|
On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse.
I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
|
On September 10 2007 13:58 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2007 13:52 orangedude wrote:
Ok, so Tasteless showed me some of his keyboard tricks (moving hands all around the keyboard and using pinky fingers for production). He obviously knows the most efficient way to macro early on, and this makes the game a lot more enjoyable for him to play. I can see why he wants MBS in.
Does that mean everyone else is playing it "wrong" though? And Teletubby, why would you close this thread? Just because nothing's productive atm, doesn't mean nothing will be. I'm not making a 'Starcraft Intelligent design argument.' If i thought starcraft players were playing the game 'wrong' and there was actually something 'wrong' with that, i would be trashing on bgh players and ums players. I'm not. But there is something 'wrong' with telling a bunch of competitive starcraft players that their ladder and tournament games should have MBS forced upon them because a whole bunch of other players never learned all the techniques. If you want to be the best and you want to play competitively, there is something "wrong" with not utilizing the keyboard since your probably spending 10x the energy on tasks that could be completed without even looking at the screen. I suggest we make the new players learn what the old already did (and will probably be easier to learn with customizable hotkeys). The players who know this technique enjoy the game more for it. So why take this away?
Tasteless, just for the record, I don't personally dislike macro or the lack of MBS in SC. I don't even find it awkward or difficult to press hotkeys the way I do or click through buildings in the late game. Maybe it's because I started playing SC way back 10 years ago when it was released. It just seems pretty natural to me as I can type about 80-90 WPM, and so I basically type the numbers/letters for my hotkey the same way I would if I was typing normally and I've played this way for about 8 years (went to War3 for a while in between before coming back to SC).
However, I don't believe that it takes 10x the energy for me to go 4z5z6z7z8z9z as you would, even granted that I am doing it the "incorrect" way. I play the game slower than you do and it doesn't look or feel as cool, but it's still a matter of about 1 second to go through all the keys and I am perfectly happy with that. I don't intend to go pro, but I do enjoy watching pros such as the Koreans play quality SC, so it is in my interests to see the SC2 scene succeed. I really do want to see the competitive scene thrive.
I thoroughly respect your love of SC, and I can completely understand your point of view and where you're coming from. Yes indeed, MBS is very important to the existing progamers, because they truly love the game as it is, in its current state of (near) perfection.
Believe me, the only reason why I support MBS is because I think it will help the pro-scene. I am NOT spending all this time to argue for MBS just to make it easier for myself, and destroy SC's progaming's chances in the process. That would be ridiculous, stupid and selfish. I also love the game and especially enjoy watching more highly skilled players than myself duke it out.
The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential.
|
On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea.
Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
|
On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty.
SC progaming was, and is a fluke, in one country. The pro scene was created because of a lot of circumstances coming together perfectly to create what we have today. But don't overestimate how many real fans SC has that will keep on playing if they don't like the game immediatly. SCII will be *huge* but most people will not continue to play the game just because. We won't have another Korea. There won't be a new proscene if new people don't enjoy the game, and sooner SC will die and we'll have nothing.
SCII can redefine progaming, but it won't be done by alienating 90 % of the user base.
Progaming in Korea was mostly because of:
1. New high speed internet.
2. People not having the cash to buy computers
3. Console imports severly restricted.
4. FPS games banned.
5. Starcraft being one of the few good non FPS games around.
This created the pc bang boom. People going to pc bangs wanted to play games, with the restrictions in place SC was the only real choice.
Then someone tried to send it as a TV show = instant succes.
If even one of these factors had been of there would have been no proscene. This will not magically happen again, Blizzard needs to do it themselves this time.
|
On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born.
Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it.
I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" necessitate fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
|
On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your opinion, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more.
As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the better spectator sport than War3 for many reasons and MBS is not one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the right game was a key ingredient to SC's success.
I never said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has also said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments.
|
On September 11 2007 07:55 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game. Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more. As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success. I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments.
If they are differentiating the SC and Warcraft Franchises, and most competent SC players believe its a piece of shit they will not play, they had better follow that advice. So whatever is included in Warcraft has no correlation to whether it should be in SC2. In fact, it should probably be a negative correlation. And if you don't use War3 as a role model, then don't use it to somehow justify MBS.
And the "pro scene" of War3 is personally kinda sad. I don't regard it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM what SC2 should try to emulate. SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible. A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
Edit: I've said it before, but now I am definitely going to stop posting on this topic. Its not worth it being banned for such a terrible subforum.
|
On September 11 2007 08:00 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:55 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game. Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more. As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success. I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments. SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible.
That is so surprising that the majority of "SC players" who have stuck around for 10 years past its release would judge another game that is not named "SC" to be horrible. If these "SC players" thought "War3" was the better game, then they would BE "War3 players", and not SC. This is not a valid argument. Clearly they have valid reasons for liking one game over another and I AGREE with them.
I AGREE that SC is the better game overall and especially for e-sports. Why else would I be here? On the other hand, I do NOT feel the need to tear apart War3 like you do, because it also has many good things going for it, or else it would NOT be as popular and still kicking 5-6 years after its release (far longer than every other RTS besides SC). Blizzard spent 4 years making War3 just like they did for SC and it shows.
On September 11 2007 08:00 Aphelion wrote:
A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
No you have not, because you are arguing against something that I have never said (straw-man). I have never stated anything close to "SC should aspire to War3". However, I and others like 1esu, have pointed out that MBS is a standard for RTS's today and that their level of shittiness is irrelevant to this fact. I never once claimed SC should incorporate MBS because it should aspire to be the awesomeness of War3. Borrowing MBS from War3 is nowhere even close to 'aspiring' to, because it is incorporating an industry standard. That's like saying if SC is incorporating better graphics like all other RTS's, then it is also aspiring to be like War3. I have argued the exact opposite, and that SC and War3 should obviously be totally different in design.
Conversely, I have only pointed out that your argument of "just because a feature is in War3, it must suck" is completely flawed.
Have I made my arguments clear enough to you?
|
On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born.
What? more successful?
do you have any proof to back up this claim?
After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales.
So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
|
On September 11 2007 08:00 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:55 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself as a Starcraft lover is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game. Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more. As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons, which I have also stated. It is also more balanced also has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = hard to balance). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success. I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything, if you can't disprove my arguments. If they are differentiating the SC and Warcraft Franchises, and most competent SC players believe its a piece of shit they will not play, they had better follow that advice. So whatever is included in Warcraft has no correlation to whether it should be in SC2. In fact, it should probably be a negative correlation. And if you don't use War3 as a role model, then don't use it to somehow justify MBS. And the "pro scene" of War3 is personally kinda sad. I don't regard it in ANY SHAPE OR FORM what SC2 should try to emulate. SC2 is a far better professional sport, and the majority of us SC players at Teamliquid believe it to be horrible. A sequel of SC meant to capture the original spirit of SC SHOULD NOT ASPIRE TO IT. Have I made my arguments clear enough to you? Edit: I've said it before, but now I am definitely going to stop posting on this topic. Its not worth it being banned for such a terrible subforum.
Out of all the differences between Starcraft and Warcraft 3, i am shocked that you think MBS played such a big role in how the TL.net community viewed the game. Honestly, if you think about it for half a second, you'd realize that not being able to select all 4 of your 4 production buildings at once in a [i]non-macro, hero-centric, strategically-shallow, tactical-based, strategy game, would have made absolutely no difference on how shitty that game was. Instead of macro being [i]completely negligible it would have been slightly less so, but still completely negligible.
In anycase. I can acknowledge why you can only value the elitist opinion - the love of a game by and from a gamer, but that mentality isn't the best for the masses; if you were to be a lead designer for a video game company, you may in fact make the best game in the world, but it wouldn't matter because no one would play it.
I do not know how Blizzard measures success. However, i would be shocked if they measured success by the happiness of SC1 players, and not by the sheer number of happy SC2 players.
|
On September 11 2007 07:55 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game. Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more. As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons and MBS is NOT one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success. I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments.
Orangedude, Tasteless said you know how to play Starcraft but obviously he wanted to stay polite. I saw the games and it was quite frightening. It's not only a question of how you use your keyboard, there.
At this level of understanding of the game, it's normal you don't understand everything, i can't even blame you for that. All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
I'm playing starcraft since 98 ; i bought war3, played it in the beginning as hard as i could, but comparing the two was hurting. Maybe one day you will understand that, even if the player database is bigger for war3 nowadays as you seem to assume, it doesn't mean it's the better game. Especially from an e-sport point of view... There are your two reasons explaining war3 'realtive' success : it's more recent and has fancier graphics. If you think this game is an e-sport success, then you're funny. It's not the case INDEED cause it's a less spectacular game ; there're other reasons as well, and the right balance in SC between micro and macro is certainly one of those.
So, please, why don't you try to play Starcraft more in order to get a significant idea, instead of loosing your time on this forum trying to judge points you have no idea on (no offense). Actually, the Mora's post is very good, and that's an argumentation i would perfectly accept if you were all Blizzard shareholders or developers. But you're the fucking players, and we're not even sure it would hurt the players base size so much.
And even if it hurts the players base size, it's still not a reason since it will be large enough. Less players is obviously better than to have a shitty simplified game, which will not serve e-sport. Remember you have your franchise !
|
On September 11 2007 07:17 orangedude wrote:
The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential.
I will take a game that gets a good number of hardcore gamers, which lasts for decades, then a game which gets an annourmous amount of gamers then dies off a year later.
I will make this trade any year, month, day, hour or second.
|
On September 11 2007 11:23 G5 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:17 orangedude wrote:
The crux of my argument from my OP, and other posts is along the lines of 1esu's. I just want to ensure that other newbies will not dislike SC's UI and start blaming the game for their losses, and end up reducing SC's potential. I will take a game that gets a good number of hardcore gamers, which lasts for decades, then a game which gets an annourmous amount of gamers then dies off a year later. I will make this trade any year, month, day, hour or second.
I don't think Blizzard would do that trade.
Besides, if you have an "enormous amount" of gamers, regardless the quality of the game, some will become "hardcore".
I'm all for this MBS idea, because I think it will attract more new players, as well, it's just one of these key features to include by today's standards anyway. It really won't kill the game like many people claim it would.
|
What I don't understand is why people think a progaming scene will spring up out of nowhere if there is no new fanbase for the game... Seriously, outside of Korea, how big is SC's fanbase? Big enough to merit sponsorships from US companies? If it is, then perhaps Blizz can risk not gaining any new fans by releasing a product tailored only for the competitive-minded gamers. If not, then Blizz must keep everyone in mind, especially if you want the progaming scene for SC2.
|
I think we could discuss this MBS topic all day. However, at the end of the day MBS will bring Blizzard more $$$. I also don't see what influnce MBS has in the progaming scene, seeing as the cameras aren't even in FP mode for 95% of the time. The players will feel the "sluggish" effect (assuming it does do that), not the spectators.
|
On September 11 2007 08:43 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born. What? more successful? do you have any proof to back up this claim? After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales. So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
Depends on your definition of successful but wc3 currently has more "professional" gamers than sc outside of korea. Grubby (Dutch) has been living off of wc3 for the past 3-4 years. ToD (French) has been living in China for the past year with SaSe (Swedish). FoV, Sweet and other koreans have been living in China as well. Zacard (korean) lived in Europe for the longest time playing wc3. Creo (Norwegian) took a year off school to play professionally. There is at least 1 big money tournament ($10,000+ total purse) every month in a country outside of Korea. A $10,000 tournament every month is by no means big but compared to starcraft its at least 3-5x greater.
Obviously in Korea its the exact opposite but if SC2 only becomes popular in Korea it will be a huge failure on the part of Blizzard.
|
On September 11 2007 08:43 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and E-Sports was born. What? more successful? do you have any proof to back up this claim? After doing some research I can't find anything definitive, but with sc having over 9.5 million in worldwide sales, warcraft 3 doesn't even seem to be close to starcraft in total sales. So I find it hard to believe war3 is more successful than the U.S.
It's not the sales that he's referring to, it's the non-Korean professional scenes. Here's a breakdown of the professional non-Korean tournaments/leagues for each game:
SC
World Cyber Games (amateur, but professional-level)
PGL
WC3
World Cyber Games
Electronic Sports World Cup
World e-Sports Games
World Series of Video Games
Warcraft 3 Champions League
NGL One proleague
The WC3 stuff was taken from Warcraft III Professional Competition, particularly this introduction:
"The computer game Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos has an active professional competition circuit, rooted particularly in China, Germany and South Korea. The game is featured at most, if not all, professional competitive gaming circuits trying to appeal to a global audience including the World Cyber Games, the Electronic Sports World Cup, the World e-Sports Games and the World Series of Video Games. The game has one of the most active competitive circuits, with users at Battle.net ranging between the 70,000 and 100,000 at any given moment. In China, which is considered the number one country in terms of Warcraft III fans and users, most players use an alternative client due to the country's poor connection to the outside world. Around 3,000,000 copies of the game were sold in the country [1] of which a significant portion is competitively active, 500,000 Chinese competed in the Chinese qualifiers for the 2006 World Cyber Games. Recently the amount of prize money to be won monthly in various competitions averages 64,642 USD[2]. Income for players come from various sources however, such as salaried paid by professional gaming teams. Danish competitive gaming organisations Meet Your Makers reportedly pays their players 300,000 USD on an annual basis [3]."
|
8748 Posts
On September 11 2007 11:43 TeRRan`UseR wrote:
I think we could discuss this MBS topic all day. However, at the end of the day MBS will bring Blizzard more $$$.
It's hard to tell since we don't know what kind of money is in licensing SC2 out for broadcast on television and other kinds of promotion. With MBS and automining, there might be more box sales in the first year, but the competitive scene will last a significantly shorter amount of time. But without MBS and automining, the game would be set up to have a sustainable competitive scene like SC has right now. Then the game's scene could last 10+ years.
It seems like Blizzard could ask Vivendi for some help creating a business plan for a competitive game rather than one that just relies on box sales. I don't know much about business or about these industries though -- it just seems like it could work out.
|
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:55 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" include fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game. Wrong, War3 is not a piece of shit. That is your OPINION, and of many SC veterans (who clearly love their game, or else they would not be playing it over another). They are both excellent games, and it's up to the player to prefer which one they enjoy more. As to your questions, I have stated this countless times including the very post you quoted, and I'm tired of repeating myself. SC is the BETTER SPECTATOR SPORT than WAR3 for many reasons and MBS is NOT one of them. SC is also more balanced and has more strategical depth (4 races + heroes = insane balancing). That does NOT make War3 garbage, as can be attested by the larger pro-scene worldwide outside of Korea. Read my post again for god sakes. There is a reason why War3 didn't take off in Korea, and it's because of the above, NOT MBS. I also clearly said the RIGHT GAME was part of the ingredient to SC's success. I NEVER said to use War3 as a role model. Blizzard has ALSO said they will not be using it as one. Where are you getting this from? Attacking me doesn't prove anything if you can't disprove my arguments. Orangedude, Tasteless said you know how to play Starcraft but obviously he wanted to stay polite. I saw the games and it was quite frightening. It's not only a question of how you use your keyboard, there. At this level of understanding of the game, it's normal you don't understand everything, i can't even blame you for that.
Fuu, you are making use of a logical fallacy called "[I]ad hominem" to prove your point here, which makes it invalid right from the very start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Regardless I will defend myself. I was very rusty when I played those games vs Tasteless. I have only played about 3-4 games in the past 2 months because I've been very busy this summer with work and studying for the MCAT. Also, watch game 3 of my series vs Tasteless, which is more even then the first two. I may not have the best macro and mechanics, but I do have a very deep and sufficient understanding of the game. Here are three random replays from about a few months ago, when I was in a much better shape (but obviously still not at the same level as Tasteless, and I never claimed to be).
http://rapidshare.com/files/55283292/0525_Orange_PaoLa1.rep.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/55283499/0444_iTerra_orange_kto_ma.rep.html
http://rapidshare.com/files/55283624/0524_PaoLa1_Orange.rep.html
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote:
All my noobs friends, who've never played RTS, if i ask them if they prefer war3 or SC, they'll all answer war3. MBS or no : they'll of course say MBS. The problem stays : you (or them) seem to affirm things you cannot even grasp. It's like the new tennis player who wants to change the rules cause he's unable to compete with the bests. Or cause he thinks it will be less tedious for the newbs to learn, thus attract more people. If it's true, is it suitable ?
Ironically, you have chosen the exact example that completely nullifies your reasoning, because this actually HAPPENED in tennis.
A while back, tennis players moved from the old and inferior wooden rackets (analagous to UI, since the racket is the player's tool of tennis and UI is the player's tool for SC) to the new more accurate and powerful metal rackets, and in doing so raised the skill level of the sport by a substantial margin for everyone, even the pros. Tennis not only attracted more fans and players, but it also became even more competitive than it was before even if you believe that the total skill gap is lowered. Changing the rules of tennis on the other hand (as you described) is the same as changing the balance and stats of SC (e.g. tech tree, unit HP, attack, speed, etc) and completely different from MBS.
On September 11 2007 10:04 Fuu wrote:
Maybe one day you will understand that, even if the player database is bigger for war3 nowadays as you seem to assume, it doesn't mean it's the better game. Especially from an e-sport point of view...
I have agreed with this 100% even in my OP. I have only stated the FACT that the current War3 scene is larger than the SC scene outside of Korea.
|
On September 11 2007 07:41 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2007 07:23 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 07:13 Aphelion wrote:On September 11 2007 06:35 Mora wrote:
i wish i had the time to read the whole thread.
1esu's points, from my point of view, are bang on.
Being a game developer for a year and a half now, i can definately say i've come around from the 'elitist starcraft' player to the 'sensible game developer' mentality.
I love hardcore players. i will always be a hardcore player. However, the game *must* cater to new players in order to achieve growth. The #1 reason people do not play RTS games are because they are intimidated by them. RTS Developers have been striving to help their audience overcome that fear; by making the graphics prettier, by making gameplay cleaner, but giving better and better in-game tutorials, and above all, by improving the interface.
When a player loses the game, he naturally tries to blame everything else but himself. He wants to blame his opponent for cheating, he wants to blame lady luck because she favoured that son of a bitch instead of favouring him - the last thing a developer wants is for a player to think i can't play (read: win) this game because it's impossible for me to control the interface. That is the moment that he stops blaming the world, and simply blames the game. That is when he stops playing. That is when he stops talking about how great the game is; stops advertising for the game; stops being a part of a desire to join the community. This is even more important than Game Balance - as Game Balance can be improved in patches, but that patch will only reach people who are all ready playing the game.
I completely understand the arguements of those against MBS. I have no desire to kill the skill involved in macro. Hell, i won't even say that MBS will be good for the game. However, i am confident in saying that the majority of people do want MBS. Blizzard would be foolish to cater to this very small elitist crowd in trading for alienating the large newbie majority.
As others have mentioned, you can make up for MBS with other gameplay elements to seperate the new, good, and elite. It may not be forms of making macro tougher - macro may simply be easier. And it will simply be different than SC. Macro lovers may find that Abhorrible, but again, you are the vast minority - it doesn't matter how 'right' you are.
I'm not sure on where i stand on the MBS issue. (my above view was more trying to be objective as a game developer). Trying to really decide for myself [i]as a Starcraft lover[i] is hard. While having an extreme respect for macro, i've always found strategical/micro players much more entertaining, inspiring, and admirable. When that player with 80 APM is able to beat another with 300 APM - i think "now that's a fucking strategy game". But, admittedly, there is a further distinction when i watch a FPVOD of let's say, Nada. I watch him produce that army out of no-where, and then - all in the same moments - dodge the spines of lurkers with his 8 control groups, and i scream inside myself, "now that's a fucking strategy sport". I think in the end, i like the UI the way it is. And in that sense i hope that Blizzard would cater to us.
I can't get away from being a Game Designer though. I can't help but think MBS is necessary. I can't help but value the mass of idiots who will enjoy SC2 over those at TL.net that will be disgruntled. When thrice the population of people who play Starcraft play Starcraft 2, very few will grieve for us old-farts who were too stubborn to adapt to the times, even if it was for the worse. I completely get your reasoning. But SC isn't a typical game. Its the ONLY real successful e-sport. You can always find a mountain of noob RTSes out there, but if you piss away this one opportunity to make a game specifically designed for the pro community its over. There's no redo. Then you might as well have not made SC2 and let SC continue to flourish as a living game. Not kill it for something shitty. Aphelion, you seem to be conveniently forgetting the fact that War3 is MORE successful than SC outside of Korea (much greater in China). The fact that no other RTS's have been successful is false. SC on the other hand IS a better spectator sport than War3. The average non-gamer just didn't understand wtf was going on in most of the battles and couldn't follow it (too much flashiness, no clear deaths, and overall slower-paced gaming). This is a large part of the reason why it never blew up in Korea. Also, as many people have pointed out, SC catching on in Korea is a bit of a fluke. All the right factors were there (PC bangs became popular, but FPS were banned), and when combined with a game of the caliber of SC, all the pieces fit together and the E-Sports was born. Doesn't mean War3 isn't a complete piece of shit. If your bringing War3 in as support for SC2 having MBS, your in a losing battle. Furthermore, the professional circuit of War3 is far less than that of SC. If your creating a professional game in an attempt to further e-sports, you had better use SC as your role model. And other games as good examples of "what not to do". Even if the original game was somewhat of a fluke, are you saying that any other game (War3 included) would have been such an amazing professional game if given the same opportunity? Can you IMAGINE another RTS out there evolving to the depth of strategic and mechanical play that SC has? There's a reason why even War3 is marginalized in Korea despite OGN and MBC's best efforts to market it. I am sick of debating with people who have an insufficient understanding or appreciation of the current SC gameplay and professional scene. It might have just been in the right place at the right time, but it was also the RIGHT GAME. If the attractions for a "good game" necessitate fancy graphics and noob-friendliness nowadays, you can say goodbye to me as a player. I will still buy SC2 regardless, but I will still go back to the game which is most fun and challenging, be it the dying game or the new game.
You're so fanatical I don't even know why you use the term 'debate.' Why do you bother discussing with others unless you come with an open mind?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
