|
before you come and attack me, please do both of us a favor and read the thing ok?
First for your enjoyment while reading:
+ Show Spoiler +
Wake up, and stop dozing.
I have been wanting to write this for some time now. I have been trying to hold off on posting some thing of this nature until the entire- SC2 sucks!!! Beta fails, Blizzard is so bad- typhoon blows over. What I am going to be talking about should not be revolutionary, however to many I fear that it might be.
Preface: This is a small essay about the reality of games. Not only in Korea, but in the EU, US, China, and other parts of the gaming world as well. What I don't understand is why everyone is getting worked up over nothing- and why so many people are not facing the reality of what the game industry has become. Nothing in this essay should be revolutionary. Instead I hope to clearly state and define the current reality of gaming, and pro gaming in particular. Why has gaming died?
$Money$
Money Runs the world, and people are driven by it. Don't ever try and shield yourselves. Everything a game company does is always for money, period.
All the interviews, all of the beta testing, the alpha testing, and even 'show games' are all there to help make money. Play testing is a great way for companies to have people come and give them free consultation on a game. Whats more is- if respected players (pros come to mind) test the game out, they can give feed back. And from a competitive point of view- that feedback is exactly what game companies want to here. Now remember this- Competition and its role inside of a game. You will need it later. If money is the end game, and making a gross profit has always been the goal-why would any game company worth their salt, make a game that does not sell?
Staying power- that is how long does one play a game? For some games, a hard core following can play the game for decades. However is that really where the profit lies? The simple answer is no. making flash in the pan games are far more profitable. Look at the modern warfare series, halo, WOW and all its expansions ext ext, Super Smash Brothers Brawl... What do all of these games have in common? One thing- they are really easy to pick up. Whats more is- they are easy to master, and most games have a learning curve that allows players to feel 'good' with little to know practice needed.
So why do people want to play games like this? Why can HALO 3 players play a game that is vastly inferior to its predecessors? Because people like to play games that make them feel good. 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! The majority of gamers want to pick up a game and start winning. They want to start having fun and feeling good about themselves. For a long time, games were hard- they were challenging, and they required practice. But now something has happened- people have realized that there is money to be made here. And with the prospect of money, people are jumping on it.
How can we create a game that is popular to the masses?
How can we create a game that gets people to play again and again?
How can we create a game that will have sequels? People that buy the first will be the second, third, fourth...
The 'gamer' population
Now lets take a look at you. If your older, you were the nerd, the geek, a true gamer. You played games when there were not popular, and there was no such thing as huge 'gaming corporations' a la Blizzard. You played games before some of the current gaming population was alive. You are the purist core of gaming, you understand that a good game is a complex and challenging one. Remember games like duck hunt? Or Asteroids? How about Donkey Kong? Or space invaders? Ya- they were hard. They required practice, and every time with out fail- you will die, again and again. Yet you enjoyed it.
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...
Lets take a look at our all time favorite- SCBW. Back when it was released, it was wildly popular. However- look around today. While people know about SCBW- who actually still plays? Even better- who plays competitively? The answer all of you should give- is few. Look at the huge market shares that games like Halo, Modern Warfare, or WOW share. Just look and wonder for a second at the size of that player base. Just think of the money... Imagine what the first few video game creators would say if they would have know that games would grow to this amount. Now one could ask- what does SCBW and the other listed games have in common? Nothing. So what happened? People stopped looking at gaming for competition, instead it has become entertainment.
'Competition in Games'
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.
Why?
Because a game that is played by all will generate more money, regardless of the skill ceiling. Game companies are taking the theory that much further. Not only can you make a game that requires little skill- but you can make even more money holding competitions for the game. Just because a game has a high skill ceiling- does not mean that it is competitive. You just need the games to be popular, and the game companies know it. Entertainment sells more than gaming / competition.
Death Of Competitive
Games
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.
Competition in games is all but dead- because competition is not profitable, and it never will be. Hard core game players are always going to be a fringe market. Every single 'competitive' game was never created form the ground up to be 'competitive' . It was created for entertainment. The community of a game can help a game become truly competitive, and that is the only way. Until a game company wants to really make a competitive game, not a game for entertainment... then we can all rejoice again.
I feel that I am may be disillusioned saying all of this- but the gaming industry of what I grew up with, was not an entertainment industry- it was games. And games are meant to be competitive. However now with the advent of big bucks- the game industry has turned into a Hollywood whore, and is nothing more than cheap entrainment.
My Final Thoughts
So I guess that's it... The game industry is no more. Video games are a thing of the past, and now have been replaced with video entertainment. Entertainment is clearly more profitable than making games. But it's such a shame to see it happening so quickly. It seems that everyone is jumping on this band wagon. Shiny new graphics, cool new APM technology, and of course twitter and facebook apps making my 'entrainment' experience so much more enjoyable. I guess it was bound to happen, that something that was once under ground, and at least slightly off the beaten path has been dragged out in the open.
No one put up a fight- and the games industry has certainly not gone kicking and screaming... there was money to be made, and hungry entertainment seekers to feed. Most people in the SC2 forum are exactly what I am talking about. You are the new breed of gamer, the entertainment seeker. You don't play games because of the skill or complexity involved- but instead you play to enjoy yourselves. Gone are the days when playing games was challenging, and you did so in the dimly lit glow of your basement, or in a room filled with competitive driven people.
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. Now games are not games, they are entertainment- a joke- a shadow of their former selves. I am just sad to see it go so soon, because I had hoped that there would be many more years of great gaming to be had in my life. However now it just seems to be 'entertainment.'
|
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.
edit: Like you said, it's the players who make the game competitive. It's not how the game is designed, so don't worry about it. The SC community is the most competitive gaming community in existence, if anyone can make SC2 succeed, it's us.
|
I just disagree. sorry but i really dont have to say more.
|
True. And what aggravates the profit motive is that competitive gamers, who want to buy a game and play it for 10 years, complain loudly when companies try to charge them for it... There needs to be a profit incentive to create a long standing, competitive game which is why SC2 should be subscription based.
|
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...
|
On June 17 2010 04:23 Misrah wrote:
I have been trying to hold off on posting some thing of this nature until the entire- SC2 sucks!!! Beta fails, Blizzard is so bad- typhoon blows over. '
Yah you havnt been paying attention. It isnt beta or blizzard fails. Its BNET 0.2 fails.
|
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...
Did you read the next part of my post?
A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro.
Explain that.
|
On June 17 2010 04:30 NevilleS wrote:
True. And what aggravates the profit motive is that competitive gamers, who want to buy a game and play it for 10 years, complain loudly when companies try to charge them for it... There needs to be a profit incentive to create a long standing, competitive game which is why SC2 should be subscription based.
There never will be any profit margin. Just look at this site- before drones, scv, and probes were not as common.. But now- just look how the entertainment industry has them swayed.
On June 17 2010 04:29 green.at wrote:
I just disagree. sorry but i really dont have to say more.
This one in particular ^^^^^
|
Of course Blizzard wants to make money, but in order to do that, they have to maintain their reputation of making quality games. An RTS that's imbalanced isn't quality, and that reputation will go with that developer. Blizzard needs to make us happy in order to make money, the hardcore community is an asset. Your argument is flawed because if Blizzard has to make a competitive product for it to be popular and maintain it's reputation.
|
On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that.
because a pro is 25 years old.
Also soccer is a mute point... it does not apply to the scope of this argument, this is a computer game. Soccer is not. Soccer is competitive, and nothing a 6 year old does should be considered competative- it's just entertainment.
|
On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that.
You're missing his point. The fact that soccer is easy to play but impossible to master is irrelevant. Give a modern day example of a company spending millions of dollars to produce a "soccer" equivalent. You don't see it, because the "impossible to master" part is much harder to capitalize on than the "easy to play" part, which is what he is talking about.
|
On June 17 2010 04:34 Salv wrote:
Of course Blizzard wants to make money, but in order to do that, they have to maintain their reputation of making quality games. An RTS that's imbalanced isn't quality, and that reputation will go with that developer. Blizzard needs to make us happy in order to make money, the hardcore community is an asset. Your argument is flawed because if Blizzard has to make a competitive product for it to be popular and maintain it's reputation.
blizz only has to make a product that provides entertainment. Not competition- maybe 'false' competition, or an extremely easy to reach skill ceiling... But no- blizz just has to cater to the masses to make money. Look at wow- anyone can be good at that game lol
|
On June 17 2010 04:35 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that. because a pro is 25 years old. Also soccer is a mute point... it does not apply to the scope of this argument, this is a computer game. Soccer is not. Soccer is competitive, and nothing a 6 year old does should be considered competative- it's just entertainment.
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.
On June 17 2010 04:36 NevilleS wrote:
Give a modern day example of a company spending millions of dollars to produce a "soccer" equivalent..
Starcraft.
|
The gamining companies has not changed. More than likely you view of the games has. (and just to clarify i agree with some of your points)
I will however say that no matter the argument. Blizzard has ALWAYS delivered on every single game. Until that changes, this whole thread in fairly pointless, mainly due to the fact that you are complaining about a BETA product.
The products is not ready for realease, does bnet 2.0 has some critical errors, ehm, yes, doubt anyone will dispute that. But give them a little time and im sure that we will end up with the product we want. They need to keep us happy to keep the money comming for the expansions.
|
I don't think gaming has died at all. It's just changing and people seem to want it to stay the same. I personally think it is changing for the better 
|
On June 17 2010 04:37 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:35 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that. because a pro is 25 years old. Also soccer is a mute point... it does not apply to the scope of this argument, this is a computer game. Soccer is not. Soccer is competitive, and nothing a 6 year old does should be considered competative- it's just entertainment. 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.
lol soccer is not a video entertainment it's a physical sport. Once again it has no bearing on the scope of this argument. Everything in my OP is the reality of the games market today.
|
You, my friend, and this thread... are entertainment!
It is simply mind boggling how much you fail to see and how much you have been influenced by threads throughout the beta.
|
On June 17 2010 04:39 Talic_Zealot wrote:
You, my friend, and this thread... are entertainment!
I want to be entertainment. Because i am sick of all these new 'entertainment' seekers coming in and telling me what gaming is.
|
On June 17 2010 04:36 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:34 Salv wrote:
Of course Blizzard wants to make money, but in order to do that, they have to maintain their reputation of making quality games. An RTS that's imbalanced isn't quality, and that reputation will go with that developer. Blizzard needs to make us happy in order to make money, the hardcore community is an asset. Your argument is flawed because if Blizzard has to make a competitive product for it to be popular and maintain it's reputation. blizz only has to make a product that provides entertainment. Not competition- maybe 'false' competition, or an extremely easy to reach skill ceiling... But no- blizz just has to cater to the masses to make money. Look at wow- anyone can be good at that game lol
What you're saying doesn't make sense. Blizzard wants to sell their game, which means it has to be accessible, but it has to appeal to as many markets as possible, including the hardcore. There is competition in SC2, I don't know what you're saying when you say there isn't. WOW isn't unlike Diablo, or Diablo II, you collect items and that gauges most of your characters strength, not your skill, it's a totally different genre. Games are played for entertainment, whether you find that because of the complexity and depth, or because of the mindless fun and accessibility, it doesn't matter.
|
On June 17 2010 04:35 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that. because a pro is 25 years old. Also soccer is a mute point... it does not apply to the scope of this argument, this is a computer game. Soccer is not. Soccer is competitive, and nothing a 6 year old does should be considered competative- it's just entertainment.
following this logic, how can you cite the activities of middle schoolers to prove your point?
you create a distinction between pro soccer players and 6 year olds, but not a distinction between middle school players, and top tier players
edit: additionally i think the crux of your argument is flawed. you assume companies did not care about making money in the "old days" of gaming, but now it is suddenly a big deal.
|
sorry culdn't read the entire post tooo looong
User was warned for this post
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 17 2010 04:37 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:36 NevilleS wrote:
Give a modern day example of a company spending millions of dollars to produce a "soccer" equivalent.. Starcraft.
I don't follow the scene but Capcom's pretty serious about Street Fighter as well.
|
United States2095 Posts
Same alou :D! Definetly don't think gaming has died, just that players have gotten better and what may have seemed really hard 10 years ago, is quiet easy now. (Now that you've learned micro/macro, and how to shoot fireballs at stuff, its easier to start multitasking so forth.)
|
On June 17 2010 04:38 Manilix wrote:
The gamining companies has not changed. More than likely you view of the games has. (and just to clarify i agree with some of your points)
I will however say that no matter the argument. Blizzard has ALWAYS delivered on every single game. Until that changes, this whole thread in fairly pointless, mainly due to the fact that you are complaining about a BETA product.
The products is not ready for realease, does bnet 2.0 has some critical errors, ehm, yes, doubt anyone will dispute that. But give them a little time and im sure that we will end up with the product we want. They need to keep us happy to keep the money comming for the expansions.
beta is done game comes out in less than a month. beta argument is a mute point- but nice try. Entertainment seekers rejoice when SC2 comes out!
|
I may have missed the point of your post but I think it should be titled, "Gaming =/= ESPORTS."
|
On June 17 2010 04:39 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:37 Backpack wrote:On June 17 2010 04:35 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 04:31 Backpack 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... Did you read the next part of my post? A 6 year old can play soccer just fine, but he will never be able to compete with a pro. Explain that. because a pro is 25 years old. Also soccer is a mute point... it does not apply to the scope of this argument, this is a computer game. Soccer is not. Soccer is competitive, and nothing a 6 year old does should be considered competative- it's just entertainment. 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. lol soccer is not a video entertainment it's a physical sport. Once again it has no bearing on the scope of this argument. Everything in my OP is the reality of the games market today.
You just said that a 6 year old playing soccer would be considered entertainment.
I've made my point and its clear you don't want to accept anybody else's opinion so I'm not going to bother debating this anymore. If you want to resist the change in how gaming works, go for it. But i'm going to continue playing and continue to enjoy myself.
|
It will be so funny to see what you think of your own thread in 3-4 years!
|
There is no fake competition in starcraft unless you are talking about match fixing and win trading.
How can we create a game that gets people to play again and again?
competition?
|
On June 17 2010 04:32 Misrah wrote:
Just look at this site- before drones, scv, and probes were not as common.. But now- just look how the entertainment industry has them swayed.
do you really prey on users with low postcount when you registered little over 2 years ago here yourself?
i also disagree with your writing. it really sounds like the rant of a spoiled kid.
i'm sorry.
|
I really dont understand the point of these articles anymore.
What are you trying to accomplish here? Starcraft 2 is fun AND competitive. nothing more to add.
gg no re.
|
On June 17 2010 04:37 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:36 NevilleS wrote:
Give a modern day example of a company spending millions of dollars to produce a "soccer" equivalent.. Starcraft.
Hopefully! It seems that it is indeed Blizzard's goal to deliver a blockbuster hit that has competitive depth, but their success in this regard is debatable. What's true is that they have very little direct fiscal incentive to do so, so they need to build a business model based around selling competitiveness, which I don't see any other companies doing. Maybe they expect to generate revenue from indirect sources like tournament fees and licensing deals instead of just pure game sales. I hope they have a plan and it means that management is willing to pay the development cost to continually balancing and tweaking the game years down the road.
|
Your right in money running the world, however, you got a lot of things wrong here. First off, the money seeking attitude is not carried by all companies. Take a look at the Halo series. Having played plenty of each one, i can safely say that the skill gap did not change throughout the series. as long as you are playing BR starts, the man with the better BR will win. I can go 1-15 against my more skilled friends in this game. From what i played of the beta, its looking like reach will follow in being very skill based. I'll give you MW2 and SSB, but not Bungie or the RTS portion of Blizzard (WOW is definitely money based.) The only two changes in SC2 that will have an effect on the skill level, are MBS and automine. Neither of which are really that big of deals IMO.
|
On June 17 2010 04:44 SLush wrote:
I really dont understand the point of these articles anymore.
It almost seems like people DO NOT want SC2 to succeed.
|
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.
|
You sound just like my grandma going "hiphop aint music!".
|
On June 17 2010 04:45 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 04:44 SLush wrote:
I really dont understand the point of these articles anymore.
It almost seems like people DO NOT want SC2 to succeed.
sc2 will succeed- but it will be a flash in the pan game, so blizz can crank out more SC stuff to make more money on more entertainment.
|
On June 17 2010 04:46 Longshank wrote:
You sound just like my grandma going "hiphop aint music!".
hes right- it's not. Go listen to lacrimosa- i have it for you in the op.
On June 17 2010 04:45 used man wrote:
Your right in money running the world, however, you got a lot of things wrong here. First off, the money seeking attitude is not carried by all companies. Take a look at the Halo series. Having played plenty of each one, i can safely say that the skill gap did not change throughout the series. as long as you are playing BR starts, the man with the better BR will win. I can go 1-15 against my more skilled friends in this game. From what i played of the beta, its looking like reach will follow in being very skill based. I'll give you MW2 and SSB, but not Bungie or the RTS portion of Blizzard (WOW is definitely money based.) The only two changes in SC2 that will have an effect on the skill level, are MBS and automine. Neither of which are really that big of deals IMO.
lol halo 3 takes no skill. remember lunchbox and his crew? with revolver from wisconsin? ya used to play with those guys in h2. that was fun, now why did so many of the crew quit for h3?
|
8748 Posts
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.
|
Just because the game is easy to play doesn't mean it's easy to master... You can't call yourself a pro gamer just by having good game mechanics and high APM without strategic/creative plays. SC2 is still in beta, without doubt that no one has discovered the full depths of the game, esepcially with the upcoming expansions. SC2's automations reduced many of the meaningless mechanics so that players can focus more on the "big picture", I personally dont have any complaints about it. It's simply a different game than BW and deserves to be treated separately.
|
Would you please define your perception of what competition really is Misrah? You seem have a different view on what competition really is, than the posts you are responding to.
How can a 6 year old not be competitive? Ofc they can.
Competitive does not mean pro.
|
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.
|
Why the hell are you people so easily influenced by others' opinions ..? If you take everything you have heard/read through the beta to the side and just look at the game and your experience I'm sure you will change your opinion..
Note to self: Stop reading the forums!
|
Well, it's a good thing that a game that is fun to play at all skill levels, and very difficult to master, would have the most number of people buying it and talking to their friends about it, for the longest period of time...
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."
|
On June 17 2010 04:56 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
Isn't the definition of a game to have entertainment and be enjoyable and fun for people? Like I could make an insanely difficult, ridiculously challenging game, but if it's no fun, no one would play it. And I don't know about you, but I sort of like the idea of having a broader market with more people interested in something that I've been so passionate about for so many years. Playing Broodwar often makes me feel isolated because there isn't much of a following, I don't have many people to talk to and share my ideas with except online... I feel like there should be a balance in entertainment and competition obviously and this is the challenge for all game makers, but I honestly believe Blizzard is trying there best to please both parties the best they see fit.
I feel like I just rambled on about nothing, sorry 
|
On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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 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
|
I'd just like to add that although wow is a purposefully easy game, there are places that take some skill. If you've ever played in a dungeon/raid setting, there are measures of competency such as DPS and actually being alive at the end of the encounter. It becomes obvious very quickly who performs well and who does not. If it was completely no-skill then there would be far more HM Lich King kills and I could drag 24 random idiots through anything and be successful.
|
On June 17 2010 04:54 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 17 2010 04:59 Half wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
this kid should be temp banned to deflate his ego. holy shit
reject everyones opinions but yours. lmao.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On June 17 2010 05:03 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +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 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"?
On June 17 2010 05:04 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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
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. .
|
I think if you need an example of a large company still making competitive games: Valve.
|
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.
|
Guys, we need to all go back to the roots of gaming. Lets start doing Pac-Man and Donkey Kong
|
No one mentioned this other good change Blizzard did.
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
|
Long post for a troll
User was temp banned for this post.
|
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?
|
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
|
Yeah games are getting easier, suck it up it suits my laziness.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On June 17 2010 05:12 owenowens33 wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
wait someone actually agrees with me on the sc2 forum! hell ya!
|
On June 17 2010 05:12 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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"? 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
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!
Did you know to run a succesful business you need to grow. Every business is made to make money. Most new game developers need to make their first title great and the cost must either be close to breaking even or a small margin of profit. Walmart used to be a small business, but then people decided they were doing a good job and forced it to grow.
Next time you think Blizzard was the good guys back in the day just remember what they did to Condor(They bought them to increase their profits! Of course Condor did not mind that they became a peice of a bigger puzzle).
|
On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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.
stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover
|
oO there's no way the average gamer is 35 years old, unless they count card games or something haha
|
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.
Completely agree with this post. If you compare sc to chess, just knowing how to move the pieces does not win you the game. Moving your workers to mineral patch is a complete waste of time and does nothing to prove one's strategic thinking, I don't understand why people think this makes the game easy...
|
An RTS can evolve where a FPS " genre games cannot.
lol.
Stop making statements out of your ass.
On June 17 2010 05:18 Skeyser wrote:
oO there's no way the average gamer is 35 years old, unless they count card games or something haha
Yes, the liberal left wing controlled media is lieing to us.
|
On June 17 2010 05:18 OpRaider wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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. stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover
Morally superior- yep thats me.
Keep bringing on the hate SC2 forum i have been waiting for this.
Entertainment is the new wave of the future.
|
On June 17 2010 05:16 Jovian wrote:
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.
This is entirely incorrect.
I'm not a huge fan of Halo but you are seriously underestimating the complexity that goes on in a team vs team game. It's not just the guns and the grenades, it's how to use them, where to put yourself with available cover but still meeting the objective, conserving ammo properly, proper defense. This is what made the original Halo and CS 1.6 so ridiculously competitive.
It's simply much harder to see this from a spectator view point but it is most definitely there.
However I am definitely seeing the trend Misrah is talking about. Without a doubt games are leaning toward easier to master and reward for little effort. This is undeniable. Hell even when Brawl was being developed a dev came right out and said , "It made sense to take x ability out because it allows players that haven't played as long to keep up with players that have played for a long time."
This statement spoke volumes about the direction a franchise as popular as SSB would go toward...and it's happening with ALL games.
|
So because people do not agree with you POV we are brinning the "hate" ? Really ?
|
On June 17 2010 05:21 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:18 OpRaider wrote:On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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. stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover Morally superior- yep thats me. Keep bringing on the hate SC2 forum i have been waiting for this. Entertainment is the new wave of the future.
You seem to enjoy the attention.
kinda pathetic.
Read this guys post
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.
OP:
I seriously suggest you reevaluate your life.
|
As an engineer I can tell you right now that money is not the only thing that people are interested in. Sure there are some people who are interested only in money but to say that is the only driving force is just false.
Right now I'm working on a few projects but we've just started getting in the parts for one project that I designed a few months back. I cannot express to you how excited and proud I am of these parts. They're dumb pieces of steel that most people would look at and pass right over but to me they're more. I spent weeks doing calculations to perfectly optimize these parts and have spent lots of time in boring meetings since then listening as the mechanical engineers figure out how to fit it all into a good package. I'm not the only one, my boss and other coworkers come by and smile when they see the parts, they're all excited to see it come together too.
I'm sure that this is what its like at Blizzard. When the programmers all come together and see the great game they've made they feel pride for what they accomplished. Yes the product will make them money, but the sheer joy of seeing it come together is equal in their minds to any money they receive for it.
I find it hard to believe that this is exclusive to engineers or scientists, people like doing things well. People feel pride for the work which they accomplished. When the business people see the work that we do, they are proud of it too. To dismiss this is being far too cynical.
|
Woow.. this is starting to get really entertaining. I've played aggressive poker but damn.. this is just a whole new level. GG I guess the APM tech trully got me lmao..
|
remember pong? easy enough to learn, but loads of fun when played with friends. It's the people like us that makes the game enjoyable. The games or sports are just the platform.
True, Money is certainly a major part of the motivation for these companies. But don't forget that the game developers want to be successful too. I work on IT projects in a corporate environment and sure money is certainly a factor in everything that we do, but having satisfaction from our accomplishments matters too.
|
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it.
|
On June 17 2010 05:23 Misrah wrote:
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it.
Nope. Considering almost every single thing you've posted in this thread is demonstrably false.
|
On June 17 2010 05:23 revy wrote:
As an engineer I can tell you right now that money is not the only thing that people are interested in. Sure there are some people who are interested only in money but to say that is the only driving force is just false.
Right now I'm working on a few projects but we've just started getting in the parts for one project that I designed a few months back. I cannot express to you how excited and proud I am of these parts. They're dumb pieces of steel that most people would look at and pass right over but to me they're more. I spent weeks doing calculations to perfectly optimize these parts and have spent lots of time in boring meetings since then listening as the mechanical engineers figure out how to fit it all into a good package. I'm not the only one, my boss and other coworkers come by and smile when they see the parts, they're all excited to see it come together too.
I'm sure that this is what its like at Blizzard. When the programmers all come together and see the great game they've made they feel pride for what they accomplished. Yes the product will make them money, but the sheer joy of seeing it come together is equal in their minds to any money they receive for it.
I find it hard to believe that this is exclusive to engineers or scientists, people like doing things well. People feel pride for the work which they accomplished. When the business people see the work that we do, they are proud of it too. To dismiss this is being far too cynical.
Thank you for bringing up this point. While you yourself are not interested in monetary gains- the company you will be working for is. and in the case of activision blizzard- the board of directors is very very concerned with making money.
|
So Misrah, just to clarify, is your problem with SC2 that it is "entertaining" or the fact the Blizz will make money on it ?
Both of which are highly dependent on one another.
|
How about an additional hypothetical about "skill-ceilings":
What if SC1 is nowhere even close to the "ceiling" of skill of what you could accomplish. It takes so much APM and dexterity to work around the engine that what you do is incredibly impressive but nowhere near what the maximum capacity of the game is.
So, what if SC2 doesn't rail you against the ceiling but shifts the abilities along the continnum closer to the ceiling. So, yes, the average noob looks more skilled than they would in SC1, but the pro can still soar higher than them. In fact, the pro can use the additional APM that he's not using working around the SC1 interface to get an even more impressive command on his units.
Isn't the ultimate goal of gaming to have a true control over every unit individually? I mean, if you could do that, that would be the "ceiling" as I see it. The closer you get to that, the more you can control raiding parties, drops, expanding, harassing, attacking, flanking, etc all at the same time. In this way, it could be that removing some of the APM sinks of SC1 actually opens up an even more entertaining result. Or an equally entertaining result, or just an entertaining result.
In this way, sure SC2 is easier than SC1 in the ways that we used to regard as amazing the ways that pros managed the limitations of SC1, but SC2 could be amazing in entirely new ways and provide depth in entirely different ways.
Again, this is all hypothetical. I'm just throwing out a thought experiment moreso than passing judgement on the legacy of all of BW and the incredibly young SC2.
|
On June 17 2010 05:23 Misrah wrote:
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it.
Ok this is what bothers me. You are making a stand for your opinion, and that is great. But I feel you have been majorly influenced by other people on the forum, which is bad. Take a step back and try to make your own opinion about the situation. Take all the articles aside and look at the game itself.
|
On June 17 2010 05:25 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:23 Misrah wrote:
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it. Nope. Considering almost every single thing you've posted in this thread is demonstrably false.
care to show me where everything i have said is false? why don't you start at the op- and then actually make an argument, or you can just keep posting your defamatory trash.
|
On June 17 2010 05:25 Misrah wrote:Thank you for bringing up this point. While you yourself are not interested in monetary gains- the company you will be working for is. and in the case of activision blizzard- the board of directors is very very concerned with making money.
Board directors do not design.
|
What's wrong with entertainment? When I started playing video games I didn't know of any competitive scene (and there probably wasn't one outside of certain arcades)
The main point I feel you're trying to make is that Starcraft 2 is not Starcraft 1. And you're pulling the video game industry under with you.
I am so much more familiar with the competitive CS scene and I heard the same BS when source came out. The game is different, deal with it. It's not Starcraft 1 anymore. You're free to play Starcraft 1.
|
On June 17 2010 05:16 Jovian wrote:
....
An RTS can evolve where a FPS or "Sports" genre games cannot.
You have no clue what you're talking about, and you probably don't even understand how much of a role strategy and tactical discisions plays in Counter-Strike 1.6 on the highest level.
It is exactly like playing an RTS. You just don't respect that.
|
On June 17 2010 05:23 Misrah wrote:
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it.
Oh, thank you for showing us the light then.
|
I almost feel that this is a case similar to "fan of indie band not liking the band anymore, because they are now signed to a label".
Nothing really changed, but the number of fans have increased. For some people they don't feel as special anymore.
|
On June 17 2010 05:27 Half wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:25 Misrah wrote:Thank you for bringing up this point. While you yourself are not interested in monetary gains- the company you will be working for is. and in the case of activision blizzard- the board of directors is very very concerned with making money. Board directors do not design.
You're fooling yourself if you think that they don't have a vested interest in how the game is being designed. They most CERTAINLY have a say in the matter. Don't be forcibly ignorant and row around on semantics.
They have an interest and they have weight to throw around. They don't design directly but indirectly they have more than enough clout to get things done.
|
On June 17 2010 05:26 Manilix wrote:
So Misrah, just to clarify, is your problem with SC2 that it is "entertaining" or the fact the Blizz will make money on it ?
Both of which are highly dependent on one another.
My OP was about more than SC2 and Blizz- most probably did not care to read it.
But my problem right now is that games are not games anymore. they are simply entertainment. Games used to be challenging, and have clear lines of competitive skill. However now games are just made for the masses because it is easier and is more profitable. and it seems that i am the only person seeing this.
That annoys me- so i am letting my voice be heard here in the SC2 forum.
|
Since when has video gaming not been a form of entertainment? Why did you buy Donkey Kong and a NES? So that you could become the world Donkey Kong master?
Why do you think masses of people in Korea who don't play SC themselves even BOTHER to watch SC tournaments? Because its fun to watch!
|
On June 17 2010 05:17 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:12 owenowens33 wrote: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. wait someone actually agrees with me on the sc2 forum! hell ya!
I do agree with you on most of your points about gaming companies making their games easier for the reason of attracting a casual audience, but I also think that you are shooting yourself in the foot by trying to make this a technical debate. Its not about APM, or entertainment, or post counts. The fundamental point you should be driving is that there exists a casual market that is (usually) more profitable to develop for, and therefore it may affect (negatively) how most games that used to be tailored for the hardcore market are now made.
|
On June 17 2010 05:26 Takkara wrote:
How about an additional hypothetical about "skill-ceilings":
What if SC1 is nowhere even close to the "ceiling" of skill of what you could accomplish. It takes so much APM and dexterity to work around the engine that what you do is incredibly impressive but nowhere near what the maximum capacity of the game is.
So, what if SC2 doesn't rail you against the ceiling but shifts the abilities along the continnum closer to the ceiling. So, yes, the average noob looks more skilled than they would in SC1, but the pro can still soar higher than them. In fact, the pro can use the additional APM that he's not using working around the SC1 interface to get an even more impressive command on his units.
Isn't the ultimate goal of gaming to have a true control over every unit individually? I mean, if you could do that, that would be the "ceiling" as I see it. The closer you get to that, the more you can control raiding parties, drops, expanding, harassing, attacking, flanking, etc all at the same time. In this way, it could be that removing some of the APM sinks of SC1 actually opens up an even more entertaining result. Or an equally entertaining result, or just an entertaining result.
In this way, sure SC2 is easier than SC1 in the ways that we used to regard as amazing the ways that pros managed the limitations of SC1, but SC2 could be amazing in entirely new ways and provide depth in entirely different ways.
Again, this is all hypothetical. I'm just throwing out a thought experiment moreso than passing judgement on the legacy of all of BW and the incredibly young SC2.
Show me an example where the average noob looks like a great player in a game, and the pro is so much better. please i would like to hear about this game. SSBM came close (in the first year of it's release)- but then the meta game was shifted by the competitive community and now that is not possible.
|
Also I urge those who have been calling Misrah an idiot or a troll to read my original post, it may help some of you understand where he is coming from, even if in the end you still disagree with him.
|
On June 17 2010 05:28 Alou wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:23 Misrah wrote:
Nope just enjoying that people are up in arms about the truth.
Entertainment is big bucks, and all of you are buying into it. That is what my OP was- that is my opinion and i am sticking with it. Oh, thank you for showing us the light then.
Sweet 2 people that agree with me!
|
On June 17 2010 05:29 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:26 Manilix wrote:
So Misrah, just to clarify, is your problem with SC2 that it is "entertaining" or the fact the Blizz will make money on it ?
Both of which are highly dependent on one another. My OP was about more than SC2 and Blizz- most probably did not care to read it. But my problem right now is that games are not games anymore. they are simply entertainment. Games used to be challenging, and have clear lines of competitive skill. However now games are just made for the masses because it is easier and is more profitable. and it seems that i am the only person seeing this. That annoys me- so i am letting my voice be heard here in the SC2 forum.
Well thats just BS my friend. I have been around sins the WAY early days. Running up a count of 28 old now. I have played on the pro scene of multiple games (inc CS 1.6) and nothing has changed.
What however has changed is how fast i learn new games now, based what i have done in previous games. But make no misstake, nony or Idea or any number of players will still own my ass head to head.
So saying the competetive aspect is gone is just not true
|
On June 17 2010 05:32 owenowens33 wrote:
Also I urge those who have been calling Misrah an idiot or a troll to read my original post, it may help some of you understand where he is coming from, even if in the end you still disagree with him.
I don't understand how anyone would consider Misrah an idiot or a troll...his OP was a damn long post that should have been properly read and understood by most people. It made a frank sort of sense.
I don't agree entirely with everything he said but I certainly agree that the game industry is turning into an entertainment industry.
|
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?...
|
On June 17 2010 05:33 Manilix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:29 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:26 Manilix wrote:
So Misrah, just to clarify, is your problem with SC2 that it is "entertaining" or the fact the Blizz will make money on it ?
Both of which are highly dependent on one another. My OP was about more than SC2 and Blizz- most probably did not care to read it. But my problem right now is that games are not games anymore. they are simply entertainment. Games used to be challenging, and have clear lines of competitive skill. However now games are just made for the masses because it is easier and is more profitable. and it seems that i am the only person seeing this. That annoys me- so i am letting my voice be heard here in the SC2 forum. Well thats just BS my friend. I have been around sins the WAY early days. Running up a count of 28 old now. I have played on the pro scene of multiple games (inc CS 1.6) and nothing has changed. What however has changed is how fast i learn new games now, based what i have done in previous games. But make no misstake, nony or Idea or any number of players will still own my ass head to head. So saying the competetive aspect is gone is just not true
The guy never said that there wasn't a skill gap between a pro player and new player.
What he did say is that the skill gap is easier to bridge. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.
|
On June 17 2010 05:12 owenowens33 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
How is starcraft 2 being designed to limit competition? Blizzard is trying to expand E-SPORTS.....
|
On June 17 2010 05:21 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:18 OpRaider wrote:On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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. stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover Morally superior- yep thats me. Keep bringing on the hate SC2 forum i have been waiting for this. Entertainment is the new wave of the future.
Uhhhhhh i think you need to chill out guy, your post is basically your opinion about how the gaming industry is changing, with frankly little to back up a lot of your statements but what ever your free to it, but don't say things like that, they just cause you to come off as a dick, undermining your point. Lets be a little more mature here....
|
On June 17 2010 05:36 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:33 Manilix wrote:On June 17 2010 05:29 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:26 Manilix wrote:
So Misrah, just to clarify, is your problem with SC2 that it is "entertaining" or the fact the Blizz will make money on it ?
Both of which are highly dependent on one another. My OP was about more than SC2 and Blizz- most probably did not care to read it. But my problem right now is that games are not games anymore. they are simply entertainment. Games used to be challenging, and have clear lines of competitive skill. However now games are just made for the masses because it is easier and is more profitable. and it seems that i am the only person seeing this. That annoys me- so i am letting my voice be heard here in the SC2 forum. Well thats just BS my friend. I have been around sins the WAY early days. Running up a count of 28 old now. I have played on the pro scene of multiple games (inc CS 1.6) and nothing has changed. What however has changed is how fast i learn new games now, based what i have done in previous games. But make no misstake, nony or Idea or any number of players will still own my ass head to head. So saying the competetive aspect is gone is just not true The guy never said that there wasn't a skill gap between a pro player and new player. What he did say is that the skill gap is easier to bridge. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.
Oh i know, but i still fundementaly disagree with him, the gap is as large as it has ever been, there are just more players in games now. Which in turns means more people with more skill.
But as i said i my first post soooo many posts ago. I do agree with part of you OP. But i realise that it is mainly due to nostalgi, sad but true.
|
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.
|
On June 17 2010 05:33 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:32 owenowens33 wrote:
Also I urge those who have been calling Misrah an idiot or a troll to read my original post, it may help some of you understand where he is coming from, even if in the end you still disagree with him. I don't understand how anyone would consider Misrah an idiot or a troll...his OP was a damn long post that should have been properly read and understood by most people. It made a frank sort of sense. I don't agree entirely with everything he said but I certainly agree that the game industry is turning into an entertainment industry.
I think most people understood what he was coming from. It's just that Misrah suddenly went on wild tangents about Blizzard trying to sabotage SC2 that bothered us, or the fact that he's making wild assertions about "fake" competitiveness that has no real definition, yet for some reason he uses it as some infallible counterargument.
EDIT: Grats on Queen icon
|
A few things I want to point out. I use to play supreme commander. Anybody that has ever tried to take that game to the next level knows how steep the learning curve is for that game. However it died out pretty fast despite having a pro scene with cash prizes and sponsorship backing. Want to know why? It was simply too complicated and redundant. People would waste 20 minutes of their time to build up to a climax and another 20 minutes to finish the game. It was a great game but nobody wants to learn a game that will take forever to learn the basics and at the same time take 20 minutes just to macro properly.
That being said. Starcraft 2 is genius. It shaves off the time it takes to macro but doesn't take the aspect out of the game. It's only easier. You still have to do it but you don't have to take 30 minutes to do it. You get to focus on the funner parts of an rts game. As much as I enjoy building probes I don't want 50% of my time dedicated to it. That only takes 5% of my skill, is how to build probes.
If you want to be your definition of competetive you should go play chess. No multiple building selection enabled and a skill ceiling higher than you could even imagine. Very cheap to play, free software and no in-game mechanic to help you move your pawns.
The bottom stuff basically just states you are trolling. You made this thread to induce hate and troll us. Stating an opinion is one thing. Bashing those who comment against it is another.
On June 17 2010 05:21 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:18 OpRaider wrote:On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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. stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover Morally superior- yep thats me. Keep bringing on the hate SC2 forum i have been waiting for this. Entertainment is the new wave of the future.
|
nice touch with the music
But it was WAAAAY TL;DR for me, so if you could sum i up in a sentence or ten that would be great 
User was warned for this post
|
Ah, you are a nostalgic one arent you ?
Personally, I agree, but I think you give too much importance to it, its not absolute.
There will still be awesome hardcore games, but even us the geeks who love to play it, barely have time to do so nowdays.
until playing games is something people can live off reliably, I think games will tend to get easier to learn.
|
On June 17 2010 05:37 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:12 owenowens33 wrote: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. How is starcraft 2 being designed to limit competition? Blizzard is trying to expand E-SPORTS.....
Blizz has created an online game that limits competition. I should not have to tell you that. Also not having LAN, and having a map system that caters exclusively to blizz rights is not expanding e sports...
|
On June 17 2010 05:38 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On June 17 2010 05:38 TangJuice wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:21 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:18 OpRaider wrote:On June 17 2010 05:15 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:10 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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. stop acting morally superior to everyone...by using this "APM technology" thing as your cover Morally superior- yep thats me. Keep bringing on the hate SC2 forum i have been waiting for this. Entertainment is the new wave of the future. Uhhhhhh i think you need to chill out guy, your post is basically your opinion about how the gaming industry is changing, with frankly little to back up a lot of your statements but what ever your free to it, but don't say things like that, they just cause you to come off as a dick, undermining your point. Lets be a little more mature here....
mature on the sc2 forum- i hope your kidding right? I have been mature- and all of my points are very clearly laid out. Money is the driving factor for all games. Game companies want to make money. The best way to make money is to make entertainment, with 'false' competition. Gaming and real games with concrete skills and competition are thrown out of the widow so they can attract a bigger market and make more money.
This is fact- and this annoys me, so i am telling people about it.
|
Misrah, just wondering, but if you hate SC2 so much. Why bother posting on TL ? You know that the people here clearly does not agree with yoú, if they did they would not be on the nr. 1 SC2 site ? ?
This is becomming more and more clearly that you are simply trolling and trying to start a Flame war or maeby just wasting time.
|
An "entertaining" read, however I think your claim that competition is gone is completely false. Whether the games are a low skill level or not there are always players who will find a way to gain an edge on the other players. Competition doesn't require difficult games it simply requires a game-simple or not is irrelevant.
Also I don't really know what games were difficult in the past other than maybe sc:bw. You mention CS but honestly while that game is challenging it is not challenging b/c of the game mechanics. It is challenging b/c of the human aspect of the game. The challenge in any game/sport arises from playing against talented opponents. With more and more people playing widely accessible games there should be more and not less competition.
|
On June 17 2010 05:41 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On June 17 2010 05:44 Manilix wrote:
Misrah, just wondering, but if you hate SC2 so much. Why bother posting on TL ? You know that the people here clearly does not agree with yoú, if they did they would not be on the nr. 1 SC2 site ? ?
This is becomming more and more clearly that you are simply trolling and trying to start a Flame war or maeby just wasting time.
LOL this site was made for SCBW pro scene coverage- nothing else.
Once again not trolling, not flaming- just stating an opinion.
|
I'm with you OP but you should let the kids have fun with their game, they will eventually switch to warcraft IV in a couple of years. Some will probably whine about the noobified game play of the sequel though :p
|
There are many things I want to say about this post, and even about your post history. However, I'll just say that I disagree and that no matter how much you think you can analyze and over think these subtleties, it doesn't matter because competitive games exist because a community exists. If you want to argue what constitutes competition or community or the motive of the company, go ahead, but i'll just consider it a waste of time.
|
|
|
On June 17 2010 05:48 Boblion wrote:
I'm with you OP but you should let the kids have fun with their game, they will eventually switch to warcraft IV in a couple of years. Some will probably whine about the noobified game play of the sequel though :p
no truer words were ever spoken
|
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.
|
On June 17 2010 05:47 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:44 Manilix wrote:
Misrah, just wondering, but if you hate SC2 so much. Why bother posting on TL ? You know that the people here clearly does not agree with yoú, if they did they would not be on the nr. 1 SC2 site ? ?
This is becomming more and more clearly that you are simply trolling and trying to start a Flame war or maeby just wasting time. LOL this site was made for SCBW pro scene coverage- nothing else. Once again not trolling, not flaming- just stating an opinion.
IDD, but your posting the SC2 section m8. And with comments as (paraphrasing) "SC2 is a joke and it sucks"
What did you expect the reaction would be ?
Also, tell me 1 blizzard game that lasted 1-2 years ?
You kinda need a wiee bit of proof to back these statements, if you dont, it is just trolling.
|
This is fact- and this annoys me, so i am telling people about it.
It's not a fact that Starcraft 2 has "false" competition. It is an opinion. If it were actually a fact you wouldnt be facing so much opposition. You dont provide conclusive evidence, only subjective evidence based on examples that other people could disagree with.
I actually agree with you quite a bit, but you are trying to make this a theory a fact without providing sufficient unarguable evidence which will be required if you want to convince people who disagree with you.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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.
You just can't be serious. Especially when it comes to protoss, that mechanic is just excellent and players are *soooooo* far from being able to optimally utilize it in longer games.
I've read the OP and your posts throughout this thread and you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Of course the game industry has changed, but don't act like SC1 was created with any different goals in mind than SC2 - they wanted to make a fun game, they still do.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On June 17 2010 06:02 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +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!!!!!!!
So that means your OP is a flamebait, followed by a very small about of semi truth. And on to watch people react ?
|
On June 17 2010 06:00 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: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.
SC1 needed an xpac to de-fibrillate the game as well. Pretty sure everyone of note is on record as saying that SC1 without BW would not be where it is today.
|
On June 17 2010 05:54 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:53 Bibdy wrote: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?
How does responding to "Blizzard is listening" with "I think I said they haven't several times. So there", further any argument, either?
|
But i am curious where sc2 will end up after a year or two.
Oh believe me I would be really curious to see your responce to your own statement in a year or two! Really can't wait to see it!
P.S. Although I won't really remember anything about you in a matter of hours..
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 17 2010 06:00 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: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.
I don't think SC without Brood War would have lasted this long either, so I'm perfectly willing to hold off on judging things until the second expansion pack is out.
Yes, SC2 is currently worse than Brood War.
But I think it might be better than SC vanilla.
|
I agree that the gaming industry is changing and I do love how strongly you defend your opinions, though I do have to agree it sounds a little overboard and sounds like a conspiracy theory.
|
On June 17 2010 06:00 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: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.
Or they want to make expansion packs to further catering to gamers. Giving them more after they see the reaction to the original. Stop trying to find a conspiracy.
|
On June 17 2010 06:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 06:00 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: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. I don't think SC without Brood War would have lasted this long either, so I'm perfectly willing to hold off on judging things until the second expansion pack is out. Yes, SC2 is currently worse than Brood War. But I think it might be better than SC vanilla.
If your wiling- could i ask of your opinion as is? How will sc2 fair before the expo on the korean scene? As you know i give it a year or two (but by then the next expo will be out) but what say you?
|
|
|
this is not about conspiracy, its just business. Business wants to make money. It's not a bad thing- it's what they do. It just seems that sometimes people forget that the only reason a business exists in the first place- is to make money.
User was warned for this post
|
I compeletely disagree, it is in the best interest of Blizzard to make this game competetive. Do you know what their "motto" is when it comes to game design?
Easy to learn, difficult to master.
Making games entertaining, flashy or even making the learning curve more managing for new players does not result in the game having "fake" competition. If the game ceiling is so low, why does one of the best SC2 players think its not? Do you believe yourself more qualified to make that assumption? Which you base on what exactly? Less redundant macro abilities which require no strategical choice?
Also you still havent answered with what you define as "fake" competion and why it is fake. Is it not other players you are playing against? If they are more skilled than you, dont you normally lose versus them then? How do make the logic leap that this caters to "entertainment" gamers who only wants to own noobs, when you will be matched against your skill level in most game types?
Another thing you dont seem to realize. Which rather makes much of your "evil corporate sons of bitches are ruining gaming" point moot. There is money in competitive gaming. Blizzard sees that there are oppurtunities for making money on this. Televised events. Big tournaments. That is why they are gunning for the e-sports scene. They want to make it more mainstream. They want to make a bigger market for it. They want to make money from it. Why are they then purposefully ruining their game by making it only 'fake' competitive when they have a stake in it being the exactly opposite?
/end rant
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On June 17 2010 06:06 Misrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2010 06:04 FrozenArbiter wrote:On June 17 2010 06:00 Misrah wrote:On June 17 2010 05:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: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. I don't think SC without Brood War would have lasted this long either, so I'm perfectly willing to hold off on judging things until the second expansion pack is out. Yes, SC2 is currently worse than Brood War. But I think it might be better than SC vanilla. If your wiling- could i ask of your opinion as is? How will sc2 fair before the expo on the korean scene? As you know i give it a year or two (but by then the next expo will be out) but what say you?
Well the expo will be out in a year if their previous games are any indication so we will never know. I think SC2 is a better (or at least equal) game than WC3 and WC3 only died in Korea because of the map rigging scandal and the fact that it wasn't a direct sequel to SC1.
I think the game will do fine, and I doubt very much that it will be gone in 5 years time - I don't think Blizzard will be anywhere close to having another RTS game on the market at that point, for one thing.
|
wow, i thought this would be a good post but i was wrong, and this essay became progressively worse the more i read. Misrah, you need to seriously reevaluate how you define and use terms such as 'competition' and 'entertainment'. You seem to think they are mutually exclusive when they are clearly not. Moreover, I find your analysis of the history of games and their difficulty to be completely erroneous; actually, pretty much everything you wrote is flawed or clearly wrong.
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
#1 Shouldn't be in SC2 forum
#2 Monster flame bait. Nothing is being accomplished here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
