EPTWhat wrecked SC2? - Page 17
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17680 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
SC2 is not declining merely because the genre is declining, seriously you can't just ignore all of its flaws :/ | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On July 30 2017 05:10 ProMeTheus112 wrote: there is a lack of good RTS coming out, possibly most developpers have limited understanding of the genre SC2 is not declining merely because the genre is declining, seriously you can't just ignore all of its flaws :/ Jimmy raynors logic is perfect. Its not the quality that matters, its the name of the genre. No one in the world is no longer eating icecream, so its the declining of icecream that is the cause and not because icecream is full of virus. See this list right here, look how few developers are making icecream? See? Very few. The icecream they make still has virus but thats not the issue, its the decline of the icecream that is causing it. | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
| ||
|
Striker.superfreunde
Germany1120 Posts
In non chronological nor kind of impact order: Deathball Short fights and one army wins. Who avoids the fight the smartest. Pace of the game Critical. Some say good, some bad. Lack of socialising Perhaps it's the nature of 1v1 Add-ons Blizzard's philosophy only one expansion per game went down the drain. Doesn't make things easier. Demography People get older and have different priorities Concurrence RTS maybe the direct concurrence, but mobas (and other games with the same business model) are indirect concurrence. Balance It's important to keep a game like starcraft unbalanced. Business meta 2.0 To little to less Solutions to (known) problems came to slow. Esport To much wanted - sacrificed the basics It's still a very good game tho! | ||
|
Slydie
1963 Posts
On July 30 2017 05:25 Foxxan wrote: Jimmy raynors logic is perfect. Its not the quality that matters, its the name of the genre. No one in the world is no longer eating icecream, so its the declining of icecream that is the cause and not because icecream is full of virus. See this list right here, look how few developers are making icecream? See? Very few. The icecream they make still has virus but thats not the issue, its the decline of the icecream that is causing it. No, you are wrong. Let's say the latest Landrover SUV is not living up to the expectations, but the SUV sales 20 years ago was great. Then, add to the fact that Landrover still has a 90% marketshare, every other SUV released the last 10 years have been small blips on the radar, and SUV sales in general has gone down 90% the last 15 years. Do you blame the design of the new rear-view mirror, or is the market simply shifing towards other types of cars, and the fail is caused by the fact that it is an SUV, rather than the quality of the product itself? | ||
|
stilt
France2755 Posts
A lot of games are/were extremely frustrating especially against toss and criticism over protoss design and overall design of the game has been already adressed since 7 years. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17680 Posts
On July 30 2017 05:25 Foxxan wrote: Jimmy raynors logic is perfect. Its not the quality that matters, its the name of the genre. No one in the world is no longer eating icecream, so its the declining of icecream that is the cause and not because icecream is full of virus. See this list right here, look how few developers are making icecream? See? Very few. The icecream they make still has virus but thats not the issue, its the decline of the icecream that is causing it. no, people are bored of the genre's basic mechanics. so they label every RTS game as lousy and claim no one knows how to make RTS games any longer... even though.. the longer you do something the better you get at it. a genre's games get better as the genre matures. similarly look at dot-eating-maze games. one of the worst game in the dot-eating-maze-games ever made comes out in 1980 and it breaks records everywhere. it impacts mainstream culture the way almost no game has before or since. time passes...people slowing get bored of the basic mechanics of the genre. much better dot-eating-maze games come out and they can't make a fraction of what the original record breaker made or have any cultural impact whatsoever. you can say this same scenario with Space Invaders and hte gallery shooter genre. games got better as the genre got older. interest waned even though the games got better. same shit with RTS... different decade. there is a lot more to a game's success than the quality of the game. Fortunately, ATVI is 1000X better at monetizing the RTS genre than any one else... so we still get some pretty good support from Blizzard even though the entire genre is way way beyond is "best before" date. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On July 30 2017 05:58 stilt wrote: I didn't play sc2 since 1,5 years and did not watch a lot of it anymore but each time I'm seeing stuff with protoss involving, I shiver, the design of this race in hots and its dominance though the extension made me not interesting in lotv anymore just like many ppl get disgusted by the bl/infest. A lot of games are/were extremely frustrating especially against toss and criticism over protoss design and overall design of the game has been already adressed since 7 years. This, a lot of poor stuff that has happened but no longer is in the game anymore seems to be one of the issues. People don't play LotV because of 4 gate, Broodlord/Infestor, initial Swarm Host design... I remember how D3 was criticized and how D2 was superior to it because it had seasons. Well, seasons got added and people quickly found other stuff to dislike. Similar situation here, some just will never look positively at SC2 when their initial standpoint is that the game is bad and refuse to take another look. I'm not sure why I even join the discussion with such stupid hypothesis, SC2 is not "wrecked"... wait, this is Brood War forum, what else could I expect on TL. But I'll agree fully with the statement that SC1 is a 'non-engineered' game, most of the things that people regard as important to BW were completely unintended, also the whole popularity of the game came from random Korean idea | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: no, people are bored of the genre's basic mechanics. so they label every RTS game as lousy and claim no one knows how to make RTS games any longer... even though.. the longer you do something the better you get at it. a genre's games get better as the genre matures. similarly look at dot-eating-maze games. one of the worst game in the dot-eating-maze-game genre comes out in 1980 and it breaks records everywhere. it impacts mainstream culture the way almost no game has before or since. time passes...people slowing get bored of the basic mechanics of the genre. much better dot-eating-maze games come out and they can't make a fraction of what the original record breaker made or have any cultural impact whatsoever. you can say this same scenario with Space Invaders and hte gallery shooter genre. games got better as the genre got older. interest waned. same shit with RTS... different decade. there is a lot more to a game's success than the quality of the game. People showing interest to something new. What a surprise. People getting bored of something that lacked depth from the beginning? Who could see that coming. lets end here you win | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:30 aQuaSC wrote: This, a lot of poor stuff that has happened but no longer is in the game anymore seems to be one of the issues. People don't play LotV because of 4 gate, Broodlord/Infestor, initial Swarm Host design... I remember how D3 was criticized and how D2 was superior to it because it had seasons. Well, seasons got added and people quickly found other stuff to dislike. Similar situation here, some just will never look positively at SC2 when their initial standpoint is that the game is bad and refuse to take another look. I'm not sure why I even join the discussion with such stupid hypothesis, SC2 is not "wrecked"... wait, this is Brood War forum, what else could I expect on TL. But I'll agree fully with the statement that SC1 is a 'non-engineered' game, most of the things that people regard as important to BW were completely unintended, also the whole popularity of the game came from random Korean idea Bad move bringing up Diablo 3 as that game actually refutes your point. Diablo 3 went from being pretty universally disliked to being considered good by almost everyone, thanks to the dev team finally getting its act together. Diablo 3 proves it is possible to turn a negative trend by making correct decisions – something the SC2 dev team rarely have. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
ton of ppl left D3 at that point, many of those who stayed or came back seem rather happy with it now (not all, kripp gave exemple of bad stuff like the diablo "remake" in D3), I heard it got a lot better in a lot of ways, its not just about seasons though. Some guys were also talking about how end game is all about wearing certain OP sets of items and doing repetitive and boring rifts. Personally I'm not bothering with this game any more, not to mention the artistic direction had too many poor elements. Many players still prefer D2 to D3, I dunno but possibly there are more D2 players right now than D3? but blizz hides their numbers now D3 was actually the biggest hit to blizzard reputation. I think I did read a few times how past bad decisions of D3 are still damaging it today despite the improvements. When I look at it it doesn't look nearly as fun as D2. the new games are inferior to the older games, cause the company has turned to industrious money making with heavy advertising and diluting quality for quantity. yeah like fast food, bad food, still sells | ||
|
Jae Zedong
407 Posts
| ||
|
Nickemwit
United States253 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: no, people are bored of the genre's basic mechanics. so they label every RTS game as lousy and claim no one knows how to make RTS games any longer... even though.. the longer you do something the better you get at it. a genre's games get better as the genre matures. similarly look at dot-eating-maze games. one of the worst game in the dot-eating-maze-games ever made comes out in 1980 and it breaks records everywhere. it impacts mainstream culture the way almost no game has before or since. time passes...people slowing get bored of the basic mechanics of the genre. much better dot-eating-maze games come out and they can't make a fraction of what the original record breaker made or have any cultural impact whatsoever. you can say this same scenario with Space Invaders and hte gallery shooter genre. games got better as the genre got older. interest waned even though the games got better. same shit with RTS... different decade. there is a lot more to a game's success than the quality of the game. Fortunately, ATVI is 1000X better at monetizing the RTS genre than any one else... so we still get some pretty good support from Blizzard even though the entire genre is way way beyond is "best before" date. This is absolutely not true. Every competitive game that has been really beloved by a diehard fanbase has subsequently been alienated by a sequel that's comparatively shit. BW --> SC2. Quake 2/3 --> 4. CS 1.6 --> Source. Melee --> Brawl/Smash4. MvC2 --> MvC3. SF3 --> SF4 --> SF5. DOTA --> League (people might argue that this isn't a sequel, but at its inception, League was a blatant ripoff of DOTA). People overcomplicate the flaws with SC2's evolution. The doom and gloom people in WoL were the most accurate. LaLush wrote about how Blizzard killed micro, like moving shot, because all anyone talked about was macro. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, but controlling your units to outmaneuver and crush your opponents is much more fun than building shit in your base. And Destiny was pretty on point about how Blizzard was fucking shit up for the casual base. At its core, SC2 is not a very fun game. It's not "too competitive" or "dead genre," it's that the game has little to offer any demographic. You want a sick, rewarding, hardcore solo game? Games of the past are much more appealing than SC2. You want something casual and fun? MOBAs or whatever else are the most popular games, so go play those. SC2 needed to do SOMETHING better. Why does no one ever talk about teams in StarCraft? Blizzard COULD have made 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 real formats with cool maps and a balance philosophy that took this into account. Blizzard COULD have had an interface that encouraged custom games and casual play more. Blizzard COULD have made a fucking sick 1v1 game so that people like Idra hadn't been so vocal that the game sucks ass. StarCraft 2 is a casualty of mediocre and worn out game design based on a design philosophy that is completely out of touch with any potential player base. With how much hype was behind its release and how much time went into creating it, it's a pathetic product. It brings virtually nothing new to the RTS genre and takes away some of the good things that existed in it. People have had way too much faith in Blizzard. Since Diablo 2, their game design has been timid and they haven't listened to any people who give meaningfully bold and decisive feedback. | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On July 30 2017 07:00 ShrieK wrote: This is absolutely not true. Every competitive game that has been really beloved by a diehard fanbase has subsequently been alienated by a sequel that's comparatively shit. BW --> SC2. Quake 2/3 --> 4. CS 1.6 --> Source. Melee --> Brawl/Smash4. MvC2 --> MvC3. SF3 --> SF4 --> SF5. DOTA --> League (people might argue that this isn't a sequel, but at its inception, League was a blatant ripoff of DOTA). ME2 -> ME3 | ||
|
Slydie
1963 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:39 Foxxan wrote: People showing interest to something new. What a surprise. Your argument is beating me hands down. People getting bored of something that lacked depth from the beginning? Who could see that coming. 10/10 argument, lets end here you win City simulator games, turn-based strategy, tychoon games, flight-simulators... Deep games can also go out of fashion. As for the RTS genre as a whole, I believe there are some key problems: 1: A long, steep learning curve, gamers expect to get the basics have fun right away more than a generation ago. 2: Controlling things that are not in your vision with the keyboard. 3: Not only keeping an eye on the minimap, but moving your screen around to control many units in locations far apart at once. 4: Managing resources and microing at once. I do not know that many gamers from 7 to 20 nowdays, but FPS games seem more resistant to the tides of time. As for the guys that would have played RTS 20 years ago, they play minecraft now, and focus more on their creative skills instead. Even MOBAs might not last forever, but I believe well made adventure- and RPGs will keep having an audience, especially if VR takes off. | ||
|
aQuaSC
717 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:42 Jae Zedong wrote: Bad move bringing up Diablo 3 as that game actually refutes your point. Diablo 3 went from being pretty universally disliked to being considered good by almost everyone, thanks to the dev team finally getting its act together. Diablo 3 proves it is possible to turn a negative trend by making correct decisions – something the SC2 dev team rarely have. Maybe it was a bad move, but it was motivated by constantly seeing comments about D2 being much better than D3 even very recently. Probably we've seen different comments about it in different places. See ProMeTheus112's post above for instance, it's the worst Blizzard game to date there | ||
|
Kenny_mk
50 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:50 ProMeTheus112 wrote: D3 when it come out, seasons were not even the most important missing when compared to D2, D2 itemization and stat system was just a ton more interesting (the whole char customization and progression system basically), also some of the mechanics and difficulty, also the chat (many things in D3 were sacrificed and twisted to play in favor of auction house, it was rly rly terrible) ton of ppl left D3 at that point, many of those who stayed or came back seem rather happy with it now (not all, kripp gave exemple of bad stuff like the diablo "remake" in D3), I heard it got a lot better in a lot of ways, its not just about seasons though. Some guys were also talking about how end game is all about wearing certain OP sets of items and doing repetitive and boring rifts. Personally I'm not bothering with this game any more, not to mention the artistic direction had too many poor elements. Many players still prefer D2 to D3, I dunno but possibly there are more D2 players right now than D3? but blizz hides their numbers now D3 was actually the biggest hit to blizzard reputation. I think I did read a few times how past bad decisions of D3 are still damaging it today despite the improvements. When I look at it it doesn't look nearly as fun as D2. I agree with everything except with the artistic direction which is just brilliant to me, this with the gameplay being less repetittive than most hack n slash are the things that make launch the game for 2 weeks every years or so. The lack of "purpose" ie item & character customization is what make the game bad to me.After PoE, D3 have no point at all. To me i would say though more hard,BW feel more "fun" (while much more unpleasant to play) at least at low level than SC2 , which, while maybe in a less good shape of BW, is a game more serious and maybe too well constructed Also as a big fan of the first Doom i must says here i can understand the BW fans : the movements feels & gameplay of the original Doom make it unique for me, except for Doom it's mostly solo gameplay that is still amazing,with the original engine feelings and the projectile based monsters that are bound with it (for those who does'nt know those game were released as open source and still have solids communities with amazing creators check it out) But also thanks to Pwad (levels/mods) that could be made easily : more gameplay time for work time if you compare with modern fps ,but still lots of creative possibilities, Solos levels created long time after Doom2 was released have a much more refined gameplay with the original setup (same monsters&weapons), the gameplay here too evovled "alone" on the same monsters stats&weapons on a 20 years scale. Honestly, the originals game levels feels fun yet lame after you tried those. The comparison also stand for arcade of SC2, where the lack of both great maked solo maps (and visibility) and fun multiplayer maps is disturbing, and probably wrecked SC2 more than all the rest,it's probably because 1) Galaxy editor is more complicated 2) I suspect also most people get less into sci-fi theme (more "geeky") than the fantasy , aka WC3 where lots of people were playing customs.Not competitive players, but surely both casuals & mapsmakers would'nt "trip" on a Starcraft based custom maps like they do in it's time in WC3 maps with all the "cool" creature (in europe). Because the arcades games are boring on SC2, there were innovations but not maps that would attract people like on WC3, only desert strike is played consistently, and while polished this map is lame, too much time-consuming. On WC3 there was X Heroe siege, more towers defense, fortress survival. Legion TD still rocks and people are playing it actively. The SC2 versions is less fun to play to me, the SC design as well as pace make it less enjoyable. Also the 2.0 Bnet initial fail is astonishing to me (no chats awful arcade system with no "opens games" tab), much more than balance/design issues than people complain about , it makes me wonder if it was'nt planned. On top of that, while i enjoy it very much, the design of the races&game for 1v1 make the teams games poorly enjoyable, and also you need the correct setup to play it (Macro 3v3 was litterally A click &pray to me) unlike WC3. All this led to poor casual player retention which hurt the game in the first place. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Ancestral
United States3230 Posts
On July 30 2017 06:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: no, people are bored of the genre's basic mechanics. so they label every RTS game as lousy and claim no one knows how to make RTS games any longer... even though.. the longer you do something the better you get at it. a genre's games get better as the genre matures. similarly look at dot-eating-maze games. one of the worst game in the dot-eating-maze-games ever made comes out in 1980 and it breaks records everywhere. it impacts mainstream culture the way almost no game has before or since. time passes...people slowing get bored of the basic mechanics of the genre. much better dot-eating-maze games come out and they can't make a fraction of what the original record breaker made or have any cultural impact whatsoever. you can say this same scenario with Space Invaders and hte gallery shooter genre. games got better as the genre got older. interest waned even though the games got better. same shit with RTS... different decade. there is a lot more to a game's success than the quality of the game. Fortunately, ATVI is 1000X better at monetizing the RTS genre than any one else... so we still get some pretty good support from Blizzard even though the entire genre is way way beyond is "best before" date. FPSs are as old as Rob Halford is gay and are still huge. Dune II and Wolfenstein 3D were both released in 1992, and were, if not the first, the genre-defining titles. | ||
| ||
