GSL Popularity - Page 52

On January 09 2011 00:19 Demand2k wrote:
I purchesed premium for the two first seasons, but after the "new game" factor disappeared it has gotten harder and harder to swallow the bad blizzard-made maps. This made me more or less go back to BW specating. Until they start using maps from real mapmapers in SC2 anyway.

On January 09 2011 00:10 infinity2k9 wrote:


What is there actually skillwise to be 10 times better at? Spellcasting is easier, no 12 unit limit, micro is easier because theres no patrol tricks. So what are you exactly imagining a game in 10 years to be different, in what way? In my opinion people are just going to refine the best macro builds then small eco disadvantage or a bad decision decides the game. It doesn't make the compelling viewing to be honest. It's not like say, a BW PvP where even with a unit disadvantage you can turn the tide of the battle with good storms and reaver control because theres no skill in using storm or any of the units.

As for the post about blobs actually looking good, sorry but they don't at all they just make it harder to see what the fuck is going on. I don't find all the particle effects beautiful they just make it difficult to tell whats happening for a spectator, whereas BW is mostly clear except in a few situations such as mass swarms and storms and when carriers cover the whole screen with interceptors.

Even if you're trying to say SC2 should surpass BW just because it has better graphics, then what does that say for the lifespan of SC2? Graphically it's going to age and are you going to trot out the same arguments then? Or will you not even be around then, moved onto some other game. Thats what annoys me a lot about a lot of the people arguing cause i'm willing to bet they will be nowhere to be seen in a few years anyway.

On January 09 2011 00:10 infinity2k9 wrote:


What is there actually skillwise to be 10 times better at? Spellcasting is easier, no 12 unit limit, micro is easier because theres no patrol tricks. So what are you exactly imagining a game in 10 years to be different, in what way? In my opinion people are just going to refine the best macro builds then small eco disadvantage or a bad decision decides the game. It doesn't make the compelling viewing to be honest. It's not like say, a BW PvP where even with a unit disadvantage you can turn the tide of the battle with good storms and reaver control because theres no skill in using storm or any of the units.

As for the post about blobs actually looking good, sorry but they don't at all they just make it harder to see what the fuck is going on. I don't find all the particle effects beautiful they just make it difficult to tell whats happening for a spectator, whereas BW is mostly clear except in a few situations such as mass swarms and storms and when carriers cover the whole screen with interceptors.

Even if you're trying to say SC2 should surpass BW just because it has better graphics, then what does that say for the lifespan of SC2? Graphically it's going to age and are you going to trot out the same arguments then? Or will you not even be around then, moved onto some other game. Thats what annoys me a lot about a lot of the people arguing cause i'm willing to bet they will be nowhere to be seen in a few years anyway.

On January 09 2011 00:10 infinity2k9 wrote:


What is there actually skillwise to be 10 times better at? Spellcasting is easier, no 12 unit limit, micro is easier because theres no patrol tricks. So what are you exactly imagining a game in 10 years to be different, in what way? In my opinion people are just going to refine the best macro builds then small eco disadvantage or a bad decision decides the game. It doesn't make the compelling viewing to be honest. It's not like say, a BW PvP where even with a unit disadvantage you can turn the tide of the battle with good storms and reaver control because theres no skill in using storm or any of the units.

As for the post about blobs actually looking good, sorry but they don't at all they just make it harder to see what the fuck is going on. I don't find all the particle effects beautiful they just make it difficult to tell whats happening for a spectator, whereas BW is mostly clear except in a few situations such as mass swarms and storms and when carriers cover the whole screen with interceptors.

Even if you're trying to say SC2 should surpass BW just because it has better graphics, then what does that say for the lifespan of SC2? Graphically it's going to age and are you going to trot out the same arguments then? Or will you not even be around then, moved onto some other game. Thats what annoys me a lot about a lot of the people arguing cause i'm willing to bet they will be nowhere to be seen in a few years anyway.

Edit: i have to quote this cause it's such a bad quote its unbelievable



Seriously? We're talking about eSports who is paying attention to this considering the speed of the game? And your attempt to try and make the example exciting with that kind of writing just makes me laugh. What has this even got to do with the topic. I don't see teenage korean girls packed in the stadiums to watch massive green and blue explosions. Even if the visuals were impressive (which they are not particularly) how often is it going to make you think 'wow' when it happens every game. The actual visuals basically become symbols to the spectator as to what is happening, and those symbols need to be as clear as possible.

On January 09 2011 00:27 infinity2k9 wrote:
Are you kidding ME, did i say micro is perfect did you even read the post? How the fuck do you read 'easier' as 'perfect'? Because progamers can focus almost 100% on micro at all times it's going to be easier, isn't that pretty simple. And the fact they even took heavy micro-requiring units OUT of the game with replacements which are not micro-able. A small mistake in micro or macro will lead to a game being lost or won in SC2 eventually because the skill gap will be so close.

Unlike BW where the top few players are so much better than the rest of the a-teamers, who are miles ahead of the B-teamers, who are miles ahead of the amateurs. Now in SC2 the lines are completely blurred... i have a friend who's around top 100 USA, and can take games off the top people despite only being C+ on Iccup. Now people will say it will develop over time, blah blah... well it won't because there is nothing to develop skills on.

On January 09 2011 00:32 Chise wrote:
Ok, it's useless discussing with you, since you think you KNOW how SC2 will evolve and there's obviously no possibility you are wrong.
People won't discover new things that could change the gameplay, that's impossible because YOU know there aren't any.

On January 09 2011 00:47 WarSong wrote:
good god, it's frustrating. feels a lot like the blizz forums at times, though people here are usually mean instead of completely stupid. but what the fuck, i'm having the same problem: i lay out a completely clear example to back up my argument, and then you get some punk who can only attempt to make your post look stupid, while completely missing the point. it's like i'm saying "i love bananas!" and they respond with "NO you dumb fuck, it ISN'T friday!!!"
sigh.
it really makes me miss university philosophy, where people have a concept of structured argumentation and critical thinking.

On January 09 2011 00:43 WarSong wrote:

god i love posting on this site. the few times that i respond to belligerent posters i get banned, and yet i see this trashtalk all the time, which is overlooked. likely not even a warning.

so, you've failed to take any of my points out of what i wrote. my point was not that visuals are the sole reason to play a game. the point being, totally obvious, was that the term to describe a game that has moved their graphics quality forward is "IMPROVED GRAPHICS", though you appear to be unfamiliar with it. improved means that the current product is better than the old content (in this case the visuals). it's like you're trying to say that better graphics are not better graphics...totally logical, right? as for the inability to discern what's happening: same thing happened to me when i switched over from dota to hon. you aren't used to the bright lights, flashy colors and a million other things that greatly improve the visual experience. you play for a day and all of a sudden there isn't the slightest thing that's difficult to see or comprehend. you're so latched onto a 12 year old game that you're unwilling to even spend a day with it. you don't have to and i don't think you should, since youre completely emotionally invested in BW, but ignorant comments on topics like that are seriously infuriating. i never get tired of watching collosi lazers, guardian shields, zerg tendrils snaking out and a million more examples. i know it pains you to consider the fact that sc2's graphics blow BW out of the water, a fact agreed upon by probably close to 98% of players, so i won't press the issue. you can't argue with someone who doesn't know how to argue. you'll just post back with more NO BW IZ TEH BESTEST CUS IT HAS 35 PIXELZ ON SCREEN. as for my example of a battle scenario in sc2, i have no clue how you interpreted that as having anything to do with speed or pace. you know so little about what youre bashing that you couldn't even grasp the example, let alone provide a coherent rebuttal to it.

i've played sc since the original, i've played sc2 right through the beta, and i continue to play it now. i'm a 2500 diamond, which can be a very relative of skill, but i'm no bronze noob, let alone a plainum noob. there are somewhere around 7-10k players that are better than me in the world, but guess what...that doesn't mean i suck. i'll be playing whatever version of starcraft is released. that IS a pretty weird concept, since it's natural to avoid continuations in awesome game series like it's the plague.

try opening your mind once in a while; it seems like it's a little stale and needs some fresh air.
ZING!

On January 09 2011 00:47 infinity2k9 wrote:


If the game is designed with eSports in mind then why would we expect to have players randomly find exploits? It's already be showned infact, like the voidray trick, that they might just patch them out anyway. Please explain how the ENTIRE dynamic of the game will change because someone discovers a trick. You think somehow the Thor is going to suddenly be a interesting microable unit because of a trick thats found. Yeah lets put all our hopes into that happening rather than looking at and examining the current situation of the game.

Saying players might find something is a completely stupid argument. Was Zerg really easy in BW before muta stacking was done? No, people just attempted the best they could to stack them manually anyway. I never said there won't be anything found in the game but trying to put that as a reason why the game could be interesting in the future is ridiculous. What about how it is right now?



So what's your argument here? Nothing at all? You claim i'm saying micro will be perfect, despite nothing to back it up, then just try and insult me with zero argument or any points made. I love these new TL members they are really good at discussion!

On January 09 2011 00:07 WarSong wrote:
SC2 blows BW out of the water, visually.

On January 09 2011 00:59 Senx wrote:
Thats a grim outlook for the future, what happens if GOM shuts down GSL because its simply not a viable business to uphold anymore?

What if the ironic situation happens where NA/EU is where the real SC2 scene is and that korea becomes the small "foreign" community, oh man, wouldn't that be funny =o

On January 09 2011 01:28 floor exercise wrote:


If GOM folded I really don't think it would be anything like a deathblow to SC2. It would definitely shake up the positions of Blizzard and Kespa/OGN/MBC. In my opinion it would probably push the parties closer together. Blizzard would end up having to look to them to make SC2 a viable esport (which tbh they should have done to begin with)