What wrecked SC2? - Page 16

AntiHack

Switzerland553 Posts

July 29 2017 16:58 GMT

#301

The far east Asians, including the Koreans have 3000 years old history of competitive mental sports like "the-game-of-GO" (kind of chess) where the families where proud of they'r children becoming professional at those games.

When I come back to TL and see the main page full of sc2 news and not a single BW news is kind of pathetic and in terms of gaming I'm ashamed of being a westerner.

Jae Zedong

407 Posts

July 29 2017 16:59 GMT

#302

On July 30 2017 01:51 Slydie wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

Still doesn't make it a sequel. As if the vast differences between WC2 and Starcraft weren't enough, it is not a sequel lore wise or even set in the same universe. Having a slightly similar name is irrelevant, which I tried to illustrate by pointing out that World of Warcraft obviously isn't a sequel to Warcraft 3.

If you consider SC2 to be a sequel to Starcraft and Starcraft to be a sequel to WC2, then by extension you consider SC2 a sequel to WC2. Which should serve to illustrate how silly the notion that Starcaft is a sequel to WC2 is.

ProMeTheus112

France2027 Posts

July 29 2017 17:05 GMT

#303

lol did you know artanis says "This is not warcraft in space!" when you click on him a lot
perhaps the biggest similarity between warcraft 2 and starcraft is that when you click many times on a critter it makes a big explosion^^

Slydie

1913 Posts

July 29 2017 17:15 GMT

#304

On July 30 2017 01:59 Jae Zedong wrote:

Show nested quote +

On July 30 2017 01:51 Slydie wrote:

On July 30 2017 01:23 Jae Zedong wrote:

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.

Sequels or not, the games were in the same genre, made by the same company, had the same core gameplay mechanics (if you compare to other rts games) and had the same audience.

My point though, around the launch of sc, rts war games were among the most popular out there, with many successful series. That is not the case anymore, and the people who play rts for nostalgic reasons are getting too old now.

Jae Zedong

407 Posts

July 29 2017 17:29 GMT

#305

Well I think Starcraft and Warcraft are profoundly different, but whatever.

Here is a list of how many RTS games have been released per year over the last 25 years, courtesy of Wikipedia:

1992: 3
1993: 4
1994: 8
1995: 4
1996: 10
1997: 26
1998: 24
1999: 14
2000: 30
2001: 27
2002: 20
2003: 15
2004: 27
2005: 16
2006: 26
2007: 22
2008: 9
2009: 16
2010: 10
2011: 5
2012: 2
2013: 5
2014: 6
2015: 7
2016: 5

ProMeTheus112

France2027 Posts

July 29 2017 17:33 GMT

#306

On July 30 2017 02:15 Slydie wrote:My point though, around the launch of sc, rts war games were among the most popular out there, with many successful series. That is not the case anymore, and the people who play rts for nostalgic reasons are getting too old now.

??? lol yeah we're all playing only "for nostalgic reasons" (not) and also we're "too old" (for what???) dunno what point you're making with this funny statement, or maybe its just your way of trying to insult everyone

Sr18

Netherlands1141 Posts

July 29 2017 17:55 GMT

#307

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.

Actually, during the development of sc2 there were many people arguing that bw was better than wc3. It was about as prevalent as sc2 vs bw discussions are now. One of the most used arguments back then was that the hard counter system of bw was more enjoyable than the soft counters of wc3. I don't remember people arguing that bw actually had soft counters. It was a given that bw had hard counters, wc3 had soft counters and the discussion was about which was better. Blizzard may have even referenced these discussions during the development of sc2, my memory is not clear on that.

Slydie

1913 Posts

July 29 2017 17:59 GMT

#308

On July 30 2017 02:33 ProMeTheus112 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Bad wording maybe. Just assuming some players would return to the franchises of their youth, same as for Diablo 3, for example.

Anyway, what is the most popular rts war-game released after Wings of Liberty? Maybe I am not completely on top of it, but the only other rts games I see in stores are rewrappings of Age of Empires bundles...

Six.Strings

48 Posts

July 29 2017 18:06 GMT

#309

I still think EG were a large reason for SC2's demise.

I've made this point before, but I think they exploited SC2 for short term drama-based viewer spikes ("OMG look at what IdrA said today!") and people like Incontrol were actively pushing Koreans to become "personalities" rather than good players. Focus on brand deals, call someone an asshole, whine a little about balance. The sort of behaviour that EG encouraged made a pretty big short term profit for them and I wager for some tournaments as well, but they HAD to know it would hurt SC2 in the long.

Anyone who worked on the Kardashianisation of SC2 is someone who, in my views, contributed to its demise.

Jan1997

Norway671 Posts

July 29 2017 18:39 GMT

#310

If I go back and play WoL now & compare it to LoTV then it's easy for me to see that WoL was much better. For me the problem with the game is the fact that 1 base play is practically dead & there are too many dumb units that disregard strategy & the game is too fast. It sucks playing protoss in 1v1 being 1 base ahead and be ahead in supply & even have home advantage and still lose just because the other protoss had lucky disruptor hits. Stuff like that kills 1v1. Also the fact that 1v1 is basically harasscraft 2 is also super annoying.

Slydie

1913 Posts

July 29 2017 19:14 GMT

#311

On July 30 2017 03:39 Jan1997 wrote:
If I go back and play WoL now & compare it to LoTV then it's easy for me to see that WoL was much better. For me the problem with the game is the fact that 1 base play is practically dead & there are too many dumb units that disregard strategy & the game is too fast. It sucks playing protoss in 1v1 being 1 base ahead and be ahead in supply & even have home advantage and still lose just because the other protoss had lucky disruptor hits. Stuff like that kills 1v1. Also the fact that 1v1 is basically harasscraft 2 is also super annoying.

The Warhammer game might have some potential, but the 2 major titles for this year are tuneups to old classics, the other games seem pretty awful for being on a top-list!

Also, you guys are overrating SCBW! I did in fact play the game quite a bit, but I never got into playing 1v1, because the game was simply too hard, even after a substantial amount of hours put into it. I remember a friend of mine said "I have never met a guy knowing so much about a game", and that was just about the units of each race and their abilities...

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16692 Posts

July 29 2017 19:16 GMT

#312

when a genre is declining it doesn't matter how good the games are.

Hannibaal

41 Posts

July 29 2017 19:29 GMT

#313

SC2 is dead because it's not such a good game. The only reason it did not die before is because there are not many alternatives, SC2 has not had competition in its genre and so did not lose players before. Those who say RTS are in decline, that's a bad excuse. You can not expect an RTS to compete with LoL, but you can expect an RTS with a scene larger than SC2. I repeat, SC2 is not such a good game, it has been kept a long time for lack of alternatives, but SC2 is a huge disappointment, a game with many design flaws, and many have mentioned it in this thread.

Shinokuki

United States859 Posts

July 29 2017 19:34 GMT

#314

On July 30 2017 04:14 Slydie wrote:

Show nested quote +

Why do you guys keep arguing that pretty minor gameplay details are the reason why the game is declining? It is a genre-problem, not a hardcore-geeks only balance issue.
I just had a look at this:

en.wikipedia.org

The only RTS game to sell over 1 million copies after 2010, except the Starcraft ones, was Europa Universalis, which might not even be a RTS game at all. There are plenty of games on the list, though, but the genre as a whole has been on a decline for a long time. You can't blame the boring design of the marauder for that.

Then I looked at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_yE50ouqAU

The Warhammer game might have some potential, but the 2 major titles for this year are tuneups to old classics, the other games seem pretty awful for being on a top-list!

Also, you guys are overrating SCBW! I did in fact play the game quite a bit, but I never got into playing 1v1, because the game was simply too hard, even after a substantial amount of hours put into it. I remember a friend of mine said "I have never met a guy knowing so much about a game", and that was just about the units of each race and their abilities...

if you didn't get into 1v1 you know nothing about bw.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16692 Posts

July 29 2017 19:42 GMT

#315

On July 30 2017 04:29 Hannibaal wrote:
SC2 is dead because it's not such a good game. The only reason it did not die before is because there are not many alternatives, SC2 has not had competition in its genre and so did not lose players before.

that's because RTS games don't provide ROI so Ensemble, EALA, Westwood etc all get shutdown. the counter to this i sometimes hear is.. "everyone sucks at making RTS games". i think people are bored of RTS games the same way they got bored of Gallery Shooters and Dot-Eating-Maze games. SO they're just blaming the games.

Bacillus

Finland1921 Posts

July 29 2017 19:48 GMT

#316

For me the big deal breaker how quickly the game forced me to play seriously. In most games I can fool around, play a little sloppy here and there and still beat my opponent by being better in some other areas. In SC2 it felt like I've barely got comfortable with the basic stuff and I'm already asked to memorize and optimize my build orders and play very disciplined. Too often being better than your opponent was through making less mistakes rather than doing more awesome and immensely challenging stuff. Combine all this with the lack of custom fun maps and you've got a very serious game.

As far as I can tell, there are two options to appreciate the game. You either start taking the game very seriously and try to climb the ladder or give up any hope of actual competitive gameplay and just appreciate the terrible terrible damage and explosions somewhere lower in the ladder. Both suit some groups of people, but players between those two categories aren't going to have that much fun.

lolmlg

619 Posts

July 29 2017 19:51 GMT

#317

Honestly it's embarrassing that people keep saying things like "what great graphics it had" when the graphics were a big reason why it was so garbage for spectators. The first time I tried to watch professional SC2, having never played it and as a professional Brood War watcher, it looked like fucking mud.

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16692 Posts

July 29 2017 19:56 GMT

#318

try watching C&C4 if you want to see bad graphics.

i'd say RTS games have way more competition than they did in the 90s. The big payoff for the most mainstream audience are cool graphics and large scale battles between hundreds of units. This was only possible on a desktop PC in 1995 and so this funneled all the demand into that 1 platform. YOu couldn't watch giant cool big army battles on your Palm Pilot in the 1990s. Now you can play Smartphone games and Tablet games with huge army fights and tactical decisions with slow army buildups.

demand is now splintered amongst all kinds of alternatives that didn't exist during the growth period in the RTS genre during the 1990s. And the RTS games made in the 1990s had lots of flaws and problems.. its not like the games were all amazing.. and the genre kept on growing.

Slydie

1913 Posts

July 29 2017 20:04 GMT

#319

if you didn't get into 1v1 you know nothing about bw.

I was enough into it to download some progamer replays, and watch some VODs. The definitions of being a noob and knowing "nothing" are not exactly set in stone.

However, it was simply so much more relaxing to play tower-defence and moneymaps, and you got some teamplay in there as well.

However, I think we will have both a pro-scene and good laddergames in sc2 for years to come, if nothing else, for the lack of alternatives. And... the price of the game will fall, so some new players will always give it a shot, if they like the campaign.

Jae Zedong

407 Posts

July 29 2017 20:06 GMT

#320

On July 30 2017 04:51 lolmlg wrote:
Honestly it's embarrassing that people keep saying things like "what great graphics it had" when the graphics were a big reason why it was so garbage for spectators. The first time I tried to watch professional SC2, having never played it and as a professional Brood War watcher, it looked like fucking mud.

Yup. The fact that all pros turn down the graphics settings to literal mud should give a hint as to just how goddamn awful the graphics are in a genre that thrives on visual clarity.

No I don't want to see 4000 particle effects every time something happens. Just show me what the hell is going on.

Prev 1 14 15 16 17 18 36 Next All

Please or register to reply.

What wrecked SC2? - Page 16

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming