|
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote:
I just want to state that lazerflip is hardly one of the best CnC3 players, he didnt even make it out of the US regionals. He is also a balance whiner and from his posts about cnc3 he had really no understanding at all about that game. And most cnc3 players, even the top ones, DO want mbs in sc2 also.
Why would anyone here care about what someone who doesn't even play the game thinks?
That's like adding body checking into soccer in America, because most Americans think it's boring, too hard, etc.
|
On October 04 2007 01:45 LosingID8 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote:
Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english. btw, just to note, starcraft sold around 10 million copies worldwide. 3.5 million of those copies sold were in korea, and due to the nature of pc bang culture, much more than 3.5 million people have played starcraft in south korea. and no, koreans do not like MBS. i would hardly call that "alone".
What is the basis for saying koreans don't like MBS? Because they prefer SC1 over War3? Because they don't think MBS would be good in SC1? Neither of those things tell us whether MBS is right for SC2: there are many reasons why SC1 can be preferred to War3, and MBS is not one of them; MBS in SC1 would obviously ruin it because it has grown up without it. If SC1 had MBS at the start would it be a horrible game now, approaching a decade later? We don't know. And we also don't know how MBS effects SC2, because we don't know SC2. MBS fits in perfectly with many, many RTS's, and taking it away from those games would not make them better. Most others, taking away MBS would not really change much. So why do we think taking MBS out of SC2 is going to "save" it? Completely fallacious. Unless the millions of koreans you're talking about have played SC2 with and without MBS, for about 10 years, we are jumping to conclusions.
|
On October 04 2007 01:35 Klockan3 wrote:
Btw, just to note, ive looked around on other forums and this is the only one ive seen were the discussion didnt end a long time ago with the pro anti mbs side giving up due to the mass of pro mbs posts. You are alone in this fight, or probably a lot of koreans are with you but i cant look up their boards since they dont talk english.
Because we aren't noob like the other forums.
|
On October 04 2007 00:37 G5 wrote:
this thread is still going on? wow...
MBS is stupid, period. It's for newb games, made for newbie gamers.
SC is a competative / skilled game.
If you are too crappy to give good players a good game on Starcraft and it's unacceptable to you.
Here are your options. 1. Practice harder 2. Play War3
Don't post a "im pissed off" thread and try and ruin (potentially) a great game, so that you can be as unskilled in SC2 as you are in SC1 and actually win some games.
I don't care about your reasoning, I don't care about your debate skills. MBS is newbie and if you think it has a place in SC2, get the fuck off tl.net, gg.net, wgtour.com, uninstall sc and make sure I never see your ID again because you don't belong in this community.
now be manner and say GG and GTFO cuss you don't get a re when it comes to this subject and Starcraft.
Well Put Eric, this is how i feel.. Let SC be SC with no mbs/automine .. and WC be WC.. with automine/mbs thats the way it should be.. Blizzard said when they first announced it.. that it was going to be Like the First one.. so if thats the case.. keep automine/mbs out of the freakin game.. if CC3 players or WC3 players dont like it becasue its to hard.. Ship them over to WC3 the newb friendly game.. becasue we dont want any newb friendly game.. if we did.. we would be WC3,CC3,AoE3 gamers instead of SC.
even tho im all for the idea.. of having MBS in SC as a game Type.. that way the newbs can enjoy there mbs and the Ladder/competitive play.. with NO MBS~
|
On October 03 2007 16:07 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2007 15:36 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:On October 03 2007 15:02 orangedude wrote:On October 03 2007 14:45 mensrea wrote:
Orangedude,
1. While I personally believe that MBS will lessen the game, I also acknowledge the possibility that, in the context of SC2, it may also have the opposite effect. Time will tell.
2. You appear to assume that an easier game will be more popular. That is not always the case. And remember: the original SC had no problems whatsoever becoming popular and developing a fanbase without MBS. That is reality, not theory.
3. Your argument that noobs are necessary to create a fanbase for SC2 in order to make the game viable as a professional sport is just silly. You keep beating that dog over the head (which is why I finally decided to address you directly), but it's a patently absurd argument in the context of SC2. SC2 already has a fanbase. It will have a critical mass of players from the get-go regardless of whether MBS is implemented or not. Whether you are for or against MBS, that feature will not determine the formation of a fanbase for SC2. Give me a break.
4. If you had the experience I have speaking with players in PC rooms all over Korea, you would realize that the average non-professional player of the game in that video game madhouse prefers a more difficult game and that nerf features like MBS would be a turnoff for most fans - not a selling point. I am already hearing gripes from the Koreans who have heard about the feature, but have yet to hear any substantial numbers put forth a favorable view of MBS. Anecdotal evidence, yes, but evidence nonetheless.
5. What about those players outside of Korea? They are irrelevant. NBA basketball has a global following precisely because its rules cater to a limited fanbase (fans based in major urban centers in the United States) who are already knowledgeable about the game, who are experienced and who want a game that has standards of excellence that the average person cannot hope to attain. No one wants to see Michael Jordan dunking on a hoop that's been shortened to accomodate the average fan. People outside the core basketball centers (fans in China, South America, Europe, Mongolia, wherever) don't complain - they marvel and aspire. Same deal with any of the major spectator sports with a global fanbase.
For SC pro gaming, Korea is the gold standard. It is the Majors. That is just the way it is. SC 2 should be built with that market in mind - and the rest of the world will follow and, in the end, the fans will thank you for it.
6. If Blizzard is serious about releasing a game designed with professional gaming built into its DNA, then introducing a feature that, at least in isolation (and we have no other way of analysis at this point) makes the game play easier, seems counterintuitive.
Of course, reality is weird. It has a way of confounding logic and disrupting a priori analysis. Reality sets its own rules and determines its own outcomes. So, MBS may, in fact, turn out to be the best thing to happen to the game. Like I said, time will tell.
But, my point is, ORANGEDUDE, you have no rational basis for being so certain. You are too certain of your conclusions and you should not be. I know I'm not.
I hope you do not respond. Best to channel your energies on others. Kudos again for setting out your thoughts to begin with. That's more contribution than most.
3) Indeed, there will be a critical mass of noobs for SC2, but how many of those will stay long enough to go pro? Many could be turned away from competitive play due to lack of MBS. That's my main argument, and there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for this as well. what if the newbs can't go pro? what?... if they can't figure out how to use a keyboard and hotkeys i'm fairly sure they're going to be terrible in other areas as well. Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy. Those newbs who wont go pro will still remember SC2 as a challenging mind game that was a great spectator sport. Would you rather those noobs remember SC2 as a challenging mind game or actually play competitively and contribute directly to the pro-scene. A larger scene directly results in more competition, more tournaments, more sponsors, and consequently more skill. On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
The important thing for an esport to grow is not to get as many progamers as possible, it's to get a game that is incredible to watch and very very difficult to master. Then you get a big fan base because they can be impressed by what's happening. It should be INCREDIBLY hard to become a progamer for SC2, that way it looks even more impressive as an esport.
They are both necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene. Tell me, Tasteless, if the exact circumstances in Korea with the large number of net-cafe's and FPS being banned hadn't occurred, do you honestly think SC would have grown to become the successful E-Sports scene we have today? If it was only necessary to have an awesome game like SC (which I agree with) to become a successful E-Sport without attracting a large number of pros, then why has SC not completely dominated all other games outside of Korea including War3, CS, and so on. On October 03 2007 15:14 MyLostTemple wrote:
I'm sure you'll end up with even more people getting turned away from going pro in SC2 when they start getting raped by blinking stalker micro and rushed by well controlled colossus's. There is more to scare a newb away from going pro at SC2 than only being able to macro from one building at a time. There is a large fundamental difference in being outmicroed by the other player than losing to another because he felt the game was limiting him. In case one, he clearly knows that his opponent was simply a better player and used skill to defeat him. He will accept the loss (if he is a competitive player), because he knows he can improve if he keeps playing and it is entirely his own fault that he has lost. On the other hand, if he thinks the game is at fault, he will not blame himself or the opponent, but only become pissed at the game for having an "archaic interface" designed by Blizzard to favor the SC veterans over any newer players. He will become increasingly frustrated as time goes on, and he may or may not quit playing competitively as a result. This is what happened to someone like aw]nevermind if you read his post. Even though the player is the one truly at fault, it will not seem that way to him, because it is human nature to always find something to place blame on other than himself. That's why you get some bad-mannered players screaming at his opponent for being a "cheesing noob" or "got fucking lucky" whenever he loses to say a proxy-strat, even though it's perfectly legitimate and his own fault for not scouting it. 1) if we had to start hosting SC ladders as BGH only to get more people to play would it really be a good thing? If we had to have more tee ball tournaments instead of baseball ones because everyone can hit a teeball would it really benefit the sports scene? Are these incredibly stubborn players who refuse to learn challenging games really going to contribute to the esports scene? No. 2) you are wrong and misinformed, firstly, SC is not in other major tournaments because of it's out dated graphics, this is what i have been told by SO many people that actually work in the esports scene, and it doesn't surprise me. Esports tournaments outside korea are light years behind right now, if SC1 was remade with SC2's graphics it would be in every esports tournament in the world. FPS games are not banned in korea, i went to several PC bangs and saw CS being played, i even saw CS on the big screen at the Olympic stadium during WEG. they won't really put FPS games on TV because it's too violent, just like they wont put FPS games on TV anywhere... 3) this is a category you've arbitrarily imposed on the game. the difficulty of micro has just as high a chance of scaring players away as the difficulty of macro, you can not prove otherwise since both require incredible skill to utilize. By your logic we should get rid of the option of rushes all together so new players wont get mad if they lose to fast. I really don't care if stubborn crappy players blame the difficult UI as a reason not to master the game. I have no problem with aw]nevermind playing war3 because the interface is easier. SC is a scary and intimidating game thus making it the ultimate esport, it should stay that way. Also, i'm growing tired of repeating these arguments and correcting completely incorrect facts in this MBS thread. You realize you didn't even know how to go 4d5d6d on the keyboard when you started this thread. Yet after learning some hand positions i taught you on battle.net you've tossed them aside (like most of tl.nets good arguments against you) and continued babbling about how crucial MBS is with incoherent facts and illogical assertions. This feels much like arguing about golf with a player who never even bothered to hold a golf club right and instead argues that we need a special machine we can program a golf stroke into that will hit the ball for us, and then golf will be improved (when it obviously won't).
I don't really want to argue with you Tasteless, so I'll stop after this. Anyways, I'll post my last few opinions on these points.
1) I'm quoting you here: "Using the keyboard isn't a magical god given gift, you just learn it by playing a lot, just like you do with micro and strategy." That means every noob can potentially become a pro, assuming they have sufficient motivation to do so. This can be due to love of the game, the fact that they enjoy a challenge or both. My point is that frustrations with the UI can cause many potential pros to lose motivation, even if they have a competitive attitude (such as pros from another RTS, or they never would've become pro). We can disagree with how significant this will be, but I think there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to show this will at least happen to some degree if MBS was not included.
2) CS has equally dated graphics as SC, but it's still going strong today. Anyways, I don't disagree with you here. I was just posing an actual question there (not rhetorical), since you should be quite knowledgeable about the E-sports scene. I'm not sure what you thought I implied.
I believe FPS games were banned from net cafes at the time of when SC gained popularity, so a game like CS never had the same chance to truly catch on in Korea. (I read this from someone else, so I'm not 100% sure if this was true. I apologize if I am wrong about this). Anyways, I just wanted to ask a question (was not intended to be rhetorical). Do you not agree, that both establishing a large player base and a suitable competitive game are necessary requirements for a true thriving pro-scene?
3) That's fine if you think they're just stubborn and shouldn't be playing SC at all. I'm just illustrating how we could be losing out on a large pool of RTS skill by turning away many potential competitive players if MBS was not included. Also my point was not that the "difficulty" of macro turning away players, but more that they believe the UI is at fault and is limiting them rather than their own inherent abilities. Again, this is human nature that we always try to find anything else to blame before our own skills, ranging from "hacks, cheese, luck, lag, imbalance, etc". However, anytime it appears to the player that the game is at fault, this is always a very bad thing and can cause people to lose their motivation to play competitively.
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
4) As am I, so that's why I'm going to leave these points with you and stop arguing, as it's clearly not leading anywhere. I appreciate you trying to teach the hand positions, but I don't plan on going pro with SC anytime soon. I tried to use them and it just put me out of my comfort zone that I established from years of play. I more enjoy watching entertaining high-skill level SC matches atm, because I don't have that much time to practice.
|
On October 04 2007 03:31 orangedude wrote:
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
Actually, that was precisely my thoughts about the game when I first started playing. I thought micro was retarded, and took away strategy. I thought that micro players were just people abusing the game mechanics, and that battles should always reflect unit choice and unit cost.
Not proud of it, but just shows that noobs will complain about anything - micro or macro, justified or not. Just ignore them, like people did me - and they will appreciate it and learn. Like Mensrea said, the noobs will thank you for it.
|
On October 04 2007 03:34 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 03:31 orangedude wrote:
People will never go on the BNet forums and complain about how "omg, I lost again because this guy beat me by outmicroing me. this game sucks." and expect to be taken seriously. However, post the same topic with "omg, I lost again because of the outdated UI and this guy just clicked buildings faster than me. this game sucks" when SC2 is released, and many people could be in agreement.
Actually, that was precisely my thoughts about the game when I first started playing. I thought micro was retarded, and took away strategy. I thought that micro players were just people abusing the game mechanics, and that battles should always reflect unit choice and unit cost. Not proud of it, but just shows that noobs will complain about anything - micro or macro, justified or not. Just ignore them, like people did me - and they will appreciate it and learn. Like Mensrea said, the noobs will thank you for it.
I agree that noobs will complain about anything, but I'm talking about even potential pros and actual pros switching over from other RTS's could have that kind of complaint about an outdated UI (e.g. Grubby made very clear mention of this).
Also, I've never seen any posts like this about micro as an official complaint to Blizzard. I also don't think anyone else will take it seriously if you did. You can bet that you would see a ton of the second kind if SC2 was released without MBS and you might get a lot of agreement from all sorts of players, especially those who haven't played SC competitively all these years.
|
So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
|
On October 04 2007 03:44 Aphelion wrote:
So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
That's why I was trying to explain the fundamental differences between the two in that post. Most people aside from complete noobs will eventually realize that micro is not a fault of the game, because the game is giving you every tool (UI) to allow you to micro as efficiently as possible (e.g. hotkeys). They'll most likely simply understand that they got outplayed by someone more skilled than themselves.
Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-250 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise. Again, read aw]nevermind's comments for this exact mindset (although he certainly could've presented himself better) and Grubby's for a more professional opinion.
|
Thats their problem. I was blaming the AI. There is no DIFFERENCE between one and the other, just that one has more people complaining about it. Both are wrong, and both should be ignored.
Anyways, I recall a few months back there being a link posted to one of the superior commander forums, and the the topic was them argueing about SupCom > SC. Macro wasn't a major problem for most of these casual RTS players, but they had a huge huge problem with micro. Micro was viewed the way I used to viewed it, as an abuse of AI which took away from true battlefield simulation strategy. One of their exact quotes was "in real life battle you don't tell your soldiers to take cover, they do so automatically. I don't want to lose to some no life geek just because he can click faster and more accurately. Thats not strategy".
There are people who will quit over the presence and difficulty of micro, just as there will be people displeased over the difficulty of macro without MBS. Ignore them. SC has shown unequivocably that both are fun, skill based tasks for a competitive game. March bravely forward without these noobs. You can't please all the people all the time - make the best game you can, and the noobs will thank you for it.
|
On October 04 2007 03:48 orangedude wrote:
Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-200 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise.
Even if they wish for their to be MBS, the vast majority of players competitive enough to train for 200 apm will not quit due to lack of MBS. Moot point.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
this is pretty sad. It really is about making the game easier isnt it? How can you sit there and think that a game that is STILL this big with professionals etc could somehow benefit from a dumbed down version of itself?
|
On October 04 2007 03:58 Aphelion wrote:
Thats their problem. I was blaming the AI. There is no DIFFERENCE between one and the other, just that one has more people complaining about it. Both are wrong, and both should be ignored.
Anyways, I recall a few months back there being a link posted to one of the superior commander forums, and the the topic was them argueing about SupCom > SC. Macro wasn't a major problem for most of these casual RTS players, but they had a huge huge problem with micro. Micro was viewed the way I used to viewed it, as an abuse of AI which took away from true battlefield simulation strategy. One of their exact quotes was "in real life battle you don't tell your soldiers to take cover, they do so automatically. I don't want to lose to some no life geek just because he can click faster and more accurately. Thats not strategy".
There are people who will quit over the presence and difficulty of micro, just as there will be people displeased over the difficulty of macro without MBS. Ignore them. SC has shown unequivocably that both are fun, skill based tasks for a competitive game. March bravely forward without these noobs. You can't please all the people all the time - make the best game you can, and the noobs will thank you for it.
Good of you to bring in a real example, but I think there there is a difference here. These players who made those complaints are probably simply casual players with no intention of competing whatsoever, so a game like SupCom is fine for their personal preferences. However, the issue with MBS is that not only noobs, but even a decent to good player or potential pro may believe that he has legitimate grounds to complain about an outdated UI in SC2.
Again, there is anecdotal evidence to support this case. Just like you have anecdotal evidence to support that some people will not like MBS.
On October 04 2007 03:59 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 03:48 orangedude wrote:
Macro can also be difficult, but I think it's the fact that they can lay the blame on the outdated UI that gives the player (even someone who has 150-200 apm, and is far from being noob) the reassurance that they're absolutely right in their opinion and you will never convince them otherwise. Even if they wish for their to be MBS, the vast majority of players competitive enough to train for 200 apm will not quit due to lack of MBS. Moot point.
How sure are you of this, because there is evidence to suggest this is true in some cases (e.g. aw]nevermind + his clan) and not necessarily true in others. It's not a moot point. I think there would need to be a real poll on a pro-gaming related website, like GGL or something to find out.
|
On October 04 2007 03:44 Aphelion wrote:
So why take macro complaints seriously? Both are retarded, macro and micro are equally important parts of SC - even if the noobs don't perceive it to be so.
lol are you serious? Even when people didn't do this fast exp strategy and had to deal with pro-maps that didn't look like BGH, the common consensus was that macro was far more important than micro in Starcraft. You could get much further with 1sd2sh3sh5sh even during the Boxer/Nada era than you could with great unit control, and the importance of micro has been diminishing ever since.
|
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to overcome.
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, I think you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
|
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked.
If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for. Burden of proof would mean that you need to make convincing enough arguments as to convince Blizzard to turn back all the UI changes made to SC2 back to BW's.
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
|
On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to overcome.
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, I think you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US.
You are certainly underestimating the power of userfriendlyness, just like many many others.
You know why WoW broke the barrier of ~1 mil total mmorpg players that people thought before wow it was impossible to break, and not only did wow break it, it did break it with an extremely large margin making it much larger than all other mmorpgs together. It was not beacuse of the graphics, it was not beacuse the game required skill, it was not beacuse of the lore or that blizzard made it or that it was a very deep game. It all boils down to that the whole game was designed to be userfriendly, with some deep stuff tacked on to that.
When starcraft were released not many played computer games, they were much less mainstream than they are today. If starcraft 2 can reach the new masses wich arent blessed with the divinity of starcraft gameplay it can revolutionise the RTS competetive scene just like WoW set a totally new mmorpg standard.
|
On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for. Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US. I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released.
1.) Well, everyone thinks their point is legitimate. But it either is or isn't, no matter how they feel about it. And it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more.
2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus. Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to:
-competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm
-doesn't have devotion to play without MBS
-motivated enough to be a "potential pro"
-appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS
A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
|
On October 04 2007 04:39 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2007 04:29 orangedude wrote:On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
No, no legitimate grounds. Don't try to confuse the issue here. You are talking like you have already won the debate. As I said, the "outdated UI" isn't outdated - its just that the later RTS games have sucked. The current standard here is still the UI of SC and the gameplay of SC. To argue that it is substandard requires an burden of proof you have to prove.
Okay, I used one poor choice of wording, sorry. Legitimate grounds in their opinion, how about that? (although I did write "may believe they have legitimate grounds" so this certainly is not wrong) The later RTS games might've sucked, but they still established certain standards in UI, which most people don't believe sucked. If you want to argue that SC is a standard in RTS quality, then I would agree with you. If you want to argue that the UI for SC, a game released in 1997 is the standard for UI rather than every single other RTS out released there since then, then you have a pretty difficult case to argue for. On October 04 2007 04:18 Aphelion wrote:
And I thought your original argument was that a noob, casual fan base is required for a pro scene? Didn't you imply that every noob was a potential pro? Why are you so eager to brush them off then? I don't even see much of this "competitive enough not to be noob, has 150apm, yet doesn't have the motivation to overcome MBS) potential "pros" lying around.
If anything is a niche, THAT is a niche. I'd wager there are a lot more hardcore SC players wanting MBS out than your very specific list of people you wish to cater to. In fact, it seems to me you are describing yourself - D/D- players without the motivation to practice mechanics, yet wanting to emulate what they see on VODs. Even if you catered to them - it hardly increases your fanbase much, and certainly not enough to justify your grandiose claims of wanting to expand the proscene everywhere.
It seems to me that if you are cavalier enough to brush off the "simple casual players", you can forget about establishing a progaming scene in a place like the US. I've been mentioning both noob, potential pros, and actual pros from other games if you read carefully. That doesn't exclude the fact that noobs can and will become pro if given the time, motivation and the proper competitive game. No, I'm not catering to myself, because I don't plan on going pro even after SC2 is released. 1.) Well, it certainly would be stupid for Blizzard to lower the quality of the best competitive RTS in the world, and the most successful e-sport by far for illegitimate points, won't they? I don't think I need to say more. 2.) Your actual arguments speak otherwise. You seem far too eager to define "potential pro" and "noobs" to suit your arguments. When a micro-hating noob doesn't like your vision of SC2, you are all too willing to throw him under the bus. Yet you bring up a kind of people you feel SC2 should cater to: -competitive enough to have 150 - 200 apm -doesn't have devotion to play without MBS -motivated enough to be a "potential pro" -appreciates micro, but not macro without MBS A very arbitrary and limited list of players that is hardly going to "further broaden the future of e-sports". I still feel you at least somewhat simply want SC2 to be made easier and more suited for you to play.
And I feel that the anti-MBS people want to hurt the quality of the game so that the game is more suitable for THEM to play. With no MBS and no automine, you can stay on top with the exact same skillset that let you be good at SC1. Why then, do you even care about SC2 if you're perfectly satisfied with SC1 and think it is the definitive, perfect game that cannot be eclipsed? A pro who wants certain features that will allow him to win more easily isn't any less biased than a newb who wants certain features so that he can win more easily.
|
I would be the first to benefit from MBS, I can tell you that. My multitasking in battles is horrendous, and I end up with a lot of money after. Given that I am a mostly macro style of player, you can see this really, really hurts me.
And there is no cause to say no MBS hurts the quality of the game. SC is the best game ever made, and I feel it to be perfect. SC2 cannot suffer from emulating it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
