|
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.
The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it.
CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply.
|
On August 01 2017 10:07 sabas123 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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.
The differences of CSGO and CSS aren't exactly huge. Some new weapons added and different animations/hitboxes. It's essentially the same game. Nothing major changed. Definitely not a totally new game, like SC2 is compared to BW. Funny how you didn't mention Dota 2 as well.
|
On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply.
Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case.
|
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.
The whole point of this thread is that there is a third option. Nothing about the way SC2 turned out suggests they were even remotely aware of or even cared to find out what made BW work. There was no respect for or curiosity towards all the things BW got right by chance. They kind of just arrogantly assumed they could wing it. Hell, the marauder was added after Mike Morhaime had trouble dealing with zealots in early in-house testing. That says quite a bit about the lack of a cohesive vision.
Not that I think the development of BW was any more sophisticated, but they should have realized BW's success was mostly due to luck. That presents a unique opportunity to study and take heed of BW's winning formula that was utterly squandered.
SC2 could have been good had it resembled an actual sequel and not an arrogant usurper with no respect for its heritage.
|
On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case.
So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been happy ? I strongly disagree.
There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games.
|
On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games.
I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it?
|
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. On a surface level SC2 is more similar to BW than almost any other RTS. Or even many RTS sequels are to their predecessors. Most of its units are either direct translations of BW units or remixes, merging/splitting elements.
Rather, I'd say most of what gives SC2 a different character from BW are things like unit movement/clumping and the loss of BW high ground mechanics.
But can you blame any developer for making a new game (as RTS sequels generally are) instead of a graphical update? If there was a failure then I'd guess it was a failure to understand BW well enough (on either a strategic or spectator level) in order to reverse engineer the real meat of the game. I wonder how many of its key designers had watched, say, 1000 proleague games before shipping WoL.
|
On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it?
I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually.
This whole thread is horseshit, btw 
|
On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw
I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D
|
On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D
Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out.
That response shows your insecurity.
|
On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote: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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity.
Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D
|
On August 01 2017 10:24 Jae Zedong 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. The whole point of this thread is that there is a third option. Nothing about the way SC2 turned out suggests they were even remotely aware of or even cared to find out what made BW work. There was no respect for or curiosity towards all the things BW got right by chance. They kind of just arrogantly assumed they could wing it. Hell, the marauder was added after Mike Morhaime had trouble dealing with zealots in early in-house testing. That says quite a bit about the lack of a cohesive vision. Not that I think the development of BW was any more sophisticated, but they should have realized BW's success was mostly due to luck. That presents a unique opportunity to study and take heed of BW's winning formula that was utterly squandered. SC2 could have been good had it resembled an actual sequel and not an arrogant usurper with no respect for its heritage.
This nails it.
SC2 looked great, but some of the devs failed to do their homework.
|
On August 01 2017 11:18 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 09:43 -NegativeZero- wrote:
[quote]
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. The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity. Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D
You respond with ad hominem to facts... That screams insecure to me. I didn't defend SC2 at all... There is nothing to defend. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are about pretty much everything. From Dota2 through CS:GO to SC2.
I'm here at the bw forums, cus maybe... you know... I play the game... duh
|
On August 01 2017 11:25 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:18 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 09:49 petro1987 wrote:
[quote]
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.
The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it. CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity. Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D You respond with ad hominem to facts... That screams insecure to me. I didn't defend SC2 at all... There is nothing to defend. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are about pretty much everything. From Dota2 through CS:GO to SC2. I'm here at the bw forums, cus maybe... you know... I play the game... duh
Now this is just silly. People here are discussing what wrecked SC2. You are here telling the thread is horseshit and that SC2 isn't wrecked. If that is not defending SC2 I don't know what is.
|
On August 01 2017 11:43 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:18 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:18 Pr0wler wrote:
[quote]
The original dota was never an actual game. It was a mod, Valve took that mod and created infrastructure around it.
CS:GO is different game than 1.6... So both cases don't apply. Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case. So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity. Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D You respond with ad hominem to facts... That screams insecure to me. I didn't defend SC2 at all... There is nothing to defend. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are about pretty much everything. From Dota2 through CS:GO to SC2. I'm here at the bw forums, cus maybe... you know... I play the game... duh Now this is just silly. People here are discussing what wrecked SC2. You are here telling the thread is horseshit and that SC2 isn't wrecked. If that is not defending SC2 I don't know what is.
The whole notion that a game that sold multi-million copies and is still popular after 7 years is 'wrecked' is horseshit. If I'm defending anything, it's the human logic. The whole purpose of this thread is circle jerking, so yeah... it's what I said it is.
|
On August 01 2017 11:49 Pr0wler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:43 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:18 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:19 petro1987 wrote:
[quote]
Dota was a game. Not a standalone game? Sure, but it had a gameplay and it was untouched in Dota 2. BWR is a different game than BW then =D. It definitely applies in CS case.
So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree. There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity. Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D You respond with ad hominem to facts... That screams insecure to me. I didn't defend SC2 at all... There is nothing to defend. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are about pretty much everything. From Dota2 through CS:GO to SC2. I'm here at the bw forums, cus maybe... you know... I play the game... duh Now this is just silly. People here are discussing what wrecked SC2. You are here telling the thread is horseshit and that SC2 isn't wrecked. If that is not defending SC2 I don't know what is. The whole notion that a game that sold multi-million copies and is still popular after 7 years is 'wrecked' is horseshit. If I'm defending anything, it's the human logic. The whole purpose of this thread is circle jerking, so yeah... it's what I said it is.
you are wrong about pretty much everything
|
On August 01 2017 12:28 duke91 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 01 2017 11:49 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:43 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:25 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:18 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:12 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 11:08 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 11:02 Pr0wler wrote:On August 01 2017 10:35 petro1987 wrote:On August 01 2017 10:25 Pr0wler wrote:
[quote]
So you are actually saying that, if Blizzard released Remastered as SC2, everyone would've been be happy ? I strongly disagree.
There is a difference between recreating indie mod and releasing a sequel to your own game, this is the difference. CSS and 1.6 are different from CS:GO mechanics wise, so NO it doesn't apply - they are different games. I'm not saying everyone would be happy. But I'm pretty sure recreating a multiplayer gem like BW would probably work out pretty well. Maybe some slight changes like from CSS to CSGO. What I do know though is that trying to do SC2 completely from scratch, while ignoring most of major points that made BW great, wasn't exactly a great idea, was it? I don't know man... It made a lot of money. The game is still popular after 7 years... So yeah, it was pretty good decision actually. This whole thread is horseshit, btw I guess you are a little pissed that the game you like is dwindling while BW is growing. It's ok pal, no need to be so salty. =D Lol I barely even play SC2 anymore - mostly co-op, so it's hardly 'my game'. But you are wrong on pretty much everything you said in the last 2-3 pages, so I decided to point it out. That response shows your insecurity. Are you sure you don't care about sc2 anymore? Then why are you here at BW forums strongly defending it? What exactly I'm insecure about btw? =D You respond with ad hominem to facts... That screams insecure to me. I didn't defend SC2 at all... There is nothing to defend. All I'm doing is pointing out how wrong you are about pretty much everything. From Dota2 through CS:GO to SC2. I'm here at the bw forums, cus maybe... you know... I play the game... duh Now this is just silly. People here are discussing what wrecked SC2. You are here telling the thread is horseshit and that SC2 isn't wrecked. If that is not defending SC2 I don't know what is. The whole notion that a game that sold multi-million copies and is still popular after 7 years is 'wrecked' is horseshit. If I'm defending anything, it's the human logic. The whole purpose of this thread is circle jerking, so yeah... it's what I said it is. you are wrong about pretty much everything
Of course I am. Peace !
|
'wrecked' is relative, obviously
Nothing about the way SC2 turned out suggests they were even remotely aware of or even cared to find out what made BW work. There was no respect for or curiosity towards all the things BW got right by chance. They kind of just arrogantly assumed they could wing it.
yeah it dawned on me when they revealed the replicator ("replicant") in early hots days.
it was clear they didn't have a master plan with respect to the game design.
|
On July 26 2017 21:41 Liquid`Ret wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 21:13 sabas123 wrote:On July 26 2017 20:41 Charoisaur wrote:On July 26 2017 18:58 superjoppe wrote:
SC2 is like Smash 4. Time for a battle in SC2? Just A-move everything because the AI is smart enough to micro the army. Afraid to be edge guarded after been kicked off from the stage in Smash 4? No worry, you will automatically grab the ledge.
For me, the skill cap is way too low in SC2. A crappy person can win a game just due to build order. Reading something like this is always funny. It's so ironic that most other communies dislike sc2 because it's "to hard" while the BW community dislikes sc2 because it's "to easy". The most ironic thing is that most of the people whining here aren't even high level in SC2 (at least high master) bw is harder in a lot of ways but also more forgiving for sure, in sc2 everything happens so quickly and snowballs out of control, and then there's a lot of games that are deciced in a matter of seconds during a big fight bw feels a lot more dynamic, you start the game, there are many timings in the game in which both players fight, micro their units, try to gain edges, untill the game finally ends (small edges don't feel impossible to comeback from like they do in sc2). It doesn't usually just end after 2 massive hugely expensive armies crash into each other either. I'm not sure if you can consider sc2 easier. It's harder to be consistent in sc2, for sure. you need insane mental strenght/concentration, whereas in sc1 if ur a good player, ur just going to beat people cuz ur mechanics are better. Practice is more rewarding in sc1 for that reason. It has a more solid foundation based on pure mechanics. You don't need to feel 100%, slept perfectly, the right nutrition, no drama with your girlfriend, so you can make that perfect split second decision in a big fight and lose the game like you would in sc2. This is why we almost never see anyone dominate in sc2 for longer periods of time, and there is never really a clear 'best' player. Even the best player in sc2 could lose to an average player in sc2 if the early game snowballs, so long as that average player is above a certain skill treshhold. Overall it makes BW more rewarding & less stressfull to play, for me.
Pretty much this.
I never really understood why people blame wcs system, battle.net 2.0, custom games or game difficulty. SC2 is simply not fun and rewarding. Single player campaign is ok. But multiplayer is biggest failure. I believe DK still hasn't got grasp what people really want. I still check TL from time to time, and what I see is 'X' seems strong, we need to nerf. 'Y' seems weak but we wait and see. Whereas he should be fixing fundamental issues like 'Terrible Terrible damage' syndrome and introducing 'soft counter' mechanics to reward micro, tactics and such.
|
On August 01 2017 13:30 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2017 21:41 Liquid`Ret wrote:On July 26 2017 21:13 sabas123 wrote:On July 26 2017 20:41 Charoisaur wrote:On July 26 2017 18:58 superjoppe wrote:
SC2 is like Smash 4. Time for a battle in SC2? Just A-move everything because the AI is smart enough to micro the army. Afraid to be edge guarded after been kicked off from the stage in Smash 4? No worry, you will automatically grab the ledge.
For me, the skill cap is way too low in SC2. A crappy person can win a game just due to build order. Reading something like this is always funny. It's so ironic that most other communies dislike sc2 because it's "to hard" while the BW community dislikes sc2 because it's "to easy". The most ironic thing is that most of the people whining here aren't even high level in SC2 (at least high master) bw is harder in a lot of ways but also more forgiving for sure, in sc2 everything happens so quickly and snowballs out of control, and then there's a lot of games that are deciced in a matter of seconds during a big fight bw feels a lot more dynamic, you start the game, there are many timings in the game in which both players fight, micro their units, try to gain edges, untill the game finally ends (small edges don't feel impossible to comeback from like they do in sc2). It doesn't usually just end after 2 massive hugely expensive armies crash into each other either. I'm not sure if you can consider sc2 easier. It's harder to be consistent in sc2, for sure. you need insane mental strenght/concentration, whereas in sc1 if ur a good player, ur just going to beat people cuz ur mechanics are better. Practice is more rewarding in sc1 for that reason. It has a more solid foundation based on pure mechanics. You don't need to feel 100%, slept perfectly, the right nutrition, no drama with your girlfriend, so you can make that perfect split second decision in a big fight and lose the game like you would in sc2. This is why we almost never see anyone dominate in sc2 for longer periods of time, and there is never really a clear 'best' player. Even the best player in sc2 could lose to an average player in sc2 if the early game snowballs, so long as that average player is above a certain skill treshhold. Overall it makes BW more rewarding & less stressfull to play, for me. Pretty much this. I never really understood why people blame wcs system, battle.net 2.0, custom games or game difficulty. SC2 is simply not fun and rewarding. Single player campaign is ok. But multiplayer is biggest failure. I believe DK still hasn't got grasp what people really want. I still check TL from time to time, and what I see is 'X' seems strong, we need to nerf. 'Y' seems weak but we wait and see. Whereas he should be fixing fundamental issues like 'Terrible Terrible damage' syndrome and introducing 'soft counter' mechanics to reward micro, tactics and such.
It wasn't until this post that I realized how much of the brunt force of the criticism David Kim had to endure until he was blamed for continuing faults of the game long after he stopped being the face of the entire SC2 balance franchise outside of Browder and Moraime's forrays into the public sphere. Poor "DK."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
