|
Can you be more ignorant?
Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place.
Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here.
Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far.
SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points.
|
If "MBS" is such a big fucking deal, how come you nerds don't complain about hotkeys or MUS (multiple unit select)?
Some of you desperately need to get laid.
Do you really think Blizzard is going to dumb down the AI for a bunch of Korean internet virgins?
|
You keep confusing popularity with esports. I said bnet didn't play a role in the development of esports. It was the pc bangs in SKorea. And for years people have been using hamachi in the foreign community. Not to mention all those popular non-Blizzard ladders.
|
@ The War3 inactive quote, give me a break. Creopholus was a great player back in his day, rivaling Moon in his skill. He took a few months off and then trained hard for the tourney.
It's more like if Mind took a couple months off, came back, practiced hard for two weeks and won an MSL. Maybe that's unlikely, but it has far more to do with thhe competative nature of Starcraft pro scene than it does "limited multitasking in WC3."
I have never seen a perfect game of Warcraft 3 played, and I don't think it's humanly possible. You can argue that War 3 doesn't have macro, doesn't require multi-tasking (I highy disagree, but whatever).
Stop bringing up the WCG as an example of how "Easy" War3 is.
And BlackStar, if you have other examples of inactive players winning tournies, I want names and tournies won.
|
On March 21 2008 05:58 BlackStar wrote:
You keep confusing popularity with esports. I said bnet didn't play a role in the development of esports. It was the pc bangs in SKorea. And for years people have been using hamachi in the foreign community. Not to mention all those popular non-Blizzard ladders.
Well lets stop going on about Battle.net. We all want it and love it, no more to discuss there.
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase. This is really just an reiteration of this point, made many times before. But I think it deserves special emphasis because there seems to be too much anti-newb rhetoric. I myself am not a newb (not a pro either of course), I've played Starcraft/Brood War for many years and then WC3 afterwards.. I've played many games of all sorts and sizes. Its the popular games that have the highest esports density in its community. And amazingly.. yeah, the games that are most popular are the "funnest" most balanced and polished games out there. And I can tell you clearly that it is a game's popularity that determines its ability to be an esport.. not the other way around- an esports game that becomes popular because its a hardcore esports game.
Sorry, this was a bit irrelevent to MBS but I think its worthwhile to remember this.
|
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase
Thats what Ive been writing about in a couple of posts, I am glad some one shares this view.
|
On March 21 2008 05:57 UBERGOD wrote:
If "MBS" is such a big fucking deal, how come you nerds don't complain about hotkeys or MUS (multiple unit select)?
Some of you desperately need to get laid.
Do you really think Blizzard is going to dumb down the AI for a bunch of Korean internet virgins?
Do not insult people, its counterproductive, immature and irrelevant.
|
(e)sports are mesured by popularity. It simply goes hand in hand, I dare you to mention even one (e)sport that is unpopular but succesfull. It´s a paradox.
When Blizzard talks about making SC2 a esports game they think about avoiding the issues games like C&C have by designing Multiplayer first and then the singleplayer part.
The counterpart to a E-sports game is not a fun game but a single player /player versus enviroment game. Thats why games like Diablo2 and WoW are not exactly e-sports ready. They are simply not designed for it.
|
Damn this thread is far too cyclical to participate in willingly anymore. Too few people find it worthwhile to read any posts, much less the ones that have already brought up their arguments or the ones that then counter them.
|
SC1 is of course self-sustaining in Korea. It could go on for years, regardless of which games come along. But the thing that sparked the huge interest was the popularity of course. It was a fun game, almost every PC could run it (very low sysreqs) and internet access (online play) was just becoming mainstream. The right game in the right time. Unfortunately, only in SKorea. but still.
It's important to note that almost all of the pros, past or current ones, started playing this because the game was FUN first and foremost. Not because they saw some kind of abstract big competitiveness or because they thought it would be great to compete in this game because it is a good e-sports. No, they just played it, and became better over time. Then played it even more, and so on... just a gradient development. And then came the pro-teams, sponsors, leagues, ... everything followed that.
If we want something like this to happen in other countries too, you have to make a game that's fun for everyone. And the market has already "decided" that MBS is the way to go. Not SBS anymore.
|
On March 21 2008 05:43 eugen1225 wrote:
Can you be more ignorant?
Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place.
Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here.
Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far.
SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points.
stop assuming shit and taking people's quotes out of context. I know many people who have played WC3 and came right back to BW AND if you look at the average APMs gamewise the average player in SC is about 70 APM faster than those of WC3.
-_-
|
On March 21 2008 06:25 eugen1225 wrote:Show nested quote +So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase Thats what Ive been writing about in a couple of posts, I am glad some one shares this view.
It's true - the game needs to be played on a big scale to go somewhere before it has a chance to do anything else. And on your earlier comment about age... well I can talk first hand there as well. My friends and I were nuts about SC when it came out... we were in our mid-twenties. Now we are in our mid-thirties, and I'm the only one that still keeps up with SC/BW (at least here and there). If not for the younger generation picking up the game and running with it, the people here in TL, the progamers in Korea,... then SC would have been just another nice game for a few years that people finally moved on from. Luckily, it was popular, very replayable, exciting to watch, and it came early enough in recent history to not be overshadowed by fluff like Halo and other light console games.
Video games are not like sports. They don't have a hundred or 500 year history. They aren't displayed and watched by everybody in every "big" country. But maybe things are changing enough that esports may start to work in more places than Korea. The only chance it has is the younger generation who have the time to take the games very seriously.
|
On March 21 2008 09:01 Showtime! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2008 05:43 eugen1225 wrote:
Can you be more ignorant?
Battle.net is a huge reason why SC was popular in the first place.
Its all about popularity, but then again, you just keep repeating your posts over and over, you don't even read what i write thoroughly, you just throw a glimpse, see something you dislike and start attacking my point of view. This is a debate, we throw arguments (some more solid some not as solid) at each other, and judges will decide the winners. In this case the judges are Blizzard (if they are reading this) and the side with a better case will be known when the game comes out and we see what is in it and what not. This is not trial and you strategy to win is not discrediting the opposition, like some tend to post here.
Off topic: Nal_Ra, one of my favorite players, said. SC2 should look cool and be fun, because that is whats most important, for a game to be fun. That was the best progamer comment about SC2 that Ive seen so far.
SC2 will be a clickfest regardless of MBS, wc3 is a clickfest as well, but then again you probably never played, so how would you know. Read my post as to what an inactive pro gamer is, and what coming back from inactivity actually is.
P.S. I have stated my views on the pros and cons on MBS. If something more comes up i will add to the arguments i have stated in these few (longish) posts. If you think i am flaming you (BlackStar) i am not. if you feel that way i apologize it wasn't my intention, I am just stating my points. stop assuming shit and taking people's quotes out of context. I know many people who have played WC3 and came right back to BW AND if you look at the average APMs gamewise the average player in SC is about 70 APM faster than those of WC3. -_-
Don't quote an entire, relevant post, just to criticize it while throwing in your own made up statistics with no logic behind it.
[bullshit]
I know many people who have played SC and moved onto WC3 and their average apm is 70 APM faster than alot of SC players.
[/bullshit]
Right now, I'm waiting for an anti MBSer to prove that SC2 will be successful without appealing to too current generation.
|
I think that besides the MBS issue we have here, there are many main factors that will prove SC2 to be more successful from both types of players than WC3.
First, you have less micro intensive gameplay (borring) from WC3. There is more emphasis on macro. Some would argue its less than Starcraft1's.. fine, but its still much more macro than WC3.
Second, you're playing with a real army (cheaper more units, lower HP = more exciting battles), not a small squad of units. Thats already fun right there.
Third, its the freaking Starcraft universe! I always thought the Starcraft universe was just plain cooler than Warcraft's.
Fourth, the game is not as cartoony as WC3 (cartoony still, but not as bad we'd agree?) I think the super cartoony style of WC3 turned off a lot of players. Isn't it embarrassing when people see you playing a game that looks like its for 12 year olds.. especially if you're trying to play it competitively/seriously?
All these factors equate to a cooler "feel" and more exciting/frantic gameplay that draws/keeps attention. I think that overall these, and I'm sure others, will eclipse any negative effect (if any, we're still debating this) that MBS adds to the game, even for esports.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 21 2008 04:02 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote:
There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun?
i don't think you get it. EVERY competitive SC gamer who has been asked about MBS has said it will have negative impacts on the game. This spans from koreans to top foreigners. everyone who is for MBS does not seem to be a competitive gamer, i do not mean this as an insult. to put it simply pro MBSers do not appear in tournaments or rank well on iccup. Ofcourse we find SC fun, we just want to make sure SC2 still preserves the competitive aspects the first game had.
|
Well, we have 2 arguments here, both true.
SBS:
EVERY competitive SC gamer who has been asked about MBS has said it will have negative impacts on the game. This spans from koreans to top foreigners.
This is a valid argument, the most valid one actually the SBS side has, and they are right. MBS will reduce a games difficulty.
MBS:
So lets isolate the popularity vs. esports discussion. In my view, it is the popularity of a game that comes first and foremost, esports emerges as a biproduct of a game's popularity especially in FPS/RTS games. A game has to be fun/addicting/easy to get into if it wants to be popular. It is from this popularity that you have the potential for an esports fanbase
This is in my opinion the best counter argument (although not directly linked). Its agreed upon this that SBS will impact the appeal of SC2 to new generation players that are spoiled over the years by macro facilitating UIs.
I think both sides largely accept both these arguments. The question here is. What is more relevant, and how big of an impact these 2 options could have. Will MBS really make it so much easyer, so that a semi decent player can easily achieve the performance of a pro (tis is were SBS and MBS sides do not agree upon), and how much of a potential audience will SC2 lose if MBS is not incorporated in the game (MBSers say quite a few, SBS say not many).
I guess there is no real answer here. We can only speculate. But both arguments have their weight.
And lets stop using the term competitive game wrong.
Competition is the rivalry of two or more parties over something.
Competition gives incentives for self improvement. (source: Wikipedia).
Competitive Game = A game witch is used in competition.
In SC/wc3/SC2 players compete over a win, as long as some practice more than others and there is a ranking system, and people want to be on top, the game is competitive.
MBS doesn't make the game less competitive(read the definition of competition), it reduces an aspect of a games difficulty down a bit. SC is not more competitive than WC3 is, its just more popular today thanks to the Korea pro scene. People played to be top on the ladder in both games.
A harder game is not necessarily more competitive, take a look at CS and Q3. Q3 is a lot harder to play, there are more things to keep track of, more skills to learn than in CS. Did this make CS less competitive? No. CS was more competitive, there were a lot more pros in CS, CS was a lot more popular to a wide variety of players, especially new players(you just buy a gun and start shooting, no worries about time, armor, spawn points etc.), and eventually the hard q3 died out, and CS lived a lot longer as an eSport, and was more competitive (more good players emerged, and a lot more tournaments were present). I personally hate CS, but i cannot say it was a game for noobs. I just don't want to see SC2 meet the fate Q3 met.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
i find it hard to believe that people WON'T play the game because MBS isn't a feature. there's no way there is a massive fan base that would refuse to watch or play sc2 because MBS isn't there. People with this attitude will most likely avoid the game once they get out microed 20 times in a row by vetran sc and war3 players.
|
On March 21 2008 17:25 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2008 04:02 Unentschieden wrote:On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote:
There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun? i don't think you get it. EVERY competitive SC gamer who has been asked about MBS has said it will have negative impacts on the game. This spans from koreans to top foreigners. everyone who is for MBS does not seem to be a competitive gamer, i do not mean this as an insult. to put it simply pro MBSers do not appear in tournaments or rank well on iccup. Ofcourse we find SC fun, we just want to make sure SC2 still preserves the competitive aspects the first game had.
You basically repeated what I wanted to point out: Why do the anti-MBSers want to have Blizzard sacrifice fun for competativness?
The basis of competativness isn´t the game but the competitors! Of course they will demand patches and suppport etc. but they will also help themselves, for example with Tournament rules (no pause etc...).
Also, don´t try to argue MBS as such a big issue. SBS or MBS won´t make or break the game. Here we are discussing if SC2 would be a (slightly) better game with or without a improved UI.
|
On March 21 2008 20:08 Unentschieden wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2008 17:25 MyLostTemple wrote:On March 21 2008 04:02 Unentschieden wrote:On March 21 2008 02:45 BlackStar wrote:
There is an inherent conflict between an esports game and a normal 'fun' game.
I think that sums up your position. Yet I and many others disagree with that. Do you say that Starcraft isn´t fun? i don't think you get it. EVERY competitive SC gamer who has been asked about MBS has said it will have negative impacts on the game. This spans from koreans to top foreigners. everyone who is for MBS does not seem to be a competitive gamer, i do not mean this as an insult. to put it simply pro MBSers do not appear in tournaments or rank well on iccup. Ofcourse we find SC fun, we just want to make sure SC2 still preserves the competitive aspects the first game had. You basically repeated what I wanted to point out: Why do the anti-MBSers want to have Blizzard sacrifice fun for competativness?
Every time I read a comment such as this, I ask myself, why we bother? We might as well be arguing against a 4 year old.
|
Every time I read a comment such as this, I ask myself, why we bother? We might as well be arguing against a 4 year old.
That is responding like a 4 year old. If you see something you don't like ignore it, or just post some arguments, don't flame and insult people, its counterproductive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
