entertainment' that is coming out. sc2 is not a game. it's entertainment- it will die in a year or two, because the skill ceiling will be easily reached. It is a known fact that diamond level players are a joke. I have seen countless posts of people talking about how a D / D+ player in SC is now in diamond league lol how can you even say sc2 is competitive? it is false competition So a game in beta (not arguing that its not finished, but that its not open to the public) has more high ranked players? Most of the top level SC players are still playing BW. D players won't be in the highest league once the player base expands. You still havn't given any good evidence. Ok come to your own conclusions then about lack of evidence. seemed to me that most bw players were playing the beta- and tons of good ones, but meh.
Of course D level SC players are in diamond. There's hundreds of thousands of people in this beta, most of whom have either:
1) Never played SC in multiplayer
2) Played SC 10 years ago
3) Never played SC
4) NEVER PLAYED ANY RTS EVER
Diamond is the top, I dunno, 10% of the beta players (I have no idea what % it is, maybe it's even top 20%). Yeah, of course anyone good at SC is gonna end up there.
And compared to someone who has never played, being D at ICCUP is being good at SC.
It's not like we see a bunch of D level SC players bulldozing the SC2 tournaments.
TLO? Old school SC player, top level Supcom player.
Dimaga? High level SC player.
White-rA? High level SC player.
IdrA? SC Progamer
Demuslim? WC3 progamer
Check? WC3 progamer
Tester? SC Progamer
Fruittrader? SC progamer (cool[fou])
Freedom? WC3 and SC progamer as well as succesful poker player
Sen? High level SC player
Maka? High level Wc3 player
Fuck, the list just goes on - you can't find anyone who has won any of the major tournaments who wasn't someone in a previous RTS.
|
It's disgusting how conceited the OP is about his "flawless" argument.
Things can be both entertaining and competitive. In the end it is all subjective to how the viewer or participator believe it is. Stop trying to change the world.
edit - All competition is, is the drive to succeed and be better then your peers. To say that people can not glean entertainment from watching people try to better themselves or trying to better their own selves is ridiculous.
|
On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:53 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:50 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 05:05 Misrah wrote: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. You just can't be serious. I've read the OP and your posts throughout this thread and you sound like a moonlanding-conspiracy theorist. what? you have to really tell me frozen- you think that macro mechanics are a good substitute for the real thing? I just thought that it was funny: Sc2 is lacking in macro- so they had to make a specific mechanic because supposedly the hardcore group wined about it? Could we not just have regular macro back or what? Instead we get this gimmicky thing? It's not realistic to expect them to ignore what the entire world outside of SC considers progress (U.I enhancements). Blizzard were quite restrained in this regard, clearly conscious of the physical skill requirement, and the fact that they were actually willing to put something like the macro mechanics in... is frankly amazing. No, no we really can't have the UI of a game from 1998 in a game released in 2010, not if you want the game to succeed. Which, if you value esports, you do. You are just taking this whole thing way too far - Blizzard have made some competitively disastrous decisions in SC2, but I can almost guarantee you that competition is something that weighs many times heavier on their mind now than it did 12 years ago when they made the first game.
Then i guess we will have to agree to disagree. But i am curious where sc2 will end up after a year or two on the korean circuit. If you have an opinion would you mind sharing it? I don't think it will last longer than that- that is why blizz needs to have the expansion packs, to hopefully de-fibrillate a dead game to life once and awhile to garner some more money.
|
On June 17 2010 06:00 xLethargicax wrote:
It's disgusting how conceited the OP is about his "flawless" argument.
Things can be both entertaining and competitive. In the end it is all subjective to how the viewer or participator believe it is. Stop trying to change the world.
LOL keep with the hate sc2 forum. you come in- flame OP and then state your opinion, and then peace out! your no different from the OP!!!!!!!
|
I can see many of your points, but that's how it is, and the reasons are not just within Blizzard, or Activision, as you also acknowledge, so there's not much we could do. If you seek to be extremely unique and untouchable in skill, there's almost nothing nowadays you could do to achieve that, because all your tricks will be known very soon. It wasn't like that in the past, due to poorer communication.
What remains is to challenge yourself. For example, play on very poor pc, with touchpad, things like that. Moreover, BW remains, and if new games are that easy, eventually the hardcore gaming community will start writing its own games.
Anyway... I actually do not agree completely that games like SC2 reduce the competitiveness and are just for easy consumption. It may seem like that right now, because of comparison with what are the difficulties in BW, which are now solved magically in SC2. However, the competition will create and refine newer challenges and newer tricks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
