|
I won't quote your post because it would be way too huge, but HUGE THANKS for getting those reviews. I hadn't seen anything like them. (and the reason I didn't do the research was that I wouldn't know where to start, really. Other than looking at all RTS reviews.)
Now, counterpoints:
Armies of Exigo lacked something that StarCraft II has: Hype/Name. Some hardcore gamers might have heard of it, but most casual gamers could (and probably did) overlook Armies as a generic RTS by a no-name studio. SC2 is a completely different story. Everybody and their mothers knows about SC2, and many many eyes will be on it. It's simply building on a much stronger foundation.
Why didn't the hardcore scene really want to adapt? Because it probably wasn't better than BW. Gamespot and IGN hailed its execution, and the somewhat innovative underground system, but their biggest complaint aside from outdatedness in UI was outdatedness in gameplay. IGN calls its gameplay "uninspiring." Gamespot calls it "formuliac." There was simply nothing awe-inspiring about this game. Will SCII possibly face the same problem? Yes, quite so. Living up to its predecessor is a huge deal, in almost all aspects. Will SCII be a complete flop if it doesn't quite meet expectations? Definitely not, it has the hype machine working for it. Will it be a complete flop if it completely sucks? Yeah, sure it will. Damned if that happens.
I'll try to find counter-examples for the outdatedness thing in a bit, I've got homework to do.
EDIT: Oh, and cases in points for hype machines:
New Super Mario Bros. Nintendo has such a good reputation with platformers that I didn't even have to read the reviews to know it was a must-buy.
Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time. I loved Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. I looked for some convincing on Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons because they were capcom-produced, but all the Nintendo ones were instabuys.
Every game made by Nippon Ichi. This is a personal thing, but Disgaea just got me hooked.
Every Final Fantasy since 7. Many people my age somewhat agree with me.
Kingdom Hearts 2. Fangirl-mania (i'm not a girl if you're wondering) and Disney lovability totally superceded the mediocre reviews.
Etc.
|
To orangedude:
xD yup. But since it will be similar to SC, that could be a good point for the review, for keeping the spirit of the original. Maybe. There's lots of things that could go right or wrong xD
Maybe the new features could set it apart, yet the UI keep it similar, or other things, I'm sure you can think of situations.
Unfortunately, all we can do about reviews is speculate and estimate, and from reviews about other games similar to SC yet don't have MBS, the reviews won't be very good if MBS is taken out. So I'd say I'd side with you on the review argument. There's a lot more that could go wrong in the reviews from taking it out than keeping it in, since majority of the fanbase doesn't care about the pro scene.
And to SpiritoftheTuna:
You had some very good points too. SC2 could very well sell on hype, and still have a good pro scene, therefore rendering reviews pointless until maybe 8 years later when they don't matter much. Once again, there are many variables. But the safer path (financially) is to keep MBS so that the reviews will be good, although it may possibly backfire.
And I've got a lot of hw to do too xD So I should probably go do hw. And stop reading forums for now.
|
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard (although a universally panned score by reviewers may even hurt this greatly), this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
On September 13 2007 12:40 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
EDIT: Oh, and cases in points for hype machines:
New Super Mario Bros. Nintendo has such a good reputation with platformers that I didn't even have to read the reviews to know it was a must-buy.
Every Zelda game since Ocarina of Time. I loved Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, and Twilight Princess. I looked for some convincing on Oracle of Ages and Oracle of Seasons because they were capcom-produced, but all the Nintendo ones were instabuys.
Every game made by Nippon Ichi. This is a personal thing, but Disgaea just got me hooked.
Every Final Fantasy since 7. Many people my age somewhat agree with me.
Kingdom Hearts 2. Fangirl-mania (i'm not a girl if you're wondering) and Disney lovability totally superceded the mediocre reviews.
Etc.
These are good examples, BUT remember they were never meant to be a competitive games. Becoming a successful E-Sport has a completely different set of requirements, and even a large amount of initial sales may not be enough if people don't keep playing them (See: C&C franchise).
Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here:
On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it. Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
|
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
And the FPS field is a lot more competitive than RTS. Doom is a great franchise, but there were many other popular competitors. Starcraft is head and shoulders above all the rest, and further more benefits from greater product differentiation. Even the "competitors" like supcom or warhammer are so different they are not a viable challenger or product replacement. There are enough people who just play games in the Blizzard mode.
|
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away.
In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game.
EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here: Show nested quote +On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it. Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Reception
... Sold pretty well and got decent reviews in my opinion...
Huh?
Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please.
|
On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away. In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game. EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3
Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant).
I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here: On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it. Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Reception... Sold pretty well and got decent reviews in my opinion... Huh? Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please.
Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while.
|
On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote:
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest.
Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them.
The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better if given the chance until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
|
On September 13 2007 13:04 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away. In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game. EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3 Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant). I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part.
I think I totally finally understand your viewpoint now. You want SC2 to be a widely-accessible vehicle for everybody everywhere to get into the pro-scene and break into the whole world, along the same vein as Counter-Strike. I actually don't see many problems with that. With MBS making it easier for people to reach the levels of the koreans (who'll default at a high level), there is room for multiple tournaments everywhere and the game will be more accessible for anyone to play for a year and enter the pro scene, much like in CS.
I just don't want that, for the same reason as any other veteran who's posted here. It'll be less of an elite spectator sport and more of a gain-a-bit-of-fame-and-money-through-video-games, just as CS is/was.
On September 13 2007 13:04 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here: On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it. Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Reception... Sold pretty well and got decent reviews in my opinion... Huh? Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please. Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while.
Er. Doom3 was never meant to be a big multiplayer game. Never. Ever. The focus was on the single-player, much like the original Doom.
|
On September 13 2007 12:17 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:16 TheShizno wrote:
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality. I'm still looking for evidence on this.
Play a game on the maps reviewers play, then check bwchart: 0% hotkeys. Actually, I don't need evidence. You provided 0 evidence to the contrary (the initial claim).
|
On September 13 2007 13:13 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:17 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 12:16 TheShizno wrote:
If you honestly think 95% of newb game reviewers will even know how to use hotkeys, you are sorely mistaken. You'd be EXTREMELY pushing it to think that half would mention it in a review.
Unfortunately, those newb game reviewers won't be mentioning hotkeys. Instead, they'll be mentioning how outdated it is to only be able to select one building at a time. If they did know about hotkeys, it would probably help the hardcore sc players more, because then they'd know the importance of how much MBS will affect hotkeys and would maybe then start to have opinions like we have, with the pros and cons of new UI features, instead of the simple New is good, Old is bad mentality. I'm still looking for evidence on this. Play a game on the maps reviewers play, then check bwchart: 0% hotkeys. Actually, I don't need evidence. You provided 0 evidence to the contrary (the initial claim).
I was referring to the "New is good, Old is bad mentality" part, which orangedude kindly did actually provide an example for.
I'm not questioning the ineptitude of reviewers, that's totally a given.
|
On September 13 2007 13:13 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 13:04 orangedude wrote:On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:
While it is true that hype/name will drive sales of SC2 because it's by Blizzard, this is not the most important factor in driving a pro-scene. You must KEEP those "newbs" playing for long enough without frustrating them (due to UI or other things) before they can gradually become pros. It's a very fine-line here in many cases and just one little issue can drive many people away. In my eyes, the pro scene will appear almost no matter what. And it will be dominated in the beginning by veterans of previous games, no matter what. Retired WC3 titans trying it out, retired BW titans trying it out, they'll totally defeat everybody else initially and start the pro scene. It's up to instutitions like WCG to decide whether the game itself gets much facetime as a competitive/tourney game. EDIT: Or quite possibly up to the general population of Korea. :3 Indeed the pro-scene will appear. But what I've been arguing from the beginning (which I base my arguments on the popularity of the War3 scene outside of Korea vs SC's out of Korea) is that this is not enough to make televised leagues viable (especially if you keep the same UI). It won't reach a critical acceptance rate that will be even close to Korea's if you rely on these same people. It could very well be even smaller than the original SC scene, due to people being turned away. SC2 is one of the few opportunities we have to majorly advance the pro-gaming scene outside of Korea, and it would be terrible if we don't even try to achieve this (by catering to only the current group of pro-gamers, which is nearly insignificant). I'm not worried about the Korean scene. The goal for Blizzard should be to try to expand E-Sports in the REST of the world, because it is severely lacking right now. If SC2 is only successful in Korea, I would consider it a failure on Blizzard's part. I think I totally finally understand your viewpoint now. You want SC2 to be a widely-accessible vehicle for everybody everywhere to get into the pro-scene and break into the whole world, along the same vein as Counter-Strike. I actually don't see many problems with that. With MBS making it easier for people to reach the levels of the koreans (who'll default at a high level), there is room for multiple tournaments everywhere and the game will be more accessible for anyone to play for a year and enter the pro scene, much like in CS. I just don't want that, for the same reason as any other veteran who's posted here. It'll be less of an elite spectator sport and more of a gain-a-bit-of-fame-and-money-through-video-games, just as CS is/was.
Your opinions are yours to keep. I however, would very much would like this to happen. Imagine how awesome it would be if you could switch to a TV channel at home and tune into the latest SC2 game between two of the top US SC2 players duking it out for 100K cash prize and glory (this is already somewhat there in Germany for the War3 scene). Finally, casting in ENGLISH, and perhaps with a sense of humor we can understand like Tasteless.
On September 13 2007 13:13 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 13:04 orangedude wrote:On September 13 2007 12:55 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 12:50 orangedude wrote:Also 1esu made a very good post addressing this issue earlier in this thread which I will quote here: On September 09 2007 14:08 1esu wrote:On September 09 2007 10:32 NonY[rC] wrote:
There's no game in the world that is about to be released that demands more respect than SC2. If Blizzard decides to stick to something that seems outdated, then they'll think there's something to it. Doom 3. Easily one of the most respected FPS franchises in the world, and when id decided to just made a visually-enhanced remake of the original without significantly updating any of the gameplay, it got bashed into oblivion by players and reviewers alike. Just because your game belongs to one of the most respected RTS franchise in the history of the genre, doesn't mean you can ignore the advances made in game design and get away with it. People will still buy the game for the reputation, graphics, etc. but they won't stay around long enough to become a part of the competitive community, and that's what we're concerned with here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doom_3#Reception... Sold pretty well and got decent reviews in my opinion... Huh? Anyways, refer to my previous post where I edited in some hype-machine examples, please. Yes spiritofthetuna, but where is the Doom3 pro-gaming scene? No one stuck around long enough for it to form despite its decent sales. I don't recall it ever even having one, whereas most other high-profile FPS games had for at least a while. Er. Doom3 was never meant to be a big multiplayer game. Never. Ever. The focus was on the single-player, much like the original Doom.
Point taken. There may however be other examples of this same idea, but I'm too lazy to think right now.
|
On September 13 2007 13:11 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote:
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest. Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them. The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)?
This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understanding and mentality usually produce. When someone posts something wrong in a strategy forum, its obvious. Here, there is no "evidence". Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well.
The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been?
And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
|
On September 13 2007 13:26 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 13:11 orangedude wrote:On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote:
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest. Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them. The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)? This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understand and mentality usually produce. Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well. The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been? And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
Oh, shut up.
He's made a decent point on why he wants this to happen, he accepts that if it doesn't happen, SC2 may still be as strong as BW, and we've made our points on why we don't want this to happen. He's stopped being rude and I think he's a totally decent poster.
It's two different paths with two different risks and two different best-case outcomes, and while you (and I) don't support the best-case outcome of his ideal SC2, he has understandable reasons of why he doesn't necessarily support the best-case outcomes of a hardcore BW-core SC2.
|
On September 13 2007 13:26 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 13:11 orangedude wrote:On September 13 2007 12:52 Aphelion wrote:
If people have already bought the game (and you admitted many would), reviews are not going to influence how long they play it. The actual game play is.
Aphelion, I thought this was a terrible subforum. Anyways, you are welcome to stay, but let's not let this thread to devolve into another flamefest. Hype/Name is one factor driving sales. Reviews are certainly another large factor. Word of mouth is especially important for long-term acceptance. Which of these are more important and by how much is anyone's guess. I'm sure Blizzard would aim to maximize all of them. The actual gameplay is exactly what is described by reviews, as these reviewers are playing the game with the same mindset as an RTS noob. If even during their quick playthrough (probably 10-20ish hrs at most) they are frustrated with the UI enough to criticize it, how long do you think the average noob will play for (even those noobs who gradually become better until they become pros if they fall in love with the game)? This is a terrible subforum, simply because posters like you are willing to do anything to win a point, subtling twisting the arguments of others and ignore context and intuition. This is killer because many posters here are so far removed from the SC gaming environment we value. Some don't even play the game much. As a result, the discussion easily becomes just a lot of hot air, detached from the grounding effect that a common gaming understanding and mentality usually produce. When someone posts something wrong in a strategy forum, its obvious. Here, there is no "evidence". Debate becomes formal, theoretical, and requires one to jump too many technical hoops simply to get a point across. Polite words and carefully edited posting can make any terrible argument appear reasonable very well. The reason I still am posting here is because I care deeply about SC2, simply because it will almost completely destroy the foreign SC scene. There isn't much of an alternative for us. The replacement had better be good. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice any ounce of gameplay simply for improving the popularity of a game among newbs, when the game is already guaranteed to be popular. Has any Blizzard game not been? And don't "welcome to stay" me. You are just as much a guest here as I am. And frankly, I can't believe the leniency shown you by the staff. You would think you would show some humility after that. But thats approaching flame territory, and another topic for another day.
I see you still have not changed. You now resort to defaming my character rather than addressing my arguments in order to make a point. The mods' decisions (after careful discussion) are not yours to question. All right then. Since you are not planning to leave after all, I do not want to discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread again. Truce?
|
On September 13 2007 13:30 orangedude wrote:
I see you still have not changed. All right then. I will not discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread. Truce?
Ignore him. You keep chugging little man.
:3
Though tomorrow, I will bring up the subject of why the better UI may not result in such a wide pro scene.
|
On September 13 2007 13:31 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 13:30 orangedude wrote:
I see you still have not changed. All right then. I will not discuss this any further. I don't want to risk ruining this thread. Truce? Ignore him. You keep chugging little man. :3 Though tomorrow, I will bring up the subject of why the better UI may not result in such a wide pro scene.
I will look forward to this then 
Please try to use as many real examples as you can to strengthen your position. After all, history always repeats itself, and is the best place to learn things to apply for the future. Any argument without solid proof would sadly be only conjecture and we'd be back where we started.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On September 13 2007 10:59 aW]Nevermind wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 07:38 Artanis[Xp] wrote:
I think that MBS is a tough, grey area which is another point that seperates the casual SC2 gamer from the oldschool SC player. Both groups demand diffrent things, and it's up to Blizzard to decide on the ideal middle way.
As for MBS, I'm not too sure if it's going to make a big diffrence on the professional scene. It will affect the lower levels tremendously though, and I'm not sure if we would want this to happen. Some somewhat skilled players might feel that they don't have enough of an edge over lesser skilled players in this game, which could lead to as much inactivity as we suffer currently.
Then again, I might just be seeing a danger that isn't there. I trust in the development team of Blizzard to decide on the best route, since they have some of the best programmers and even an ex-progamer in their team. Inactivity because you can't horribly bash noobs, but only beat them ? lol good logic. All the sc hardcore players are so worryed about having to re-learn everything and pissed about wasting 5 years to master the UI just to get a new easier UI because they won't have such an edge over their opponents, what about bashing noobs because you have better micro and a better uni mix and timming ? and not because you can mass units from 16 gateways faster than him ?
You realize that I can already destroy a worse player micro/timing wise, and that lessening my macro edge IS going to make me destroy him less badly, right?
I don't care super much about this, I'm just saying that destroying him with micro is already there.
On September 13 2007 12:27 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:02 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 11:13 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
Do you think all publications and blogs will instantly complain about outdated UI and instantly halt sales completely?
No, maybe not all, perhaps only 95% of them (excluding blogs from an SC veteran's viewpoint). No, it won't halt sales completely, but will likely greatly hamper them, which is clearly a very bad thing. I really doubt it. I'd say 70% at most. Your conjecture vs mine, you can say you've won this point if you want, I say it's up in the air. Fair enough, but even 50% of reviews criticizing the UI (especially by big sites such as IGN, and Gamespot who are known to be very picky about innovation) is very seriously detrimental to sales. Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:02 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 11:13 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
If the rest of the game is perfect, then losing the UI is trivial.
Maybe trivial to you, since you started playing SC back in 98 or whenever you started. You can't speak the same about others, because they think differently from you. Proof of this is in nearly every SC review and in every other RTS game review, which are catered to the mass market (e.g. Gamespot gave SC only an 8 for gameplay). Where is your proof aside from your own personal opinion? If anything, that Gamespot review only proved how often wrong game reviewers are. I've played BW melee only since late 2005, not even close to 98. I still don't see how you represent the majority, and I honestly don't believe that (lack of) UI will be a deterrent among any relatively hardcore gamers. And by hardcore, I don't mean hardcore SC players, I don't mean RTS players, I just mean gamers who have experience gaming and are willing to take up the challenge of a game that is hard to learn and master, and to improve in it. There's more of these than you think, IMO. Oh and, could you source some reviews (RTS, preferably) in which UI was blamed as game-breaking? Not games in which the UI actually sucked and was unusuable, just a bit outdated. I'd like to see some of those. Unfortunately, even if most game reviewers are complete RTS noobs (which is often true, especially for large popular sites), they are still catered to the mass market and are very important to their success among such an audience, which is where the largest amount of sales will be coming from. Basically, it does not matter one bit how "wrong" you think the reviewers are, because they are probably similar to the average gamer, and are thus writing an "accurate" review if you think about it. Also, I don't see how the burden of proof falls completely on me to provide all the examples when you can also do some research and show me some reviews of SC that did not criticize its UI, but regardless here you are: Armies of Exigo is modern RTS (2004) that is a perfect example of the consequences of catering to a hardcore fanbase (namely SC's): http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/919920.asp (72%) http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/armiesofexigo/review.html?page=2"GameSpot Score 6.7 fair (gameplay 6, graphics 9) Summary: Despite its goregous graphics, this real-time strategy game seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then Armies of Exigo is a real-time strategy game that should have Blizzard blushing. This debut offering from developer Black Hole Games borrows quite a bit from Blizzard's classic real-time strategy releases. In making its Blizzard clone, the developer has emulated everything from the 3D look of the units and buildings of Warcraft III to the three-pronged storyline of Starcraft and the Hollywood-quality cutscene movies that Blizzard is known for. The only problem is that while Black Hole has all the ingredients of a great real-time strategy game, the formula in Armies of Exigo comes off as, well, far too formulaic. Armies of Exigo is in many ways a 1999-era real-time strategy game with 2004 production values. It's a beautiful strategy offering that's technically on par with the best games on the market, and you can appreciate the graphical detail on display as armies clash, magical effects rain down, and units are hurled into the air by mighty blows. However, it's disappointing that the gameplay is very much like that of the earliest real-time strategy games. This is a traditional RTS that seemingly ignores all the advances that the genre has experienced over the past several years. ... That said, if you're looking for an old-school real-time strategy game, then you'll most likely enjoy Armies of Exigo, especially since it features a lot of gameplay in its single-player campaign. Just be prepared for some frustration along the way. However, if you're looking for innovation or streamlined or modern gameplay, you won't find it here." http://pc.ign.com/articles/573/573573p2.htmlIGN: "7.0 Decent OVERALL (out of 10 / not an average) Armies of Exigo The perfect game for that nostalgic masochist in your life. by Steve Butts December 15, 2004 - No developer in their right mind would be upset if you compared their game to Starcraft. The Blizzard classic set a new standard for strategy games five years ago and sparked an excessive number of copycats. It took a few years for real-time strategy developers to absorb the model before finally breaking through it in terms of technology and design. While some gamers still hold Starcraft up as the standard by which all other real-time strategy games are judged, none can deny that lots of new features have been introduced in the meantime. Armies of Exigo hearkens back to the days when every RTS that came our way seemed to be cast in the Starcraft mold. Though this makes it a very traditional and ultimately unsurprising game, it also means that the developers have the benefit of five years of refinement to look back on. Consequently Armies of Exigo seems like an anachronism -- a familiar but finely polished take on the previous generation of strategy games. ... Capping groups at 15 units could potentially create a real headache in terms of controlling the armies. Armies of Exigo allows you to combine these small groups into one of four larger Super Groups. This extra layer of flexibility is definitely welcome but, given the size of the maps and the overall shape of the action, it would be much easier if the designers had just increased the unit cap for the basic groups. Keeping tabs on the status of the units within each individual group is basically impossible without lots of management. ... Closing CommentsSince it borrows so heavily from Starcraft, Armies of Exigo definitely has a lot going for it. The three races are balanced nicely and the campaign offers a lengthy challenge. Though the story is a bit forgettable, the cutscenes are almost as good as those we've seen from Blizzard. Still, this is definitely a game aimed at the hardcore, old school crowd. Newcomers to the real-time strategy genre will find that the campaign is difficult to the point of near total aggravation. I've played almost every RTS released since Starcraft and even I threw up my hands in frustration at times. Veterans who are looking for something new will find that the design holds no surprises. The dual-layer map system is a nice gimmick but I'm looking to Liquid's Dragonshard to actually make something interesting from the concept. " Needless to say, Armies of Exigo despite its excellent visuals, was NOT a successful game and has literally 0 pro-scene today despite its catering to the hardcore crowd familiar to SC. Show nested quote +On September 13 2007 12:02 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:On September 13 2007 11:13 orangedude wrote:On September 11 2007 15:34 SpiritoftheTuna wrote:
...If SC2 tries to cater to all RTS audiences at once, problems may occur. However, if SC2 is truly fun to play and KEEPS THE OLD STYLE OF GAMEPLAY, even with obsolete UI, the UI might play much less of a role than you think. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying here that an "obsolete UI" is bad for SC2, but not bad enough to drag it down because the other parts of the game will make up for it (which seems to be based on conjecture and opinion). Now, it is a given that every other part of the game will be improved in a sequel (hopefully), so why not add a more attractive UI to new players as well and make the game even better and more popular (and perhaps additional macro-related tasks)? I'm pretty sure that's the path that Blizzard has in mind. Finally, if the UI truly plays only a small role (as you claim without proof), then all the more reason to include a noob-friendly UI to attract more sales. And my point is that I think you're underestimating the fanbase's ability to see a good game in a good game, and your guess that the fanbase will be turned off is much conjecture as my guess that they won't. Well, true, but I have done my research and am basing my opinions on inductive reasoning from the past. Maybe if you can provide some counter-examples from review quotes then you can say the same.
Not entirely disagreeing, but one reason it did so poorly was that it got NO support from EA, ie no advertizing or anything..
|
To sum some arguments (and the main opinion of pro MBS up)
If SC2 becomes sells well, becomes a huge hit and furthers the progaming scene in Korea only then it's a failure.
Blizzards goal obviously has to be to expand progaming in the rest of the world, otherwise there would be no progress. So they need a huge ammount of players to not only buy the game but to play it enough to really understand how intricate it is. SC isn't soccer, you need to truly understand what's going on to be impressed by it.
Which is why they need to attract new people and keep them playing for a while, which is why they need a good UI.
Remember that there was a huge ammount of Koreans allready playing the game before e-sports kicked off, it did NOT start with just a handfull of really skilled players.
Catering to only the hardcore gamers won't work because if there isn't enough people who like and understand the game there's not going to be enough people watching it anyway (not to mention the % argument about pros).
|
On September 13 2007 16:09 FrozenArbiter wrote:
Not entirely disagreeing, but one reason it did so poorly was that it got NO support from EA, ie no advertizing or anything..
But universally damning reviews certainly didn't help at all. Do you want SC2 to risk the same? Armies of Exigo had the potential to receive 9+ from sites, and that alone can boost sales greatly by earning GOTY's for RTS category. Just look at all the positives that the reviews have praised. High production values, gorgeous graphics, great cinematics/cutscenes, three balanced races, some innovations, formula based on SC's success, and all in all a great effort.
What's their reward for all this? A pathetic 7.2 review average.
Before most hardcore players would ever want to invest time into a game, they would probably want to do so on what the majority considers to be a good game.
|
I don't care super much about this, I'm just saying that destroying him with micro is already there.
So you shouldn't care about MBS, doesn't matter what we think, blizzard already implemented it, as the wc3 player i am, i know a lot of wc3 players who won't change to sc2 if UI isn't as good as the wc3 one, because we don't want to get used to an old UI.
And thats the main reason i quit BW a few months ago i remember my last game, i played it on ICCUP against this protoss player (i'm zerg) well i had a good start i watched a lot of replays, etc i knew the built order quite perfectly and i had in mind what to do to counter his cannon expo (map was reverse temple), at some point we had a big battle i had zerlings and hydras while he had zealots and goons, he tryed to push my second expo but he was so lazzy with micro that i beated his push really bad killing units for free at this point i though well hes dead he lost too much if i push his expo now he will lose, so i did right i was beating him up bad at his expo but i had to go back to my base to babysit my unit production, at the same time i went back to my base in just an eye blink he used his 3 high templars, and killed around 12 hydras with 3 storms, obviously my push failed and then he macro whored me and won, i was so damn pissed i outmicroed him so bad in every battle if i had MBS like in wc3 i wouldn't lose everything to 3 high templars just because i had to go back to my base 3 or4 seconds to mass click some stupid larvas, the funniest thing after showing the replay to a friend of mine who is "good" at BW, he tells me this "you can't copy such a strat because is too hard to use thats why we don't try and copy korean pros because we are not fast enough LOL that is so fucking sad really just because a stupid interfase, doesn't make any sense.
Then i switched to terran because i saw some replays, etc i realized that only koreans are good with terran because terran needs some intense vulture micro / mines micro, using siege tanks properly, building turrets to defend against anti-air etc, terran needs to use this in order to win, but you can't because you must go back in the middle of a battle to your base just to smash ur keyboard pressing V, T on ur 12 factorys, instead of actually microing in the fight, that is so damn boring losing to a guy that doesn't care at all about his units but only about mass clicking his 12 factorys, we wc3 players we are used to fight our battles, trying to outmicro our opponent in every fight, getting the best position, etc but on bw midd lev of play, this doesn't work but only mass clicking ur factorys.
Then i went back to zerg because i though terran was too hard for me, so i've started to beat some of my friends because all i did in midd long game was smashing my keyboard to mass more zerlings, lurkers, ultras or whatever, It was hilarius to beat a wc3 friend who was really putting an insane marine micro just because i massed faster than him, on the long road let's say 30 minutes i always beated him even tho sometimes i could lose my entire army killing a small supply. (we both have + 200 apm in wc3, reaching around 300 - 350 in battle, tho this is not good enough to mass and micro in BW thanks to thar retard'ed UI).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
