|
BW has huge watchability and is arguably the most spectator friendly game ever, not just on the pro level. Back in the day on b.net there would be tons of "1v1 + obs" rooms where 4-5 people would watch total noobs play eachother. The game is just that entertaining.
On the pro level even more so. You'd be hard pressed to find a non-mirror pro game that is completely uninteresting.
|
On July 29 2017 16:48 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 05:03 Jealous wrote:On July 29 2017 03:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
i think there can be good games in sc2, just not as good not as often, and lot of pretty bad games Re: opisska: This is my thought as well. I often watch TL's "top games of 20XX" and I even went through the trouble of watching the rest of the series in some cases. There were a few TvZ's I truly thought were good games; Inno vs. TaeJa was a good game too. SC2 just doesn't deliver those games frequently enough for me to commit to watching anything but the "best of." Certainly doesn't motivate me to pick the game back up. This is certainly a valid point. I watch so much SC2 that I come by the good games naturally, but it's true that a lot of games is just filler. I never really watch more BW than what someine point to as a good game, ao I have no idea how doea BW compare to SC2 in good game frequency. The advantage of LoTV is that the boring games are usually done with pretty fast. Also it's matchup dependent - most of TvPs are very similar to each other, but TvTs tend to be variable as hell. TvZ can be formulaic, but leads to good games often anyway, ZvP is really hit or miss, ZvZ is a few total gems in a sea of rubbish, PvP I don't get much at all ...
In BW TvP, PvZ and TvZ games were frequently good-to-excelent.
TvT is insanely good too, the problem is it requires players from absolute top to be interesting to watch. With a bit incompetence and cowardines it can end with boring slugfest with both players never risking to end the stalemate.
In PvP most of games are quite similar, the good games are not that frequent, but there are. The closest comparison is to the early WoL games. There was some good games, but most of it wasn't worth it.
ZvZ is shit, period. The late ZvZ is the most exiting mirror match, the problem is the chances to get a hive in ZvZ are as high as the chances of killing a fly by hitting it with your ass.
|
On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
This post is just sad its just another...
"yey we finally got something new... let's shit on SC2 as much as we can in our BW General, and dare if someone say that he enjoy SC2.. here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
I'm really sick of this... StarCraft is still StarCraft it doesn't matter if you like SC2 or BW you still like StarCraft as an RTS and this constant "mouse&cat" with "BW vs SC" is just old boring and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017...
This is just your opinion. I am on the contrary sick of this kind of defeatist or "let's enjoy the happy merry times together" posts like yours. Because this is exactly what non-constructiveness is. There's been a lot of arguments and counter-arguments if you cared to read the thread. You didn't though.
People must argue because this is how we understand things better, draw conclusions and improve.
|
On July 29 2017 06:57 Jae Zedong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 06:22 Slydie wrote:
RTS-games were at it's peak in the mid 90s with the Dune 2, Warcraft, C&C and Age of Empires series. Many players bought and played sc2 for nostalgic reasons I'm sorry, but why the hell did you leave out Starcraft from that list? You as a Starcraft 2 player list classic RTSes from the 90's and leave out the best selling RTS from that period? Are you not aware what the 2 in Starcraft 2 means?
No reason to state the obvious, and Starcraft was a sequel to the Warcraft series, set in space.
|
On July 29 2017 18:37 letian wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:58 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
This post is just sad its just another...
"yey we finally got something new... let's shit on SC2 as much as we can in our BW General, and dare if someone say that he enjoy SC2.. here is milion unrelevant arguments why is XX better than YY"...
I'm really sick of this... StarCraft is still StarCraft it doesn't matter if you like SC2 or BW you still like StarCraft as an RTS and this constant "mouse&cat" with "BW vs SC" is just old boring and nothing constructive will come from it in 2017... This is just your opinion. I am on the contrary sick of this kind of defeatist or "let's enjoy the happy merry times together" posts like yours. Because this is exactly what non-constructiveness is. There's been a lot of arguments and counter-arguments if you cared to read the thread. You didn't though. People must argue because this is how we understand things better, draw conclusions and improve.
Well since one side wants to other to scrap everything or not exist at all... whats the point? It's not like Blizz staff jump here and redo SC2 from strach anyway...
|
Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING".
On July 29 2017 18:46 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 06:57 Jae Zedong wrote:On July 29 2017 06:22 Slydie wrote:
RTS-games were at it's peak in the mid 90s with the Dune 2, Warcraft, C&C and Age of Empires series. Many players bought and played sc2 for nostalgic reasons I'm sorry, but why the hell did you leave out Starcraft from that list? You as a Starcraft 2 player list classic RTSes from the 90's and leave out the best selling RTS from that period? Are you not aware what the 2 in Starcraft 2 means? No reason to state the obvious, and Starcraft was a sequel to the Warcraft series, set in space.
It was a sequel to Warcraft as much as World of Warcraft was a sequel to Warcraft. They are completely different games. And Starcraft massively outsold both Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 2.
|
On July 29 2017 09:49 iopq wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 08:39 -NegativeZero- wrote:On July 29 2017 07:34 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:03 Jealous wrote:
[quote]
If I understood your post correctly and it all pertains to BW, then I have to say that the "buildup time" before "relevant action" is a key element of Brood War and what makes it so great IMO. It's a hallmark of strategy, in that depending on what build your opponent chose, you have certain windows of opportunity depending on what build you did in response. "Oh, Terran walled? I should cancel this Zealot and I should throw down my Nexus instead."
What you seem to criticize as down time is in effect the strategic interplay between two players. Only a noob would try to engage a Terran who went for a wall, has Marines behind the wall, and is going for Siege expand, for example. The lesson you learn when you try to do that and lose your first Zealots/Dragoons and get counter-attacked and contained is you getting better at the game. The concept that at every juncture in the game you should have the opportunity to do something offensive, defensive, or greedy and it should all be viable would dilute the meta and is a childish "But I want it MY way!" mentality that seems common to inexperienced players who also want every unit to be viable in every MU and situation.
Starting with only 4 workers, thus allowing for builds like 5 Pool, and thus requiring Protoss to double scout at Pylon and Forge on 4 player maps if they want to be safe (or 9 Pool Speed, etc.), is a beautiful element of the game and is not something I think anyone who ACTUALLY PLAYS Brood War complains about. This down time before you can have an engagement is really the product of multiple correct insinuations and decisions made by both players. This is STRATEGY. It is the ebb and flow of safety vs. aggression, greed vs. vulnerability, etc. all done based on the presence or absence of scouting information. Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go. What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different. I understand what you mean now. Hmm. Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home. Another scenario bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires. Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now. Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells. So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here. The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage. This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color. Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well. This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun. So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches. Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong. What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal. With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay. Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise. And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much. The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways. Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested. Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches. Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this. No cooldown. There are like one million ways of designing an rts game. i mean, isn't this kind of how a lot of BW matches work? TvZ in particular - specific units and upgrades give each side distinct advantages at different points in the game. terran has the early advantage with marine/medic until zerg gets mutas out, giving them the advantage., until terran gets marine range, then zerg responds with lurkers, then terran counters them with tanks, then zerg gets defilers, then terran starts massing up science vessels... bw has early game unit counters too, remember that early game protoss roflstomps terran so hard they have to turtle in their base and wait for tanks to do anything. strict unit counters are important to rts games, regardless of whether they require heavy micro or not - they're part of what forces tactical decision making, and they also help boost the defender's advantage if you have time to scout and respond to an incoming attack. without proper unit counters in place you end up with zvz, aka (arguably) the worst matchup in both bw and sc2. you just smash armies into each other to see which is bigger (see sc2 roach vs roach), or who can micro better (see bw muta vs muta). at least the 2nd one is kind of fun to watch, but the actual strategy element is lacking. There's a point in TvZ where Terran gets +1 and range, but lurkers are not out yet - but Zerg wants to get a third. This is where Zerg has to use muta micro to prevent Terran from attacking too quickly. Maybe the Zerg doesn't succeed, but cancels the third and builds it in another corner - while sending hydras there (in cross map scenarios). That's kind of a "draw" where Zerg gets a later third, but Terran can't deny it or do damage in the main either. Or maybe Terran straight up kills the third which is a victory since Zerg doesn't cancel. Sometimes Terran tries to kill it, but muta/ling finally pics the Terran force apart. That's a Zerg victory. It's VERY micro intensive - it's all about picking off units that don't move in formation. In SC2, the Terran army would just walk into the third and kill it. This is because there are no banelings in BW - muta/ling is strictly inferior to the Terran army if there's formation movement and stutter stepping. Muta stacking works weird in SC2 as well.
This is exactly right, When people say "power spikes" they don't see the differences between the games.
In BW, since the counters are soft, it means that one side has to micro more intensively for a while but can still win a fight. But in SC2 it means that if you engage the enemy now then you die, GG.
I mean lurkers are supposed to counter M&Ms but the SK Terran build exists, and that consists of nothing but M&Ms + vessels vs lurkers.
There is virutallly no situation in SC2 where you can micro a unit versus the unit that counters it. And there is virtually no situation where you can come out on top if you engage at the wrong timing.
I think the difference is because Dustin Browder might have designed SC2 like he designed Red Alert 2. One side just steamrolls the other depending on the timing.
|
From the beginning, the SC2 dev team has proved to be comically inept at designing a well rounded RTS. 'Design by committee' at its worst. Feature creep at its worst. Corporate heavy-handedness at its worst. The entire design philosophy can be summed up as: "We have a bunch of money to spend. That should equal a great game, right?"
They were too arrogant to draw on the vast knowledge of the existing BW pro circuit.
They are reactive in all the wrong ways (over-correcting balance issues disregarding the need for a stable environment) and proactive in all the wrong ways (artificially synthesizing whole new metas in their endless arrogance).
Imagine if FIFA changed the rules of soccer every 5 minutes and essentially told the teams what tactics they should use. Soccer would be seen as a joke. You don't need to nerf dribbles just because Messi is good at them. You don't need to nerf free kicks just because Ronaldo can hit knuckle balls. Just let the players shine.
They are completely oblivious to what their role should be. Their role should be to create a fun playing field with well designed units and then stay the hell out and let the players do their thing.
|
On July 29 2017 19:21 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 09:49 iopq wrote:On July 29 2017 08:39 -NegativeZero- wrote:On July 29 2017 07:34 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 06:14 L_Master wrote:On July 29 2017 04:29 Foxxan wrote:On July 29 2017 03:14 L_Master wrote:On July 28 2017 23:51 Foxxan wrote:On July 28 2017 23:28 Ancestral wrote:On July 28 2017 23:11 Foxxan wrote:
[quote]
Wrong dude. As i said, the concept is old. You are thinking in old terms. I never stated how you scout for example. You are leaving out very many intells here and assuming BW is the way to go.
What do you mean by the RTS "concept" is old? It's less old than fighting games or FPSs, which are still plenty active as far as development, casual play, and ESPORTS. The thinking in rts games are old, there are no modern thinking made in rts games. The old "concept" is: High buildtime without any interraction with your opponent. Meaning, you build supply, units, gets your economy bigger, can take litteral several minutes this alone. No real micro involved in this period, or real tough decisions or tactics. Big emphasize of hardcounters. Very outdated. Yes some old concepts can still be good but there are several that doesnt fit in a modern rts game. From curiosity, let's run with this. What would you see in a game if you were designing one. Obviously, the RTS genre itself is still enjoyed by many, so I don't think it quite makes the concept of RTS outdated...but what you seem to be suggesting is some fundamental to changes to how RTS plays. In your updated version of RTS, can you give some sort of conceptual idea of how game flow/unit interactions/etc would operate? That is a hard thing to do. Deponding on what kind of RTS design it is. Not sure i understand your question either? My word knowledge is rather bad. Yes i want to change how RTS games are played. Not sure how to describe it, without getting a headache. And i usually am vague with my explanations, if i was to try and really make people understand it would take a while. Not something i really wanna do. Still i dont quite understand what kind of answer you would have liked. You talk about how the RTS concept is old and designers don't understand the format. To me, this means that you have some ideas of what designers should do differently. I was just curious what your thoughts are. Right now, it feels sort of like if I was learning to play an instrument and you said "you're playing is bad", this may be true; but it's not very useful for understanding. You haven't said why it's bad/what should be better. Right now the only thing I know is "Foxxan thinks RTS design concept is old", but don't really have any idea what that means, or what could/should be different. I understand what you mean now. Hmm. Make marines/marauders, move to protoss. Terran has big advantage now. Protoss makes zealots/sentries. Now protoss has adantage and terran cant fight. Terran moves home. Protoss move to terran natural. Terran gets stim. Protoss cant fight, needs to go home. Another scenario bio+medivacs vs zealots/stalkers/sentires. Protoss has no chance, cant fight. Protoss adds colossus, now terran has no chance. Terran adds vikings. Terran has a chance now. Terran does alot of hit and run in combat. Against storm, also splits. Protoss uses blink stalkers to snipe vikings and uses spells. So what we have here in a conrete way is a cat and mouse type of gameplay. At the same time there is not much micro involved for protoss here. The tactics in combat.. Are bland. Vikings shoot colossus, stalkers shoot vikings. Bio kite and do its insane damage. This whole deathball vs deathball doesnt have much finesse or color. Bad stuff: cat and mouse gameplay and one sided micro I would change this drastically. For example, instead of viking hardcountering colossus, they should instead add some sort of tactic used in combat. Perhaps transform to the ground and get to the backfront of protoss armee. While being able to be microed as well. This shouldnt work in sc2, but if we use our imagination how an rts could look like. My point is, units should add some sort of tactic to the race instead of having the "outdated" hardcounter formula. It aint interesting or fun. So in sc2, you make a few stalkers move outside zerg natural and pokes a bit, then moves home. Protoss uses walls against zerglings and roaches. Nothing Really Happens here. You play with yourself pretty much, in an rts game. Thats very wrong. What could be happening then? Well first off, units shouldnt hardcounter each other especially so early in the game. The strengt of each armee and production needs to be more equal. With that said, if protoss wants to poke outside zerg with stalkers? Then do it. When the zerglings gets speed? It shouldnt force protoss to be the mouse here. Protoss could stay. Now here, there are so many possibilites to do here, even when its this early in the game. I mean designwise. And not to be arrogant but i dont really want to talk about my personal ideas much. The zerglings vs stalkers in this scenario should have micro value added. How? Many ways. Just to try and give a picture of what i mean even though the example might not work in practice before beeing tested. Zerglings slightly slower than stalkers with the speedupgrade. Instead they get the burrow ability from roaches. Zerglings press burrow->Now you need to decide where you want to go or else you unburrow immediately. Where you decide to go, the enemy sees this and the zerglings pop up there, toss can dance around this. No cooldown. There are like one million ways of designing an rts game. i mean, isn't this kind of how a lot of BW matches work? TvZ in particular - specific units and upgrades give each side distinct advantages at different points in the game. terran has the early advantage with marine/medic until zerg gets mutas out, giving them the advantage., until terran gets marine range, then zerg responds with lurkers, then terran counters them with tanks, then zerg gets defilers, then terran starts massing up science vessels... bw has early game unit counters too, remember that early game protoss roflstomps terran so hard they have to turtle in their base and wait for tanks to do anything. strict unit counters are important to rts games, regardless of whether they require heavy micro or not - they're part of what forces tactical decision making, and they also help boost the defender's advantage if you have time to scout and respond to an incoming attack. without proper unit counters in place you end up with zvz, aka (arguably) the worst matchup in both bw and sc2. you just smash armies into each other to see which is bigger (see sc2 roach vs roach), or who can micro better (see bw muta vs muta). at least the 2nd one is kind of fun to watch, but the actual strategy element is lacking. There's a point in TvZ where Terran gets +1 and range, but lurkers are not out yet - but Zerg wants to get a third. This is where Zerg has to use muta micro to prevent Terran from attacking too quickly. Maybe the Zerg doesn't succeed, but cancels the third and builds it in another corner - while sending hydras there (in cross map scenarios). That's kind of a "draw" where Zerg gets a later third, but Terran can't deny it or do damage in the main either. Or maybe Terran straight up kills the third which is a victory since Zerg doesn't cancel. Sometimes Terran tries to kill it, but muta/ling finally pics the Terran force apart. That's a Zerg victory. It's VERY micro intensive - it's all about picking off units that don't move in formation. In SC2, the Terran army would just walk into the third and kill it. This is because there are no banelings in BW - muta/ling is strictly inferior to the Terran army if there's formation movement and stutter stepping. Muta stacking works weird in SC2 as well. This is exactly right, When people say "power spikes" they don't see the differences between the games. In BW, since the counters are soft, it means that one side has to micro more intensively for a while but can still win a fight. But in SC2 it means that if you engage the enemy now then you die, GG. I mean lurkers are supposed to counter M&Ms but the SK Terran build exists, and that consists of nothing but M&Ms + vessels vs lurkers. There is virutallly no situation in SC2 where you can micro a unit versus the unit that counters it. And there is virtually no situation where you can come out on top if you engage at the wrong timing. I think the difference is because Dustin Browder might have designed SC2 like he designed Red Alert 2. One side just steamrolls the other depending on the timing.
LBM vs MMM?
Hydra bane vs Archon/Chargelot/Immo/Storm?
Zerg vs Carrier/Storm?
Can you not make broad statements without actually knowing anything about the game. Come on.
|
On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:
Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING".
If the 'actual discourse' is people who have hardly touched or watched SC2 flaming it because they never liked it in the first place, then yes it has very little value. So many posts in here are a complete joke of inaccuracy
|
On July 29 2017 10:08 Hannibaal wrote:
What I don't like about SC2 is that it has many things that in my opinion should not exist in an RTS. There is not much advantage in highground, there are units that break this like the Reaper or the Colossus. Another unit that for me has been a cancer is Medevac, being a transport unit but also has the function of healing becomes an obligation to build it and the drops are not produced by tactical decision but because you build four or eight Medevacs To heal your bio units and it is stupid not to take advantage of them to try a drop if there is the opportunity, therefore producing this unit is not a tactical decision, it is an obligation when you have bio units (and doomdrops are stupid).
Deathballs are unacceptable and no aesthetic in an RTS, that coupled with poorly designed units creates very unfair situations; The other I saw a video of Innovation against Scarlett, Scarlett had mass banelings and did not need skills to destroy the Army of Innovation, this has happened to me a lot in ladder, Zerg players who earn me with broken units like the banelings.
The medivacs are also really bad for E-sport broadcasting as they totally take away the trill of an incoming drop.
Sc2 Maps terrain just lost most of the relevance.
|
On July 29 2017 20:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:
Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING".
If the 'actual discourse' is people who have hardly touched or watched SC2
Of course we did. I think everyone who you perceive as blind SC2 haters genuinely gave it a chance and tried to enjoy it. It's the broken promises and wasted potential that made us turn back to BW.
|
I think two points.
1. They listened to people's constant bitching way too much and didn't let shit sort itself out
2. They wee too delayed in releasing good game features, someone already mentioned it took them so long to release tournaments, public channels, arcade, etc, etc
|
On July 29 2017 20:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:
Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING".
If the 'actual discourse' is people who have hardly touched or watched SC2 flaming it because they never liked it in the first place, then yes it has very little value. So many posts in here are a complete joke of inaccuracy
The people who complain about SC2 don't complain because they didn't give it a chance, they complain because they did.
|
On July 29 2017 20:47 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:
Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING".
If the 'actual discourse' is people who have hardly touched or watched SC2 flaming it because they never liked it in the first place, then yes it has very little value. So many posts in here are a complete joke of inaccuracy
Then correct the faulty viewpoints with non-opinion facts, so that the ones that do have value can stand out?
|
On July 29 2017 16:48 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 05:03 Jealous wrote:On July 29 2017 03:44 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
i think there can be good games in sc2, just not as good not as often, and lot of pretty bad games Re: opisska: This is my thought as well. I often watch TL's "top games of 20XX" and I even went through the trouble of watching the rest of the series in some cases. There were a few TvZ's I truly thought were good games; Inno vs. TaeJa was a good game too. SC2 just doesn't deliver those games frequently enough for me to commit to watching anything but the "best of." Certainly doesn't motivate me to pick the game back up. This is certainly a valid point. I watch so much SC2 that I come by the good games naturally, but it's true that a lot of games is just filler. I never really watch more BW than what someine point to as a good game, ao I have no idea how doea BW compare to SC2 in good game frequency. The advantage of LoTV is that the boring games are usually done with pretty fast. Also it's matchup dependent - most of TvPs are very similar to each other, but TvTs tend to be variable as hell. TvZ can be formulaic, but leads to good games often anyway, ZvP is really hit or miss, ZvZ is a few total gems in a sea of rubbish, PvP I don't get much at all ...
I think there's a big issue you point out here... I like to play and watch protoss. As you implicitly said while defending SC2, Protoss in SC2 is just really not fun and don't tend to lead to good games. That's what really turned me off from it. Watching Has can be funny but that's about it.
|
On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING". Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 18:46 Slydie wrote:On July 29 2017 06:57 Jae Zedong wrote:On July 29 2017 06:22 Slydie wrote:
RTS-games were at it's peak in the mid 90s with the Dune 2, Warcraft, C&C and Age of Empires series. Many players bought and played sc2 for nostalgic reasons I'm sorry, but why the hell did you leave out Starcraft from that list? You as a Starcraft 2 player list classic RTSes from the 90's and leave out the best selling RTS from that period? Are you not aware what the 2 in Starcraft 2 means? No reason to state the obvious, and Starcraft was a sequel to the Warcraft series, set in space. It was a sequel to Warcraft as much as World of Warcraft was a sequel to Warcraft. They are completely different games. And Starcraft massively outsold both Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 2.
I don't agree. WC2 and SC are 2d RTS games with a lot of similarities, like workers gathering 2 types of resources, fog of war, upgrading townhalls, a supply system, the range and vision of units, length of gamed, multitasking and micro... I tried SC late, and was surpried by how many Warcraft 2 features they had managed to squeeze into a spacegame, many of which make absolutely no sense from a scifi p.o.v, like futuristic assault rifles with the range of 15 meters and massive space ships with the max speed of 40 km/h.
WC3 to WoW was a complete change of genre, the same kind of jump the Warcraft adventure game would have made.
|
On July 30 2017 01:07 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING". On July 29 2017 18:46 Slydie wrote:On July 29 2017 06:57 Jae Zedong wrote:On July 29 2017 06:22 Slydie wrote:
RTS-games were at it's peak in the mid 90s with the Dune 2, Warcraft, C&C and Age of Empires series. Many players bought and played sc2 for nostalgic reasons I'm sorry, but why the hell did you leave out Starcraft from that list? You as a Starcraft 2 player list classic RTSes from the 90's and leave out the best selling RTS from that period? Are you not aware what the 2 in Starcraft 2 means? No reason to state the obvious, and Starcraft was a sequel to the Warcraft series, set in space. It was a sequel to Warcraft as much as World of Warcraft was a sequel to Warcraft. They are completely different games. And Starcraft massively outsold both Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 2. I don't agree. WC2 and SC are 2d RTS games with a lot of similarities, like workers gathering 2 types of resources, fog of war, upgrading townhalls, a supply system, the range and vision of units, length of gamed, multitasking and micro... I tried SC late, and was surpried by how many Warcraft 2 features they had managed to squeeze into a spacegame, many of which make absolutely no sense from a scifi p.o.v, like futuristic assault rifles with the range of 15 meters and massive space ships with the max speed of 40 km/h.
Literally all of that except the 2D applies to SC2 as well. So by your logic, SC2 is a sequel to WC2. Gimme a break.
And before you retort with the counter argument I know you'll make: sequels don't have to be in chronological order. Return of the Jedi is a sequel to A New Hope despite The Empire Strikes Back intersecting them.
It is not, however, a sequel to Indiana Jones.
|
On July 30 2017 01:23 Jae Zedong wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2017 01:07 Slydie wrote:On July 29 2017 18:55 Jae Zedong wrote:Typical conflict-averse mindset. "Let's be merry together and have forced positivity. Oh you want to have actual discourse? WELL SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN THEN SORRY FOR TRYING". On July 29 2017 18:46 Slydie wrote:On July 29 2017 06:57 Jae Zedong wrote:On July 29 2017 06:22 Slydie wrote:
RTS-games were at it's peak in the mid 90s with the Dune 2, Warcraft, C&C and Age of Empires series. Many players bought and played sc2 for nostalgic reasons I'm sorry, but why the hell did you leave out Starcraft from that list? You as a Starcraft 2 player list classic RTSes from the 90's and leave out the best selling RTS from that period? Are you not aware what the 2 in Starcraft 2 means? No reason to state the obvious, and Starcraft was a sequel to the Warcraft series, set in space. It was a sequel to Warcraft as much as World of Warcraft was a sequel to Warcraft. They are completely different games. And Starcraft massively outsold both Warcraft 1 and Warcraft 2. I don't agree. WC2 and SC are 2d RTS games with a lot of similarities, like workers gathering 2 types of resources, fog of war, upgrading townhalls, a supply system, the range and vision of units, length of gamed, multitasking and micro... I tried SC late, and was surpried by how many Warcraft 2 features they had managed to squeeze into a spacegame, many of which make absolutely no sense from a scifi p.o.v, like futuristic assault rifles with the range of 15 meters and massive space ships with the max speed of 40 km/h. Literally all of that except the 2D applies to SC2 as well. So by your logic, SC2 is a sequel to WC2. Gimme a break. And before you retort with the counter argument I know you'll make: sequels don't have to be in chronological order. Return of the Jedi is a sequel to A New Hope despite The Empire Strikes Back intersecting them.
You could very easily skin the SC games in a fantasy world and vice versa. The lore and art concept are the main differences, but all main game mechanics of the genre are essentially the same. WC3, on the other hand, made some drastic changes, like heroes, items and upkeep.
Also, remember that when the 1st starcraft game came out, none of the newer Warcraft games existed, which made it look much more like a direct sequel than it does now. I believe it was even discussed in the team, they could have chosen the same world, but went for the most different one they could come up with. War-craft, Star-craft... get it? Dune 2 was pretty much 3-race "Warcraft, Orcs and Humans" in space, though, so the link was already there.
|
I stopped playing because i used to watch a lot of sc:bw, flash, etc. when they didn't play well or retired from sc2, i lost interest because its the same reason people watch pro sports for the super stars playing.
so, when i wasn't watching i didn't want to play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
