On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
Someone is angry
Still though, BW fanboys seem just as angry talking about sc2.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
Someone is angry
Someone's never played BW hahaha
IDK; from a player's sense I don't think he's wrong - I like playing SC2 twenty times more than BW. The game is very flawed from a user interaction perspective.
Professional play from BW looks far more impressive and can be more fun to watch though, definitely, but that's because in part you know the pros are compensating for a game with brutally inefficient mechanics.
The people who are 'mad' that SC2 is 'taking up a spot' that SC1 could have had just don't get it. That's fine; the vast majority of people posting here don't understand the philosophy of game design decisions. I'm not being a Blizzard fanboy - I think they made several very fundamental errors in SC2, as highlighted by the 'depth of micro' video and such - but SC1 didn't have a major spot in Western esports because it was not player friendly. Player friendly video games are critical to Western audiences. Look at West vs East MMOs - Eastern MMOs are brutally difficult with little to no hand-holding and shittons of grinding. Western MMOs compromise on those points and are wildly more successful in the West.
SC:BW was never going to be amazingly popular in the Western world. Don't lie to yourselves and think that all of NA and EU would be all over SC:BW right now if SC2 wasn't made. It would have a fringe following in the Western world as it always did with the majority of the fans being Korean (or Chinese, though they latched on to WC3 more).
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I've played both games for years. I was decent (but not an expert) at both games (B+ Brood War, GM / online tournament winner in SC2)
And I think BW is better. It just has more. The things you mentioned don't make the game worse once you get out of D-, so they are worthless arguments.
I don't "Just accept" BW as better. I played both games and experienced the difference. You, however, seem to think that it isn't better based on really dumb reasons. I believe that SC2 is only more fun when you're bad. That was the case for me. The better I got at SC2, the less I enjoyed it - starting with enjoying it quite a bit.
With Brood War, it is the opposite. The better I get at it, the more I enjoy it - and in the beginning, I didn't enjoy it. It was simply too hard
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I've played both games for years. I was decent (but not an expert) at both games (B+ Brood War, GM / online tournament winner in SC2)
And I think BW is better. It just has more. The things you mentioned don't make the game worse once you get out of D-, so they are worthless arguments.
This is another argument people get confused on - the vast majority of players would never get above D-, therefore BW's flaws affect a large population of potential users.
A lot of BW players think that the only thing that matters is the top level of play, and they don't understand why SC2 is more popular. They don't have the perspective to see that the flaws of BW are a huge barrier to entry for many.
Edit: You seem to get it, vOdToasT - I'm not directing this at you even though I'm quoting you - you just reminded me of a point of discussion. Sorry.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I've played both games for years. I was decent (but not an expert) at both games (B+ Brood War, GM / online tournament winner in SC2)
And I think BW is better. It just has more. The things you mentioned don't make the game worse once you get out of D-, so they are worthless arguments.
This is another argument people get confused on - the vast majority of players would never get above D-, therefore BW's flaws affect a large population of potential users.
A lot of BW players think that the only thing that matters is the top level of play, and they don't understand why SC2 is more popular. They don't have the perspective to see that the flaws of BW are a huge barrier to entry for many.
They're not flaws if they make the game better, which they do if you have the patience to lose your first 100 games before you start getting the hang of things.
A game requiring more apm is interesting, because apm is a resource that you have to spend wisely, and you can harass your opponent's apm supply by doing things that take less apm to perform than they do to defend. Sometimes, it's even worth spending extra minerals and gas to gain apm.
If you can just do everything (which is what I feel like when I play SC2 - note that I did not use Terran, however) then that strategic part of the game is gone.
Edit: The one thing you mentioned which is an actual flaw, is the inconsistent walling. It either creates map imbalances, or forces maps to limit the way they make maps. The other things make the game better, but you're too bad to realize it.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
The toggle mode doesn't miss for tanks, you're just bad at the game.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I've played both games for years. I was decent (but not an expert) at both games (B+ Brood War, GM / online tournament winner in SC2)
And I think BW is better. It just has more. The things you mentioned don't make the game worse once you get out of D-, so they are worthless arguments.
This is another argument people get confused on - the vast majority of players would never get above D-, therefore BW's flaws affect a large population of potential users.
A lot of BW players think that the only thing that matters is the top level of play, and they don't understand why SC2 is more popular. They don't have the perspective to see that the flaws of BW are a huge barrier to entry for many.
They're not flaws if they make the game better, which they do if you have the patience to lose your first 100 games before you start getting the hang of things.
This is why it can never be popular though outside of Korea. A game where you are expected to lose 100 games before you have an inkling of the skill required is too brutal for the general populace of the Western world to be interested in.
This applies to thousands of games. Easy examples: XCOM Enemy Unknown compared to the original & League of Legends compared to DotA (and to a lesser extent, DotA 2).
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I've played both games for years. I was decent (but not an expert) at both games (B+ Brood War, GM / online tournament winner in SC2)
And I think BW is better. It just has more. The things you mentioned don't make the game worse once you get out of D-, so they are worthless arguments.
This is another argument people get confused on - the vast majority of players would never get above D-, therefore BW's flaws affect a large population of potential users.
A lot of BW players think that the only thing that matters is the top level of play, and they don't understand why SC2 is more popular. They don't have the perspective to see that the flaws of BW are a huge barrier to entry for many.
They're not flaws if they make the game better, which they do if you have the patience to lose your first 100 games before you start getting the hang of things.
This is why it can never be popular though outside of Korea. A game where you are expected to lose 100 games before you have an inkling of the skill required is too brutal for the general populace of the Western world to be interested in.
This applies to thousands of games. Easy examples: XCOM Enemy Unknown compared to the original & League of Legends compared to DotA (and to a lesser extent, DotA 2).
Yeah, I know. Too many people are lazy and demand instant gratification.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
The toggle mode doesn't miss for tanks, you're just bad at the game.
I didn't see anyone claim to be good at either game here. Calling people 'bad' for no reason is probably against the rules and certainly unkind - even if you believe it, it should be phrased better.
I mean; I agree I'm totally bad at both BW and SC2, but that's fine. I'm not a professional RTS player. I play them for fun every couple of weeks. I don't grind ladder and push for that next rank.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
The toggle mode doesn't miss for tanks, you're just bad at the game.
I didn't see anyone claim to be good at either game here. Calling people 'bad' for no reason is probably against the rules and certainly unkind - even if you believe it, it should be phrased better.
I mean; I agree I'm totally bad at both BW and SC2, but that's fine. I'm not a professional RTS player. I play them for fun every couple of weeks. I don't grind ladder and push for that next rank.
He said things that only a person who doesn't have any understanding of Brood War would say. That's why he's being called bad at BW. If he got good at Brood War, his understanding would naturally increase as a side effect, and he would no longer say such things.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
Mastering these "bad" elements of the game provides immense satisfaction and the feeling that you're actually improving. Spell casters being as they are generate the "wow" feeling when you see someone use things like storm well to decimate much larger armies, whereas in star 2 the smartcast almost makes this a given. As someone who has played both games I can say that the more you play Broodwar the better it gets, which I cant personally say about sc2. I realise however that other people feel this way about Star 2 and I can understand that. Skillcap isn't really an issue here, as something as intangible as this isn't really able to be measured, and both games can be said to have immense skill ceilings.
As to "deathballs", yes these too exist in BW but I think the important thing here is that people find the interactions between BW deathballs and the generally slower pace of battles to be more exciting/rewarding.
You complain that the graphics are shitty, but I think while they are technically worse one of the key elements that consistently shines through in every single game is the ability to SEE what is happening very clearly. Its not nearly as much as a clusterfuck when two armies engage.
As to the argument that SC2 fills an ESPORT hole where BW should be, maybe so, maybe not. I believe that had Star 2 not been released there's no way BW would have suddenly exploded the way Star 2 has, and that RTS as a type of game wouldn't be nearly as prolific, so there's no real justification to feel resentment toward Star 2 in this regard. You just have to understand that people with BW backgrounds are generally sad that a game they perceive to be worse (IMO with good reason) has caused in many ways BW to decline in popularity and player base.
EDIT: just realised this has nothing to do with the OP and thread, sorry boys.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: I don't see how everyone just accepts bw as a better game. It has shitty pathing, graphics, and redundant / stupid flaws (workers without automine, no mbs, inconsistent maps/walling, retarded spellcaster mechanics, worker rally for zerg, toggle modes missing for tanks...). there is no legit indication that the skill cap is significantly or even tangibly lower than bw -kespa koreans still dominate. units clump more and there are deathball comps in tvp and zvp and mech. So what? Give and take. Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
I agree I hate when a game doesnt play itself for me
Wow. Derailing threads looks really easy. On a slightly more relevant note, there should be a thread keeping track of all the bets that people take, as well as the stakes.
On January 20 2014 08:06 Zealously wrote: I know a lot of people are upset with current state of Starcraft II and the continued existence of a certain individual named David Kim, so I'm here to rescue you all from your Starcraft II woes!
There are two ways for this to happen:
Cheer up! Positivity and optimism has never hurt anyone. You're watching the game out of your own free will - if you don't want to watch right now, don't, instead do something else that makes you happy. If whining like a bitch makes you happy, you might want to take up something a little less stressful. Try watching paint try - I find it incredibly soothing.
Realise it's not so bad! I've got fucking "I love Roro" in my signature because I lost what should have been the easiest bet in history. Put your woes in perspective and realise that others have it worse.
Now that this is out of the way, here is a song to cheer you up:
People are upset with the current state? And with David Kim? This post is about 3 years too late, Zealously.
1. Too bad whining like a bunch of bitches is going to carry on regardless. Some people have never gotten over the fact that SC2 did not meet their expectations, and can't get past their resentment at Browder, Kim, Blizzard, Life, the Universe etc.
2. Are you going to keep betting? I'd be scarred for life - or at least the rest of the PL season - after that.
I like the song; been a while since I heard it. Thanks.
EPT
