|
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 13:36 1esu wrote:List one game with MBS that is better than BW. You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface. That is your own speculation. We claim that MBS is bad, and we have the record of history on our side. We have experienced players, some of the best foreign players, to weigh in on the subject. We have people who have played as much SC2 as you can without being part of the Blizzard team. We gave out concrete, in game examples of what made SC so fun because it has no MBS.
Correlation is not causation: just because there have been many "failed" RTSs out there that happened to have MBS, does not necessarily mean that MBS is the cause, or even a factor.
You have conjecture and guesswork against a backdrop of failed games. Your very argument, appealing to noobs who won't play without MBS, evinces a type of non-competitive attitude which is completely against what took BW to because the biggest professional video scene and the only kind of its type in Korea. You suggest that Starcraft II will somehow suffer from bad reviews and lack of sales, and that the best RTS out there (9 years after its release !) is somehow accountable for reviewers who evidently never played RTS at any good level and will be held to a standard set by far inferior games, and that the only community (built up by years of dedication and work to such and old game!) be wrecked in order to appease those who never appreciated it in its first place. You know it as well as I - SC2 will kill the foreign community of SC. If you going to take away the only game of its kind, the sequel damn well live up to some standards. You would dilute it for the possibility of attracting a few fair-weather noobs.
Forgive me if I don't find your argument appealing.
That's because it's not my argument, it's a straw man. I want SC2 to appeal to noobs who aren't likely to play competitively without interface updates like MBS; of course they're going to play UMS maps and the like, but it's the potential competitive players I'm concerned with. Furthermore, I know SC2 will have great sales even with non-optimal reviews (I'd be surprised if IGN or Gamespot gave SC2 a 9 or higher if it lacked MBS), but I'm worried about the effect that a lack of MBS will likely have on the growth of the SC2 competitive community.
In regards to making MBS triggerable, why not leave MBS in and then make it possible for someone to remove it? The veterans who hate MBS will be much more likely to mod the engine in order to take MBS out than the noobs will to put it in.
Oh, and as for this little jab:
And, those who are serious about playing to win in sc2 would play normal games, instead of MBS games.
There's a large difference between competitive spirit and masochism. I'm a competitive, hardcore gamer, but I'm pragmatic enough to know when I'm wasting my time trying to catch up to people who are almost a full decade ahead of me. So don't insult me by saying that people who think removing MBS is a bad idea means they don't want to 'play to win'.
|
On September 30 2007 08:41 FrozenArbiter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 07:46 koryano321 wrote:
lost temple is balanceD??? since when???? i thought it was advantageous for fucking terran, the other races cant fucking expand with a terran drop on their gay expansion cliff. impossible to break through the defense in a frontal assulat, forced to wait for terran to move out from their gay ledge with tanks shooting down on their army. when protoss is at 12, and terran is at 3, tell me its balanced when RIGHT WHEN PROTSS EXITS BASE, THEY ARE HIT BY TANKS BECAUSE OF THAT GAY LEDGE EXTENDING TO THEIR ENTRANCe. on a competitive level, people DO NOT play LT nemore, it is casually played, it is a fun map, it is still popular, but it is in NO WAY balanced. The modern iterations of lost temple are more or less balanced. The original lost temple has serious positional imbalances, unlike the modern ones where they are very minor.
well the original poster WAS talking about the Lost temple map that blizzard came out with, so i stand by my point.
|
How is that a strawman? As I said, we cannot really prove anything. But the correlation is damn well on ourside. It also helps that SC is without MBS, and we know that at least that works. You haven't shown me a working example of a comparable game with MBS yet.
If people won't play competitively without MBS - its not a huge loss. A lot of them won't play competitively for a long time with that kind of attitude anyways, at most a few months and they will be gone. I am not prepared to sacrifice the only game that has a shot of matching SC in the off hope that it will expand the community a little more. Especially when it will kill the existing SC community.
Edit: 1esu, your previous 2 posts seem to suggest that attracting noobs with MBS isn't the real issue, its rather removing the pre-existing advantage that current SCers have. Isn't that completely different from the philosophy of Blizzard, which is to make a game that good players CAN show their skill? Not only is that a slap in the face at the community, how can you significantly tamper with the final gameplay of a game just to remove a few learning hurdles? And this is going to be the sequel for SC, and a foray by Blizzard to cater to professional gaming?
Edit 2: I have a question. Which of you pro-MBS people will not be playing SC2 if it had no MBS. Fess up.
|
First, it's a straw man because it's an overgeneralized position that I don't, and have never, supported.
Secondly, there is no comparable game with MBS to SC, as I explained, because the only RTS that has received anywhere close to the amount of refinement SC had is WC3, and that's incomparable because it's as much a competitive RPG as it is an RTS. But that doesn't mean that MBS causes a game to fail; SC2 could easily be the exception to the correlation.
Third, as I explained above, there's a difference between a healthy competitive attitude and sheer masochism - competitive, pragmatic players will see that there's little point in spending hours upon hours trying to catch up to people years ahead of them, with little reward in doing so.
Finally, I can almost guarantee that someone will try to recreate SC in SC2 within a year of its release. SC is simply too well balanced of a game to just discard in favor of what will likely be an imbalanced vanilla SC2. I have a feeling Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've gone into the effort of making the SC1 units available in the editor. So no, I don't htink it will kill the SC community; in fact, I'd be happiest if the two could coexist.
|
On September 30 2007 14:18 1esu wrote:
First, it's a straw man because it's an overgeneralized position that I don't, and have never, supported.
Secondly, there is no comparable game with MBS to SC, as I explained, because the only RTS that has received anywhere close to the amount of refinement SC had is WC3, and that's incomparable because it's as much a competitive RPG as it is an RTS. But that doesn't mean that MBS causes a game to fail; SC2 could easily be the exception to the correlation.
Its not a strawman. List to me exactly how different your argument is different from what I said. And your second point is just conjecture - you can't really prove that MBS isn't a factor in games being bad. The best you can say is that there isn't prove to the contrary - and history isn't on your side.
On September 30 2007 14:18 1esu wrote:
Finally, I can almost guarantee that someone will try to recreate SC in SC2 within a year of its release. SC is simply too well balanced of a game to just discard in favor of what will likely be an imbalanced vanilla SC2. I have a feeling Blizzard knows this, and that's why they've gone into the effort of making the SC1 units available in the editor. So no, I don't htink it will kill the SC community; in fact, I'd be happiest if the two could coexist.
Too many things in SC depend on its 2Dness and quirks in its engine. Its not nearly the same. And if the community would split, well both would die. I'm afraid its one or the other.
I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
|
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 13:36 1esu wrote:List one game with MBS that is better than BW. You know perfectly well I can't, but it's not because of MBS: it's because no other RTS has the gameplay balance developed from years of patches (which didn't affect the interface, as you said) that SC does, mostly because those developers work under publishers who will only allow them X number of changes. Blizzard is its own publisher, and thus has no one to answer to. The only game even close to the balance of SC is, naturally, WC3, Blizzard's other RTS. And while it is very popular in its own right, its inferiority to SC is due to intrinsic factors of its core gameplay, such as heroes, creeps, high-HP units, etc., not necessarily because of its interface. That is your own speculation. We claim that MBS is bad, and we have the record of history on our side. We have experienced players, some of the best foreign players, to weigh in on the subject. We have people who have played as much SC2 as you can without being part of the Blizzard team. We gave out concrete, in game examples of what made SC so fun because it has no MBS.
The record of history to compare why newer RTS games weren't as good as SC can't really be used to prove why MBS is bad, unless MBS was a defining feature of all of these games. There is in fact so much more that defines the quality of an RTS game as an E-Sport than just "MBS". Just to list a couple: strategical depth, balance, and mechanical skill requirements. I would assume those three aspects of any RTS are far more important as defining features of a game than "MBS.
If you want to use an argument like this as proof, I could say look at all the new RTS's that all have 3-D graphics vs SC's 2-D graphics. All of those games are failures compared to SC competitively, so therefore we should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well. However, this doesn't really hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. It's pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games.
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote:
You have conjecture and guesswork against a backdrop of failed games. Your very argument, appealing to noobs who won't play without MBS, evinces a type of non-competitive attitude which is completely against what took BW to because the biggest professional video scene and the only kind of its type in Korea. You suggest that Starcraft II will somehow suffer from bad reviews and lack of sales, and that the best RTS out there (9 years after its release !) is somehow accountable for reviewers who evidently never played RTS at any good level.
I think you're forgetting one of Blizzard's key mottos that has led them to become the most successful PC developer in the world. Easy to learn, but difficult to master. This philosophy is actually at the root of every widely competitive sport or game in existence. If MBS is removed in this day and age, SC2 would simply be focusing on the second part (difficult to master), while skipping over the first (easy to pick up). That could be a recipe for disaster.
On September 30 2007 13:48 Aphelion wrote:
You want SC2 to adhere to a standard set by far inferior games, and that the SC community (built up by years of dedication and work to such and old game!) be wrecked in order to appease those who never appreciated it in its first place. You know it as well as I - SC2 will kill the foreign community of SC. If you going to take away the only game of its kind, the sequel damn well live up to some standards. You would dilute it for the possibility of attracting a few fair-weather noobs.
But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here.
|
You said play. I said play competitively. There's a vast difference between players who go straight for casual or UMS play, and potential competitive players. I'm not worried about the former, but am worried about the latter.
As for SC in SC2, we'll have to see how Project Revolution (SC as exactly as possible in the WC3 engine) turns out, as its currently in closed beta.
I personally would play SC2 if it had no MBS (customizable hotkeys are really all I need to be happy), but its inclusion or exclusion (along with other interface changes) would significantly affect my decision on whether to devote myself competitively to it. And I say this as someone who is a competitive gamer.
|
On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote:
I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent.
That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs.
|
On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote:
But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here.
I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true.
And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
|
On September 30 2007 14:45 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote:
I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent. That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs.
You'd be surprised; one of the TL threads regarding MBS had a poll that had 54 in favor of the interface changes and 34 against them (with 6 'not sure's, one of them mine). I'd also be interested to see who among the anti-MBS people would not play SC2 competitively if it had MBS (or the interface change of your choice).
|
I can't say, but I don't think I would. I think I'll end up playing a few months, then go back to BW, or quit gaming all together since the community is dead.
That question doesn't answer as much as mine anyways. Foreign BW players might play SC2 even if its an inferior game, simply because the BW community died off. But people who wont play without MBS - they are clearly those who never appreciated the original SC anyways. There are those who support MBS, but they can live without it because they are playing without right now. But those who won't, that ruins their credibility.
|
On September 30 2007 15:04 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:45 orangedude wrote:On September 30 2007 14:22 Aphelion wrote:
I further reiterate my original question, how many of you pro MBS people would not play SC2 if it had no MBS? This is ad hominem, but it is also very pertinent. That's not going to be very useful, because this question is posed to a community on TL.net focused on competitive SC gaming. If I didn't enjoy SC and its SBS macro, I wouldn't even be posting here. So of course I would still be playing SC2 if it didn't have MBS. I can't speak for other potential pros who may be dissuaded due to being used to newer interfaces. The only way you would get a more accurate/useful answer here, is if you posted this question to an E-Sports site that focused on many different RTSs. You'd be surprised; one of the TL threads regarding MBS had a poll that had 54 in favor of the interface changes and 34 against them (with 6 'not sure's, one of them mine). I'd also be interested to see who among the anti-MBS people would not play SC2 competitively if it had MBS (or the interface change of your choice).
And how many of those are TL veterans, not just people who just joined for the SC2 forum?
|
Both sides are pretty much set in their views, arguments keep getting repeated over and over again.
We really have to wait to see an almost complete version of SC2 which probably includes MBS anyway, and then approach it as open-minded and objective as possible, to decide whether MBS "kills" the game or not.
We'll probably need even more time to decide that, because no one is going to play SC2 at a perfect level when it is released. After some time we'll see the real impact of MBS.
Until then, both sides, anti-MBS and pro-MBS, are mostly doing guesswork. You simply can't say that SBS is an important reason for Starcraft's success and the lack of SBS is the reason why other RTS games have failed, because there are a lot more aspects in a game.
I'm much more on the pro-MBS side because I do not think that SBS is a requirement for a competitive game. Balance, variety in gameplay and a large fanbase is much more important.
If MBS turns out to be really bad, I'll accept it of course. But I just can't imagine this to happen.
I also don't want the game to be possible to master, even progamers playing 12-14 hours a day should always have room to improve their play, but I don't think that MBS is going to change that, I merely think that MBS is going to shift the priority in late game from macroing to microing more.
But we'll have to wait until we actually see the impact of MBS in the final game.
|
with MBS in SC2, its not going to be much if any that seperates the LzGaMeR\'s Froz\'s Incontrol\'s from the Nada\'s Boxer\'s Nal_ra.. which is bullcrap becasue we all know group B destroy\'s Group A. i dont think MBS will ever help a game become more competitive.. i dont think thats posible.. all its going to do.. is please all the other rts gamers who will be coming from AoE WC3 CC3 ect. its not going to matter to the NEW RTS players.. for the fact.. how would they know what MBS was like if they never experianced it?? the reviews and crap yall talk about is bullcrap.. With SC2 and blizzard... there is no way a game review would be negitive.. and this is coming first hand from a friend i know who works with EGM (electronic\'s gaming monthly) so using that as a reason to put MBS in a game that actually wants to go some where.. is pointless in my eye\'s~
|
On September 30 2007 15:11 Brutalisk wrote:
Both sides are pretty much set in their views, arguments keep getting repeated over and over again.
We really have to wait to see an almost complete version of SC2 which probably includes MBS anyway, and then approach it as open-minded and objective as possible, to decide whether MBS "kills" the game or not.
We'll probably need even more time to decide that, because no one is going to play SC2 at a perfect level when it is released. After some time we'll see the real impact of MBS.
Until then, both sides, anti-MBS and pro-MBS, are mostly doing guesswork. You simply can't say that SBS is an important reason for Starcraft's success and the lack of SBS is the reason why other RTS games have failed, because there are a lot more aspects in a game.
None of us can actually prove anything, but the guesswork is more on your part. As I said, we have the experience of good SC players and the precedent of SBS set by SC. We have the example that games with MBS have all been worse than SC. You are free to argue that MBS isn't a cause or a factor in these games being worse, but the historical correlation is firmly on our side.
|
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote:
But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here. I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true.
The correlation is true, but like 1esu pointed out, correlation does NOT mean causation. This would be a logical fallacy. If you want to play this game, then disprove my 3-D/2-D argument.
"Cum hoc ergo propter hoc"
http://www.answers.com/topic/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
All the new RTS's that have 3-D graphics are failures compared to SC competitively (2-D game), therefore Blizzard should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well.
This doesn't hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. There is pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
Why would SC2 be a worse competitive game overall with MBS if the high mechanical skill requirements are still kept in the game? You are free to your beliefs, but it doesn't automatically make them the truth. It will be when SC2 comes to beta and we actually see that you are correct, and nothing has been added to make up for the MBS.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
And what about Europe? How is it possible that Germany has a semi-thriving pro-scene there when they probably have similar attitudes as us. It all happens step-by-step and that image will only change if games like SC2 can become popular.
China probably has an even more negative view of gaming than any other country in the world, with the government actively speaking out against MMO's and the like. There are hard caps to stop people from gaming too long and so on. Yet, the E-sports scene is still steadily growing.
On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular casually and competitively. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
Again, you're still taking the reward/risk with the worst-case scenario in mind. I'll fix this for what I envision could happen.
|
I don't think you meant it this way, but it's not like SC is the only game that used SBS, as it was common at the time. So you could say that the pro-MBS side has historical correlations in the sense that there are many RTSs that use SBS that are inferior to SC. That's why I believe that it's not MBS alone that's causing other games to fail, but primarily other factors.
And Lz, wouldn't people who play other RTSs competitively be exactly what the SC2 competitive community will be looking for in 'potential competitive players' to expand it beyond the SC veterans?
EDIT: OD, aren't the Chinese gaming restrictions only for MMOs, because of their addictive nature?
|
On September 30 2007 15:21 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:On September 30 2007 14:38 orangedude wrote:
But you are looking at this from the worst-case scenario. What about the best-case scenario? If SC2 keeps its competitive qualities even after MBS is implemented, because Blizzard is designing and adding new features to the game with MBS in mind, then you end up attracting all those noobs AND you get a far more competitive and larger pro-scene than you would ever have without MBS. We simply don't know which is going to happen yet, until we see at least a somewhat complete featured SC2 build. If you take out MBS, you will never even get the chance to increase the pro-scene far beyond its present size.
EDIT: Crap, I'm way too slow here. I never said prove anything. I'm saying that there is a huge correlation, and you can't prove that MBS isn't indicative of a shitty game. The burden of proof is on you. I'm simply pointing to the historical correlation. Its up to you to prove that that correlation isn't true. The correlation is true, but like 1esu pointed out, correlation does NOT mean causation. If you want to play this game, then disprove my 3-D/2-D argument. "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" http://www.answers.com/topic/correlation-does-not-imply-causationAll the new RTS's that have 3-D graphics are failures compared to SC competitively (2-D game), so therefore Blizzard should stick with what works and make SC2 a 2-D isometric game as well. This doesn't hold because we all know there is far more to an RTS game than just its graphics. Same deal with MBS. There could be a hundred other reasons why X game is worse than SC competitively, with balance being one of the most important ones. There is pretty clear evidence that nearly every other RTS in existence is less balanced than Blizzard's games. Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
And I disagree with you risk- reward accessment. You are failing to note that what we believe, that even if SC2 does all you say it would with MBS, it would still be a worse competitive game overall. I'm absolutely convinced that removing MBS would lower its quality, EVEN IF it is still good enough to completely achieve what SC has and more.
Why would SC2 be a worse competitive game overall with MBS if the high mechanical skill requirements are still kept in the game? You are free to your beliefs, but it doesn't automatically make them the truth. It will be when SC2 comes to beta and we actually see that you are correct, and nothing has been added to make up for the MBS. Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
The reward part isn't that great anyways. I don't believe e-sports will boom significantly in the West no matter what game comes out. The culture and circumstances simply don't permit it. And the Korean proscene is still growing, and its spreading to China as well. Only age of the game and graphics are standing in the way.
And what about Europe? How is it possible that Germany has a semi-thriving pro-scene there when they probably have similar attitudes as us. It all happens step-by-step and that image will only change if games like SC2 can become popular. China probably has an even more negative view of gaming than any other country in the world, with the government actively speaking out against MMO's and the like. There are hard caps to stop people from gaming too long and so on. Yet, the E-sports scene is still steadily growing. Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 14:59 Aphelion wrote:
If you look from it from the perspective of a gamble - I think the expected gains are far outweighed by the risks. And from an absolute standpoint, I believe that the game w/o MBS is better in terms of pure gameplay too. The reward is that a somewhat inferior game would be vastly more popular casually and competitively. The risk is that it will be inferior, kill the SC community, and achieve nothing. If you can't live with the risks - don't gamble.
Again, you're still taking the reward/risk with the worst-case scenario in mind. I'll fix this for what I envision could happen.
1.) Don't confuse the Chinese government's speaking out with popular gaming. It is completely different from the popular nerd stereotype Americans have. I live in both countries and experienced it personally.
2.) The European "pro" scenes are completely off the track of how Korea developed. They're not even on the path to being a mainstream mature scene. Its a fringe movement. Its not step by step - its going an entirely different path, one that I believe is dead-end. As for America - no RTS progaming for the next 10 years. Book it.
3.) I don't believe its possible that the mechanical skill would be kept the same without MBS. Even if it were, the multitasking and macro balance would be gone.
4.) No one said correlation is causation. But I have a strong correlation, arguments from good players, and personal experience. MBS is also has a strong logical argument for it affecting the game - unlike 3D (you still need to be careful with that though). The combination of that is strong evidence you cannot ignore, even if it doesn't constitute perfect proof.
5.) Our risk-reward accessments are off because we differ about the impact of MBS on actual play and the gaming scene. Its not that I am myopically focused on the worst possible aspects - I'm just saying the expected value is negative. And my arguments for that are given above.
|
Yes, they are for MMO's. But still, Chinese culture in general really looks down on gaming. Most Asian parents feel it's a complete waste of time that could be better spent on studying and getting into a better university, and so on.
|
All parents everywhere are against gaming. But asian students don't have the same ostracizing attitude against computer games, especially RTSes. In US, you get ridiculed as a nerd.
In China and Korea, students would find a pure gaming channel cool. In US, they're a fringe minority immediately stuck with the nerd label. Companies wouldn't want to be associated with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
