EPTOn April 09 2012 07:44 Fyrewolf wrote:
Saying you wouldn't watch it even if you see the potential for what you want in it is just being pretentious. That vinegar analogy doesn't work, people put vinegar on salad dressing because it tastes good. If what you say is lacking is not, most of your arguments are completely moot.
And as for your other argument, while you may think faster battles are less enjoyable, the community unfortunately thinks otherwise. There is a reason we play on the "Fastest" setting, even if it makes blizzard time annoying to deal with.
Show nested quote +
On April 09 2012 07:19 deafhobbit wrote:
Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that.
It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing.
Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job.
I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
On April 09 2012 07:13 Fyrewolf wrote:
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
On April 09 2012 06:53 deafhobbit wrote:
Fair enough, and in hindsight i could see how my posts could be read as wanting SC2 to have everything i love about BW. I did state in the OP that I'm open to there being ways in which SC2 being different than BW makes it better, but that hasn't come up much in the discussion. I'll try and rectify that.
And again, I've tried watching a lot of SC2, and it hasn't made me love the game. So, I'm sorry if i sound frustrated with my replies to the "WATCH IPL" posts, but i hope you can at least understand why that is.
Again, i didn't respond to your points because I'm not arguing with you. Let me repeat, I want to be wrong, and that's why i thanked you.
On April 09 2012 06:48 eFonSG wrote:
Its reallly funny that you dont see your posts as arrogant or douchy. You ask us for reasons SC2 is better than BW, we tell you that the game is still developing and is on a much much faster track than BW. That not only are the games good now and you need to watch them, but they are going to get a LOT better. Your response is well, fuck what you said i want it now and i dont want to do the work...
On April 09 2012 06:40 deafhobbit wrote:
Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW.
Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy.
Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it.
On April 09 2012 06:36 Haydin wrote:
But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate.
I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original.
On April 09 2012 06:13 deafhobbit wrote:
Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale.
On April 09 2012 06:11 KrazyTrumpet wrote:
Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...?
I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be...
On April 09 2012 06:04 deafhobbit wrote:
[quote]
I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today.
Again, VOD's would be appreciated.
[quote]
First off, spoilers on FvF
Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight.
Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more.
[quote]
I'm aware of the history of BW, but how the game was played in 2000 has nothing to do with what i enjoy about the game today. It has even less to do with my enjoyment of SC2, whether or not the game will be better tomorrow doesn't really influence my enjoyment of it today.
Again, VOD's would be appreciated.
[quote]
First off, spoilers on FvF
Second, the example was mainly to demonstrate the scale at which stuff happens in BW. Things like maneuver and unit placement halfway across the map influencing a fight.
Thanks for the comments about harassment, I'll look out for it more.
Then come back to SC2 in a couple years...?
I don't really know what you want. SC2 is still super new and things are only just now developing. SC2 teams were not the established power houses that BW teams have had the luxury of being for several years now, so they're only just now starting to be able to have proper training and whatnot, and it's beginning to show in the quality of games. BW had YEARS to develop to the point it was when you started watching, and you seem to demand that SC2 be at the same level after only 2, and it won't be...
Again, I want to be able to enjoy SC2 today, not in a few years. Also, I've seen SC2 improve substantially in the time I've watched it, but i think two years in the "it's a new game" argument is getting a little stale.
But there is no getting around the time it takes a game to develop. There's no shortcut to figuring the game out. In fact, if people did manage to understand the game at incredible depth immediately, it COULDN'T be very deep. SC2 has been developing at an extremely rapid pace over the last 6 months or so. It takes time because people are going to play to win, and discovery just doesn't have as much of an immediate payoff as the alternative. It still happens sure, but it's slowed down. And that's just unavoidable. In a competitive situation, you do whatever you can to win, because that's what you're there to do. There is just no getting around things like this, so even if the same old arguments are getting stale, they're still no less accurate.
I like both games. But I appreciate them for what they are, and where they are in their respective lifecycles. And remember, if you are comparing SC2 games to BW games, remember which games you're comparing. Don't look at a Flash VS Jaedong game and compare it to a TLO vs Goody game. For every lame cheese you see in SC2, remember how Team 8, the all-star lineup, had so many matches this season where they just cheesed game after game after game, and a ton of them were off of one base. Remember how some of them worked, or the other player just facepalmed when they read it wrong. BW is special because there are players that MAKE it so. It took a loooong time for those players to come out, and very few of them can display the kind of consistent awesome that guys like Flash or Savior were able to do. Be very careful to remember exactly what it is you're comparing. In the mean time, watch IPL4, think of the context of the players and the game, and enjoy it for what it is, and look forward to what it will be. SC2 will NEVER be brood war, but I have absolutely no doubt that it will be just as good a game. Who knows, by the time the trilogy of games is done, we might look back and see it as a sequel that managed to surpass the original.
Good point, and i will repeat that i do expect the quality of play in SC2 to continue improving. Still, I'd repeat that I'd like to be able to enjoy the game as much as i do BW right now, even if it is for different reasons. Seeing as you're someone who follows both games, I'd appreciate hearing more from you on what things about SC2 you like that you feel aren't present in BW.
On April 09 2012 06:37 thrawn2112 wrote:
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching
if u guys think he's trolling then why are you responding. either its an excellent troll or the OP is unintentionally coming off as a douchebag, or my bias towards sc2 is making it seem that way.
i think you should play sc2 and maybe by playing the game you will learn what other people get out of watching
Just for the sake of facilitating discussion, what about my posts do you think has me coming off as douchy.
Also, playing isn't on the table. I know my tastes in gaming, and know i wouldn't enjoy playing SC2 today. The same is true with BW, but that doesn't prevent me from enjoying watching it.
Its reallly funny that you dont see your posts as arrogant or douchy. You ask us for reasons SC2 is better than BW, we tell you that the game is still developing and is on a much much faster track than BW. That not only are the games good now and you need to watch them, but they are going to get a LOT better. Your response is well, fuck what you said i want it now and i dont want to do the work...
Fair enough, and in hindsight i could see how my posts could be read as wanting SC2 to have everything i love about BW. I did state in the OP that I'm open to there being ways in which SC2 being different than BW makes it better, but that hasn't come up much in the discussion. I'll try and rectify that.
And again, I've tried watching a lot of SC2, and it hasn't made me love the game. So, I'm sorry if i sound frustrated with my replies to the "WATCH IPL" posts, but i hope you can at least understand why that is.
On April 09 2012 06:52 Fyrewolf wrote:
Yeah, you thanked me so much that I had to call it out as a terrible post that didn't respond to a single point made. That's dismissive. I explained how what you say is lacking is not, and how the faster pace doesn't make it less enjoyable. No one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
On April 09 2012 06:35 deafhobbit wrote:
I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments.
On April 09 2012 06:34 snailz wrote:
oh damn, you killed it.
OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less.
On April 09 2012 06:01 Fyrewolf wrote:
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either.
You say you started watching BW in 2009. As someone who played since vanilla 1.00, I have to say that all 3 of your points are ignorant of the history that starcraft actually has. At the beginning of starcraft, 1 base play was standard. People even argued about whether expanding was even worth it, and about things like if maynarding your workers was even worth it, something that is taken for granted now. Muta micro was nonexistant. There was no refinement like there is now. SC2 is still a relatively new game, and we have had the chance to be part of its growth.
Just now we are seeing amazing strategic plays coming out of greta players, with very good micro, much faster than we did in starcraft. As to battles being quicker, SC2 is designed and meant to be faster paced than BW. Would slowing down the battles into slo-motion be more flashy? Sure, everything is better in slow motion, but it would inversely make it less intense. Just because the battle is faster doesn't make it less enjoyable. You are glued to the screen waiting for that intense moment when the battle occurs and you see the magic occur in a very short span. This sort of thing is something that was highly regarded in BW as well, for example in Boxer vs Chusung, where Boxer locked down 7 stacked Battlecruisers in ONE(!) second by hotkeying each one seperately, for which he won a pimpest play award. Even other sports often come down to a single important moment that is incredibly intense. Football is very much such a game where it is a game of moments, or many times a fighting tournament that ends in a single moment when an fighter is knocked out.
Micro had to evolve after a period of time for starcraft, as it has for SC2. Early on in both games there was a ton of 1a(2a3a4a5a6a7a8a8a9a0a), but there is plenty of micro going on in SC2. We see individual stalkers blink away in fights, packs of marines splitting, individual marines stimmed and scouting army flanks, small packs of marauders running to pick off high templar, multipronged harasses, all sorts of good feats of micro occuring. I would argue that micro was something we didn't see as much of in BW as in SC2, because macroing took up so much more of your apm in BW. To be able to macro properly while microing was the real feat, as the person who fell behind in the macro game would just lose to the reinforcement army being bigger than his. Do you know why iloveoov was called "Cheater Terran"? No matter how well you microed against him, he would always have more units at home than he should have been able to have, because his macro was so good.
TL;DR
Point 1: It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough.
Point 2: The battles are supposed to be faster, the game is faster paced. It's still enjoyable, and more intense.
Point 3. It's there, you just aren't looking hard enough again, and it is arguably going to be even bigger and more important than in BW.
It's not like we could expect everyone to pick up SC2 and immediately play it at a level of BW, a game that has a decade of experience behind it. They're different and you should have expected it to take time to grow. Even if you don't see 100% what you are looking for right now, if you see the potential for it, then you should watch SC2. I assure you that the things you want are already there, though the game is in a different format, a faster-paced higher-energy spectacle. And if you can't get over the new design of it being faster, then you should just stick with the design of the old game you like, there's nothing wrong with that either.
oh damn, you killed it.
OP will ignore you ofcourse, because he never had any intention of actually conversing with anyone. but good job none the less.
I replied, actually, and thanked him for his comments.
Yeah, you thanked me so much that I had to call it out as a terrible post that didn't respond to a single point made. That's dismissive. I explained how what you say is lacking is not, and how the faster pace doesn't make it less enjoyable. No one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Again, i didn't respond to your points because I'm not arguing with you. Let me repeat, I want to be wrong, and that's why i thanked you.
Actually, you didn't thank me. You thanked the other guy for comments about harrasment. Me you just dismissed by only saying you don't care about the history of starcraft and ignoring how that was about current sc2 actually being good now vs how starcraft one was at similar time in its life, and that if you see the potential for what you like you should watch sc2. I don't like to repeat myself, but no one can tell you what to like about SC2, you have to find what you like about SC2 yourself.
Sorry, quotes within quotes within quotes and all that.
It's not that i don't care about the history of BW. You're right, things that i like about how BW is played today weren't present during the early years. Thing is, i don't watch BW games from back then, i watch games played today. I'm aware SC2 has improved, and hopeful that it will continue to do so. However, saying that SC2 has the potential to be great doesn't make me enjoy it today. That's like saying i should love the taste of vinegar because it could be used to make a kick ass salad dressing.
Finally, I'm asking you to help me appreciate your game more. To help me notice things i may have missed. That's entirely something others can do for me. Hell, it's basically a commentator's job.
On April 09 2012 07:16 KrsOne wrote:
Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
Just because battles happen faster doesn't mean it takes less skill or is less exciting, it leaves less room for error, for example(I'm sure plenty of people can find a problem with the analagy) try driving down the road and taking a Sharp turn at 45 mph, if you slip up its ok there is time to correct, now try taking that same turn at 90 mph, one slip of the hand and its game over.
I'm not talking about skill, I'm talking about the spectator experience. For me, the fact that battles are so fast in SC2 makes them less enjoyable, because it's harder to appreciate the details.
Saying you wouldn't watch it even if you see the potential for what you want in it is just being pretentious. That vinegar analogy doesn't work, people put vinegar on salad dressing because it tastes good. If what you say is lacking is not, most of your arguments are completely moot.
And as for your other argument, while you may think faster battles are less enjoyable, the community unfortunately thinks otherwise. There is a reason we play on the "Fastest" setting, even if it makes blizzard time annoying to deal with.
Why is it being pretentious? I have limited time to devote to entertainment, and want to use it well.
On April 09 2012 07:46 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
OP, why don't you specifically tell us what you want out of this thread.
-Do you want us to argue your points and point out how SC2 has strategy and micro?
-Do you want VOD examples of good SC2 games?
Both of those have been provided, so it must be something else. Enlighten us.
OP, why don't you specifically tell us what you want out of this thread.
-Do you want us to argue your points and point out how SC2 has strategy and micro?
-Do you want VOD examples of good SC2 games?
Both of those have been provided, so it must be something else. Enlighten us.
Those are what i want, which i said quite clearly in the OP. I want hear more voices and have more VODs, thus my continued posting.
