|
On January 09 2011 08:09 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +Its not that Korea needs SC2 but that BLIZZARD needs Korea to like SC2 like BW and cash in with the big $$ and thats why we have the huge adertisments and the GLS tourneys sponsored by BLIZZARD. But its not going acording to plan for now. Blizzard doesnt care about the rest of the world really when they were expecting 50++% of the profit to come from Korea only comparing it with BW sales. So I'm guessing you just completely pulled all that out of your ass? Blizzard doesn't need Korea, or eSports. They make money by selling copies of their game. What they make off eSports is so insignificant that is why they don't care more about eSports. Sure they want the game to be big in Korea it's MORE money. But SC/BW were huge before they got big in Korea that just made it even bigger. Blizzard cashed in when they sold 3 million copies of the SC2 in like 1 month. How can you say Blizzard sponsors the GSL and has huge advertisements? There is hardly anything on their website, or the SC2 news about the GSL. Blizzards support of the GSL is average at best, and they are certainly not going out of their way to promote it. They'll cash in again with each of the 2 expansions and milk it for all it's worth. If Blizzard needed Korea/eSports so bad they'd be running their own tournaments and leagues, and we'd be getting the GSL thrown in our face everytime we log into b.net. They just want to sell copies of the game, in the end that is all they care about the rest is just a bonus.
Agreed. Anyone who thinks that Blizzard needs Korea doesn't realize that Blizzard didn't make a single penny from BW korean esport.
SC2 was already a financial success the day it came out, and they'll just keep raking in the money with the two expansions. Sure it'd be great if Koreans would love SC2 as much as they loved BW but that'd just be bonus.
As for the SC2 proscene it's pretty big outside of korea, and even the top koreans will be able to make tons of money for the next 5 years at least thanks to the popularity of the gsl outside of korea. Look at WC3, there's still tournaments and the top players are still being paid big money, and that game is like 7 years old now.
|
On January 09 2011 07:23 Kenpachi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 07:19 Quesadilla wrote:On January 09 2011 07:12 Lightspeed wrote:As long as I see this on TL: ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KCtpj.png) I am not convinced that SC2 needs Korea at all. Consequently, I shouldn't matter whether GSL tanks or not. Anyway, there's is still a lot of incentive (i.e. money) in GSL for progamers in Korea to move on. Give it a bit of time, SC2 will be fine, even in Korea. I believe this is correct. yea no problem with this. foreigners are in their own world really.
Then why all the good foreigners went to Korea?
|
On January 09 2011 08:09 FLuE wrote:Show nested quote +Its not that Korea needs SC2 but that BLIZZARD needs Korea to like SC2 like BW and cash in with the big $$ and thats why we have the huge adertisments and the GLS tourneys sponsored by BLIZZARD. But its not going acording to plan for now. Blizzard doesnt care about the rest of the world really when they were expecting 50++% of the profit to come from Korea only comparing it with BW sales. So I'm guessing you just completely pulled all that out of your ass? Blizzard doesn't need Korea, or eSports. They make money by selling copies of their game. What they make off eSports is so insignificant that is why they don't care more about eSports. Sure they want the game to be big in Korea it's MORE money. But SC/BW were huge before they got big in Korea that just made it even bigger. Blizzard cashed in when they sold 3 million copies of the SC2 in like 1 month. How can you say Blizzard sponsors the GSL and has huge advertisements? There is hardly anything on their website, or the SC2 news about the GSL. Blizzards support of the GSL is average at best, and they are certainly not going out of their way to promote it. They'll cash in again with each of the 2 expansions and milk it for all it's worth. If Blizzard needed Korea/eSports so bad they'd be running their own tournaments and leagues, and we'd be getting the GSL thrown in our face everytime we log into b.net. They just want to sell copies of the game, in the end that is all they care about the rest is just a bonus.
What is pulled out of my ass?? Its just facts that more from 50% of BW sales were from Korea and there was so much advertisment for SC2 just before SC2 start selling. Heck Blizzard had SC2 advertisments on a fuckin plane from Korean Air and whole buildings painted in SC2 advertisments.There is articles about this in the forums here
Blizzard main profit comes from sales and SC2 is not selling as well as they expected in Korea. Blizzard is one of the main sponsors of GSL thats a fact too. IF SC2 does good in esport they rake in even more money but if it fails then who cares they move on their next game like Diablo or WOW expansion number 999.
|
There are so many differences between when BW was released and when Starcraft 2 was released.
In terms of just Blizzard alone, Blizzard don't care about E-sports now like they would of in 1998 when they released Brood War. There was no seperate world popular cash cow then [WoW]. Starcraft 2 really was developed probably because the community asked for it and Blizzard saw a quick way to make some very easy money off loyal followers who would buy the game almost automacially just because it says Starcraft on the cover. It is just money and the good old days of 98' where people developed games for more than just money are gone. Games have become a commercial projects like everything once it reaches a certain size.
When you play old Sonic games, for example, and you think "They don't make games like they used too", its true because 90% of developers don't, either because of money or because of publishers. Which is a completly different story althogether.
You have to attract the masses, as in the everyday casual gamers that play whatever is new. The best example to use here is FPS games, The Halo / COD debate. Most people on this forum are probably aware of how it goes. In this context COD4 = BW and MW2/Halo Reach/BO is SC2. As soon as a new game is released, everyone will just jump ship to the next game [ Atm its Black Ops]. Those few people that enjoy real gameplay stick with the older original [COD4], but it isn't those gamers you need to target. They are capable of being loyal. Its the idiot ship jumpers and in this day and age, that just isn't possible. There are many more studios now and many more big games being released. People will naturally move to play newer games and there is no way the unique success of BW can be repeated. Period.
Alot has changed in 10 years.
SC2 will die when it no longer becomes profitable, just like every other game in existance today.
I give it 1-2 years.
|
On January 09 2011 08:27 Ssoulle wrote:
...
Starcraft 2 really was developed probably because the community asked for it and Blizzard saw a quick way to make some very easy money off loyal followers who would buy the game almost automacially just because it says Starcraft on the cover
...
Yeah, their brilliant-diabolic-plan : developing a game for 7 years to make some very easy money, the quick way
and by the way: thinking SC2 gona die before LotV is out is just plain stiupid
|
On January 09 2011 08:27 Ssoulle wrote:
Alot has changed in 10 years.
SC2 will die when it no longer becomes profitable, just like every other game in existance today.
I give it 1-2 years.
Considering they are spacing out the expansions and the final one will prolly be out in 2013 I don't see how SC2 could possibly die before that.
|
Thats a long and convoluted post to just call people that dont play/follow BW...
On January 09 2011 08:27 Ssoulle wrote:
idiot ship jumpers
... and magically prophesize SC2s lifespan to....
On January 09 2011 08:27 Ssoulle wrote:
1-2 years.
... at which point the second expansion has not even been released. Guess they will just cancel that one.
I wish I hadnt skimmed thru most of this thread.
|
sc2 needs more time, the players them selfs must improve first! if you look to sc1 they have relatively equal level and the games are entertaining. Still too many players mistakes in sc2 ending in a 5 minutes games.
|
On January 09 2011 08:22 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 07:00 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 06:42 Cofo wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
You are correct but where should the line be drawn? To what extent should the game mechanics be kept flawed so that players can do amazing stuff? This this this. It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally? I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way. This is exactly there is so much whining regards SC2's difficulty. The game is as difficult as its predecessor at its core, but things like MBS and auto-mine are really needed to free up the unnecessary load for multitasking. Yes, clicking 8 buildings and making 8 different units in 2-3 seconds is amazing, but why is it really a "skill"? It is just practice, there's nothing amazing about it. A monkey could also do that if you replace gateways with big boxes with smaller boxes in them to click for. It isn't really skill, and I'm glad the game is easier in that sense. David Gilmour is probably nothing in terms of speed compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, but with each note David Gilmour gives much more emotion. Shredding your ass off means very little in music. We call that Macro in BW
It is part of Macro yes, but what makes Macro is the decision and the action to execute it. Not how that action is executed. If SC 10 comes out in 2100 and we play it simply by pure thinking, would that also be not Macro?
Prove that the decision to not have multiple building selection was a specific decision related to the game's design philosophy in order to make the game harder in order to create an e-sport out of it, and I'm not going to say one more word about this.
|
Games played by people outside of Korea are far more interesting to watch. Who cares if Korea SC2 dies, the NA/EU scene is amazing, just watching the SCReddit invitational has provided far superior games/entertainment to anything the GSL has pulled out recently. The GSL (despite what Tastosis says) still has an horrible ratio of good to bad games, it's declining popularity doesn't surprise me in the least.
|
On January 09 2011 08:46 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:27 Ssoulle wrote:
Alot has changed in 10 years.
SC2 will die when it no longer becomes profitable, just like every other game in existance today.
I give it 1-2 years. Considering they are spacing out the expansions and the final one will prolly be out in 2013 I don't see how SC2 could possibly die before that.
hes clearly not talking about the actual game. A game can't just "die" because its not alive. He's talking about the community, the proscene, and the money in the proscene.
|
I watched the VODs of the NsPGenius - Leenock - Rainbow day and I can say that the rumors were true.. There were only like 20-30 people in the audience. Quite shocking if you as me and that group wasnt a bad group either. Seems like the Koreans prefer SC:BW over SC 2 (I do aswell tbh). But I didnt think it was such a crisis with SC 2 and audience presence
|
On January 09 2011 08:56 etheovermind wrote:
hes clearly not talking about the actual game. A game can't just "die" because its not alive. He's talking about the community, the proscene, and the money in the proscene.
No he said it would die when its "no longer profitable", meaning new games/expansions are no longer sold in respectable quantities.
|
On January 09 2011 09:00 TheRecliner wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:56 etheovermind wrote:
hes clearly not talking about the actual game. A game can't just "die" because its not alive. He's talking about the community, the proscene, and the money in the proscene. No he said it would die when its "no longer profitable", meaning new games/expansions are no longer sold in respectable quantities.
I still think he was talking about it as being profitable for the people playing and sponsoring the tournaments.
|
While SC2 may have higher definition graphics and more detail, SC1 actually had better color choice and contrast which actually made it in the long run a funner game to watch. Case in point... zerg creep....the color is WAY too similar to the zerg units themselves which makes them camouflage into the background. Call me old-fashioned but I prefer the bright simple graphics over the modern dark 'realistic' look of SC2. Not here to watch a movie but a video game!
2nd issue that is hurting SC2... Units are too fast and their pathing too direct. In SC1, units moved in straight lines and diagonals for the most part which slowed them down. There were no cliff jumpers and the air options weren't as powerful. In SC2 fast direct play means less positioning and positioning is what made SC1 fun! SC1 was more like chess, while SC2 is more like a simple arcade game.
On the positioning issue, the fun positioning units (reaver drops, lurkers, spider mines, shield battery, etc...) have been removed while strong positioning units have been made largely obsolete like the siege tank by Immortals and marauders. Marauders and immortals are boring a-attack units! Blizzard should have concentrated more on units with unique weaknesses and more limited mobility, instead of the army ball units that mindlessly crash into each other which is boring to watch.
Other issue is the maps... There is SOO much that can change here and blizzard's small cookie cutter maps are so boring. Maybe it's too late, but I wish Blizzard had not balanced for 2 geysers a base...SC1 was funner because it was largely bread/butter vs bread/butter. Now desert in the form of tech instead of being coming after main course as a change of pace is now the norm which again deemphasis positioning because if you have a tech advantage trumper, positioning is not relevant.
Also don't like the idea of completely balancing maps. If you balance a map for zerg, you remove a lot of fun options for toss vs terran that would have been perfectly balanced. eg... Would love to see an island map! Perhaps to even things out each race would have a exaggerated weak and strong map and it would be up to players to eliminate these in tournaments.
Chokes are another thing that is in many situations becoming obsolete because IMO choke defenses were such a art form and so fun to watch. In SC2 there are a much large number of units that can bust a choke and very quickly. Back door rocks factor into this as well... What is the point of constructing a pretty choke defense if Blizzard keeps putting backdoor rocks into your bases? It turns a fun positioning/chess like match into a mindless game of rock/paper/scissors based on unit composition and timing expansion + a-moves.
Last point (almost done!)... SC2 flying units are too strong. In general a RTS is best suited when the air units are weak and the ground units are strong because ground units have more potential for diverse interactions. The void ray has already been nerfed pretty heavily, but the mutalisk, banshee, viking, medivac, and even the raven IMO are OP and detracting from the ground game of SC2.
|
On January 09 2011 09:01 etheovermind wrote:
I still think he was talking about it as being profitable for the people playing and sponsoring the tournaments.
Still just an opinion pulled out of thin air.
In my opinion its not profitable TODAY either. Then again, I dont know what they make and if theyre happy with it.
|
Yes lets abandon SK, that way casual viewers can look at us show interesting games and joke about how we're only 2nd rate nerds who could only shine because we were so bad the korean scene had to die. /sarcasm
Btw apparently 220APM is enough to play SC ( might be a lot to you but if you played a lot of SC2 you might be around there).
And the best graphics are not going to come from the computer screen, BW has better visual effects and representation.
|
On January 09 2011 08:54 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:22 mmdmmd wrote:On January 09 2011 07:00 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 06:42 Cofo wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
You are correct but where should the line be drawn? To what extent should the game mechanics be kept flawed so that players can do amazing stuff? This this this. It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally? I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way. This is exactly there is so much whining regards SC2's difficulty. The game is as difficult as its predecessor at its core, but things like MBS and auto-mine are really needed to free up the unnecessary load for multitasking. Yes, clicking 8 buildings and making 8 different units in 2-3 seconds is amazing, but why is it really a "skill"? It is just practice, there's nothing amazing about it. A monkey could also do that if you replace gateways with big boxes with smaller boxes in them to click for. It isn't really skill, and I'm glad the game is easier in that sense. David Gilmour is probably nothing in terms of speed compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, but with each note David Gilmour gives much more emotion. Shredding your ass off means very little in music. We call that Macro in BW It is part of Macro yes, but what makes Macro is the decision and the action to execute it. Not how that action is executed. If SC 10 comes out in 2100 and we play it simply by pure thinking, would that also be not Macro? Prove that the decision to not have multiple building selection was a specific decision related to the game's design philosophy in order to make the game harder in order to create an e-sport out of it, and I'm not going to say one more word about this.
There's no skill in chess because you dont need 500 APM just to place your pieces and 200 to move them.
|
One thing that blizzard has done wrong is they focused too much on balance. I remember when their primary focus was fun and cool, and THEN they were gonna balance. What happened is that they balanced it too quickly. They took a look at psi storm and said "well its cool, but it could be OP with it being so strong. Lets nerf it." They took roach regen and did the same thing. They took a look at the reaver and said "nope, OP for sure." Defilers? "nope, OP." Medics early game? "nope OP." They nerfed too much. All the bw stuff like spidermines that they thought would be OP or too hard to deal with has been erased. So now its just average stuff, vs average stuff. No boom to make the crowd scream. Just look at the reaper. The reaper was a very interesting unit and it was cool to see early reaper micro. Perhaps it was a bit too strong to have it come out so early, or perhaps the problem was that you could build a marauder out of the same building right after. Anyways, blizz nerfed it to oblivion and now a reaper might be seen from time to time as a scouting unit..... how sad :/
I know people dont like the word counter but BW definitely had counters. Yes they could be overcome but in SC2 things almost don't counter anything. Sure roaches counter pure zealots, but the same could be said for stalkers, or marines/marauders. Range can kite melee, yes, but thats not what i mean. In bw getting a reaver, or psi storm, meant you were going to completely crush a terran infantry army. So Terran would have to switch to mech to deal with this. That led to matchups being different. Maybe i wouldn't be so sick of terran bio ball if it only happened in TvZ and less often in TvP. Blizz said, "we want to make T bio viable throughout the game" and it sounded like a good decision, but now we see what happened. T makes the same army throughout the game, regardless of matchup. Its a little strange to me when i watch TvP and protoss got storm, and the terran has marine marauder and yet they come out fairly even.
I know some of you might think that hard counters are bad, but they honestly help the game stay fresh. Sure, maybe this means we'd see less of a unit in a certain matchup, but it just makes it more refreshing to see it in a different one, or even more refreshing when we see it in the matchup we wouldn't think to see it in. If Collosus/HT completely owned infantry, then we would only see T infantry early game, and then a switch to mech. Thor/tank/viking maybe, then P would actually stop making Collossi and sentries, and start immortals, T could maybe go air, or back to bio. My point is the game would switch up. Yeah terran mech maybe/probably wouldnt be strong enough, but that would get balanced out.
|
On January 09 2011 08:54 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:22 mmdmmd wrote:On January 09 2011 07:00 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 06:42 Cofo wrote:On January 09 2011 06:29 Bleak wrote:On January 09 2011 05:41 oneofthem wrote:
july's point about micro could be referring to the fact that sc1 mechanics were less smooth and intelligent, so the room for microing is huge for almost every unit. the mechanical imperfections of the game gave players the creative room to not only play better, but play beyond expectations of the casual audience. people are more amazed by the micro plays that use their familiar units to do magical things. when units are "smarter," it's harder to showcase the extraordinarily entertaining micro plays.
You are correct but where should the line be drawn? To what extent should the game mechanics be kept flawed so that players can do amazing stuff? This this this. It's pretty obvious that it's easier to make units do what you want in SC2, but really, how else do you want it? All it is is an unfortunate side effect of improved technology. Should Blizzard really make unit patching stupider intentionally? I think the effects of better technology is definitely unfortunate, but I can't really see it any other way. This is exactly there is so much whining regards SC2's difficulty. The game is as difficult as its predecessor at its core, but things like MBS and auto-mine are really needed to free up the unnecessary load for multitasking. Yes, clicking 8 buildings and making 8 different units in 2-3 seconds is amazing, but why is it really a "skill"? It is just practice, there's nothing amazing about it. A monkey could also do that if you replace gateways with big boxes with smaller boxes in them to click for. It isn't really skill, and I'm glad the game is easier in that sense. David Gilmour is probably nothing in terms of speed compared to Yngwie Malmsteen, but with each note David Gilmour gives much more emotion. Shredding your ass off means very little in music. We call that Macro in BW It is part of Macro yes, but what makes Macro is the decision and the action to execute it. Not how that action is executed. If SC 10 comes out in 2100 and we play it simply by pure thinking, would that also be not Macro?
the 10th game in the series?
90 years later??
mind control tech?!?!
That's a bit desperate don't you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
