|
On January 09 2011 09:30 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 08:54 Bleak wrote: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?
Nah was just trying hard...too hard I guess.... 
|
On January 09 2011 09:32 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 09:30 mmdmmd wrote:On January 09 2011 08:54 Bleak wrote: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? Nah was just trying hard...too hard I guess....
^.^
|
I think that it's the current gamestyle that's to blame...honestly, whould would come to sit in studio for three hours to watch 15marine/scv rushes and two 15min games...i know i wouldn't after a while...good thing is that the games seems to be getting a lot better (for example boxer and nada games)
|
In my opinion its not profitable TODAY either
SC2? ok...
|
On January 09 2011 09:36 FLuE wrote:
SC2? ok...
Imo as a player, no. The game, yes.
|
If skillgap in starcraft: broodwar between pros and casuals is so unimaginable, it sure does not attract anyone new players to game if it is virtually impossible to catch them up.
If SC2 is easier, then it gains more newcomers and thus, getting more popular and this way more money in pro-scene.
|
People need to have a bit of patience. It takes a while for the best players (read macro players) to come to the top since they have to have BOs which take care of most cheeses whilst macroing. Once they get there though the only way they can be beat is more macro which is what we'll start seeing soon.
From the recent group stages it seems that the play of some of the players - MC,SlayersBoxer,NspGenius, Rainbow etc has evolved to such a level that its hard to see them getting beat with the run of the mill cheese.
So people will have to adapt if they want to win against them and this will bring about longer macro games. Of course as everyone mentions maps will also go a long way since its hard to see a long game happening in steppes 
|
I think it's quite simple, I mean, seirously, who apart from the most harcore actually cares when somebody but the foreigners play in GSL?
Since there isn't really any iconic moments to look for in games yet like there was in bw (reaver shots, hold position lurker etc) all you usually get when watching players you don't really know anything about is just another game. Of course, GSL games tend to have alot more skill involved compared to other tournaments, but there's rarely any exitement in the games themselves since we just don't care about the outcome.
What im getting at is that pepole wouldn't show up to watch two complete unknowns play, or watch Boxer just stomp (or get stomped by) somebody else that's pretty unheard of, there's simply no drama to it ;P SC2 just haven't developed the backstory that BW had yet, for example, there's no SC2 answer to Flash vs Jaedong. I mean, "mc vs rain.. err.. okay, yeah i've heard of mc, he's a solid toss. Rain seems like some kind of... random dude who apologizes for cheesing, at any rate, i don't care about the finals, might catch the VOD's." I know I wouldn't show up for that ;P
It's not as developed as BW was/is, there hasn't really been any iconic games (apart form the first TLO vs Hyperdub game ^^) that you can relate players to yet and therefore pepole just doesn't care about the games enough to go see them live.
That's my take on it atleast =)
|
It isn't about the game. Its about the climate. In order for a game to hold sigificant weight for a long time in the current climate, it has to be constantly updated and a VERY good game.
Is Starcraft 2 as good as BW was when it was released ? No.
Is it now more difficult for a single game to rule a certain market. Yes.
Have peoples attitudes to video games changed in the past 10 years. Yes
Brood War, according to Wikipedia, sold 11.5m copies. That is quite an achievement for a game which was intially released in 1998 when personal computers were ALOT less common. Even in the early 2000s. Also as console gaming took over.
Its only in the past few years that gaming in general has risen to become the most popular form of media. So, Starcraft 2 will have to AT LEAST sell the same ammount of copies as Brood War to be even considered as successful. Can you see Starcraft 2 selling another 6-7m copies ? It sold 3m in its first month, no doubt an achievement, but can it sustain it ?
Period, I don't think so. It is no doubt a good game, but it doesn't stand out like Brood War did, and as I said before, thats because of the climate, not just the game.
The conditions are not the same, you cannot compare the success of Starcraft 2 with the success of Brood War.
Kespa promoted the original Starcraft, turned into what it is today without paying royalties, but it was free advertising for Blizzard. Kespa did it for them in Korea and as a result it was very successful, but Blizzard know the climate. They know full well what Kespa did, but they now know that SC2s lifespan will not be as long as BW, so they are trying to get money NOW. They know it won't have the years to mature and grow like BW did. Thats why SC2 has been locked out to anyone that isn't prepared to pay up.
This money "burst" strategy, is so common today. Make as much as you can in a short time then abandon.
Things have changed, people on this forum need to accept that.
|
This whole thread is the most infuriating bullshit ever written in relation to Starcraft.
The game won't die. The only way the game will die is if we, the players and fans, stop playing it. That's the only way it can die.
Sure, the prize pool for GSL might go down, but are you playing in the GSL? Even if you did, would the money even mean that much to you?
People still play Quake 3. People still play Age of Empires 2. If RtCW still had Australian servers, I'd be playing that every night of the week.
The game doesn't die when sales go down. Quit your shit, whoever makes these threads.
|
On January 09 2011 10:46 CreepCrepe wrote:
This whole thread is the most infuriating bullshit ever written in relation to Starcraft.
The game won't die. The only way the game will die is if we, the players and fans, stop playing it. That's the only way it can die.
Sure, the prize pool for GSL might go down, but are you playing in the GSL? Even if you did, would the money even mean that much to you?
People still play Quake 3. People still play Age of Empires 2. If RtCW still had Australian servers, I'd be playing that every night of the week.
The game doesn't die when sales go down. Quit your shit, whoever makes these threads.
I think people are talking about Starcraft 2 dying as an Esports. Of course the game isn't going to die. Ur sc2 account wont suddenly be deleted and you can play it as much as you want. When people here say it will die, they are saying the proscene for it will die. Sure SC2 will always be a great game, but it wont be half as good if there is no money/proscene behind it. I dont think you understand what people are talking about in this thread.
|
On January 09 2011 10:55 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 10:46 CreepCrepe wrote:
This whole thread is the most infuriating bullshit ever written in relation to Starcraft.
The game won't die. The only way the game will die is if we, the players and fans, stop playing it. That's the only way it can die.
Sure, the prize pool for GSL might go down, but are you playing in the GSL? Even if you did, would the money even mean that much to you?
People still play Quake 3. People still play Age of Empires 2. If RtCW still had Australian servers, I'd be playing that every night of the week.
The game doesn't die when sales go down. Quit your shit, whoever makes these threads. I think people are talking about Starcraft 2 dying as an Esports. Of course the game isn't going to die. Ur sc2 account wont suddenly be deleted and you can play it as much as you want. When people here say it will die, they are saying the proscene for it will die. Sure SC2 will always be a great game, but it wont be half as good if there is no money/proscene behind it. I dont think you understand what people are talking about in this thread.
No no, I understand, it's just people are talking completely out of their asses in this thread.
PS A huge number of Quake 3 tournaments here in Australia last year. WHERE'S THE MONEY FUNDING FROM ACTIVISION!?!?!?!?!?! OH RITE THERE IS NONE
|
why people compare bw with sc2?
bw is an expasion , wings of liberty isnt
and in korea sc2 is +18 thats why pro teams didnt move to sc2
|
thread title is GSL popularity. any discussion about NA/EU tournaments is technically off-topic.
|
On January 09 2011 10:09 Ssoulle wrote:
Things have changed, people on this forum need to accept that.
It's attitudes like this which will contribute to SC2's failure.
How long ago was the last patch for BW? How much has changed since then? Was the change brought on by Blizzard? By Kespa? By God?
I don't care what Blizzard does, and I'm pretty sure that Blizzard doesn't care what we do. The GSL is introducing community maps; have you seen that? Husky has 360k subscribers. Have you seen that? Day9 is bringing untold numbers of players into the competitive scene. How about that? Who was it that became the iconic player, the man who did more than anyone to make BW what it is? Can you honestly say that before BW and Boxer that conditions were ideal for a budding esport?
As a community we can help make this work. I have great hope for the TSL.
|
There are more games, more distractions and more things to do now then 10 years ago. The climate is very different, and I don't believe SC2 will really be that big or be mainstream. I'm not sure why people would want that.
This concept that e-sports is going to be on TV competing against the NFL and etc is pathetic. You are so far away from that its not even funny.
I think the GSL will continue and it will be fine. I think Blizzard didn't like some things that KESPA was doing, and said we are going to stop you from doing that.
Overall I like SC and I like SC2. That's all that I care about. Oh and for 10.00 a month right now I can entertain myself almost every evening watching VODs if I want to. Cheapest form of entertainment that I can find.
You will never convince mainstream that playing video games is a real sport.
|
On January 09 2011 10:55 pzea469 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2011 10:46 CreepCrepe wrote:
This whole thread is the most infuriating bullshit ever written in relation to Starcraft.
The game won't die. The only way the game will die is if we, the players and fans, stop playing it. That's the only way it can die.
Sure, the prize pool for GSL might go down, but are you playing in the GSL? Even if you did, would the money even mean that much to you?
People still play Quake 3. People still play Age of Empires 2. If RtCW still had Australian servers, I'd be playing that every night of the week.
The game doesn't die when sales go down. Quit your shit, whoever makes these threads. I think people are talking about Starcraft 2 dying as an Esports. Of course the game isn't going to die. Ur sc2 account wont suddenly be deleted and you can play it as much as you want. When people here say it will die, they are saying the proscene for it will die. Sure SC2 will always be a great game, but it wont be half as good if there is no money/proscene behind it. I dont think you understand what people are talking about in this thread.
His argument stays in tact. Quake is still regarded as an E-sport. It will remain an E-sport as long as there are 2 people who are good and are willing to share their talents with us.
|
Watch some brood war, and compare the games to starcraft 2. SC2 is a brand new game, people still suck at it, just give it some time. Then again, some larger macro oriented maps could help too blizzard.
|
On January 09 2011 13:10 Ghost_Sniper wrote:
why people compare bw with sc2?
bw is an expasion , wings of liberty isnt
and in korea sc2 is +18 thats why pro teams didnt move to sc2
There is a censored 12+ version available in South Korea and an uncensored 18+ version as well.
|
On January 09 2011 13:37 Sonic114 wrote:
Watch some brood war, and compare the games to starcraft 2. SC2 is a brand new game, people still suck at it, just give it some time. Then again, some larger macro oriented maps could help too blizzard.
Starcraft 2 Beta was released nearly 1 year ago, this "it's a brand new game" argument doesn't work anymore.
This blind faith that eventually Starcraft2 will finally turn out to be much more micro/harass based as time passes is really unconvincing and I can see no evidences of this in my BNet division, nor in the GSL games.
Having larger maps wouldn't change anything, the game will just be even more boring as people will wait to be maxed before making 1 big a move all-in, not to mention that it will also show the huge imbaness of Zerg macro in late-game.
The real issue with Starcraft 2 is that there's no real need for harass based play thus people take no risk and do NOTHING.
If you create a balance dynamic where a race is FORCED to do damage at a certain point using a certain kind of hardcore micro (such as the mutalisk/reaver harass in BW) then you have an interisting MU dynamic.
If there are no clear incentive to harass/multitask at any point of the game and if there are no exciting spells/units such as scarab/mines (HSM and Vortex the 2 most awesome Starcraft 2 spells are totally unusable) then the game will keep being extremly boring and fade away quite fast.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
