|
Didn't want to post here, but those kind of posts made me do it.
On January 21 2014 03:36 Cr4zyH0r5e wrote:
So yes, this is good advice. Don't like SC2? Move on and play something else. Do something you actually enjoy.
I already did, and in fact I was the last one of all my rl and online friends who moved on. But I'd still love them to fix things, so I and some of my friends would play it again.
Sure, there're some haters "SC2 ded gaem" etc, but some of us who post negative stuff do it because we care.
Now it feels like during the last few months of WoL. It's not fun to play, it's not fun to watch. But back then we knew that HotS will refresh things and it did, but not for long. It's not even a year since its release and... LotV is too far away.
I don't know what Blizzard can do at this stage, maybe full F2P conversion, maybe something else. But atm SC2 is at very sad state. Even streamers like JD, Taeja or Idra getting like 2-3k viewers and sometimes SC2's below top 10-13 on twitch.
I wonder if it just feels like that or numbers really dropped that low, guess we'll have to wait for Conti to post january stats in ~2 weeks.
Either way I think it's pretty bad when some more or less known streamers getting more viewers streaming random games than some IEM with a decent prize pool.
P.S.
Yes, I'm a bit mad, 'cause with "death" of SC2 I've lost the one and only competitive 1v1 game I've cared about since BW (even though it was the best RTS ever made... it's just archaic and unplayable now). And since I don't like competitive team games (mobas or shooters)... no more competitive games for me, which is very sad.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
I never have and never will understand why a game's popularity would be directly related to how much you enjoy watching a game. There is plenty of SC2 content that's not going to go away any time soon - MLG just got back into SC2, ESGN is doing their whatever the hell, TB is hosting a bunch of clan wars, WCS is starting up, Proleague is running, there are a bunch of IEMs lined up. There's no "death" to talk about - it's something people have conjured up because they're pissed their game isn't the cool game to watch any more. But who the fuck cares? If you enjoy it, watch - if you don't, don't watch.
And I don't think individual streams have dropped significantly within the last month. Scarlett streamed for some 12k viewers not long ago. LoL stars like the TSM guys and a select few Dota/Hearthstone guys get past that, but 12k is a fucking large amount of viewers. If you're so fixated on numbers, I can dig out a bunch of them that look great.
Honestly though, you sound like you don't enjoy watching SC2 at the moment. Provide your constructive criticism on what can improve or don't, but don't watch the game if you don't like it man.
|
Esports or not for esports. The shitpost of the question.
|
On January 21 2014 01:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 01:06 FromShouri wrote:On January 21 2014 00:15 Ctone23 wrote:
Indeed people bitch wayyy to much. Get real, how many games out there have a shelf-life like SC2? Very few, unless you count the endless CoD games that are essentially the same thing, hhehe. The game and it's expansions have been popular for 4 years. Sure, there has been a decline, but the game has a self-sustaining market in the form of tournaments, teams, salaries, etc.
We live in that "what have you done for me lately" kind of World, but the train keeps moving with or without the nay-saying. Brood War, the battle chest is still selling to this day in stores on shelves of businesses like walmart, best buy, and target..... So? People still buy copies of ET for the Atari 2600 too, because they are collectors. The fact that an old game is till I sale somewhere means nothing.
Thats the point I was making, the person above me was saying not many games have the "shelf-life" of sc2, so thanks for proving my point /roll eyes.
|
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.
just try playing it, all I'm saying.
|
Canada11439 Posts
On January 21 2014 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Isn't that how theses threads always go
OP: SC2 is great and there is great stuff not the future. We should be positive, since being a fan is the best way to get Blizzard to listen to us.
Response 1: you're so naive, you just want to ignore all the obvious design flaws that I am not going to list. And if I do, I will take these ideas from other threads.
Response 2: BW is RTS Jesus and blizzard failed me. That has little to do with the topic, but I'll make it work.
Response 3: look at those numbers, why would you think this? The numbers right now show that SC2 isn't number one all the time.
Response 4: man I do like SC2.
Response 5: your just a Blizzard fanboy.
Some things never change.
You forgot
Response 6: Plansix comes on to complain about the repetition
Response 7: Someone else complains about Plansix complaining about the repetition.
|
On January 21 2014 08:01 FromShouri wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 01:10 Plansix wrote:On January 21 2014 01:06 FromShouri wrote:On January 21 2014 00:15 Ctone23 wrote:
Indeed people bitch wayyy to much. Get real, how many games out there have a shelf-life like SC2? Very few, unless you count the endless CoD games that are essentially the same thing, hhehe. The game and it's expansions have been popular for 4 years. Sure, there has been a decline, but the game has a self-sustaining market in the form of tournaments, teams, salaries, etc.
We live in that "what have you done for me lately" kind of World, but the train keeps moving with or without the nay-saying. Brood War, the battle chest is still selling to this day in stores on shelves of businesses like walmart, best buy, and target..... So? People still buy copies of ET for the Atari 2600 too, because they are collectors. The fact that an old game is till I sale somewhere means nothing. Thats the point I was making, the person above me was saying not many games have the "shelf-life" of sc2, so thanks for proving my point /roll eyes.
I posted above you. If you read my first comment, "shelf-life" was in reference to it's self-sustainability to provide careers through competition, esports, bla bla, not if the game was played at all. Guess I should have been more specific.
On January 21 2014 09:08 Falling wrote:You forgot Response 6: Plansix comes on to complain about the repetition Response 7: Someone else complains about Plansix complaining about the repetition.
made me rofl xD
|
On January 21 2014 09:08 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On January 21 2014 00:03 Plansix wrote:
Isn't that how theses threads always go
OP: SC2 is great and there is great stuff not the future. We should be positive, since being a fan is the best way to get Blizzard to listen to us.
Response 1: you're so naive, you just want to ignore all the obvious design flaws that I am not going to list. And if I do, I will take these ideas from other threads.
Response 2: BW is RTS Jesus and blizzard failed me. That has little to do with the topic, but I'll make it work.
Response 3: look at those numbers, why would you think this? The numbers right now show that SC2 isn't number one all the time.
Response 4: man I do like SC2.
Response 5: your just a Blizzard fanboy.
Some things never change. You forgot Response 6: Plansix comes on to complain about the repetition Response 7: Someone else complains about Plansix complaining about the repetition.
Six and seven can't happen without 1-5.
And then design flaws, all the design flaws are discussed.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Your face was a design flaw
|
On January 20 2014 13:19 vOdToasT wrote:Show nested quote +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 Have you played both games?
Yes. It's pretty sad how people (not you that much, but another user above) just assume that anyone that doesn't gloriously fap over the old days of brood war hasn't played both games.
I doubt anyone who said bw > sc2 would be asked if they play sc2, but in 3 replies 2 people have asked me if I play bw.
The problem I have with people that prefer bw is that they're so freaking vague. I named 10 (and I can name waay more) ways sc2 is a more refined, logical, and efficient game than bw, which is why I prefer it, but your reasons consist of, and I quote:
1. "It just has more". More what? The things I mentioned _are_ what separates D- from C, it's all mechanics until B at least, and they're just stupid. Multi pronged harassment is so much more viable in sc2 than in bw, as are simple things like macro, unit/worker production, etc. A 180 APM player in sc2 can be doing twice as much as a 180 APM player in BW; to dismiss this difference as "worthless" is simply retarded.
Sure, the top korean pros will have the ability to do the same things in bw, but for the vast majority of people (and if you're claiming the game is made for ~50 top Kespa pros instead of the thousands who play it around the world, you don't understand capitalism) making everything easier and more efficient by removing needless redundancies make the game a ton better.
2. "SC2 is only more fun when you're bad". Why? I don't see any reasoning there, and there are plenty of people that enjoy sc2 quite a bit (hence the scene is still alive, because if you don't enjoy a challenging game, there is no reason to play it over, say, league or dota).
3. Oh wait, you only gave 2 vague and unsupported reasons, expect that to convince me because you're good at both games (appeal to authority), ignore valid points about game design while ignoring the impact bad game design has on gameplay, and then assume I only have the opinion sc2 > bw because I'm unqualified.
This is why I don't like arguing with you people.
|
United States23455 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:36 lichter wrote:
Your face was a design flaw
Oh shit.
|
On January 21 2014 08:28 DorF wrote:Show nested quote +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.
just try playing it, all I'm saying.
Another idiot who assumes anyone who doesn't agree with him is unqualified to judge.
I have played bw for years. I assume you won't believe me because your brain doesn't want to accept the fact that other people who know both gameplay experiences have opinions differing from yours.
Before you go off on "man why are you so angry" look at the other responses to my comment.
When everything consists of "it's just better/deeper" and "have you played bw? there's no way you could play it and not love it more than everything ever" it's pretty frustrating.
There is absolutely no reason to presume I haven't played both games given that I'm complaining about gameplay flaws that are not apparent to people who only watch, or have neither played nor watched.
It should be pretty obvious that someone complaining about "worker rally for zerg" has played bw zerg.
|
On January 21 2014 10:36 lichter wrote:
Your face was a design flaw
Reverse double burn, my face will never recover.
|
On January 20 2014 13:33 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wow, what a great explanation of how bw's mechanics are actually superior and I don't know anything.
I never claimed to be "good" at bw.
I'm also talking about having a different button for transforming into siege mode vs tank mode (in bw it's 'o' for both if I'm not mistaken) vs in sc2, where they are different keys.
Same thing applies to vikings, I think. Just makes controlling them a bit simpler by removing a small flaw that contributed zero to gameplay. Sorry if I wasn't perfectly clear, but then again, given your rather immature response, I'm not sorry.
|
Just let it die
Kappa
User was warned for this post
|
On January 21 2014 03:29 vOdToasT wrote:
He heavily implied that SC2 is a strategically interesting game because lots of people watch it. I brought up Justin Bieber because I hoped he would agree that his work is popular without being structurally interesting or romantically exciting, so that he would see the flaw in his argument. (Popularity does not correlate with quality)
I don't know what all your other text is about or why you're so mad.
Some rambling logic-ish stuff about why sc2 must, because it is popular, be fun as a result of its genre/nature:
+ Show Spoiler +I think you'll grant that, while sc2 isn't as hard as BW, it is definitely harder than, say, League of Legends (a good game in it's own right). It's also not a free game to play, though it is free to watch.
I think it's also pretty safe to say a grand majority of people who watch the game also play the game, whether or not in a competitive/serious manner.
Given that a game is challenging, people wouldn't play it unless it were also fun.
That is, if sc2 wasn't "fun", why would anyone spend the time, energy, and brainpower to play it when they could have a better time playing an easier game? (Even as fun as I consider sc2 to be, the numbers clearly indicate that many people are making exactly the switch I'm talking about). Still, tens of thousands watch GSL/WCS.
The people that stay to watch/play sc2 do so because it is a fun game, not because it is free or easy, as it is neither of those things.
Now, what makes an rts fun? The rts genre is defined by the two aspects of mechanics and strategy. If, say, you could only have 1 race and make 1 type of unit, the game would be pretty boring, even if it was mechanically intensive. Thus, to be a "fun" game for people, as sc2 obviously must be given the reasoning above, sc2 must have strategic variety.
If you disagree with that, I challenge you to find an rts that is more fun than sc2 which has little to no variety in units or factions. Probably can't be done.
Units in sc2 interact mostly as they did in BW. "Counters" to units are much stronger, as are deathball compositions, but marine-medi(va)c is good against muta-ling, tanks own hydras, mech is strong and slow, dt's are dangerous...most of sc2 is similar to bw in terms of units and "strategy".
Timing attacks still exist and are key to victory at higher levels. Harassment is easier and more prevalent. Ling runbys and marine drops and scary protoss armies are very similar to bw.
I just don't see any logic or reasoning when you say sc2 is strategically uninteresting or unimpressive. You just spit it out there, maybe hide behind "deathballs" and expect everyone to just lap up your comments as if everything you say is unassailable.
If you're going to say sc2 meta is stagnant, I have two major responses.
1. No it's not. Watch SPL games - you can even see differences in tactics when the same strategy is being used. Flash mech != MVP mech. Maru bio != Bomber bio. Life muta ling != JD mutaling.
Ty went tanks against protoss a few games ago. I saw a mass phoenix pvt, delayed 2rax, some cheese, and a shit ton of good standard play.
Even things like drop harass are more exciting in sc2. Show me a game of BW that has as much constant harass/action/defense as MVP Dream against Scarlett (I think it was homestory), 1 of the year's best games.
Hell, just look at innovation vs taeja and tell me the game wasn't strategically, positionally, and mechanically amazing.
2. BW meta was WAY more defined. Towards the end of BW, TvZ was literally the same game over and over. Marine medic aggression into muta lurker map control into science vessel/tank pushes into defiler timings. Everything came down to the same things every game - science vessel / scourge control, consume timing, and whether or not a mech switch happened.
Don't get me wrong, I found those games very exciting. I also loved when it got mixed up, like when Flash exhibited bio-Valkyrie TvZ against ZerO or when soulkey decimated mech a few times with queens. But I don't think you can argue that bw was more strategically diverse than sc2.
Just look at BW TvP. Towards the end, you had the same number of scv's pulled to repair the same bunker against the same number of dragoons every game. Everything came down to the terran death push off of 3 bases (along with the 3rd base timings), the first arbiter recall, whether or not carriers were made...every game. Again, intense and exciting games.
But strategically diverse? Over the period of watching 3 season of PL and 5 individual leagues, I didn't see that much change.
|
"the only thing killing sc2 is people saying stuff is killing it" - docvoc
|
On January 21 2014 07:45 Godwrath wrote:
Esports or not for esports. The shitpost of the question.
Having read all the comments up to this point, this comment made the thread for me lololol
|
United States11393 Posts
On January 21 2014 11:39 chairmobile wrote:
2. BW meta was WAY more defined. Towards the end of BW, TvZ was literally the same game over and over. Marine medic aggression into muta lurker map control into science vessel/tank pushes into defiler timings. Everything came down to the same things every game - science vessel / scourge control, consume timing, and whether or not a mech switch happened.
Don't get me wrong, I found those games very exciting. I also loved when it got mixed up, like when Flash exhibited bio-Valkyrie TvZ against ZerO or when soulkey decimated mech a few times with queens. But I don't think you can argue that bw was more strategically diverse than sc2.
Just look at BW TvP. Towards the end, you had the same number of scv's pulled to repair the same bunker against the same number of dragoons every game. Everything came down to the terran death push off of 3 bases (along with the 3rd base timings), the first arbiter recall, whether or not carriers were made...every game. Again, intense and exciting games.
But strategically diverse? Over the period of watching 3 season of PL and 5 individual leagues, I didn't see that much change.
This doesnt even cover stuff like rise of flyer cara zvp and 6hatch, unexplored method of muta/scourge/ensnare vs sair speedlot after flyer cara openings too, 3hat hydra not being allin and how it could transition into a macro game, reliable way of getting to hive in zvz, lategame mech switches with valks to counter queens and other stuff etc, siege expo dying (especially into timing push) dying because current protoss builds ie 21nex give such an adv that there is no such timing window hence why you saw so much fd or rax cc. Rax cc also had an almost instawin semi-allin vs 2base arb with the early acad and armory after to snipe obs and then following up with 5fact vessel (fantasy vs stats on circuit breaker and vs stork), TvT also switched from dropship to wraith/valk as multitask increased etc.
On September 28 2010 05:46 Ver wrote:SC mapped out? Few innovators/innovations? Are we watching the same games here? The late 2009/2010 season has been one of the most innovative years ever! There's a large amount of exploring left in many of these systems. For Terran alone (listing general systems, not the absurd amount of variations): TvZ- Safe 14cc on 2 player maps a dozen different variations of bio -> mech and vice versa with a lot more room for further exploration (this is huge!) Flexible Valkyrie first openings that can transition into many different possibilities A totally new approach vs 2 hatch muta with aggressive marine pushes (changes a lot) 7 Rax (and overlord snipes from it) 4 rax -> triple port wraith 2 rax acad allins 3rd denial vs 3 hatch muta (very unexplored and complex) 2 base allin vs crazy zerg (3 hatch muta to ultra) Revolutionary lategame defense based off of aggressive vessel raids, covering infantry, and massed tanks (probably the biggest change in years along with bio-mech transitions) 12pool Lair with a very different and expansive early/midgame Improvements on overall mech play (several new midgame options) Heavy and consistent Vulture/Valkyrie!? (totally unexplored) TvP- Many different 3 base timings Many variations in the 2 fact after cc system both from siege expand and from FD 12 Nexus variations and emphasis 1 fact mine double expand in response to 12 Nexus New midgame Carrier transition ideas both before and after arbiters Rax Expand!! (a huge system with tons more exploration but right now there are many variations already) + Show Spoiler [Some specific games] +As long as the pro scene stays alive in courts BW is fine. SC2 is just new (and getting many temporary tournies/players because of this) and people need a break from BW. Give half a year/year and things should be looking better.
|
Netherlands6192 Posts
On January 21 2014 10:36 lichter wrote:
Your face was a design flaw
Was wondering how long it would take for a 'your face' joke in such a shitposty thread. Lolol lichter never fails to deliver.
Anyway, i can say for myself that HotS killed sc2 for me. There is just so little way for me to enjoy widow mines killing my whole army 
Okay enough balance whine. I want to enjoy sc2 again, I'm unsubscribing this thread so I don't have to see ya'lls negativity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
