EPT[D] MBS Discussion III - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
maybenexttime
Poland5778 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
| ||
|
fusionsdf
Canada15390 Posts
On February 28 2008 02:21 0xDEADBEEF wrote: Doesn't really matter if a game was around for a longer time or came out at a "worse" time (less people with good internet access). A competitive game that's really good will live on anyway, and SC did. You can't evade the comparison of SC's success with that of WC3. Klouvious is definately right by showing that WC3 is a very successful game, also a very successful competitive game, and this fact alone means that a very easy UI has almost nothing to do with the competitiveness of a game, because gameplay can always be made complex enough so that the UI doesn't matter. WC3 even has almost no macro yet still turned out as a very competitive game that rivals the success of SC on all levels. Now for the sweet part: if you imagine SC2 as some kind of hybrid between SC1 and WC3, with the strengths of each game included, but all weaknesses left out (weaknesses would be WC3 features like heroes, upkeep, "almost no macro" etc., and SC1 weaknesses would be the crude UI), you will most likely have a truly brilliant game that will be a real hit both in the non-competitive scene and in the competitive scene, and rightfully so. wow. I don't even know how to respond to that... maybe thats why you want sc2 to be a micro game | ||
|
Meh
Sweden458 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
| ||
|
caution.slip
United States775 Posts
On February 29 2008 06:10 fusionsdf wrote: wow. I don't even know how to respond to that... maybe thats why you want sc2 to be a micro game DB's post doesn't say that. He wants SC2 to have the strengths of WC3, without the weaknesses weaknesses would be WC3 features like heroes, upkeep, "almost no macro" etc. where does it say that he wants SC2 to be a micro game, just because he states WC3 is successful and it rivals the success of SC? Turn on a game channel in china and you'll see nothing but WC3 games being aired. Looks like success to me. | ||
|
Puosu
7012 Posts
where does it say that he wants SC2 to be a micro game, just because he states WC3 is successful and it rivals the success of SC? Turn on a game channel in china and you'll see nothing but WC3 games being aired. Looks like success to me. being in tv hardly rivals Starcrafts success ;p | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSyo3kZlZQ And tell me WC3 isn't exciting  | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
You weren't even supposed to own buildings early on. Let alone resources. | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
My impression was that Blizzard wanted to build a true successor to Warcraft 2, but the engine couldn't support many units on the system specs they wanted, so they made a game revolving around fewer units, and then they added the hero system to make it more interesting. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Which is pretty much what the anti-MBS side considers to be "impossible" or "not competitive enough". WC3's success proves that this isn't true. Contrary to WC3, SC2 will have real macro (just slightly less time-consuming than SC1's, so you use the little time you gain for better micro, as in WC3). I don't see how this game which has both elements should become a competitive failure, when even WC3 isn't one (although it basically just has one element). Unless Blizzard somehow fucks something up completely. But at least theoretically it's absolutely possible that it can become a highly competitive game as well, regardless of MBS or not. | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
I was surprised that when I first played the game it was just a straightforward RTS game, economy wise. I realized that they changed it a bit and that it would be an RTT game rather than an RPG. Let alone an RTS. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5778 Posts
On March 01 2008 01:00 GeneralStan wrote: Watch this game: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSyo3kZlZQ And tell me WC3 isn't exciting I played WC3 for 2 years and I do find it boring compared to SC, a lot more boring. T___T | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On March 01 2008 02:15 maybenexttime wrote: I played WC3 for 2 years and I do find it boring compared to SC, a lot more boring. T___T I have to agree. I just found this game, 3 set tourney finals with everything on the line to be one of the most exciting games I've ever watched, in any e-sport. It is relatively rare though that a Warcraft 3 game entertains me that much. It's just a little proof though that War 3 is very competative, which means that MBS can't be proven detrimental to competition, as a counter example of an extremely competative game WITH MBS exists in Warcraft 3. Competative RTS games: Starcraft, Warcraft 3 MBS 1, SBS 1 | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
A better example would be Armies of Exigo which was a competitive game, despite getting 0 exposure. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
The point I would like to make is that Warcraft III offers definitive proof that MBS doesn't impact a game's competativeness. There are many arguments to be made against MBS, but it relates to the Feel of the game, rather than its competative nature. | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
CS has no buildings and is competitive, therefore we have definitive proof that the existence or absence of buildings doesn't impact a game's competitiveness. Therefore we can get rid of buildings in SC2. Does that sound like a reasonable argument to you? Of course it doesn't, because you can't compare games that are so different. Let me quote you again: "Clearly Warcraft 3 and Brood War are profoundly different games." | ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
They are profoundly different as RTS games go, but Warcraft III proves conclusively that an RTS game WITH MBS can be extremely competative. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On March 01 2008 04:07 GeneralStan wrote: They're both RTS games and thus open to comparison. If you compare to Counter-Strike, DotA, Smash brothers, or Kart Rider, then Warcraft III and Starcraft are almost exactly the same. They're more like two different types of apple than two entirely different fruits (if we equate the domain of fruits to the domain of video games). They are profoundly different as RTS games go, but Warcraft III proves conclusively that an RTS game WITH MBS can be extremely competative. Yes but it doesn't prove that an RTS game like starcraft, with a focus on macro, can be competitive if you include mbs! MBS has next to 0 impact on WC3 as you simply don't do much macroing, therefore it's proof of pretty much nothing in this context. However, as I argued above, I think Armies of Exigo offers some kind of proof that it's possible, despite never getting any mainstream exposure. | ||
| ||
