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:
On January 20 2014 08:13 Rekrul wrote: this blog made me hate sc2 more
This post made me love the TL community more OMG WHAT ITS MY TL BIRTHDAY
Honestly, if Prime had Maru, they would've had a good chance at the playoffs given how close all their games have surprisingly been with only Creator as a sure-fire pick to do okay. That shocks me to the core.
Also I love Prime now. Kassia is my new favorite up and comer. People talked all about Creator talking to himself but you should have seen the energy Prime exhibits.
The Prime coach(Gerrard?) must really make all his players put their emotions on a roller coaster
On January 20 2014 08:13 Rekrul wrote: this blog made me hate sc2 more
LOL!
But seriously, I am mostly indifferent towards SC2 now (no strong hate or love). Why hate a game when I can spend that energy to love another (League of Legends)?
Some people want to combine good game play with popularity. pro gaming, and lots of international tournaments.
Since SC2 is the only RTS with the latter three, that is not possible. That is why they are pissed. A good game is not enough for them, and popularity and tournaments isn't either. They want all three.
Since this is a problem that can't be solved, given their current desire, their anger is only natural.
As for hating SC2, it's not something I personally do. I just think it sucks, and play games that I like instead, like SC1. But I can see why people who care a lot about esports hate it, since it is taking up a spot in esports - a spot that it only has because of StarCraft 1. If it wasn't called StarCraft, and wasn't made by Blizzard, no one would care about it.
On January 20 2014 08:35 vOdToasT wrote: Some people want to combine good game play with popularity. pro gaming, and lots of international tournaments.
Since SC2 is the only RTS with the latter three, that is not possible. That is why they are pissed. A good game is not enough for them, and popularity and tournaments isn't either. They want all three.
Since this is a problem that can't be solved, given their current desire, their anger is only natural.
As for hating SC2, it's not something I personally do. I just think it sucks, and play games that I like instead, like SC1. But I can see why people who care a lot about esports hate it, since it is taking up a spot in esports - a spot that it only has because of StarCraft 1. If it wasn't called StarCraft, and wasn't made by Blizzard, no one would care about it.
Basically the most true statement i've read in a while.
I'd much rather have Broodwar, which is more entertaining to watch play etc, than a game not worth having Starcraft in its title take up everyones attention
Too be brutally honest. Maybe people just got bored of SC 2 and that is why it seems to be in decline. I don't play Starcraft 2 much anymore. And I am not that interested in watching it. I use to tune into every tournament during WoL, I use to play at least 4 times a week. But after all of that I got bored. I think SC 2 is fine. WCS and GSL are getting good numbers, not LoL or dota 2 numbers but they aren't doing too bad.
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.
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.
On January 20 2014 08:06 Zealously wrote: 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.
You're going to be very disappointed with my next blog post about RorO.
I think people are just happy to have an alternative that is more similar to BW. It's good to be honest, then we can have people who like SC2 staying without crying for a rework of whole game.
Personally I prefer T and Z a lot more in SC2 due to bio play and ling baneling engagement being so intense
If your way of saving sc2 is ignoring everything thats wrong with the game (plansix will be here shortly to tell me that some people actually like the game, and that forcefields, fungal etc are all interesting mechanics) then I don't know how much saving is going to get done.
In any event the starbow response has shown that there is a (small) number of people pretty dissatisfied with the current state of sc2, the larger sign of that is the enormous drop in viewers/thread size.
So when you dont like something and want to make it better the solution just putting your fingers in your ears and going ''Lalala all is fine, everyone is happy.'' Gotcha
On January 20 2014 19:50 Morbidius wrote: So when you dont like something and want to make it better the solution just putting your fingers in your ears and going ''Lalala all is fine, everyone is happy.'' Gotcha
No, but the solution sure as hell isn't rampant toxicity and useless negativity that only serves to make things seem worse than they are, either
On January 20 2014 19:50 Morbidius wrote: So when you dont like something and want to make it better the solution just putting your fingers in your ears and going ''Lalala all is fine, everyone is happy.'' Gotcha
No, but the solution sure as hell isn't rampant toxicity and useless negativity that only serves to make things seem worse than they are, either
Exactly. Screaming that the sky is falling for 3 years doesn't accomplish anything except make people wish you would stop screaming about the sky falling.
What I got from reading between the lines is that you hate Roro, but think that by stating that you love Roro you contribute towards him becoming a better player and thus worthy of you actually liking him.
I liked your post. I didn't like all the stupid response that came with it
If you don't like that game. Let it go. Don't play. Don't watch. Don't post. I don't get why it's not fine to tel : league of legend is shit in the lol forum but you can actually say SC2 is shit in the SC2 forum. it's always bugging me.
Also you knew that this signature would happen one day. Look at Wintex...
And do you have to contradict me if i say that Life is better than RorO ?
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 played BW from 1999 on (at a kinda high level) and I switched to SC2 when it came out. So I guess I can compare these two games. I don't want to discuss why BW is so much better now. I am just too lazy because it would take a whole book. It is just, that after having played/watched SC2 for 2-3 years, I tried some BW again. I can tell you that it is not only more fun to play, it is also much more enjoyable to watch.
Just one point: The arguments that you listed even speak - even though it might sound weird for you - for BW and not against it. I tell you, you go crazy when you see progamers do ridiculously good spellcasting within a short time window. In SC2 though, every silver league player can do perfect spellcasting. It is annoying for players and makes it much more boring for spectators.
On January 20 2014 22:07 Roe wrote: So basically just pile on faith and pretend what you think is a boring game is actually an exciting one?
looks like someone missed every single game in today's pl :D
Why watch new SC2 when you can just talk about how it's dying on the forums? So much easier to just copy and paste the same stuff over and over, rather than a watching exciting games.
On January 20 2014 22:07 Roe wrote: So basically just pile on faith and pretend what you think is a boring game is actually an exciting one?
looks like someone missed every single game in today's pl :D
Why watch new SC2 when you can just talk about how it's dying on the forums? So much easier to just copy and paste the same stuff over and over, rather than a watching exciting games.
On January 20 2014 20:53 Talin wrote: What I got from reading between the lines is that you hate Roro, but think that by stating that you love Roro you contribute towards him becoming a better player and thus worthy of you actually liking him.
Zealously doesn't hate Roro. He's just establishing hipster cred: to be a proper TL hipster you need to be a fan of a random player and pretend you care about it. In Zealously's case that's Life, and since Roro beat him Roro is the enemy, but it's all theatrics.
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.
I think you got this wrong. People here aren't mad that SC2 stole the spotlight, they are mad because they perceive that SC2 failed to learn the valuable lessons taught by BW and missed its chance to be the next greatest RTS game of all time. Also note not everyone is a blind BW fanboy and not everyone started as a BW fan.
I, for instance, came to TL because it became the premier SC2 site, I got a SC2 beta key, played it, had fun, discovered TL and tournaments, had even more fun watching tournaments. Then I discovered BW, and I loved it, and the more I watched both the more I felt like SC2 was lacking something BW had.
And to this day I still voice my opinion regarding this, and also my disappointment regarding the lack of initiative or willingness from the dev team, to incorporate more BW esque mechanics or philosophies. And, I don't hate on SC2, I still love it and I want the game to be the best it can be and I just feel like the dev team keeps letting us down every time.
I still watch the game because I enjoy it, I try to keep a positive outlook on the game, but I will also do everything in my power to get the message across that the game has flaws that I'd like to see fixed. I also think this is a good thing because otherwise the game would never improve.
A lot of the annoyance I had with sc2 was actually all the negativity on TL. Nowadays I barely browse the sc2 general forum and I'm enjoying sc2 and especially SPL a lot. So yeh good advice ^^.
edit: I don't really see BW as more enjoyable either, they're equally entertaining to me and I watch the SSL whenever I can.
david kim is pretty smart and i think hes done a great job and you can tell that he works hard... go jerk off to starbow or bw, just take your shit somewhere else... sc2 is a great game! it has no need of "saving"
if you dont like the game you can go fuck yourself
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.
On January 20 2014 23:40 MagnuMizer wrote: is this thread a joke?
david kim is pretty smart and i think hes done a great job and you can tell that he works hard... go jerk off to starbow or bw, just take your shit somewhere else... sc2 is a great game! it has no need of "saving"
if you dont like the game you can go fuck yourself
You forgot to read the actual thread, didn't you? That's kind of embarrassing.
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.
On January 20 2014 23:40 MagnuMizer wrote: is this thread a joke?
david kim is pretty smart and i think hes done a great job and you can tell that he works hard... go jerk off to starbow or bw, just take your shit somewhere else... sc2 is a great game! it has no need of "saving"
if you dont like the game you can go fuck yourself
You forgot to read the actual thread, didn't you? That's kind of embarrassing.
i didnt forget, i just didnt bother... so your post is dumb i only meant to respond to the OP
On January 20 2014 22:07 Roe wrote: So basically just pile on faith and pretend what you think is a boring game is actually an exciting one?
Or don't watch a game you think is boring. At the very least, others do not need to hear you repeat the same "I think SC2 sucks" 16 times. I'm of the opinion that unless you can be constructive, don't bother.
Zealousy, I know your OP is in a sort of joking tone, but you're also half serious and a lot of people are completely serious about this. Whenever I hear this kind of thing it sounds like people are trying to give marriage counseling for a video game lol... I can understand that dynamic for the pros, and maybe the fans are just adopting those views, but people should smarten up about it. I could say more but I really don't need to.
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.....same with diablo ii battle chest....infact most places are pretty much the exact same games so shelf life doesnt really mean much, especially with stuff switching more to online distribution.
Im not the biggest nerchio fan but i was under the impression that he retired and only came back for starbow...or at least thats what i heard on stream yesterday.
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.
Im not the biggest nerchio fan but i was under the impression that he retired and only came back for starbow...or at least thats what i heard on stream yesterday.
Unless he retired yesterday and came back today then no
I've never not enjoyed SC2. I enjoy all match ups as well, I generally enjoy all play styles. I only dislike watching SC2 when pro-gamers are playing badly. ... Or when IM loses! I really think the game is pretty great, and even after 3-4 years, I still find myself absolutely obsessed and genuinely enjoying watching the Korean leagues. The game is neither a failure as an e-sport, nor is it anything close to "broken". Even the meta-game is constantly evolving. I can't account for people who dislike parts of SC2, if you don't like something you don't like something. But I can't help feeling that a lot of people take their dislike and inflate it, turning it into a balance issue when it's not. That's not to say SC2 can't get better though, but it seems pretty clear to me that 90% of all whine is nonsense and not based in reality, and the rest are a question of perspective or personal taste.
The secret behind my positive attitude lies with our lord and saviour Roro. After years of aimlessly wandering around without a purpose in life, I first noticed Roro when he had his way with my FPL team. At first I was distressed, I hated Roro for what he had done. But once the anger passed, I realised the truth: Roro loves each and everyone of us. All he wants is to show us the greatest SC2 imaginable.
Roro is the way, the truth, and the light. Always remember: you have a friend in Roro. He will save SC2 and your soul if only you let him.
Love you Zealously. If all the whiners stopped for a moment to think, maybe they'd realize that actually SC2 is a fantastic game (or come to a different conclusion and move on to a game more to their liking, giving the rest of us some much needed respite). Note: with whiners I explicitly don't mean people voicing constructive feedback or working on fun mods like Starbow.
Also, it's great that you found your true love for the best Zerg in the world, the one and only roro.
On January 20 2014 22:07 Roe wrote: So basically just pile on faith and pretend what you think is a boring game is actually an exciting one?
Or don't watch a game you think is boring. At the very least, others do not need to hear you repeat the same "I think SC2 sucks" 16 times. I'm of the opinion that unless you can be constructive, don't bother.
I agree with you. There are a lot of people that just stick around, lingering, if you will, that are just full of animosity because the game could've gone their way.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
Im denying it.
Yet a lot of people turn in every day to watch it and love it.
A lot of 12 year old girls go to Justin Bieber's concerts, so fucking what.
What a dumb argument.
I think you got this wrong. People here aren't mad that SC2 stole the spotlight, they are mad because they perceive that SC2 failed to learn the valuable lessons taught by BW and missed its chance to be the next greatest RTS game of all time. Also note not everyone is a blind BW fanboy and not everyone started as a BW fan.
It's not about how it stole the spot from Brood War. It's about how it's taking up the spot without being as good as it easily could be, and should be. If it was just a game with flaws, then it would just be a game with flaws, and people would leave it. But people want it to be good, because of the spot it has in esports.
Just want to give an example I am rooting for CJ and KHAN in SPL and when I saw Creator's emotions I was so happy for him I even was about to cry I have such emotions only in SC that is why I love SC more then my other favorite football and dota 2. Only in SC I understand what it costs for a korean player to win a game. There are so many games where I just love both players and I can not be happy coz one of them has to lose, I was rooting for herO but I knew that Creator lost so many times before and when I saw his emotions his hard word behind the scenes I was so happy for him and there are hundreds of other cases in korean SC which make me happy even when my fav team losing I can not be angry at opponents.
I think you got this wrong. People here aren't mad that SC2 stole the spotlight, they are mad because they perceive that SC2 failed to learn the valuable lessons taught by BW and missed its chance to be the next greatest RTS game of all time. Also note not everyone is a blind BW fanboy and not everyone started as a BW fan.
It's not about how it stole the spot from Brood War. It's about how it's taking up the spot without being as good as it easily could be, and should be. If it was just a game with flaws, then it would just be a game with flaws, and people would leave it. But people want it to be good, because of the spot it has in esports.
If Blizzard hadn't sabotaged Korean e-sports then I wouldn't have cared as much about the quality of SC2, but now many of my favorite players are forced to play variations on brood lord/swarm host/death ball styles, which is painful to me.
Personally I've watched less SC2 every year, and I care less about the game every year. The time will come that I'll stop watching, and at this rate it'll be in one year or so. Oh well.
On January 20 2014 12:46 chairmobile wrote: Sc2 is still phenomenal as an rts, no denying it.
Im denying it.
Yet a lot of people turn in every day to watch it and love it.
A lot of 12 year old girls go to Justin Bieber's concerts, so fucking what.
What a dumb argument.
I think you got this wrong. People here aren't mad that SC2 stole the spotlight, they are mad because they perceive that SC2 failed to learn the valuable lessons taught by BW and missed its chance to be the next greatest RTS game of all time. Also note not everyone is a blind BW fanboy and not everyone started as a BW fan.
It's not about how it stole the spot from Brood War. It's about how it's taking up the spot without being as good as it easily could be, and should be. If it was just a game with flaws, then it would just be a game with flaws, and people would leave it. But people want it to be good, because of the spot it has in esports.
If Blizzard hadn't sabotaged Korean e-sports then I wouldn't have cared as much about the quality of SC2, but now many of my favorite players are forced to play variations on brood lord/swarm host/death ball styles, which is painful to me.
I think match fixing did that for BW in Korea and was more damaging than anything Blizzard could have done. Blizzard just sued to protect their copyright when they were going to sell SC2.
I think you got this wrong. People here aren't mad that SC2 stole the spotlight, they are mad because they perceive that SC2 failed to learn the valuable lessons taught by BW and missed its chance to be the next greatest RTS game of all time. Also note not everyone is a blind BW fanboy and not everyone started as a BW fan.
It's not about how it stole the spot from Brood War. It's about how it's taking up the spot without being as good as it easily could be, and should be. If it was just a game with flaws, then it would just be a game with flaws, and people would leave it. But people want it to be good, because of the spot it has in esports.
So what you're telling me is that said 12YO girls don't love JB? What kind of stupid logic is that? Go tell my little brother that he only watches the game because it's "the only option" or "you only watch it because you don't know better". This goddamn attitude is making me so fucking angry.
The ppl that watch SC2 watch it because they like the game, and no amount of OMG BW SO GOOD SC2 SO SHITTY will make that untrue. Fucking bitter fanboys complaining because their game is not on the apex anymore is what's wrong with everything. Hell, LoL is the biggest thing in Esports. If i search for BW on twitch, there are like 3 streams with sub 100 fiewers. Does that make the game shit? Does that even freaking matter? If you only care about BW then FINE, follow your game. A few years from now SC2 might be as small or smaller, but I don't fucking care. Neither should you.
I don't get why this whole argument didn't die out. Im just so freaking sick of it. There is nothing that made me hate the community more than this kind of "discussion".
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.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
SC2 taking over the world spotlight as the RTS of choice isn't a concern for most BW lovers, it's the fact they took over Korea.
However, it wasn't just the match fixing; it was also that the average age of BW players/audience was getting to a point where real life became too overwhelming to follow BW anymore. I'm still upset that SC2 forced BW to end perhaps a year or 2 earlier than it would have, and that Fantasy never got his golden mouse (partly his fault for being a silver surfer tho). But it did make my life easier, because now I can worry about things that actually have a repercusion in my life.
As far as SC2 goes: I got into the beta, hated it and moved on. and as Zealously suggested, I don't play SC2; I think it's horrible for spectators so Idon't watch it, and generally don't care about it. I'm doing just fine. The only reason I even read more than 5 replies in this thread is because Rekrul posted in it. I can't play BW anymore either because my wrists hurt after I play for too long and work + life just don't leave me any time to play. So yes, this is good advice. Don't like SC2? Move on and play something else. Do something you actually enjoy.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
Regardless of his opinion, the argument that popularity proves strategical depth doesnt work.
I agree with vodtoast on this particular point, but do think sc2 is strategically interesting. I don't think it's too hard realising the two don't exclude eachother.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
Wait, your telling us that quality and popularity are not directly linked? Really? You going to tell us that water is wet next?
What do you expect me to do when someone implies an argument from popularity? If someone says water isn't wet, then I'll point out that it is.
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.
really bad bad comparison man... or a troll.
approximately 9 years after release:
in 1992 ET was no where... having no distribution channel of any kind... its price is still dirt cheap.
in 2007, Brood War was the 17th best selling PC Game in North America... the Battle Chest was not just for sale "somewhere", in 2007 the Brood War BattleChest was at every Business Depot, and GameStop and EB Games.
SC64 was over $100 for many years. Not so for "ET"... its dirt cheap.
relative to playing other 1983 games by Activision, ET is horrible and has won many many awards as "worst game ever". from 1998 to 2001 SC1 was considered a top game... and won many 'game of the year awards'. SC1 is a timeless classic.. and it set up SC2 big time.
Brood War is a great game and its LONG TERM popularity is objective evidence of the quality experience people have playing it.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
Wait, your telling us that quality and popularity are not directly linked? Really? You going to tell us that water is wet next?
What do you expect me to do when someone implies an argument from popularity? If someone says water isn't wet, then I'll point out that it is.
So fans of SC2 are the Bieber fans of the RTS world?
On January 21 2014 03:40 itsjustatank wrote: The Quality Of Posting In This Thread Is Quite Good, I Daresay
aren't you supposed to be a paid writer for this site?
that might be the funniest thing posted in this thread, actually thanks
why?
Are you serious or is this me not getting a joke?
Why act like an asshat? I'm just trying to get a question answered.
I'm not acting like an asshat, I thought it was common knowledge that writers don't get paid squat. I still think I'm missing something here though tt
I thought there was a posting on TL a while back for someone to write for them about Proleague and stuff.
But unpaid; i thought you were joking, lol
No, I didn't know what the situation was with the writers. Plus I was expecting someone with the writer's avatar to write better posts
Oh I think you'll find that the average post quality among writers isn't very good. I like to think that we make up for our shitposting by doing other things, though ^_^
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
Wait, your telling us that quality and popularity are not directly linked? Really? You going to tell us that water is wet next?
What do you expect me to do when someone implies an argument from popularity? If someone says water isn't wet, then I'll point out that it is.
So fans of SC2 are the Bieber fans of the RTS world?
Precisely, people only jumped on SC2 because of BW which fuel the circle jerk much like many teen girls don't ACTUALLY like JB but only does it because it is the "cool" thing to do.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
Wait, your telling us that quality and popularity are not directly linked? Really? You going to tell us that water is wet next?
What do you expect me to do when someone implies an argument from popularity? If someone says water isn't wet, then I'll point out that it is.
So fans of SC2 are the Bieber fans of the RTS world?
Precisely, people only jumped on SC2 because of BW which fuel the circle jerk much like many teen girls don't ACTUALLY like JB but only does it because it is the "cool" thing to do.
All right, no further discussion required. Good day sir.
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.
I don't know what all your other stuff is about or why you're so mad.
It is a strategically interesting game. You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true nor does it diminish the strategical brilliance displayed by many pros.
That is irrelevant, I was talking about his shitty argument from popularity
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
You don't think so? Fine, but that doesn't make it true
It makes it true that it doesn't interest me. It's also true that it does interest you. That is a matter of fact.
Wait, your telling us that quality and popularity are not directly linked? Really? You going to tell us that water is wet next?
What do you expect me to do when someone implies an argument from popularity? If someone says water isn't wet, then I'll point out that it is.
So fans of SC2 are the Bieber fans of the RTS world?
When Brood War was the most popular RTS game, it wasn't good because of its popularity. Its popularity was not evidence of its quality. It was good because of its intrinsic traits.
If you are going to advocate any game, even the best one in the world, you should talk about its intrinsic qualities, not its popularity. I used Justin Bieber as an example of that. If popularity was a valid sign of quality, then Justin Bieber would be a legendary musician.
On January 21 2014 03:43 Roe wrote: [quote] aren't you supposed to be a paid writer for this site?
that might be the funniest thing posted in this thread, actually thanks
why?
Are you serious or is this me not getting a joke?
Why act like an asshat? I'm just trying to get a question answered.
I'm not acting like an asshat, I thought it was common knowledge that writers don't get paid squat. I still think I'm missing something here though tt
I thought there was a posting on TL a while back for someone to write for them about Proleague and stuff.
But unpaid; i thought you were joking, lol
No, I didn't know what the situation was with the writers. Plus I was expecting someone with the writer's avatar to write better posts
Oh I think you'll find that the average post quality among writers isn't very good. I like to think that we make up for our shitposting by doing other things, though ^_^
On January 21 2014 03:47 itsjustatank wrote: [quote]
that might be the funniest thing posted in this thread, actually thanks
why?
Are you serious or is this me not getting a joke?
Why act like an asshat? I'm just trying to get a question answered.
I'm not acting like an asshat, I thought it was common knowledge that writers don't get paid squat. I still think I'm missing something here though tt
I thought there was a posting on TL a while back for someone to write for them about Proleague and stuff.
But unpaid; i thought you were joking, lol
No, I didn't know what the situation was with the writers. Plus I was expecting someone with the writer's avatar to write better posts
Oh I think you'll find that the average post quality among writers isn't very good. I like to think that we make up for our shitposting by doing other things, though ^_^
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
If people would stop saying that starcraft 2 is dying it would all be better.
Yeah, i doesn't have the same views as before, and can't sustain 16 Korean teams, but it still has more than 100k viewers in premier tournaments, we have WCS, we have GSL, IEM, MLG, NASL, etc.
There are games that have survived and stayed competitive with far less than that, so i do think people need to stop saying that.
Also, if they like Brood War more, thats fine, and that like totally their opinion, there is no need to bash starcraft 2. You can criticize it if you want, as long as it is something constructive, but "herp dep Sc2 is dying, BW is better, david kim is an idiot an everybody who likes starcraft 2 is a fanboy" is not doing anything.
I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
But not browsing the SC2 related threads kind of defeats the purpose of TL.
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
But not browsing the SC2 related threads kind of defeats the purpose of TL.
Not if you enjoy other SC and gamey things such as BW and the smaller communities
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
Or it´s just what happens when adolescents move in a social space without being recognized as such.
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
But not browsing the SC2 related threads kind of defeats the purpose of TL.
Not if you enjoy other SC and gamey things such as BW and the smaller communities
Yes but that doesn't contradict my statement that TL.net is getting irrelevant for SC2. At the moment I think it's mainly the writers who save the day to keep the site connected to SC2 (but even there you can see that the enthusiasm is wearing off and there is often more news on dota 2 than SC2). A couple of years ago, TL was the place for SC2 discussion, all the strategy was here, people who were actually amazing in the game - stuff was just happening here. Now when half of the discussion is "X is bad", what is the point of that? Everyone and his grandmother have the greatest opinion about what exactly should be changed - but guess what, it will never happen, or if it will, it will piss off everyone else, whose much greater opinion was not heard ...
If TL is to remain relevant, all the people that hate SC2 in its current form need to leave the SC2 forums now. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
Thank you so much for this blog! This is exactly what people need to do! Sadly the majority doesn't want to. The blog post combined with its rating is a perfect reflection of the sc2 communities attitude
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
But not browsing the SC2 related threads kind of defeats the purpose of TL.
Not if you enjoy other SC and gamey things such as BW and the smaller communities
Yes but that doesn't contradict my statement that TL.net is getting irrelevant for SC2. At the moment I think it's mainly the writers who save the day to keep the site connected to SC2 (but even there you can see that the enthusiasm is wearing off and there is often more news on dota 2 than SC2). A couple of years ago, TL was the place for SC2 discussion, all the strategy was here, people who were actually amazing in the game - stuff was just happening here. Now when half of the discussion is "X is bad", what is the point of that? Everyone and his grandmother have the greatest opinion about what exactly should be changed - but guess what, it will never happen, or if it will, it will piss off everyone else, whose much greater opinion was not heard ...
If TL is to remain relevant, all the people that hate SC2 in its current form need to leave the SC2 forums now. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
I wish we had a liquidhearth equivalent skin for SC2 forum everything so colourful and pretty over there
On January 21 2014 11:39 chairmobile wrote: But I don't think you can argue that bw was more strategically diverse than sc2.
I don't watch practically any sc2 matches to compare, but underrate bw strategic diversity like that just proves that you actually didn't watch/play bw. You could have seem some games/ play some matches, like myself with sc2. That doesn't give you any credibility on your arguments, because from a bw player pov it shows you generate your opinions out of factual proof. Bringing up games from progamers who didn't initiate the trend and were just following it, just shows you only watched couple of games. So instead of reinforcing your point as being a "connnoisseur" of the subject, just shows how you just take random points and throw them at the air.
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.
Every one who likes BW over SC2 has his own personal reasons. Here are some of mine.
1: The micro.
A standard protoss mid game army in PvZ of dragoons, high templars, zealots, observers, and archons, is an army I find much more enjoyable to use (and to fight against) than the SC2 equivalent.
You have zealots and archons on 2 hotkeys, dragoons on 2 hotkeys, high templars on a hotkey, and your observers on a hotkey (as well as corsairs that are constantly moving around on the map looking for overlords and scouting on yet another hotkey)
You want to snipe lurkers with dragoons. This will often cause the Zerg to react with zerglings and hydralisks. When this happens, you have to judge whether a psionic storm is worth it or not. Since the Zerg wants to send in a few units at a time (enough to force you to storm, but few enough so that a psionic storm isn't really worth it) and then kill you with lots of units as you are out of storm, you really need to make each storm count. Often, you will defend your dragoons vs zerglings with zealots and archons, and vs hydralisks with psionic storm.
If the current position is too well fortified, with perfectly spread out lurkers, so that they can all fire at the same time, but take no splash damage from psionic storm, and zerglings in front of them, with extra squads ready to be sent in from all directions the moment you commit - then you move around to another area, forcing him to unburrow his lurkers and set up the same formation somewhere else. As you force him to do this, you create opportunities to get good engagements.
(Perfectly re-aligning your lurkers over and over and leaving no holes for the Protoss is one of the most satisfying things to do in the game)
From the Zerg perspective, you have zerglings, hydralisks, and lurkers in the midgame. (Of course you can add mutalisks, and eventually you may also get defilers, ultralisks, and guardians, but I'm keeping it basic for now). If you are defending, then you want to do what I already wrote about. If you are attacking, you want to send in a constant stream of units, but not all of them at the same time. You have to find a good balance between draining psionic storms out of the Protoss, and not just giving away units for free. If you send in everything at the same time, psionic storm can kill everything you have.
So you are sending in zerglings and hydralisks, and at the same time, you have to set up your lurkers in a formation that as compact as possible, to maximize damage, while still being spread out enough so that each psionic storm can only damage one lurker - during the battle. And if he simply takes a few steps back, you have to unburrow and do it again. As he walks backwards, your units on attack move will start chasing him in a line, which makes it easy for him to own you with storm. So you have to react to what he's doing. That's the main thing about micro in Brood War. One player takes an action which demands a reaction from the other, and so on forever.
Eventually, as the Protoss, you will probably add reavers. They are too slow to move on their own, so you'll have shuttles for them. If the Zerg is overrunning you with ultralisks, they should be in the middle of your army, safely doing damage. But if you are attacking lurker lines, you want to drop them at the edge of lurker range and snipe units, and pick them up as soon as the enemy approaches. Picking up and repositioning reavers to save them from destruction, focus firing on clumps of units, and making sure you have enough scarabs, is fun.
Another example is midgame Protoss vs Protoss.
For example: 12 dragoons, 2 reavers, and a shuttle, vs 12 dragoons, 2 reavers, and a shuttle.
This one scenario has so much depth that it could be a game worth playing on its own. A superior player will absolutely demolish and embarrass an inferior player in this battle. You want to target the best clump of dragoons with your reavers, and of course, pick them up and pull them back if the opponent tries to target them. Dragoon shots also move just slow enough to let you dodge them, by picking up a reaver that has a shot flying towards it.
If the enemy overextends a little, you can snipe a reaver or the shuttle. But if you get too eager, he can pull back, and you'll take lots of unnecessary damage from his dragoons. Also, a really good player will be better at positioning his dragoons so that there aren't any massive clumps. But if you spread them out too much, you can never threaten a "run up and snipe the shuttle / reaver" maneuver, which will let his reavers do more damage than they otherwise would. If they never have to spend time moving out of trouble, then they can spend all their time shooting scarabs.
Also, after your reavers have fired scarabs, they have a cooldown period before they can fire again. During this time, it is good to pick them up and react to anything that has happened. Did he run forward? Then you will move your reavers back. Did he run back? Then you will move them forward. Do you need to reposition them slightly in any way? Since they're on cooldown, you lose nothing by doing this. It's also just a generally good thing to do, since he doesn't know what you'll do next if you keep it up.
A lot of micro is about prediction and quick analysis and reaction. The best example of it might be mutalisks in ZvT. When you are defending vs mutalisks with marines, you want the mutalisks to fly in to a wall of marines. You can bait the Zerg to fly in by moving around in a bad formation, and then quickly changing the formation to the correct one just in time, when you predict that he will fly in. Moving away from the Zerg, and then unexpectedly stimming and running towards him (which is only good when he moves towards you) is another thing you can do. It's not really rock-paper-scissors, though. It's more like constantly moving in a way that makes you difficult to predict and deal with.
As the Zerg, if you predict that the Terran will run away (because he's not ready to fight, since he's not in the correct formation) you can chase him and get extra kills. If you expect him to turn and fight, you run away, and move to some other place, to force him to follow you - and create the wall formation again.
There are many more examples, but I hope you get the picture.
2. The strategic diversity
In StarCraft 2, I felt pigeonholed in to a boring way to play. I felt like the only way to be creative was to cheese. In Brood War, I don't feel this way. There are so many viable styles and strategies. You can go mass mutalisks while expanding, constantly (literally) attacking the Terran while you take more geysers. You have a low drone count, but it doesn't matter because the units you are making cost more gas than minerals (relative to how fast you can gather them), and you are constantly killing marines and SCV's. Later on, this strategy branches out. You can morph a ton of guardians for a timing attack, or go crazyzerg (ultralisk zergling defiler with no lurkers in the midgame), to name a few examples.
When you play standard, you can add guardians if you want to. You can focus everything on optimizing your economy for when you get ultralisks and defilers and "release the kraken" on the Terran. You can do lurker defiler drops in his bases. You can play defensively and just try to take more expansions than your opponent, while defending with lurkers under swarm. Vs bio in to mech, you can go queens if you want to, just defend expos, or be aggressive with ultra ling defiler early. You can do a mass mutalisk switch.
There are so many things you can do, but they all cost money, so you can't have them all.
Terran can go bio or mech, open bio for the map control, then transition to mech behind a bunch of expansions, thus getting the best of both, go bio and mech at the same time for some sick timing attacks, go bio + valkyries to deal with the mutalisks and get a crazy pre lurker timing.
Even within one type of unit composition, there are so many fundamental and radical differences between the different options you have. If you go bio, you can try to get map control and expand a lot, or you can just sit in your base and tech faster, to get an early and potent timing attack. You can transition in to mech very quickly, or stay aggressive with double starport science vessel. You can go fast battle cruisers, you can go for marine medic doomdrops.
In ZvP, you can play aggressively with mutalisks and hydralisks, or go for fast queens to snipe high templars. Or you can play defensively with lurkers on 4 bases, and rush to hive. You can also play defensively the entire game, if you wish, and simply try to out expand your opponent, and defend with lurkers and dark swarm while you harass with plague. Or you can rush to 4 bases, defend, and then play aggressively with hydra lurker ling defiler. If your opponent doesn't have a lot of corsairs, you can go guardians. You have a plethora of drop centric strategies. They can be from 3 bases or 4 bases. They can be offensive, or you can play defensively and use them as counter attacks.
3. The economy
In StarCraft 2, you max out so quickly, and you end up with these tiny blob armies. You usually get a certain number of workers, and that's it. Expanding beyond three bases doesn't give you much, except for extra gas.
In Brood War, it takes longer to max out, and the only match up that regularly goes to 200 is TvP. Having 4 bases is way better than having 3. And having 5 is better than having 4. So basically, it takes longer to reach the end game (the stage of the game during which you have everything unlocked - your maximum economy, your maximum tech, etc), and there are more possibilities before that stage. 4. The movement and the space control
Brood War is a very space-oriented game. You must constantly move, and you always try to control space. If my army is standing in my base, I will lose the game to a few lurkers and a defiler, because he'll throw up a dark swarm in my natural and that will be it. I will irradiate his lurkers, but by the time they have died to the damage over time, more units will have streamed in. This will continue until I have lost. So counter attacks, and cutting off reinforcement paths, are very deadly tactics, because a small army can be a potent threat given the right circumstances. This is not the case in StarCraft 2.
However, if I was in the middle of the map, I will force a dark swarm there. Hopefully I will irradiate the defiler, and he will have to send over a new one to the dark swarm, consume a zergling, and push forward again with another swarm.
The best case scenario is that I am right outside his natural. If he wants to threaten me from there, he will have to push all the way from his base to mine. During this entire time, I will snipe units, force dark swarms, force consumes, and irradiate defilers.
The more map control you have, the better. Not only defensively, but also offensively. If my army is outside his base, and I send a dropship to it, I threaten both his main and his third base with drops. If he has to pay attention to the drop in his main, then he may forget to throw up dark swarms in time at his natural, and I can go kill him. If he manages to do both of these things, maybe his macro will suffer, or maybe he'll die to the second drop that goes to his third - which he would normally notice and deal with using scourge.
It's so much easier to deal with a drop that simply flies from the Terran's base to the Zerg's base, than it is to deal with a drop that flies from right outside the Zerg's natural, to any of his bases.
If the Zerg breaks out of this "contain", (which he always will eventually, with dark swarm), then he can start sending small squads of lurkers, defilers, and zerglings around on the map. If a small squad manages to sneak in to the Terran's third base or his natural, that base is shut down until science vessels can show up and kill the lurkers over time with irradiate. The Zerg can expect this, however, and snipe the vessels with scourge if he knows where the vessels are. He can intercept them on the way home.
So you have to spread out your army as Terran, to deal with these small squads. When you are in control, you are truly dominant. Your opponent feels predictable and slow. You know what he's going to do before he does it. You have all lanes covered, you are constantly moving around and forcing him to adapt to you.
But when you are not in control, you are in the dark and scared. He could show up anywhere and destroy you.
5. The multi tasking, the apm, the stuff people like you whine about
APM & attention is a resource that you must spend wisely. There is more to do than you can do, so you must choose what is the most important. Like minerals and gas, you can harass your opponents supply. If I do something that takes more apm to deal with than it takes to execute, I can use that advantage. For example, a drop in TvZ might let me irradiate some units and move forward on the map, closer to his side of it.
In StarCraft 2, I felt like I had too much apm to spare. APM management is one of the most complex and interesting things to master in Brood War. I can do more things now in less time than I could in the past, with the same amount of apm. It's because I prioritize better, and my "to-do" list is more intelligently put together, in such a way that the things that take more time, can be done when I have the time, and not much else that needs to be done.
Sometimes I will queue up units a little earlier than what is "optimal" to give myself more time, because I know that somethinig time and attention consuming is coming up. Same with supply depots. If I won't have time to go back and make them later, when they are needed, I should probably spend the minerals on them now. Because the opportunity cost for that in minerals might be higher, but the opportunity cost in apm is much lower.
Basically, in SC2, there is too little apm required, so this interesting, strategic part of the game is toned down too much. Maybe it's a little better if you play Terran, but it's still unfair and bad that only one race has it.
6. The ability to win games that you should not win
There is more wiggleroom in Brood War. More areas in which you can be better than your opponent. This makes it easier to win games that you should not win.
The other day, I was very ahead vs a Protoss opponent as Terran. He had gone for some cheesy gas steal 2 gate aggression, which I defended well. I was going to punish him with a tank vulture timing that was rather committed. I was actually ahead on supply for a while, and I really should have won. But that guy outplayed me so hard. He kept moving his army forward, forcing me to siege my tanks, and then moving back. He cleared out mines. He threatened to cut off my reinforcement path, and slunk away when I tried to corner him. I tried to lay mines in the path his dragoons would take to escape, but he was already there with more units, so that didn't work. He picked off stray vultures. He moved his army to different spots, forcing me to prepare for attacks from different angles. It was so hard to keep up with his movement. I realized that I was taking more time than I should, and that my timing window was closing (He had a base that was about to kick in), so I tried to speed things up, but by the time I finally reached him and we had a large battle (as opposed to small skirmishes and maneuvers) he had survived long enough, and beat me.
In SC2, if the Terran has an MMMVG ball that is too large in PvT, what are you gonna do?
There are more reasons, but I'm tired of writing for now
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.
I have yet to talk to any one who was decent at both games (master league, C+, something like that) who didn't think BW is better. I have only seen players who are either bad at both games, good at SC2 but bad at BW, or who never really played BW much, say that SC2 is better.
On January 21 2014 17:36 opisska wrote: I think it's nice that there are still people who like the game enough to be positive about it and write articles and whatnot, but I don't think that there is any way to stop the inevitable demise of ...
... TL.net
The constant bitching about supposed "design flaws" and "need for redesing" and like about a hundred different phrases of this type created to not sound completely stupid, is slowly making any discussion on this website irrelevant. What we really need is to leave all these people who feel the constant need to tell the world for the milionth time how BW was better behind so they can reassure each other about how right they are and go someplace else, where we can acutally freely enjoy how great SC2 is.
Personally I'm starting to get the feeling that all the toxicity and negativity doesn't necessarily only come from a declining player and viewer base (compared to what it was at its peak), but is more an inherent problem when a community reaches a certain size. To me it seems that TL is a pretty happy place as long as you don't browse the SC2 related threads.
But not browsing the SC2 related threads kind of defeats the purpose of TL.
Not if you enjoy other SC and gamey things such as BW and the smaller communities
Yes but that doesn't contradict my statement that TL.net is getting irrelevant for SC2. At the moment I think it's mainly the writers who save the day to keep the site connected to SC2 (but even there you can see that the enthusiasm is wearing off and there is often more news on dota 2 than SC2). A couple of years ago, TL was the place for SC2 discussion, all the strategy was here, people who were actually amazing in the game - stuff was just happening here. Now when half of the discussion is "X is bad", what is the point of that? Everyone and his grandmother have the greatest opinion about what exactly should be changed - but guess what, it will never happen, or if it will, it will piss off everyone else, whose much greater opinion was not heard ...
If TL is to remain relevant, all the people that hate SC2 in its current form need to leave the SC2 forums now. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
You think TL SC2 forums are the center of the hate, whine, etc.? I would advise you to check out almost anywhere else (bnet forums, reddit...) and realize it's pretty tame here, and there are a lot of people who post in the SC2 forums who actually love the game and love discussing it. The TL strategy guys are pumping out guides and game analyses, the writers are doing an awesome job both recapping tournaments and doing independent pieces.TL is still the place for SC2 discussion and that's pretty much that.
Also can you guys take the "BW is better than SC2" "no SC2 is better than BW" to PM's? That was not the purpose of this blog.
On January 20 2014 21:02 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why it's not fine to tel : league of legend is shit in the lol forum but you can actually say SC2 is shit in the SC2 forum. it's always bugging me.
I just feel bad for the people that openly dislike sc2 and keep investing into it while hoping it will improve... like wtf are you doing with your free time?
On January 20 2014 21:02 FFW_Rude wrote: I don't get why it's not fine to tel : league of legend is shit in the lol forum but you can actually say SC2 is shit in the SC2 forum. it's always bugging me.
I feel the need to quote this.
With you, I don't get why I can't crap on BW in the BW, but people can passive aggressively shot on SC2 all day on the SC2 forum.
Meh, i played BW against the AI for almost 2 years. It sucked balls. Total Annihilation was clearly the superior RPG mastah game and all of you are just SCpeasants. LONG LIVE TA HUZZAH
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2008/10/train.jpg)
