|
On October 16 2007 07:20 ForAdun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 06:45 orangedude wrote:In that case, I also share your opinion on this. There would be less misunderstanding if you didn't write: On October 16 2007 05:34 ForAdun wrote:
You didn't read carefully. We were talking about competitive SC2, not SC2 as a whole. and instead stated your own view. It also shows why making blanket-statements like the ones quoted earlier make no sense, since everyone has different thoughts. I also think MBS may slightly detract from gameplay, but maybe the other benefits from attracting a larger fanbase could make up for it and cause the net effect to be positive rather than negative. That's why I'm going to wait for further testing. What, lol. The quote does not include any views/opinions from anybody so I really don't get what you're trying to tell me. In this case I'd say less misunderstanding comes only from reading the account first, then the whole post, and of course from being correct, not mixing up quotes/accounts/opinions. I didn't generalize anything, it's not my fault if someone misunderstands me that much (this is not directed against you as you may know). I agree to the rest of your post except that I think the negative effect will be higher.
No no, not your quote, but the earlier one that really was a generalization. Too many misunderstandings here... sigh
|
Alright, lets forget it then and wait for new arguments coming up.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote:
No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't.
No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise.
Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean.
How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst.
|
Maybe you missed them, but they definitely exist. Look through the threads yourself. I don't have time to hand-pick them out for you.
Your opinion is flawed (especially how you first stated it), because you made blanket generalizations on how other people think. If you want to use it against BNet forum posters, then fine, but not about all the TL.net posters. I don't want to be a pro at SC2, but I do like watching VODs of pros playing so I want the E-Sports scene to expand.
Anyways, there's no new arguments here. Nothing useful will come out of this.
|
On October 16 2007 07:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote:
No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't. No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise. Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean. How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst.
I don't know if you consider Mani a "good player", but he stated very early on that after playing SC2 at blizzcon, he enjoyed MBS because it allowed him to do things that he wanted to do in SC but physically couldn't.
All of the better pro-MBS arguers are arguing for MBS from a design standpoint, not because we're lazy noobs who want an easier game. To say so is to attack our motives for supporting MBS, which is a serious insult to us. Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
it will obviously be a successful esport, it'll just be a much easier esport, every pro i've talked to, even war3 players can agree on that (and has).
and for someone who's good at this game, that's a shame.
|
I don't think you can necessarily say it has to be easier with MBS. Just imagine, in 1,000,000 years, there will be games you will control with your mind. In those games there will be no interface. And they will be very hard.
The question is not whether the game can be hard with MBS, but whether computers are powerful enough to add to the game in a way that will make it so (and whether the keyboard and mouse interface are limiting as well).
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On October 16 2007 08:41 1esu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 07:28 {88}iNcontroL wrote:On October 16 2007 07:14 orangedude wrote:
No, I said your perception of the people who argue for pro-MBS (besides noobs) is flawed. As for the other, most people are pretty sure it won't crash in 1 year, regardless of MBS seeing as how it's a Blizzard game. Again, even War3 lasted a while in Korea and is still going comparatively strong around the world (with nearly no macro in the game).
Why should I have to name decent players who think MBS will be a good thing, when even I think it might be slightly bad for gameplay? I can however name some who wish to give it time and further testing before making a certain judgment, but I won't. No, you cannot name a good player who thinks there might be a chance that MBS is a good idea. You really cant. Saying "I wont" does not do anything to make me think otherwise. Uh CS is a "valve" game but source for all intensive purposes "crashed." Dont get literal on me you know what I mean. How is my opinion flawed? I am generally arguing that those who want MBS are noobies NOW seeking to become better players not through work and practice but rather through a new game that is made easier for them. This is deplorable and the source of my angst. I don't know if you consider Mani a "good player", but he stated very early on that after playing SC2 at blizzcon, he enjoyed MBS because it allowed him to do things that he wanted to do in SC but physically couldn't. All of the better pro-MBS arguers are arguing for MBS from a design standpoint, not because we're lazy noobs who want an easier game. To say so is to attack our motives for supporting MBS, which is a serious insult to us. Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
No. Mani despite being an amazing community leader is NOT a good player. Not even close.
|
Canada5062 Posts
Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS.
...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be.
I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet.
One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype.
The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument.
Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply.
But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game).
The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast.
As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
|
On October 16 2007 13:10 mensrea wrote:Show nested quote + Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS. ...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be. I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet. One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype. The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument. Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply. But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game). The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast. As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that.
You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
|
On October 16 2007 14:42 eL.Virus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 13:10 mensrea wrote: Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS. ...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be. I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet. One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype. The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument. Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply. But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game). The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast. As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that. You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
But it's true.
Live with it.
|
United States20666 Posts
Completely agreed with mensrea.
I highly doubt no-MBS would decrease game sales. I HIGHLY highly doubt it. People will not say "oh, this game doesn't have MBS, so I'm not going to buy it." The casual player honestly will not care. If there are good graphics and a solid storyline along with decent gameplay, it will sell well among the average gamer simply because it is StarCraft's successor.
Thus, Blizzard should only have to worry about the elite playing community. This achieves lasting benefits due to, as previously stated, raised skill ceiling and overall superior competitive gameplay. Catering to the amateur community offers Blizzard very little gain; it will cost them dearly amongst devoted players.
SC2 must be a viable e-sport at the highest echelons - that is, it cannot be like WC3.
orangedude: They do not exist.
|
Canada5062 Posts
On October 16 2007 14:42 eL.Virus wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2007 13:10 mensrea wrote: Anyways, Blizzard has just publicly stated that they're spending most if not all their design efforts on making SC2 as "easy to learn, but hard to master" as possible, so I doubt any of us would become better players without work and practice just because of MBS. ...and Bush said there would be nukes in Iraq, so there must be. And Microsoft is always saying they are at the leading edge of software innovation, so they must be. I am always amazed at the number of unconscious lemmings we have running around on this planet. One of Blizzard's first public statements about SC2 was that it would be designed with competitive gaming in mind. The implementation of MBS suggests that this statement was marketroid fluff designed to generate hype. The conclusions reached by those against MBS implementation are based on empirical data. The pro gaming experience in Korea suggests that MBS would be more likely to diminish the game than make it better. Of course, experience is never a completely accurate indicator of future outcomes - but it's a helluva lot more sound than "well, Blizzard said the game would be better, so it must be". The proponents of MBS appear to be relying on speculation and wishful thinking disguised as rational argument. Blizzard is not infallible. They have fucked up royally before. Witness the sorry evolution of the War3 gaming scene in Korea - Boxer, Garimto, Yellow, all the old school SC greats tried War3 in its early release phase because they, like yours truly, thought it would be the next SC. Blizzard ended up nerfing that game to hell and everyone went back to playing SC. The void was filled by a bunch of not-good-enoughs who couldn't make it in the SC scene. The result? A professional scene that is less than 10% of SC by any metric you could care to apply. But, hey what about the rest of the world? Don't it matter? Should we not care about new players? No. They do not matter. The rest of the world does not matter. Korea has the most viable, most vibrant professional gaming scene by miles. Can anyone reasonably dispute this? It is the majors. That is the market you must cater to if you are serious about creating a game with professional gaming imprinted in its DNA. The focus should not be on the fucking fringes. Making a game that will succeed in Korea is what will make the game popular and LASTING in all other markets. If you care about the "new" players, then do not cater to them. They will thank you for it in the end (in sustained sales of the game). The NBA does not change its rules to suit the shorter stature of Asians. FIFA does not alter the conventions of football because certain nations feel they make the game culturally anathema. You do not force training wheels on the professional cyclists of the Tour de France so as to avoid overwhelming the casual bicycle enthusiast. As I have repeated many times, reality is sometimes counterintuitive, so it may very well be that MBS somehow makes SC2 a better piece of software from a professional gaming perpsective. Who knows? But, the collective experience of most hardcore SC gamers suggests otherwise. I believe MBS will nerf the game and that it will strip the gameplay of some of the skill curve that made SC so enjoyable to play - and to watch as a spectator sport 10 fucking years after its initial release. Think about that. You do know that sc2 is being made by a US company and they would be wise not to just say "screw you we are making sc2 for Korea to their loyal us fans". Saying that new players do not matter and that sc2 should only appeal to Koreans is by far one of the saddest things I have read here.
You fucking idiot. How old are you? Did you even read my post?
You have somehow perverted my argument for top-down innovation and leadership into a jingoistic piece on Korean geopolitical hegemony.
Dumbass simpletons like you need to be eradicated from the gene pool. You are banned fucker.
|
|
|
CA10835 Posts
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for taking out the trash.
|
CA10835 Posts
nice prompt response mensrea ^^
|
Canada5062 Posts
The guy reacts to a well-deserved temp ban by throwing a juvenile hissy fit and spamming this board. He left me no choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
