|
On August 01 2017 01:18 ProMeTheus112 wrote:
I checked it but don't know what's true or not about it and I'm not interested in this story right now
):
+ Show Spoiler +
To add some substance to this post, I do agree with the posters that have said that animosity between the scenes probably contributed to the "wreck" of SC2 because BW players were less inclined to give SC2 a chance after the "lol give up ur ded gaem and make room for SC2" posters and because SC2 posters saw BW players as elitists; whether either is true or not is irrelevant to how people took it and what impression it left on them. In other words, perception is reality.
|
Outside of korea, sc2 was more successful than BW right? (correct me if I'm wrong). Yet sc2 is dead because it's not as good as BW?
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but it's just strange to see BW elitists talk about sc2 being the dead one. Especially considering RTS is dead genre in general
Edit: oh and btw I'm not disagreeing that BW is better etc. I've never even played it (sc1 was long before my time)
|
sc2 came at a much different time of mass online gaming, it doesn't look "dead" (people playing online no?) but yeah it didn't click with a lot of people for a lot of reasons, I mean many of us I guess have permanently given up on it, I don't want to play it again at all but I would play again AoE2 or War3 honestly (or even total annihilation and others^^ some games may have flaws but still be fun)
I don't even know whether sc2 in terms of # people playing was more successful than BW, but BW was niche in the west after war3 came out I guess (public servers deserted, lack of ladder), private servers was a thing in asia before PGT or abyss maybe more commonly known (gamei, brain ?). It prob helps a lot that they play in PC bangs too, around here PCbangs aka cyber cafes are not very popular, too expensive 
|
The reason why SC2 failed is simple: its not as fun of a game to play as BW. It is not fun to build up for 10 minutes and get your whole army crushed because you looked away for two seconds. Brood War was much more mechanically challenging but battles lasted longer and you had a a plethora of UMS games to play if you didn't want to melee. Arcade wasn't added for 2 years and melee in SC2 is just the same cookie cutter builds every game. Don't even get me started on LotV's loss of early game tactics, there was a whole article written here about the lack of strategic depth in SC2.
Blizzard has failed to address damage over and over again, instead they added units like widow mines to the game.
Another HIGHLY competitive 1v1 game that's very difficult is Street Fighter. If you make a mistake and your opponent punishes you with a Critical Art there is always a chance to come back with smart play, because you get V-Trigger or Bar built up. In SC2 you eat the ultra and then immediately lose the game.. It is unforgiving and not fun, no wonder its a dead game.
|
On August 01 2017 02:22 gumballdead wrote:The reason why SC2 failed is simple: its not as fun of a game to play as BW. It is not fun to build up for 10 minutes and get your whole army crushed because you looked away for two seconds. Brood War was much more mechanically challenging but battles lasted longer and you had a a plethora of UMS games to play if you didn't want to melee. Arcade wasn't added for 2 years and melee in SC2 is just the same cookie cutter builds every game. Don't even get me started on LotV's loss of early game tactics, there was a whole article written here about the lack of strategic depth in SC2.Blizzard has failed to address damage over and over again, instead they added units like widow mines to the game. Another HIGHLY competitive 1v1 game that's very difficult is Street Fighter. If you make a mistake and your opponent punishes you with a Critical Art there is always a chance to come back with smart play, because you get V-Trigger or Bar built up. In SC2 you eat the ultra and then immediately lose the game.. It is unforgiving and not fun, no wonder its a dead game.
As I said in the other post, SC2 is more successful than BW in the west. You're literally saying a game is dead, because it isn't like a game that is twice as dead.
I guess BW elitists forget they don't live in Korea
|
On August 01 2017 02:33 Fango wrote:
As I said in the other post, SC2 is more successful than BW in the west. You're literally saying a game is dead, because it isn't like a game that is twice as dead.
I guess BW elitists forget they don't live in Korea
you can keep playing SC2, no one is trying to stop you if you enjoy it. I'm just explaining why its basically irrelevant in 2017 esports.
FFS, FIFA gets more viewers on twitch than SC2 does.
Casual players have complained about SC2 since day one, blizz didn't listen to the hardcore community and they didn't listen to the casuals instead they created this weird limbo product that only a few thousand people still enjoy.
|
I think if you ask the ordinary person who heard about SC2 in 2010 and picked it up and then abandoned it for Dota/LoL/CS, I'm not very sure they would be receptive to the idea of playing a game with harder mechanics and a tougher learning curve than SC2.
I'm in agreement with saying that SC2 isn't a failure. I think it did fairly well.
|
On July 26 2017 17:08 PhaedrusSCV wrote:
SC2 has amazing graphics, and I was excited for it to come out. Over time, however, it hasn't lived up to my hopes. Its dwindling popularity seems to suggest I am not the only one who is a little disappointed. Why?
Anyone have thoughts on why this is the case? Here are a few of mine, but looking for other input!
Over Engineering
Excessive addition, nerfing and buffing of units to try to engineer epic games is what killed SC2. Rather than letting players come up with creative strategies, Blizzard seems to have tried to prescribe strategies each time they add or change units. In other words, trying to make SC2 perfect made it substandard. Leaving Broodwar messy in many ways allowed players to apply their own problem solving skills to it.
...
100% agreed on the overengineering aspect and your reasoning of it
|
On August 01 2017 02:47 gumballdead wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 02:33 Fango wrote:
As I said in the other post, SC2 is more successful than BW in the west. You're literally saying a game is dead, because it isn't like a game that is twice as dead.
I guess BW elitists forget they don't live in Korea you can keep playing SC2, no one is trying to stop you if you enjoy it. I'm just explaining why its basically irrelevant in 2017 esports. FFS, FIFA gets more viewers on twitch than SC2 does. Casual players have complained about SC2 since day one, blizz didn't listen to the hardcore community and they didn't listen to the casuals instead they created this weird limbo product that only a few thousand people still enjoy.
irrelevant? Someone who give TL the memo then, they should be covering the vibrant competitive Fifa community with all their grand tournaments.
If SC2 esports is dead, I'm not sure how you would describe BW's competitive scene then, because it's not that lively either compared to other esports and would probably match your description of "irrelevant".
|
On August 01 2017 02:33 Fango wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 02:22 gumballdead wrote:The reason why SC2 failed is simple: its not as fun of a game to play as BW. It is not fun to build up for 10 minutes and get your whole army crushed because you looked away for two seconds. Brood War was much more mechanically challenging but battles lasted longer and you had a a plethora of UMS games to play if you didn't want to melee. Arcade wasn't added for 2 years and melee in SC2 is just the same cookie cutter builds every game. Don't even get me started on LotV's loss of early game tactics, there was a whole article written here about the lack of strategic depth in SC2.Blizzard has failed to address damage over and over again, instead they added units like widow mines to the game. Another HIGHLY competitive 1v1 game that's very difficult is Street Fighter. If you make a mistake and your opponent punishes you with a Critical Art there is always a chance to come back with smart play, because you get V-Trigger or Bar built up. In SC2 you eat the ultra and then immediately lose the game.. It is unforgiving and not fun, no wonder its a dead game. As I said in the other post, SC2 is more successful than BW in the west. You're literally saying a game is dead, because it isn't like a game that is twice as dead. I guess BW elitists forget they don't live in Korea
We're not living in an alternative reality where Korea doesn't exist. Professional Brood War may be dead because Blizzard killed it, but Brood War as a game is in no way shape or form twice as dead as Starcraft 2 in the current climate, one nation's passion for the game prevents that from being a true statement. The love Korea has for Brood War has allowed the scene to prosper without any support from Blizzard, and has in fact convinced Blizzard to take an active involvement with all the business about the remastered version of Brood War.
https://www.fuzic.nl/events/?order_by=start&order=desc
From a quick search, it seems that in the year of 2017, the only Starcraft 2 tournament that had over 50,000 peak concurrent viewership on Twitch was the semi-finals and finals for IEM.
Just a month or so earlier to IEM, the semi-finals of the ASL had over 200,000 peak concurrent viewership on AfreecaTV (Korea's streaming platform of choice) alone, and had over 300,000 peak concurrent viewership if you include all streaming platforms around the world.
http://news20.busan.com/controller/newsController.jsp?newsId=20170117000394
http://bbs.afreecatv.com/app/index.php?board=now_report&pageNo=5&b_no=1418&control=view
The most recent Brood War show-matches that happened a couple of days ago had around 90,000 peak concurrent viewership on NAVER, around 100,000 peak concurrent viewership on AfreecaTV, and had well over 300,000 peak concurrent viewership if you include all streaming platforms around the world.
https://nbamania.com/g2/bbs/board.php?bo_table=freetalk&wr_id=3048631
Just as it annoys you when people here spread misinformation about your game of choice, it annoys me when people like you spread misinformation about my game of choice. Go defend your game, but be accurate with your statements if you want to drag Brood War down in this shitfest of a thread.
|
On July 31 2017 22:33 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 31 2017 17:58 Ancestral wrote:
I know the joke, but if you asked 100 people and got 300 answers, then still 75% would be shared between more than fifty percent of the participants. And then all the rest would be random personal gripes. There are a lot of consistent themes itt, even though some people give literally opposite reasons.
But then, some reasons seem to be opposite but aren't. e.g., people say both "it's too hard" and "it's too easy," but are referring to different aspects sometimes. Where are you getting these numbers (75%, 50%)? I don't see what's preventing those 300 answers from being completely unique.
We could make a poll and check
|
Letmelose's name is a fucking challenge. The hero BW forums need, always with the quality content. #1 Letmelose fan right here.
|
DOPE post my Letmelose!
One question:
On August 01 2017 04:10 Letmelose wrote:From a quick search, it seems that in the year of 2017, the only Starcraft 2 tournament that had over 50,000 peak concurrent viewership on Twitch was the semi-finals and finals for IEM.
Just a month or so earlier to IEM, the semi-finals of the ASL had over 200,000 peak concurrent viewership on AfreecaTV (Korea's streaming platform of choice) alone, and had over 300,000 peak concurrent viewership if you include all streaming platforms around the world.
How much of the discrepancy of 100,000 between Afreeca peak viewership and total viewership can be attributed to foreign viewers? It would be hilarious if foreigners alone beat the SC2 peak total viewership.
|
It is harder to come up with a list of things that SC2 did right.
What went wrong?
Ugly, washed out GFX that make it hard to see what is going on.
Terrible custom ums game system that saw the same dozen maps played.
Over emphasis on competitive ladder play.
No LAN
No chat rooms for the first year or so
Unit sounds not as good especially zergs which were dreadful.
Blob vs blob gameplay mostly due to the engine
Gimmicks like adepts and useless macro sinks like mules and queen larva spawn
|
On August 01 2017 04:10 Letmelose wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 02:33 Fango wrote:On August 01 2017 02:22 gumballdead wrote:The reason why SC2 failed is simple: its not as fun of a game to play as BW. It is not fun to build up for 10 minutes and get your whole army crushed because you looked away for two seconds. Brood War was much more mechanically challenging but battles lasted longer and you had a a plethora of UMS games to play if you didn't want to melee. Arcade wasn't added for 2 years and melee in SC2 is just the same cookie cutter builds every game. Don't even get me started on LotV's loss of early game tactics, there was a whole article written here about the lack of strategic depth in SC2.Blizzard has failed to address damage over and over again, instead they added units like widow mines to the game. Another HIGHLY competitive 1v1 game that's very difficult is Street Fighter. If you make a mistake and your opponent punishes you with a Critical Art there is always a chance to come back with smart play, because you get V-Trigger or Bar built up. In SC2 you eat the ultra and then immediately lose the game.. It is unforgiving and not fun, no wonder its a dead game. As I said in the other post, SC2 is more successful than BW in the west. You're literally saying a game is dead, because it isn't like a game that is twice as dead. I guess BW elitists forget they don't live in Korea We're not living in an alternative reality where Korea doesn't exist. Professional Brood War may be dead because Blizzard killed it, but Brood War as a game is in no way shape or form twice as dead as Starcraft 2 in the current climate, one nation's passion for the game prevents that from being a true statement. The love Korea has for Brood War has allowed the scene to prosper without any support from Blizzard, and has in fact convinced Blizzard to take an active involvement with all the business about the remastered version of Brood War. https://www.fuzic.nl/events/?order_by=start&order=descFrom a quick search, it seems that in the year of 2017, the only Starcraft 2 tournament that had over 50,000 peak concurrent viewership on Twitch was the semi-finals and finals for IEM. Just a month or so earlier to IEM, the semi-finals of the ASL had over 200,000 peak concurrent viewership on AfreecaTV (Korea's streaming platform of choice) alone, and had over 300,000 peak concurrent viewership if you include all streaming platforms around the world. http://news20.busan.com/controller/newsController.jsp?newsId=20170117000394http://bbs.afreecatv.com/app/index.php?board=now_report&pageNo=5&b_no=1418&control=viewThe most recent Brood War show-matches that happened a couple of days ago had around 90,000 peak concurrent viewership on NAVER, around 100,000 peak concurrent viewership on AfreecaTV, and had well over 300,000 peak concurrent viewership if you include all streaming platforms around the world. https://nbamania.com/g2/bbs/board.php?bo_table=freetalk&wr_id=3048631Just as it annoys you when people here spread misinformation about your game of choice, it annoys me when people like you spread misinformation about my game of choice. Go defend your game, but be accurate with your statements if you want to drag Brood War down in this shitfest of a thread.
Take viewership doesn't matter much if there's not many big tournaments or sponsors in the scene.
Also keep in mind the absolutely drought between Brood War tournaments versus the abundance of Starcraft 2 tournaments.
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Leagues/Recent_Tournaments
On August 01 2017 05:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
It is harder to come up with a list of things that SC2 did right.
What went wrong?
Ugly, washed out GFX that make it hard to see what is going on.
Terrible custom ums game system that saw the same dozen maps played.
Over emphasis on competitive ladder play.
No LAN
No chat rooms for the first year or so
Unit sounds not as good especially zergs which were dreadful.
Blob vs blob gameplay mostly due to the engine
Gimmicks like adepts and useless macro sinks like mules and queen larva spawn
It wasnt an entire year before chatrooms. I don't think that mattered. A lot of of the most popular games out didnt have chatrooms for longer, or still dont have chatrooms, same with LAN.
"over emphasis on competitive ladder play" as opposed to what?
|
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years. There still is a following.
|
On August 01 2017 09:26 [F_]aths wrote:
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years.
i think blizzard was kind of stuck in a lose-lose situation. bw got a lot of things right purely by chance. so for sc2 they had 2 options: they could either replicate all the units exactly and get criticized by the game reviewers and casual players for lack of innovation, or they could try to add new units and features and run the risk of upsetting bw's delicate balance and unit interactions.
|
On August 01 2017 09:43 -NegativeZero- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 09:26 [F_]aths wrote:
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years.
i think blizzard was kind of stuck in a lose-lose situation. bw got a lot of things right purely by chance. so for sc2 they had 2 options: they could either replicate all the units exactly and get criticized by the game reviewers and casual players for lack of innovation, or they could try to add new units and features and run the risk of upsetting bw's delicate balance and unit interactions.
Isn't your first option exactly what Dota 2 and CS did? Do you think they have been successful or not? That's exactly what they ended up doing with BWR, btw.
|
On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 09:43 -NegativeZero- wrote:On August 01 2017 09:26 [F_]aths wrote:
I agree Blizzard sometimes patched too soon in order to get the balance right and yes, some mechanics always feel out of place.
However I am not sure if the proposition that SC2 died is correct. BW had a very good run in just one country, while SC2 had a run on many countries. Now at the advent of a remastered BW, we might ask why BW is still sought after while the interest in SC2 is declining. But how large is the overall interest in BW?
SC2 did some things wrong in my opinion, for example Protoss building shapes are no longer that unique than in SC1. And the deathball issue is present in both casual and pro games. But I think the memory of BW is much better than it actual was.
I watched the infamous MSL finals via the live stream where there was power outage in the Jaedong vs Flash match. That level of incompetence would be not acceptable today.
What choice did Blizzard have? Not making SC2? I think that the announcement of SC2 rekindled the interest for SC1.
Making SC2 like BW just with a graphic update? That means to make a game which already exists.
Catering only to existing fans seems hardly like a wise business decision. Blizzard tried to bring new players (and viewers) in and succeeded at that for years.
i think blizzard was kind of stuck in a lose-lose situation. bw got a lot of things right purely by chance. so for sc2 they had 2 options: they could either replicate all the units exactly and get criticized by the game reviewers and casual players for lack of innovation, or they could try to add new units and features and run the risk of upsetting bw's delicate balance and unit interactions. Isn't your first option exactly what Dota 2 and CS did? Do you think they have been successful or not? That's exactly what they ended up doing with BWR, btw.
CSGO only got populair because of the skins/betting. before that it was deader than sc ever was.
Ow and btw, CSGO isn't an pure 1 on 1 copy from either source nor 1.6 IIRC and had some balance changes.
|
For me, it was the way the units moved. I might have played more SC2 if it was more of a legacy sequel, with the same mechanics and feel of the original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media.giphy.com/media/u52gRNybAmAy4/giphy.gif)
