|
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.
I agree with everything you're saying, but I also don't think it's fair to say this is the reason why we don't see anyone dominate for longer periods. SC2 balance patches have been in a constant state of flux, and LofV isn't even 2 years old, and it's also worth noting that as the popularity has declined we have some of the oldest veterans in Korea still going strong.
|
There's no reason to assume that SC2 should succeed because of its predecessor. To me, SC2 is a different game entirely with some overlap here and there. Changing the graphics engine and mechanics is much more than it sounds like on the surface. Especially a game whose technology hasn't had time to evolve throughout the years. It ultimately makes the game feel different.
To me, the most different aspect was the fact that it felt more like a pure macro type of game. BW was awesome because it had a nice balance of both micro and macro. Again, mechanics, the way how units clump together, etc. all add to lean towards a more macro focused game.
|
People saying sc2 died because its too easy... Are you serious? The difficulty of starcraft it is what puts people off playing it. The so called "harder" brood war is 10x more dead in the west and will never as popular as sc2 was. And yet BW purists claim sc2 died because its not a mirror image of the original.
Sc2 is not as big as other esports because it actually has competition with other games now. Also its a 1v1 game, and its much more difficult/stressful to play in comparison.
Mobas require less skill to enjoy and even be competitive. You can get a high rank in csgo based of how fast you can point and click. Hearthstone has zero mechanical demand. Those are also mostly games you play with your friends.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned Starcraft has had a relatively stable fanbase for years now (along with people preaching ded gaem the whole time). Its not as big as 2011, big deal. Just because its not at its peak, or because it's not the number 1 esport, doesn't mean it's dead.
|
On July 27 2017 00:04 Fango wrote:
People saying sc2 died because its too easy... Are you serious? The difficulty of starcraft it is what puts people off playing it. The so called "harder" brood war is 10x more dead in the west and will never as popular as sc2 was. And yet BW purists claim sc2 died because its not a mirror image of the original.
Sc2 is not as big as other esports because it actually has competition with other games now. Also its a 1v1 game, and its much more difficult/stressful to play in comparison.
Mobas require less skill to enjoy and even be competitive. You can get a high rank in csgo based of how fast you can point and click. Hearthstone has zero mechanical demand. Those are also mostly games you play with your friends.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned Starcraft has had a relatively stable fanbase for years now (along with people preaching ded gaem the whole time). Its not as big as 2011, big deal. Just because its not at its peak, or because it's not the number 1 esport, doesn't mean it's dead.
I wouldn't say it's too easy, but it is undoubtedly relatively easier than bw. That being said, your opponent has just as much advantages and disadvantages as you do, so yes, that contributes to the competitive nature of sc2. Level of difficulty of a game usually doesn't have much to do with competition. Poker or go is a very simple game, yet very competitive at the same time.
EDIT: Please don't misunderstand when I say poker or go is a simple game. I meant in terms of mechanics and rules which are easy to pick up for just about anyone.
|
I'll never understand how people not paid by Blizzard can say LotV is the best SC 2 has ever been. I played against one race 15% of the time. "They" have no one ranked in the top 10 of ELO. The balance numbers have never been worse. It's the same build every game. Then again, if an expansion completely removed Terran and Zerg from the game, I'd view that as a huge improvement...
|
On July 26 2017 23:53 Treemonkeys 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. I agree with everything you're saying, but I also don't think it's fair to say this is the reason why we don't see anyone dominate for longer periods. SC2 balance patches have been in a constant state of flux, and LofV isn't even 2 years old, and it's also worth noting that as the popularity has declined we have some of the oldest veterans in Korea still going strong.
Yeah even in sc2 players some players have managed to be extremely dominant during a certain time span/in a certain matchup.
soO's ZvZ, PartinG's PvT or Inno's TvZ are good examples of that. The constant balance patches are a major factor why nobody can really dominate in sc2 imo.
|
On July 27 2017 00:21 playa wrote:
I'll never understand how people not paid by Blizzard can say LotV is the best SC 2 has ever been. I played against one race 15% of the time. "They" have no one ranked in the top 10 of ELO. The balance numbers have never been worse. It's the same build every game. Then again, if an expansion completely removed Terran and Zerg from the game, I'd view that as a huge improvement...
I dont play on a high enough level (4.6k MMR on EU) where those balance issues make a difference. And I dont play on a high enough level where you have to play a single certain build. Most people just dont play on a level where this matters.
|
watered down demand: in 1999 i couldn't watch awesome giant army battles on my Palm Pilot running on Palm OS. Now i can get my giant army battle fix in any one of 1000 ways on a dozen platforms. in the 1990s it was only possible on a desktop PC.
declining interest in the genre: when an entire genre faces declining interest even games that are better than the games that made the genre famous make a lot less money. Later on in a genre's life span great games can end up with a small community.
expectations: plenty of other RTS games and games older than Brood War have an active community evolving the meta and the communities are much smaller... everyone is having fun though.
who cares about scene size as long as you're having fun plenty of competitive games have much smaller communities than SC2 and people are having fun.
Online Team Play Was Not viable in 1995 by 2005 it was Team games are more fun for the general user than those 1-on-1 solitary hermit games played in 1995. In 1995 it was considered awesome to get a 1-on-1 game going with low latency. Now, its 6 on 6 plus a private server with the server acting as the arbiter of reality. For most players team play is more social and more silly fun.
SC2 is a great game and its currently in a great state. Its community is small relative to Overwatch, WoW, or Diablo. but.. who cares as long as you're having fun. Relative to Tecmo Bowl, NHL '94, and RA2 the SC2 community is huge... and those scenes have been going for 13, 24 or 29 years.
|
|
|
The same thing that wrecked BW. Game is too hard and kids don't like it. People now think that Dota 2 is the standard for hardcore, unforgiving and extremely mechanically demanding game... This is how low the bar is. The harder games like SC2 are played by a small group of gamers that have the patience and the time to learn them. Still SC2 somehow managed to gather 200k with the war chest within a week... which shows some signs of life - not completely dead.
|
On July 27 2017 00:04 Fango wrote:
People saying sc2 died because its too easy... Are you serious? The difficulty of starcraft it is what puts people off playing it. The so called "harder" brood war is 10x more dead in the west and will never as popular as sc2 was. And yet BW purists claim sc2 died because its not a mirror image of the original.
Sc2 is not as big as other esports because it actually has competition with other games now. Also its a 1v1 game, and its much more difficult/stressful to play in comparison.
Mobas require less skill to enjoy and even be competitive. You can get a high rank in csgo based of how fast you can point and click. Hearthstone has zero mechanical demand. Those are also mostly games you play with your friends.
Besides, as far as I'm concerned Starcraft has had a relatively stable fanbase for years now (along with people preaching ded gaem the whole time). Its not as big as 2011, big deal. Just because its not at its peak, or because it's not the number 1 esport, doesn't mean it's dead.
It is mechanically easier while being emotional stressful.
BW is about keeping high level decision making throughout the game while SC2 is about deciding the winner of the game in 1 or 2 battles.
|
On July 26 2017 17:47 HaN- wrote:According to HuK, ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hH8ZqXt.png)
difficulty of game and solo game are good points.
that other stuff...meh. in the early to mid 90s there was lots more wrong with RTS games; the buzz of watching dozens of soldiers fight and die on screen in #s not possible in the 1980s made all the horrible flaws of those early games all worth it.
the RTS game genre grew by leaps and bounds from 1982 to 1995 despite the games being horribly flawed. game quality is not the be-all and end-all when it comes to popularity.
anybody remember the total BS their dad had to go through to get a simple 1v1 game going in 1994? The "gaming experience" of RTS back then was fucking horrible... and the genre grew any way.
|
On July 27 2017 00:21 playa wrote:
I'll never understand how people not paid by Blizzard can say LotV is the best SC 2 has ever been. I played against one race 15% of the time. "They" have no one ranked in the top 10 of ELO. The balance numbers have never been worse. It's the same build every game. Then again, if an expansion completely removed Terran and Zerg from the game, I'd view that as a huge improvement...
I like it the most right now, the game does have variation, has the most diverse amount of unit interaction, and it feels like multi-tasking is rewarded.
A few viable builds does not indicate poor balance, otherwise ZvT was terrible in BW(which it wasn't).
And the balance was waaaaay worse in GomTvT, patchzeg era, or early HOTS.
|
This should be probably moved from the BW forum
|
agreed with Ret, the slower pace of broodwar makes it more forgiving even if you have to click more to be efficient, always felt SC2 was more frustrating in several situations where if you didn't react in a split second you would lose your entire army or most of it
I don't think broodwar is harder than SC2, broodwar is just more fun because if you're good you can go 100-3 on ladder... who doesn't like pretty stats :D
|
France2027 Posts
the "forgiving" quality of bw gives it also more depth and is kinda the opposite of the "volatility" aspect of sc2. It means there are more choices available to the player and they have varying consequences and games play out more differently, allow more personal style (more available counter plays), just more complexity and depth imo, longer term thinking etc
I guess its just much better balanced
|
Only played BroodWar for a few months before SC2 came out, so I can't make any meaningful comparisons about high level balance. But as a platform, BroodWar was MUCH better than SC2 in terms of allowing a somewhat casual player to improve.
I stopped playing pretty early on in WoL, and so did most of the people I played with, because the meta changed too fast. I think Thorin is right in saying that fewer people want to sit around and solo grind an RTS game than hop on Dota and play some 5v5 with friends; but I think there is enough of a crowd that actually prefer solo games specifically because you don't have to wait until you are 5 friends before playing some games (and solo grinding team games kills the soul).
I was definitely part of that crowd. But I couldn't keep up with every new patch and every new build. If I had been away for a week I couldn't just sit down and hop unto matchmaking. I needed to go look up new timings. Every time. Or the games would just feel like a waste of time because a push that couldn't come before 3 minutes before, now could come at 2:30 or something.
On top of this, the lack of good channels for custom games and the rigidness of matchmaking meant that if I wanted to practice for even just a few games I needed to do this research for every single match up; that is, if I wanted the practice to feel meaningful in any sort of way. On the contrary, you can hop on CS:GO and lose 0:16 on a map you never played before and you have AT LEAST practiced your aim, and that is an extremely rare example.
In BroodWar, unlike SC2, I could easily find matches against serious opponents (unlike SC2 custom games) playing whichever matchup I had prepared for, even on the map I specifically prepared for. This meant I could have only 2-3 hours on a week night and: go over a build, research reactions to opponents build, strategize how to play the map in late game/where to check for cheese etc, and STILL get a good amount of meaningfull games in.
SC2 could have been like that. I don't know whether or not that was the determining factor in it "dying" or not, but I would have stayed. As it is, I was too casual to SC2.
|
SC2 didn't live up to expectations because the designers overly relied on units with "flash" and pretty units instead of giving the game innovative units with usefulness. Also, dumbed down team games with shared bases made SC2's team games worse than SC1.
|
I would submit to you that the game did not get "wrecked", but rather, "shrekt". This term refers to when a game is so destroyed that it's completely ogre.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I don't like the idea of game being too difficult therefore not successful. There are plenty of games much more difficult and still successful enough. Should I mention chess, go, various board games and god knows what overly successful. There always be people who would want something more challenging because simple problems do not give you that amount of satisfaction. Easy games are popular just because the average Joe is much more frequent. I think SC2 is not a difficult games by all means, difficult to master -- probably. I think that ppl should just acknowledge that SC2 is boring gameplay-wise, story-wise and competition-wise. This corresponds to what former BW progamers said about SC2, few do really like it. I watched SC2 as long as BW guys played it, once they left I left to the lower sections of tl.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
