| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Spacemanspiff
United States116 Posts
mmm.. sorry but no one buys BW anymore (since it's free). Where is it free? Is that a korean thing? Anyway, I think there needs to be a distinction between if SC2 is unpopular or the GSL is unpopular. If all the things people complain about SC2 were fixed would korean SC2 ever be more popular than anywhere else? I doubt it would, the rest of the world has so much more room to grow. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On January 08 2011 03:57 Spacemanspiff wrote: Where is it free? Is that a korean thing? yeah, it's a korean thing. It's also an iccup thing. u ever been on that site? | ||
|
Kaptein[konijn]
Netherlands110 Posts
A half-assed job part I Batlle.net. Where the Hell are my chat channels? Half of what kept players hooked on bw after all those years was the interaction, meeting players and compete with them. It was the soil for competitive grounds. When the original Starcraft was released in the spring of 1998, just having an Internet connection was an achievement itself. Despite that, they had no problem fixing up a GREAT Battle.net interface that worked like a charm and proved it worth for over a decade, which equals a century in computer development time. Then, fast forward to July 2010, where Internet is the medium for everyone. Even my grandmother knows how to send an e-mail. EVERYONE will use Battle.net and they manage to screw up it. At first it seemed like a temporary thing that will be fixed in the first patch. If it was a small thingy, then why not push the release date back a bit? These things are planned years ahead, literally. Well that soon became apparent: We are half a year later, and still no decent battle.net. Just fucking ridiculous. It's unprofessional and that USED to be un-Blizzard-like. A half-assed job part II The sounds. Everybody has to listen to them for hours and hours and hours and hours. My first game, I get ling-rushed (incidentally, not dissimilar to my first online sc game on Blood Bath). The lings start tearing away at my units ... and.... what?? Silence?? A few games later, I meet the mutalisk, the heart of mid-game zerg in bw. I see that they attack my ebay, but I don't hear much so I just send one scv to repair. Then the ebay explodes because apparently there were 10 of them and they all were hitting the bay. WTF!? THE MUTAS ARE NOW "MUTES" ?? In sc/bw, lings sounded like a fucking sledge hammer. If mutas hit your main, just the sound of it would instantly get your adrenaline pumping. Zealots sounded like they were tearing something apart. The sc2 sounds are fucking WEAK. Just weak. For fucks sake, the sounds of Warcraft I (talking 1992 or something here) were better than sc2, technical limitations (sound quality) aside. In fact, take that back, even the sound of an archer in warcraft I, despite having the bit rate of a mobile phone sounds better than those fucking mute sounds from lings, mutas, ultras and hydras. Terrible. Again, I was stunned by it because it's simply unprofessional. Un-blizzard-like. Now, Blizzard has done an amazing job the last 18 years in all of their RTS games so I'm willing to cut them slack for those otherwise unforgivable mistakes. But things don't get better when looking at the gameplay, which contains several fatal flaws: Skill is much less rewarding in sc2 compared to bw I'm sure experienced bw players can relate to what happened to me every week or so: You play an intense game, but your opponent has a unit composition/timing/positioning that catches you and you're forced to admit defeat. Well done. You watch the replay to see this impressive player and then you see that after as little as 6 minutes in the game, he has 4 idle scvs, is supply blocked, idle buildings, etc, etc. Basically you lose to a player well below your level who was somewhat lucky in strategic aspects, probably executing a build order from mind or the Internet without understanding it. That sucks and pisses you off. But it happens only once in per week or so. In sc2, it happens to a quarter of all my fucking games! This has several reasons, starting with: Arbitrary-chosen build orders give a HUGE favor without requiring skill In bw, you would get set back by having done a build-order that matches up badly with that of your opponent. You'd get knocked down, but you'd be FAR from knocked out. There were plenty of opportunities to get back in the game. Sure, the higher the level of play, the harder this becomes, but it was always bearable. In sc2, most games are either over or completely decided after 8 minutes. After the often game-deciding Build-order Battle, if you will. And again, having more skill than your opponent will net you more wins on average, but it's just that: on average. I don't want sc2 to be a more extreme version of poker, where you have to play a bo10 of games to beat a player who is quite below your level. When wc3 was released, NTT complained that there weren't hard counters as there were in bw. For instance, bats destroy lings but hydras destroy bats. And I he had a good point (don't want to start a discussion on wc3's worth). But sc2 is the other way around. The hard counters are TOO hard. So hard, that builder orders - mostly arbitrary - decide the entire game. Micro Another factor on why it's so hard to come back: micro is ridiculously easy. So easy that a pretty good player, say 2500 diamond, can match a progamer's micro 90% of the time. Marauders? A-move. Lings auto-surround the opponent. MMM automatically clumbs up to an a-move ball. Collosi are a-move units. Charge prevents micro. Concussive shells prevent micro. Fungal growth prevents micro. The thor is an unmicroable powerhouse. Multi-casting makes sure that a 7-year old can cast better storms in sc2 than Reach did in bw, which means that micro-ing against storms is nearly impossible when there are more than 2 templars (don't get me started on amulet and warp-in) and the opponent has half a brain.. The only fun micro mechanic of sc2 is marines vs blings. The bling is not as fun as the lurker, but I'm okay with it. They replaced a great unit with a very good unit - entertainment wise. The reaper could also have been a fun unit, but it never functioned well. Pre-patch it was too strong, and post-patch not a soul makes them anymore. Which is a waste, because on paper they can be a very nice unit. It needs some radical changes like remove the ability to jump cliffs and no longer throw nuclear bombs against buildings every second, and to balance that, it could be made more durable and a damage boost vs melee units. That way it can be a nice harrassing unit early-on and still a viable addition mid/late game if the opponent goes ling/zealot heavy. I'm not saying this is the way it MUST be, but something along those lines has a lot potential to be good. But at the same time, blings are the only units in sc2 (all races) that can create OHHHHHHH-moments. Scarabs killing 10 scvs or 0 is gone. Spider mines turning 6 dragoons into blue soup is gone - which, incidentally, is one of the game-turning abilities that sc2 lacks. In bw, if you saw a slow lord unloading 2 lurkers in your main, it was a SHIT! moment, but even if you only had 4 marines and stim, you could make it if you microed well! Same with a reaver coming in, or when 6 vults came and all you had was 3 dragoons. Even if a cloaked wraith hit your main in TvsT without detector, you could survive it by building the ebay right there and then. Yes, you'd be hurt, but if for instance you'd invested the money in containing the opponent or a fast-exp, there was a decent chance you could come back. In sc2, if a cloaked banshee hits you and you have no superlords (forgot the name), you're dead. Have no turrets and often you're toast as well. Etc, etc. A lot of sc2 units and tactics are all-or-nothing by nature. Macro is too easy That's right. Being Idra and having better macro than 99% of the players out there gives you only a marginal advantage. Being able to hotkey multiple buildings and rally workers to mine means macro is too frigging easy. This is yet another factor why 90% of the games are decided within 8 minutes. Even when your mechanics are in a different league than that of your opponent, it won't make much of a difference once the arbitrary Build-order Battle has set you back and your mediocre opponent can still macro at 80% of your efficiency with 10% of your mechanics/skill. The argument is "Good, sc2 is a strategy game and this emphasizes strategy" is wrong. On paper this actually looks like a good argument, but upon further inspection, the contrary is actually the case. Because proper scouting is so hard, this means that both players often have their build-orders semi-blind with respect to each other. Yes, they'll have a general clue, but rarely more than that. And after that, there's no turning back. But in bw, at that point the REAL strategy began. After the initial battle, you had to make crucial decisions: am I going to expand and turn this into a macro game and hope to turn the tide? Am I going to drop the zerg's greedy 3rd and get back? Am I doing a timing push due to his lacking army since he expects me to exp now? These are all key elements of a good strategic game which bw embraces, but in sc2 they play a smaller role. On top of that, sc2 is still a game where handspeed etc should matter. If you want to play a pure strategy game, then go play chess or checkers - they're great games in their own right. I try to like sc2, I really do. And it's a very good game. But it doesn't measure up to Blizzard's standards, which were way higher than "very good". It's been half a year since the release and I don't find myself addicted to sc2 anymore, although I still like the game... | ||
|
Somnolence
Lithuania127 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:00 d_so wrote: yeah, it's a korean thing. It's also an iccup thing. u ever been on that site? Don't want to derail this thread but I feel it would be better to have a community map initiative that has nothing to do with ICCUP. I am not a lawyer, but I think endorsing anything associated with illegal use of your product is not something an Activision-Blizzard would ever do. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 08 2011 03:38 Cyber_Cheese wrote: its because broodwars a better game, if you disagree, you havent played it its my understanding that to a trained professional, bw is still fairly mechanically demanding and the better player tends to win, but sc2 usually results in BO losses i would say also the spells in sc2 arent quite OP enough for the most part, so they dont get seen as often and the games turn out more bland oh and the post above me quotes a brilliant one, would have loved to have seen it Spells are fine. BO losses come from 1) a young game that isnt completely balanced yet. 2) TERRIBLE map pool. 3) TERRIBLE players. Do you have any idea how bad people will think the top players of today are, in 10 years time? Not as bad as the SC1 pros of 1999, but not as far away as people like to think. Yes, we have come a long way in terms of practice infrastructure from what once was, but the game is still so young, theres really not very many truly excellent players yet. | ||
|
Xain
Canada94 Posts
You could put the same argument with Final Fantasy: lots of people liked best the 7th or the 6th, because they grew up with it. That being said, while I think SC1 was a excellent game in its own right, a lot of what happened with it has something to do with the context in which it got out, the way the culture around videogames was evolving etc. I think SC2 has what it got to be in the position SC1 is/was, but the context may not be as favorable... Edit: just saw Jinro's post, and just thought i'd offer my support on the map thing... | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:11 Liquid`Jinro wrote: 2) TERRIBLE map pool. I have a question to you Jinro : do people acknowledge that among the Korean community ? I personnaly am stopping playing because of the maps... And won't play again until Blizz does something. The pb really isn't a GSL pb to me, the maps are just horribad, except Shakuras and Xel Naga. Too few to me ! | ||
|
xarthaz
1704 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:14 Xain wrote: Your Star wars argument(as well as FF one coincidentally) is a totally incorrect analogy.. when the new star wars are significantly lower rated in any rating sites(gamespot, imdb,rottentomatoes, etc and of course looking at user ratings instead of critic ones so the average score isnt biased by old nostalgic critics) in the first place, even though rating sites should be biased towards younger people due to statistical age distribution of internet use.For those dropping the argument that the GSL popularity is somehow linked to the quality of the two games(SC1 & 2), that kind of remind me of star wars fans and the way they argue about the old star wars versus the new ones. I always wondered why any of them realised that the star wars story was never really good, nor the acting, in any of the films. The thing is, I think it's all a nostalgia thing: most people saw the old star wars when they were young and of course loved it and sticked with it, but if you ask a children today which ones he likes, of course he's going to say the new ones (well it may depends on the parenting bias too). You could put the same argument with Final Fantasy: lots of people liked best the 7th or the 6th, because they grew up with it. That being said, while I think SC1 was a excellent game in its own right, a lot of what happened with it has something to do with the context in which it got out, the way the culture around videogames was evolving etc. I think SC2 has what it got to be in the position SC1 is/was, but the context may not be as favorable... Look it up yourself, FF7 and FF6 are the highest rated of the series even today, SW 456 are higher rated than SW 123 | ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
1) LAN/Offline support 2) A proper internet multiplayer platform and functionality 3) TV programs in Korea Or phrased differently: copyright concerns, and blizzards way of approaching them with battle.net 2.0 primarily and the Korean pissing contest secondarily stifles starcraft 2, and may kill it sooner than they would want. All 3 points are things Blizzard easily could have had. They decided not to out of hubris and greed. And in the process they alienate the whole player base, and the audience. Kespa is a dick for the same reasons too, but there it's the actual pro gamers in the houses that feel the brunt of it. | ||
|
Phrencys
Canada270 Posts
I don't know why people are blaming the game. | ||
|
TheBanana
Norway2183 Posts
You should support the game, help make it bigger. I see nothing good coming from this discussion, it brings nothing but negativity that will deter potential fans and demotivate players. Some of you portray it like you deserve a medal if you're not watching or supporting SC2. You don't, you deserve a kick in the ass. Atm SC2 is the only RTS game that has a shot at real growth as an esport, and everyone you should stand behind it. Especially RTS-fans. Also GSL != SC2, even though GSL is the biggest there is more to SC2 than that. | ||
|
Chise
Japan507 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:31 TheBanana wrote: You guys are such negative nancies. You should support the game, help make it bigger. I see nothing good coming from this discussion, it brings nothing but negativity that will deter potential fans and demotivate players. Some of you portray it like you deserve a medal if you're not watching or supporting SC2. You don't, you deserve a kick in the ass. Atm SC2 is the only RTS game that has a shot at real growth as an esports, and everyone you should stand behind it. Especially RTS-fans. Also GSL != SC2, even though GSL is the biggest there is more to SC2 than that. Yes, Sc2 has the potential to become a big game, but Blizzard isn't doing anything to lead the game in this direction (or at least they have not announced anything if they planned it yet). I think a lot of players will quit if they don't make any big changes in the next few months. | ||
|
Krigwin
1130 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:14 Xain wrote: For those dropping the argument that the GSL popularity is somehow linked to the quality of the two games(SC1 & 2), that kind of remind me of star wars fans and the way they argue about the old star wars versus the new ones. I always wondered why any of them realised that the star wars story was never really good, nor the acting, in any of the films. The thing is, I think it's all a nostalgia thing: most people saw the old star wars when they were young and of course loved it and sticked with it, but if you ask a children today which ones he likes, of course he's going to say the new ones (well it may depends on the parenting bias too). You could put the same argument with Final Fantasy: lots of people liked best the 7th or the 6th, because they grew up with it. That being said, while I think SC1 was a excellent game in its own right, a lot of what happened with it has something to do with the context in which it got out, the way the culture around videogames was evolving etc. I think SC2 has what it got to be in the position SC1 is/was, but the context may not be as favorable... Edit: just saw Jinro's post, and just thought i'd offer my support on the map thing... You are completely and demonstrably wrong. Please don't try to bring in Star Wars on some kind of anecdotal tangent when it's clear and obvious you know nothing about cinema. | ||
|
Aurocaido
Canada288 Posts
On January 08 2011 03:32 ChickenLips wrote: He's completely right. Young kids won't buy a 12 year old game, because frankly, it looks like shit compared to new releases. I have never played BW seriously and I'm sure the balance and strategic depth is all you make it out to be, but if you think you're gonna be able to fascinate teenagers with that stuff you're direly mistaken. If all anyone expects from a game is for it to have flashy aesthetically pleasing graphics then e-sports will never survive. Games like that are a dime a dozen, it is the strategic depth and complexity of BW that has given it longevity and its viewing appeal. If you expect teenagers to have an attention span longer than a couple months for a game with only flashy graphics you are gravely mistaken. | ||
|
TheBanana
Norway2183 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:35 Chise wrote: Yes, Sc2 has the potential to become a big game, but Blizzard isn't doing anything to lead the game in this direction (or at least they have not announced anything if they planned it yet). I think a lot of players will quit if they don't make any big changes in the next few months. I don't think it's a lack of trying. I have no way of knowing though, but it would surprise me. What I do know is that things take time. Small changes might swing in a terrible direction and they have to be hard pressed to rush them. Also map pool is definitely a fixable issue. | ||
|
Xain
Canada94 Posts
While you may be right about star wars rating (though I still think nostalgia is helping SW456 ratings way more than it should), I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the FF series. I played every one of them till the 12th and read multiples reviews of each one before buying it, and the ratings have been pretty consistent. Except the 13th one, which was pure shit I think anyone will agree. And I saying this while I personnally liked more the old Star Wars and the FF6 and 7. I just try to be realistic about their real worth... | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
The opening week of a new season of GSL doesn't get alot of live viewers coming to sit in the studio...Gee who would of guessed people don't flock to watch the pre-season or 1st games of the new season in any sport/event/etc. If this were the finals then yes that would be a huge problem, but for the first week of a new season? Come on guys. | ||
|
stk01001
United States786 Posts
On January 08 2011 02:33 Inex wrote: Even if what you say is true, you can't deny the fact that the game was (and still IS) fun to watch. It was also fun to play. War3 was fun to play and watch, right now SC2 is neither fun to play nor to watch. I play protoss and trust me when I say 90% of my games are boring. Looking at youtube commentaries and replays isn't fun either. I can't name one memorable game in SC2, but I can tell you stories about games in BW or War3. It's still a new game, that is true, but Blizz should have evolved a bit and perfected the already established game mechanic. I remain optimistic about the expansion, but only time will tell. I love how people state their opinions as if it's fact. Let me correct you. SC2 is neither fun to play or watch for YOU. I, along with A LOT of other people, belive SC2 is a very fun game to play & watch. Also ROFL at saying WC3 is fun to watch and SC2 isn't.. You said you play protoss.. how come your playing the game if it isn't fun? | ||
|
OblivionMage
Canada377 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:14 Xain wrote: For those dropping the argument that the GSL popularity is somehow linked to the quality of the two games(SC1 & 2), that kind of remind me of star wars fans and the way they argue about the old star wars versus the new ones. I always wondered why any of them realised that the star wars story was never really good, nor the acting, in any of the films. The thing is, I think it's all a nostalgia thing: most people saw the old star wars when they were young and of course loved it and sticked with it, but if you ask a children today which ones he likes, of course he's going to say the new ones (well it may depends on the parenting bias too). You could put the same argument with Final Fantasy: lots of people liked best the 7th or the 6th, because they grew up with it. That being said, while I think SC1 was a excellent game in its own right, a lot of what happened with it has something to do with the context in which it got out, the way the culture around videogames was evolving etc. I think SC2 has what it got to be in the position SC1 is/was, but the context may not be as favorable... Edit: just saw Jinro's post, and just thought i'd offer my support on the map thing... Your Star Wars analogy is absurd and fundamentally incorrect. Realize that the Blizzard that made Starcraft 1 is very different from the Blizzard that made Starcraft 2. Some people romanticize Blizzard as being this wonderful company that has hundreds of developers lovingly working on Starcraft 2 -- the same developers that brought the first game into the limelight. It's been ~ten years, and Blizzard has since merged with Activision, and made only World of Warcraft expansions for the majority of the period. Their Starcraft 2 team is small, and though I'm sure they are talented, I doubt many of them had anything to do with the development of the original title, and likely have their hands tied by the demonic CEO (and other members) of Activision. Starcraft 2 needs a lot of time and refinement -- the game is simply too volatile at the moment. I think it will eventually, after two expansions, become the primary eSports game, but it will undoubtedly take time. Also, realize that the history behind Brood War makes the game a much more compelling spectacle, and with the combination of the Korean culture, the casters, and the television exposure, its no suprise the game is still in the lead. Without statistics showing the attendee numbers of PL and Individual League matches, though, its hard to make a good comparison. Starcraft 2 needs to grow and establish itself as a cultural phenomenon and game with its own history and fan-base. | ||
|
tdt
United States3179 Posts
On January 08 2011 04:14 Xain wrote: For those dropping the argument that the GSL popularity is somehow linked to the quality of the two games(SC1 & 2), that kind of remind me of star wars fans and the way they argue about the old star wars versus the new ones. I always wondered why any of them realised that the star wars story was never really good, nor the acting, in any of the films. The thing is, I think it's all a nostalgia thing: most people saw the old star wars when they were young and of course loved it and sticked with it, but if you ask a children today which ones he likes, of course he's going to say the new ones (well it may depends on the parenting bias too). You could put the same argument with Final Fantasy: lots of people liked best the 7th or the 6th, because they grew up with it. That being said, while I think SC1 was a excellent game in its own right, a lot of what happened with it has something to do with the context in which it got out, the way the culture around videogames was evolving etc. I think SC2 has what it got to be in the position SC1 is/was, but the context may not be as favorable... Edit: just saw Jinro's post, and just thought i'd offer my support on the map thing... The first starwars sold 4x as much tickets as any of the newer ones. Even in 1977 dollars it made more any newer ones. I am 16 and like the old ones better as well. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL
RSL Revival
herO vs MaxPax
Rogue vs TriGGeR
BSL
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Scan
Rain vs Mong
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Soulkey vs Ample
JyJ vs sSak
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
