|
On August 09 2017 12:38 StarStruck wrote:
Everyone and their grandmothers have opinions as to why SC2 did what it did. I read the first few pages and rolled my eyes. We can make long lists of what we like and dislike all day and it won't change anything.
We see the same silly mistakes all the time. Anyway, next time Blizzard should just stay out of it and let the community decide the direction rather than trying to keep trying to patch the game every other day or trying to dictate which players play where. The Riot model just isn't going to fly in a game of 1v1.
I tend to like watching players who can do shit I could never pull off in a million years. It's no different than professional sports and what do you know. The 2024 Olympic Games are pushing to have esports there. Good times.
I think it's the opposite. Feedback is good to determine if your reaching your desired goals, but much of the problem with their direction since LotV release, is they don't have long-term goals laid out. They have been asking for assistance deciding the direction of every-damn-thing they do.
They had no vision of where they were bringing the game. Which only supports as evidence to those who say the changes were band-aids to solve problems.
People would have been much more open to changes if the issues were simply "growing pains" but they had a destination for SC2 in mind that the community could get behind.
But all they really did was promise "big things" in the future, and this was consistently misleading. Such as their promises to look at MM removal again back in beta. Such as looking at the economy system again sometime after LotV release. Such as the big promised "design update" last year that ended up being nothing but a glorified balance patch.
The last time they showed any vision was in the LotV beta. Then they reverted everything they achieved in that vision, except the 12 worker start. 12 worker start supported the mechanics introduced in beta, but when they introduced 12 worker start to a HotS style SC2, combine that with "creative maps" rather than "standard maps", and don't give the game enough balance time between major changes in beta & release.... it was just a nightmare.
|
On August 09 2017 23:38 ROOTFayth wrote:
Seems like a flawed argument, you're saying since there are alternatives they shouldn't try to make a better product? The reason Dota, LoL and CS are so popular is because it's much more of a social game which is what we were advocating for SC2, they failed us
the actual game is whatever, some like it, some don't, I personally think WoL was better than the expansions but I think the lonely experience of SC2 is what was its biggest downfall
There is no "one reason" for anything. "better product" in what way? Some people would have loved it if sc2 would be more hardcore à la broodwar, others would have liked it more if macro was completely automatic. Others really like sc2 as it is now. So what does better product even mean? The most amount of sales? The highest playerbase in esports? You liking the game more?
Out of all the big esport games right now dota is the most "hardcore". Let that sink in for a moment. (also this isn't a bash towards the game, i think it's actually quite amazing)
Sc2 being more of a social game, what do you mean with that? Different chat channels and custom game scene?
That wouldn't be enough by any means (most likely). The custom game scene in broodwar and warcraft 3 were popular because there were less alternatives back in the day. Right now you simply play an actual multiplayer game which is way better than the shitty custom map. I am not saying there cannot be small scenes (there even are right now with sc2's custom map system), but it's basically irrelevant in the big picture in the year 2017.
|
Refusal to implement necessary balance and design changes in a timely manner
Refusal to completely step away from map making and give the reigns 100% to the community (who always creates far superior maps compared to blizzard)
Refusal to dedicate more resources to making arcade better, sleeker, and more accessible back in the day when the population was more higher so in lay mans terms, when it mattered.
And the biggest reason SC2 got wrecked..
Mobas are generally free, team based, and with the exception of Dota2, much easier and more forgiving to play.
|
Starcraft 2 is wrecked? How fast was the Warchest at its maximun?
|
On August 09 2017 23:38 ROOTFayth wrote:
Seems like a flawed argument, you're saying since there are alternatives they shouldn't try to make a better product? The reason Dota, LoL and CS are so popular is because it's much more of a social game which is what we were advocating for SC2, they failed us
the actual game is whatever, some like it, some don't, I personally think WoL was better than the expansions but I think the lonely experience of SC2 is what was its biggest downfall
I think you greatly overestimate how important a social aspect is in a game. Not a single gamer is sitting there saying a social aspect of a computer game is the deciding factor. Not a single gamer is thinking "well, i like this game, but it's just not social enough!, i think i'll play something else". seriously. Social aspects of computer/console games will never be the deciding factor, why? Because if a gamer valued social aspects over gameplay, they'd be out and about and not behind a computer playing a game. It's like basic logic. Dota/lol/cs are more popular because they are just flat out better games. That's all their is to it. They have design teams that actually care and have a vision. The company that put the game out actually cares about the success of it. Blizzard got our money and tried to do as little as possible to keep us happy. They did a poor job in my opinion and hopefully they've learned a lesson that they can apply to their future games.
|
On August 09 2017 23:50 Tchado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 22:51 ReachTheSky wrote:
Sc2 was great early on. Why? Because it was always action early game. 1-3 units pushes in tvp. it made the game action packed. You guys turned it into a boring god damn game to watch where nothing happens for the first several minutes because any race can just safely expand due to all the balance changes. Bring back the early rushes. Make the game action packed. Buff sentry attack damage again and bring back the early zealot/sentry gateway aggro openings from the beta. The old guard was probably the most negative influence on this game pushing it into what I like to refer it as "sim city". You build up for 10 minutes and the game is decided in 2 battles. It's fucking stupid. You should have to fight for your life to expand. viewership declined because the game became boring as shit to watch. No this isn't me hating on the game, i've loved starcraft 1 and 2 since they both came out. I won't even play sc2 anymore because of the direction it went in. I play bw from time to time just for nostalgia. Bro you fucking nailed it ! I honestly played LOTV just for the campaign , I personally can not stand player multiplayer at all , so I just play DOW 3 and Wc3 for some serious 1v1 action , I played around 5000 games in WOL (by no means am I pro , Im a shit player , this is my personal view), I was having the time of my fucking life , loved that shit ! then one day maps became bigger (i still dread the day taldarim altar was introduced) , rushes and micro heavy strategies were nerfed to hell....bl/infestor came along , HOTS was exciting for a while ..... then one day I reinstalled Wc3 and never looked back. Not saying Sc2 is a shit game or that sc2 is on trouble currently , hell to the fuck no it aint and no objective person can make that argument , it just doesn't appeal to me the way WOL did , and this is my personal subjective view , I like action packed games full of rushes , cheese and micro , with the occasional macro option if I wanna do that, and games that also allows other people to bring in their favorite play styles....that was WOL for me , currently I play DOW 3 and that game still has a looooooooong way to go before even seeing let alone reaching sc2 feet in terms of everything honestly, but as a consumer I'm having fun , and that is what matters to me , im sure this is the case for many others.....and Blizzard failed to see that.
Hell yeah dude. Intense action. INTERACTIVE GAMES. The reason dota/cd/lol are successful is because you interact with your opponent almost always/on a frequent basis. This whole lets macro up shit has to go. It's not interactive. It's not fun to watch. It's boring. It literally makes casts boring to watch as i have to listen terrible jokes from incontrol or crappy filler/banter from all the casters.
Who is it that pushed blizzard's balance team into making sc2, a completely different game from broodwar, into a macro oriented game? The old guard. All the old US pros and some of the EU pros. It's like they couldn't let go of broodwar even though sc2 was a different game but they had to push for it just so they could play what they like. Their influence has turned sc2 into what it is today. It's unfortunate. I miss the old days in 2010/2011 playing in the beta/wol as an aspirational pro gamer trying to make it. I was lucky enough to be on a great team with a lot of great people. Even had the opportunity to attend an MLG and fly out for the green forest lan in california back in the day. Unfortunately the old guard folks were so stuck up/elitist/assholes and had no idea about the concept of "community". I believe a huge part of of sc2's downfall had to do with this.
Blizzard really should be careful who they let influence their design/balance teams.
All I know is that sc2 was at it's biggest when aggression/interactive gameplay was the norm. It was fun to watch AND fun to play. Watching someone execute an aggressive rush/strategy was inspirational and rewarding. It felt good, it looked good and it made me want to play the game more and more. It inspired me to want to be a pro gamer.
|
|
|
On August 09 2017 18:35 Jae Zedong wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 09 2017 14:00 Archeon wrote:
Can we stop pretending that BW's long time "success" and SC2's dwindling have anything to do with each other? BW kept a dwindling core group in exactly one country, Sc2 had overall good sales, but eventually declined like pretty much every non-teambased game nowadays. Why are SC2 people always so concerned with deflecting blame onto anything and anyone but themselves? Why can it never have anything to do with SC2 itself? The other day I saw TB blaming "BW elitism" for how poorly the SC2 community treated its own caster Husky. How about you take responsibility for your own game/community every once in a goddamn while? Add to that that if BW was to come out today under a different name, it would sell as well as rotten tomatoes.
Please. If Chess came out today it wouldn't "sell" well either (why are you so concerned with sales numbers anyway, is this the accounting olympics?), but it would undoubtedly gain a dedicated following of people who appreciate the genius of it. A following that wouldn't be fickle and switch to Checkers the instant it's released because there's an actual timeless quality to the game. In 10 years time there's a very good chance SC:R will far outstrip SC2's popularity in every category, even in your beloved west. Because by then SC2 would have none of the plastic corporate artificial hype left. It would finally have to fend for its own without its sugar daddy Blizzard. All that would remain are mediocre graphics and dubious gameplay. Sc2 was destined to die eventually even if it was less restricting. Stop. I also don't agree at all that Blizz trying to rebalance the game harmed it. Popularity in the end of WoL didnt plummet because the game was hard to grasp, but because it was stale, if anything the expansions and balance patches kept it alive. Again, you have this erroneous perception that a game needs to change just for the sake of change so that the players won't get bored. Guess what? If a game is good enough it doesn't need to be put in an endless update carousel of bells and whistles. If it needs that to keep players interested, it's not a good game.
For identification purposes. It's easier to root for somebody who has some similarities with you. Add to that that Koreans come from a completely different ethnic group and that people who don't deal with a lot of Asians have difficulties to keep them apart
How about you at least try to put your jingoism aside and gain a better understanding of Korean society? Us BW enthusiasts never had a problem with that; I'm sure you can manage too. Personally I dislike most major Starcraft personalities from my own country as they give off smug douchey vibes, but I am forever thankful to the Korean BW scene for providing me and many others glimpses of another culture that would otherwise be unknown to us.
In general: you are making a lot of assumptions. I have a large interest in the South Korean culture, I know a lot of their history and enjoy a lot of their tales. I read way too many webtoons and manwhas. I don't think western culture is superior to the culture of other industrialized countries like Japan and SK, I don't give a shit about ethnics and like to think that people are generally fairly similar all around the globe. I don't have a problem recognizing Jaedong, Taeja, Nada or Flash. Nor do I have one recognizing RotK or Burning from China f.e.. I don't give a shit about nations.
I was very hyped for Sc2 and still think it did a lot for esports, but I haven't watched on a regular basis for years now and think that the game has some constraints that made it worse than it could have been. Just to get that out of the way.
On specifics:
@chances for Sc2:
Please name one RTS within the last 15 years that still has a large and living playerbase. Hell WC3 is dead and for many people outside of the BW community that's the best RTS ever made.
@Sales:
For a game to survive it needs a steady playerbase, that's what being alive means for a game. Who cares if a game has 1000 monthly players.
@chess:
Ridiculous comparison. Board games and their community is at large unchanged for millenias. Ofc there are some more complex ones nowadays, but they aren't selling better than old classics. Compared to games like BW Chess is very easy to pick up and doesn't intentionally make it hard for you every way possible.
RTS however have changed a lot since 1998. Try releasing an RTS nowadays that doesn't have waypoints, doesn't have formations, has terrible pathing and weird unit movements like fully stacking flying units. "...undoubtedly gain a dedicated following of people who appreciate the genius of it" yeah maybe five people of the hundred that play through the campaign. Wait for the 90% bad steam reviews that say that you need 20apm per base to keep your eco running and that the controls are worse than wc3 and check how the monthly playerbase would dwindle to nothing before a meta even builds.
I've played through the sc1 campaign and watched some pro matches. I like the game, I'm not trying to say it's bad. But in 1998 games were shit in terms of usability, nowadays people don't have to have the patience anymore because there are alternatives that you can still play hardcore without having to send every single worker to work.
@Sc2 people:
Not sure where that came from, I don't blame anyone for anything. Only saying that some mechanics are in the game because Blizz made Sc2 and not a new RTS series.
@patches/change:
I'm fairly sure that the reason BW is still somewhat alive is because it changed a lot over time. They also patched a lot in the first years. But because people got better the meta evolved multiple times. That doesn't happen with most games and it's not something you can plan.
@ethnics:
I wasn't a big fan of westerners for the most part, because they were flat out worse than the top of Korea pretty much throughout the entire lifetime of Sc2. But what I described should be obvious. There's a reason soccer fans are often rooting for their hometown.
|
Oh one more thing that shrunk sc2
The fact that the old guard(Players AND Casters) developed a culture for shaming players publicly on personal streams/event streams and in game for not playing the way they want them to(macro games). This type of behavior actually alienates people.
|
On August 10 2017 03:18 Archeon wrote:
@patches/change:
I'm fairly sure that the reason BW is still somewhat alive is because it changed a lot over time. They also patched a lot in the first years. But because people got better the meta evolved multiple times. That doesn't happen with most games and it's not something you can plan.
yeah man, all those balance patches we had in the first years of brood war
just look at this massive list of balance patches
i'm glad the eternal balance patching is finally over
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Patches_1.01-1.07
|
On August 10 2017 03:39 ReachTheSky wrote:
Oh one more thing that shrunk sc2
The fact that the old guard(Players AND Casters) developed a culture for shaming players publicly on personal streams/event streams and in game for not playing the way they want them to(macro games). This type of behavior actually alienates people.
this is the #1 reason IMO that SC2 had issues. When two of the most popular players/casters of 2010-2012 make a whole show dedicated to bashing one specific race ("Overpowered"), not because the race was winning everything (cause it wasnt) but solely because they felt their race was not strong enough (despite FD/Nestea being the first "gods" of SC2).. that swayed a WHOLE lot of new players opinions and shaped their outlook for the next 4-5 years. That instantly divided the community and made everyone argue in streams. Even to this day, when someone as strong as Neeb wins any game at all, you have a whole chat complaining about it, that shouldnt be happening to arguably the best foreigner since Stephano's prime.
I also will agree with ReachTheSky's mention of how every player who tried to do anything at all instead of taking 2 expos right off the start was labelled as "all-in".. thanks again to the two vocal players above. The whole point of playing vs zerg in 2011-2013 was to make sure they couldnt get their macro perfect.. Yet if you did any kind of harassing or anything to throw them off that perfect macro before 20 minutes, you were a cheeser all-in-er. Too many people take the opinions of casters as fact, when in reality its just their opinion of how the game CAN be played, but not the ONLY way the game can be played.
It'd be the same as if Dota casters at TI7 would say "Antimage is the only hero that takes skill, if you pick sven or spectre, you are a cheeser".. That would be horrible for the upcoming months of pubs. But thats exactly what happened in SC2 for years.
The community will never recover in SC2 from the racial divide.
|
On August 10 2017 04:59 SnowfaLL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 03:39 ReachTheSky wrote:
Oh one more thing that shrunk sc2
The fact that the old guard(Players AND Casters) developed a culture for shaming players publicly on personal streams/event streams and in game for not playing the way they want them to(macro games). This type of behavior actually alienates people. this is the #1 reason IMO that SC2 had issues. When two of the most popular players/casters of 2010-2012 make a whole show dedicated to bashing one specific race ("Overpowered"), not because the race was winning everything (cause it wasnt) but solely because they felt their race was not strong enough (despite FD/Nestea being the first "gods" of SC2).. that swayed a WHOLE lot of new players opinions and shaped their outlook for the next 4-5 years. That instantly divided the community and made everyone argue in streams. Even to this day, when someone as strong as Neeb wins any game at all, you have a whole chat complaining about it, that shouldnt be happening to arguably the best foreigner since Stephano's prime. I also will agree with ReachTheSky's mention of how every player who tried to do anything at all instead of taking 2 expos right off the start was labelled as "all-in".. thanks again to the two vocal players above. The whole point of playing vs zerg in 2011-2013 was to make sure they couldnt get their macro perfect.. Yet if you did any kind of harassing or anything to throw them off that perfect macro before 20 minutes, you were a cheeser all-in-er. Too many people take the opinions of casters as fact, when in reality its just their opinion of how the game CAN be played, but not the ONLY way the game can be played. It'd be the same as if Dota casters at TI7 would say "Antimage is the only hero that takes skill, if you pick sven or spectre, you are a cheeser".. That would be horrible for the upcoming months of pubs. But thats exactly what happened in SC2 for years. The community will never recover in SC2 from the racial divide.
It wasn't just due to their show. This type of culture was preached by the likes of everyone from the old guard, and yes, i mean everyone. All the casters and players. I was on Quantic Gaming up until the Naniwa acquisiton and the behind the scenes shit was retarded. I'd get shamed by my peers and other players on ladder and major figures for not playing a macro style. I'm a vindictive prick so in return, i trashed the hell outta these guys on forums/streams/public outlets any time I had the chance, they deserved to be shamed, not me.
|
On August 10 2017 02:25 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2017 23:38 ROOTFayth wrote:
Seems like a flawed argument, you're saying since there are alternatives they shouldn't try to make a better product? The reason Dota, LoL and CS are so popular is because it's much more of a social game which is what we were advocating for SC2, they failed us
the actual game is whatever, some like it, some don't, I personally think WoL was better than the expansions but I think the lonely experience of SC2 is what was its biggest downfall I think you greatly overestimate how important a social aspect is in a game. Not a single gamer is sitting there saying a social aspect of a computer game is the deciding factor. Not a single gamer is thinking "well, i like this game, but it's just not social enough!, i think i'll play something else". seriously. Social aspects of computer/console games will never be the deciding factor, why? Because if a gamer valued social aspects over gameplay, they'd be out and about and not behind a computer playing a game. It's like basic logic. Dota/lol/cs are more popular because they are just flat out better games. That's all their is to it. They have design teams that actually care and have a vision. The company that put the game out actually cares about the success of it. Blizzard got our money and tried to do as little as possible to keep us happy. They did a poor job in my opinion and hopefully they've learned a lesson that they can apply to their future games.
so you think these games would be as popular if they were single player games?
|
The community and interface of SC2 wasn't as good at fostering growth as other RTS games I have played in the past were. Elitism, closed-mindedness to certain strategies, a lot of big egos... Even the pros were mostly insufferable personalities in my opinion.
Blizzard finally came around and gave people what they wanted with regards to balance, but it was too late. But so long without guilds, so long without in-game tournament support, etc... There was no excuse for this. WC3 had it for years and years. They know how to do it, they've done it before. They literally were just lazy with SC2 on things that matter.
|
On August 09 2017 23:40 c3rberUs wrote:
What I don't get about people whining/discussing sc2 is that it seems that 1/2 say there's too much community input and there's the other half that says blizz didn't listen enough.
I feel a lot of it has to do with the way how SC2 engagements work. Due to the ball pathing, any extra units or unit stats are getting almost fully utilized in engagements regardless of the player skills. Meanwhile the tight unit groups, warp gates, highly mobile core armies and all that negated a lot of the balancing maps could do.
The result is a game that's very difficult to control balance wise. On one hand Blizzard needs to constantly interfere with the balance because the players simply have very limited tools to overcome many timings, compositions and such. Then again for similar reasons any changes Blizzard make are going to feel very dramatic for the players, controlling the ways they can approach the game. This lead to constant conflict of whether blizzard should interfere or hope the meta to sort itself.
Looking at it afterwards, I think Blizzard needed first to sort out their own idea of the game. Then, once the basic mechanics functioned around those ideas, they could utilize the community feedback in much more controlled, stable and productive way.
|
On August 10 2017 05:25 ROOTFayth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 02:25 ReachTheSky wrote:On August 09 2017 23:38 ROOTFayth wrote:
Seems like a flawed argument, you're saying since there are alternatives they shouldn't try to make a better product? The reason Dota, LoL and CS are so popular is because it's much more of a social game which is what we were advocating for SC2, they failed us
the actual game is whatever, some like it, some don't, I personally think WoL was better than the expansions but I think the lonely experience of SC2 is what was its biggest downfall I think you greatly overestimate how important a social aspect is in a game. Not a single gamer is sitting there saying a social aspect of a computer game is the deciding factor. Not a single gamer is thinking "well, i like this game, but it's just not social enough!, i think i'll play something else". seriously. Social aspects of computer/console games will never be the deciding factor, why? Because if a gamer valued social aspects over gameplay, they'd be out and about and not behind a computer playing a game. It's like basic logic. Dota/lol/cs are more popular because they are just flat out better games. That's all their is to it. They have design teams that actually care and have a vision. The company that put the game out actually cares about the success of it. Blizzard got our money and tried to do as little as possible to keep us happy. They did a poor job in my opinion and hopefully they've learned a lesson that they can apply to their future games. so you think these games would be as popular if they were single player games?
That's not what I said or think and you are going to the extreme. You could remove the ability to talk to your opponents at all and if the game is good, people will play it. Games are primarily about gameplay, not social aspects. If social aspects were the most important thing to gamers, they wouldn't be gamers, they'd be somewheres in the outside world doing something other than sitting behind a computer.
|
On August 10 2017 05:32 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 05:25 ROOTFayth wrote:On August 10 2017 02:25 ReachTheSky wrote:On August 09 2017 23:38 ROOTFayth wrote:
Seems like a flawed argument, you're saying since there are alternatives they shouldn't try to make a better product? The reason Dota, LoL and CS are so popular is because it's much more of a social game which is what we were advocating for SC2, they failed us
the actual game is whatever, some like it, some don't, I personally think WoL was better than the expansions but I think the lonely experience of SC2 is what was its biggest downfall I think you greatly overestimate how important a social aspect is in a game. Not a single gamer is sitting there saying a social aspect of a computer game is the deciding factor. Not a single gamer is thinking "well, i like this game, but it's just not social enough!, i think i'll play something else". seriously. Social aspects of computer/console games will never be the deciding factor, why? Because if a gamer valued social aspects over gameplay, they'd be out and about and not behind a computer playing a game. It's like basic logic. Dota/lol/cs are more popular because they are just flat out better games. That's all their is to it. They have design teams that actually care and have a vision. The company that put the game out actually cares about the success of it. Blizzard got our money and tried to do as little as possible to keep us happy. They did a poor job in my opinion and hopefully they've learned a lesson that they can apply to their future games. so you think these games would be as popular if they were single player games? That's not what I said or think and you are going to the extreme. You could remove the ability to talk to your opponents at all and if the game is good, people will play it. Games are primarily about gameplay, not social aspects. If social aspects were the most important thing to gamers, they wouldn't be gamers, they'd be somewheres in the outside world doing something other than sitting behind a computer.
Ya, looking at SC2 in 2017, I wish there was a function to not have any chat in games, I think that might make me come back to the game (being a Protoss player, I know every win I get will be met with "omg you cheat" just like it did when I last played in 2013, sadly even at GM level with people like Avilo and Nathanias running aound..) and I find it worked really good in Heroes - not having the opposite team talking made it more enjoyable. Dota has it too now, but unfortunately most of dota's issues comes from your own team, so muting them is an issue (as communication is key) but I still win more games with my whole team muted than not. Muting players is the only way to really distance yourself from the toxicity in gaming these days, because lets face it, everyone eventually gets sick of being badmouthed (especially as a high masters/above Protoss in SC2) and it hurts your overall gaming experience.
Hell, I'd give a serious try at Smash bros offline tournaments if I wasn't so used to the manner at RTS tournaments (cause lets face it, normally people are quite nice in real life RTS tournies) but the Smash scene is based on "popping off" and shit talking your opponents, again heavily influenced by their top caster and his comments in the scene. Its a whole different world that play fighting games. I dunno if I could handle the bad mannered-ness in real life without starting a fight.
|
@ReachTheSky I honestly think you're way off base here. Perhaps those "elitist" old guard players knew something you didn't? For example, that a macro game doesn't just appear out of thin air at the high level, it comes from a system of information gathering and consequent decision making? Or the fact that people didn't mind the fact that many games in BW started with relatively fast expansions, or perhaps the fact that BW in its infancy was also cheesy because people were still figuring the game out and were bad at it so cheeses were more effective, and thus Macro games were a result of people improving?
To have the nerve to shit on a small subset of the SC2 population, who if I am understanding you correctly are community figures with a lot more history and many more contributions to the scene than you, is really childish and frames your whole opinion with a petulant air.
|
On August 10 2017 05:16 ReachTheSky wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2017 04:59 SnowfaLL wrote:On August 10 2017 03:39 ReachTheSky wrote:
Oh one more thing that shrunk sc2
The fact that the old guard(Players AND Casters) developed a culture for shaming players publicly on personal streams/event streams and in game for not playing the way they want them to(macro games). This type of behavior actually alienates people. this is the #1 reason IMO that SC2 had issues. When two of the most popular players/casters of 2010-2012 make a whole show dedicated to bashing one specific race ("Overpowered"), not because the race was winning everything (cause it wasnt) but solely because they felt their race was not strong enough (despite FD/Nestea being the first "gods" of SC2).. that swayed a WHOLE lot of new players opinions and shaped their outlook for the next 4-5 years. That instantly divided the community and made everyone argue in streams. Even to this day, when someone as strong as Neeb wins any game at all, you have a whole chat complaining about it, that shouldnt be happening to arguably the best foreigner since Stephano's prime. I also will agree with ReachTheSky's mention of how every player who tried to do anything at all instead of taking 2 expos right off the start was labelled as "all-in".. thanks again to the two vocal players above. The whole point of playing vs zerg in 2011-2013 was to make sure they couldnt get their macro perfect.. Yet if you did any kind of harassing or anything to throw them off that perfect macro before 20 minutes, you were a cheeser all-in-er. Too many people take the opinions of casters as fact, when in reality its just their opinion of how the game CAN be played, but not the ONLY way the game can be played. It'd be the same as if Dota casters at TI7 would say "Antimage is the only hero that takes skill, if you pick sven or spectre, you are a cheeser".. That would be horrible for the upcoming months of pubs. But thats exactly what happened in SC2 for years. The community will never recover in SC2 from the racial divide. It wasn't just due to their show. This type of culture was preached by the likes of everyone from the old guard, and yes, i mean everyone. All the casters and players. I was on Quantic Gaming up until the Naniwa acquisiton and the behind the scenes shit was retarded. I'd get shamed by my peers and other players on ladder and major figures for not playing a macro style. I'm a vindictive prick so in return, i trashed the hell outta these guys on forums/streams/public outlets any time I had the chance, they deserved to be shamed, not me.
Who are these 'old guard' that only wanted macro games? Because I remember a lot of threads from the WoL days where people on TL complained about the micro not being engaging, and that SC2 was primarily about macro and they didn't enjoy it because of that. I remember a SC2 fan defending the game against BW players because the SC2 player only liked macro and wanted SC2 to be only about that while BW players wanted more micro.
|
Yeah, if you didn't play a macro game, you were pretty much labelled as "afraid to play a real game".
Well, just tell these "macro zealots" that they need to *earn* a macro game with you by showing that none of your cheese/aggression/timings can defeat them.
It really was a pathetic zeitgeist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
