|
On October 02 2007 02:37 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 02:26 lugggy wrote:On October 02 2007 02:20 iamke55 wrote:On October 02 2007 02:14 Aphelion wrote:On October 02 2007 02:12 1sd2sd3sd wrote:
i would never want to see players be flawlessy create a 200/200 army just so they can micro it. If you want that just play a micro map. being able to produce a 200/200 supply and keep it up is a part of starcraft, whats the point of making it so easy excluding that it will be more friendly for the less skilled players? See, half the posters here don't even like or play Starcraft. They just want the flashy units, fanbase, storyline and progaming glamor of Starcraft in their own imaginary noob game with features perfectly suited to showcase their "strategic genius". I can generalize the anti-MBS side as Starcraft fanboys who want to be good at SC2 as soon as it comes out without learning anything new. You guys have already made the game essentially SC1.5, now you want to get it closer to SC1.2? The danger is that appealing to the guys who want 1.2 will ruin the game for new players, and then the old players won't like it and go back to SC:BW anyways so nobody will play the game. I think Blizz should have aimed a lot more for SC 1.2 than they seem to be doing. Simply making a new campaign and new graphics engine and sounds, and heros, would sell the game to the mass market they care the most about. The multiplayer can allow the money maps and popular UMS of War3/SCBW fame, as well as the competitive mode of SCBW, like an expansion. Instead they have opted to retry making another 3d RTS, balanced, good for multi, from scratch, with all their cool new ideas. I hope they pull it off. I have a feeling I will prefer SCBW in the end. But I also have a feeling War3 players and potential would-be War3 players are going to love SC2. And if it is better for Korean TV than War3 (very likely, only a question of how much better) then the game will be a huge success. But Blizzard is to proud to do such a thing, they would never sell a game that they have already sold. If they thought like that wed be in starcraft 5 by now and ~warcraft7, with no wow since they wouldnt have the balls to go into the mmorpg market then. I think its a good thing they dont milk their products by releasing a lot of massproduced games. But really, if you old TL'ers really want to change this so much write a big letter from the big TL persons together to Blizzard explaining the issue in detail. A forum rambling like this on one site wont change their oppinions, and about all other sites are generally pro mbs. Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 02:31 FrozenArbiter wrote:
This is what will happen if SC2 does not live up to SC1, cause there's just no way SC1 will survive as a real competitive alternative, regardless of how good or bad SC2 is.
So you do have some faith in blizzard atleast? Im certain that if they made sc2 halfassed like every other developer wouldve done it wouldnt kill starcraft. Ah well, maybe all this is about the shock starcraft players feel when they see their old game wich they thought would be there eternally now got its death sentence? And then fights to make the alternative as close as possible to what they love? But as i see it starcraft will still kick some, it wont be the biggest anymore but i doubt that any game except sc2 and maybe wc3 will beat it in competetiveness anyway. Hell, you can still find games for wc2 eventhough the game is extremely dated and it never had a competetive community like starcraft.
Faith in Blizzard? They are the best company out there, but they made War3. SC fans have always been the most neglected and forgotten of Blizzard's sons, yet we've built up the most out of any of the other fanbases. After the WGT debacle and the endless hacks, won't it be ironic if Starcraft II ends up killnig SC?
If your not going to help us, at least don't fucking kill us.
|
Maybe blizzard should release sc2 with a sc1 multiplayer mod 
|
On October 02 2007 03:13 Klockan3 wrote:Maybe blizzard should release sc2 with a sc1 multiplayer mod
Are they? I heard that they were somewhere.
|
honestly, if you are going to create an "sc2" which will most likely ruin starcraft, why not just make another expansion with minor changes (like fpreplay, recorded chat, and maybe some program that allows you to organize tourneys all built into the interface) for the people that love how balanced, fair, and time consuming (lol) the game already is. I would be so much more excited for an expansion like that rather then a deluded starcraft 2.
PS. go ahead and make sc2 for all the "gamers" who play a multitude of games but please give the people that really love brood war and dont really play any other games some updates [fpreplay, recorded chat, quick game option, maybe even an antihack ladder with quick game option (although i really love iccup!)]
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I have faith in blizzard, I'm just saying the reason I'm worried is not out of fear of having to learn a new game.
|
i really think this whole subject should be approached from the other direction. rather than assuming that MBS is already a done deal, someone should explain why it's a good choice at all. the pro-MBS arguments in this thread have actually been pointing out MBS shortcomings such as "if you queue units in gates 1&2 and and have only enough minerals to make 3 more units, but you have 5 gates hotkeyed, you'll end up overlapping in gates 1 and 2 and therefore MBS is less effective than you'd imagined."
it's like even most of the pro-MBS people are in consensus that the game really shouldn't be any easier, but they're gonna push for MBS anyway (because) ___________
1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
2) because MBS is going to be in the game whether you like it or not (another shitty argument)
3) because MBS is going to give players more time to do other things. this is the only argument that can be taken seriously (at least of the ones i remember). at first glance it seems to make some sense that a new game with new mechanics might be good, but if you give this some serious thought, is there any reason why we should expect that rebalancing the core factors of starcraft would make the game better? when you watch a game between savior and nada do you think 'well what these guys really need is an easier interface?' i really don't think so. things seem to be pretty brilliant as they are.
starcraft, as everyone here has said, is the pinnacle of the RTS genre and arguably of videogames as a whole. yeah, there are some things that can be improved: the graphics, some of the ai, some bugs. but on the whole what starcraft really doesn't need is for blizzard to go fucking around with the core of its gameplay. blizzard can make a completely new game and preserve the fundamental starcraft interface. if you want to make an argument for MBS, you'll have to look elsewhere, especially where production buildings are concerned. remember that ease of execution is not necessarily conducive to fun and lasting appeal.
|
These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
|
if you're not happy, stick to bw please
|
On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote:
Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim?
Cause i believe otherwise.
Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests:
There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game.
I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.
Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better.
While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it.
I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
|
On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote:
These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released.
Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after.
Thats just a strawman made by the anti crowd since its easier to fight against and is just as ridiculous as saying that the anti mbs side just dont want it in since they just want to keep their advantage.
|
I think people want multiple building select because basically every other RTS out right now has it and it'd look stupid to not have it...
I say just have a max of how many you can select at once. Like 4 or 6.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 02 2007 06:00 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote:
These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released. Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after. Thats just a strawman made by the anti crowd since its easier to fight against and is just as ridiculous as saying that the anti mbs side just dont want it in since they just want to keep their advantage.
I think everyone here agrees the pros would still rape newbies with MBS, they just wouldn't have fun while they did it.
|
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote:
1) because MBS is the wave of the future (obviously a pretty shitty argument)
It's a far more complicated argument than how you phrased it and it spawned 30 pages of points from both sides. If you want to argue against it, you'd better at least read more into it and post a response there.
On October 02 2007 04:32 Failsafe wrote:
2) because MBS is going to be in the game whether you like it or not (another shitty argument)
Although I haven't made this a focal point of any of my arguments, it's just another side to think about. What if this is true? I for one am fairly certain that SC2 will include MBS regardless of the amount of flak it gets from the SC veterans. Plenty of strong evidence is pointing to this, such as Karune's "absolutely" response in the Q&A and the fact that the Blizzcon build had MBS/automining in it and point 1 above. No contrary evidence has been released by Blizzard as far as I am aware.
Similarly, the anti-MBS side is firmly set in their beliefs that MBS will make the game worse based on their own set of beliefs. Either way, neither side has solid proof, but only argumentation and inductive evidence at best, yet both sides are quite clearly convinced that their own beliefs are right.
|
On October 02 2007 06:00 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 04:42 Aphelion wrote:
These discussions make me more and more conflicted about SC2: on one hand I want it to come out so that these noobs will go away when they realize no amount of new features will make them better, and on the other hand I am terrified of the very real possibility that the game will me made to suit their tastes and wish that it might never be released. Why do you think that people want mbs in the game so they can beat pros? I think that noone have said such a thing in any thread here, except as sarcastic remarks on how easy the game will be after.
A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
I'm not trying to offend those people, but the logic is fucked. The easier you make the game (and MBS will make the game easier and lower the potential ceiling greatly), the less competitive it will be, which in turn kills it off quickly.
I've played DoW:40K, I've played Age3, I've played RoL, etc. They all had these "easy buttons" -- and if they didn't they would of actually been games I would have stuck with longer since it would have taken a lot more work and would have been far more competitive. But they did, so everyone was able to be a professional in a very short amount of time.
Clearly, StarCraft 2 won't be as bad as those games, but I promise you that you cannot add easy buttons just because it's a "new game and doesn't need to be like original StarCraft" -- it has nothing to do with that. These are basic principles of RTS and StarCraft has set the bar. I can't fathom that the sequel to the game that set the bar would RE-lower the bar. I'd cry many nights if it does, and possibly change to FPS***** (god help my soul).
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On October 02 2007 05:05 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote:
Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim? Cause i believe otherwise. Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests: There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game. I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better. While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it. I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
Players with comments like that will probably enjoy the single player, they wouldn't be interested in becoming progamers.
We must evaluate each player from what he or she will embrace most about the game and then utilize those qualities so the gamer is satisfied. That's why SC2 will have single player to UMS to BGH to friendly public games to competitive ladder games. Blizzard must be careful to appeal to each of those people.
Blizzard has publicly said multiple times that they are very interested in enhancing the competitive scene with SC2. This is the main reason why so many tl.neters are concerned with MBS being put in the competitive scene, there is an incredibly high risk of backlash from the people who were the best and most passionate about the 1st SC, that doesn't help Blizzard fund the competitive scene they wish to produce with SC2. Conversely, if they leave MBS as a setting (that can't be used in ladder games) and basic SC UI features in the game they are almost guaranteed to start with a competitive scene as big as the last one; one that can grow and build off what it already has.
The risk is theirs, i hope they chose wisely.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On October 02 2007 05:05 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2007 21:27 Artosis3 wrote:
Xiberia : not having MBS will NEVER be the reason for someone quitting. EVER. totally illogical. someone that newbie who would quit over it probably doesn't even know what it is. some newbie who played an rts with it probably wouldn't even notice to be honest.
Do you have anything to back up such a claim? Cause i believe otherwise. Infact, i would venture to say that the leading cause of players staying away from RTS games are because they are too intimidating. A couple of quotes from some Focus Tests: There is just too much to do. I feel like i'm not fast enough to play this game. I don't understand why my units don't get retreat when they are fired at.Maybe if i could spend more time watching what's happening instead of trying to control it, i'd enjoy the game better. While it may not be specifically MBS mentioned, they do all point to the fact that the eaiser players have of controlling the game, the more inclined they will be to play/enjoy it. I'm not saying that MBS is good or bad, but merely saying that the quote above is completely unfounded. My last 18 months of being in the gaming industry definately points to the contrary.
Argh I hate those people :O
I wonder what a footballer would say if someone said "I think I'd enjoy football more if I didn't have to practice so much to be able to do X".
Blah, people suck 
|
On October 02 2007 06:11 Skew wrote:
A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
Then only these people (who simply want to lower competition) should be ignored. I don't think any of them are on these forums arguing here with that kind of mindset. Similarly, I know there's SC players who have built up their SBS macro speed from practice and simply want SC2 to be the same, for the sole reason that their skills can be directly transferred into the new game and that they can enjoy a head start at being pro there. That is equally as selfish as the first view.
|
Canada9720 Posts
Orangedude makes a good point. It is natural that players who have cultivated a skill, and recognize that that skill is of the utmost importance for a game, would want to see the need for that skill to be carried over to the game's sequel.
A corollary of his point, I believe, points to two bogus arguments in this thread: one, that good players are automatically good analyzers, and two, because multiple good players, or even every good player thinks MBS sucks, then it sucks. Clearly neither of these arguments have any validity.
I haven't yet formulated an opinion about MBS, however, I think that saying that a game feature which will make an aspect of macroing easier will result in a skill-blow to the game is polarizing the argument.
|
On October 02 2007 06:27 orangedude wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2007 06:11 Skew wrote:
A lot of people are actually fighting for MBS so they can be a "pro", regardless if they say it straight up or not (and your opinion doesn't matter -- I know it for a fact because I've had people tell me that's why they want it). Lots of folks simply can't macro/micro/strategise at the same time and they know they never will be able to, so their fight is to get more easy buttons so they can be a competitive player and get some air time.
Then only these people should be ignored. I don't think any of them are on these forums arguing here with that kind of mindset. Similarly, I know there's SC players who have built up their SBS macro speed from practice and simply want SC2 to be the same, for the sole reason that their skills can be directly transferred into the new game and that they can enjoy a head start at being pro there. That is equally as selfish as the first view.
Well that doesn't make any sense at all. No matter how an RTS is, competitive players from StarCraft are going to dominate it becuase these new RTS are all 10x easier and StarCraft players just pick it up and belt it in weeks. I've done it myself, so have many others. Know why? Because the game basically plays itself.
If players would like MBS to enjoy the game more, I think it's a fantastic idea to include it, but don't include it in Electronic Sports matches. Keep it out of competitive ladders/leagues/etc.
|
Skew, you missed my point. This has nothing to do with other RTS games, only SC and SC2. CTStalker elaborated it a bit further.
Either way, I guarantee that a good SC player will still find it very difficult if they tried to play War3 competitively (the only other RTS with decent competition, so all others are moot). There are a whole different set of skills required and so many subtleties, timings, etc, that can't be learned from SC. It's probably true that the overall skill-level ceiling in War3 is lower than SC, but there is still plenty to differentiate between the best of the best (e.g. Grubby, Moon, Tod) from the rest of the pros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
