EPTPC Gamer Editorial - Page 13
| Forum Index > Closed |
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
| ||
|
Aerox
Malaysia1213 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:03 InterWill wrote: Why this immature reaction to the article? Why would voicing ones opinion on RTS-games disqualify said person from writing for publication, covering RTS-games or otherwise? You are acting like frightened children. If someone brings up an opinion which you do not agree with they are met with a torrent of responses like: "You are not qualified to..." "You are ignorant..." "You should be BANNED from ever writing..." "You do not understand..." "It's on wikipedia..." "We've discussed this already..." Just because there's a strong community of players playing a certain game a certain way, it doesn't necessarily follow that other ways of enjoying said game are wrong. Just because someone has a different opinion of a game, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're "ignorant". This person could, even if bestowed with your eternal wisdom regarding StarCraft, come to a different conclusion and form a different opinion than you. Your opinion isn't divine. Accept the fact that people can have different opinions, try not to alienate them. Discuss it in a civilized manner. At the end of the day, people living outside of the box might offer interesting perspectives and innovative ideas - which might make StarCraft II better. Why not? This is the internet. The author had it coming to him. Also, YOU accept the fact that TL has its own opinions about him. | ||
|
MiniRoman
Canada3953 Posts
| ||
Aesop
Hungary11305 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:03 InterWill wrote: Why this immature reaction to the article? Why would voicing ones opinion on RTS-games disqualify said person from writing for publication, covering RTS-games or otherwise? You are acting like frightened children. If someone brings up an opinion which you do not agree with they are met with a torrent of responses like: "You are not qualified to..." "You are ignorant..." "You should be BANNED from ever writing..." "You do not understand..." "It's on wikipedia..." "We've discussed this already..." You are right that criticisms of this kind would be futile. But the uproar does not follow from a "different opinion". It comes because the author appears to be utterly misinformed about how Starcraft is being played, not even by the Progamers, but by the average John on Bnet. I grant you that there can also be argument about this. But furthermore, the author of this article makes hayward assumptions and uses faulty logic all the way. I see at least two distinctive logical flaws which remain no matter what you think about Starcraft.: 1) Arguing from the Genre towards the Token. Starcraft is considered a real-time strategy game. However, this does not imply that any future Starcraft has to be made according to some abstract blueprint of RTS. His argument is essentially that because some label is attached to the game, it has to accord to the label. The equation works the other way around: There is a multitude of games with many differing aspects which are considered as RTS. The genre is defined by the individual tokens, and arguing that the new tokens should accord to some abstract general rules of the genre is plainly wrong 2) Attaching authoritative meaning to the term "normal speed". Seriously, I claim that in every game on earth the developers have no idea how it is going to develop through the players playing it. Did the developers of Quake intend Rocket Jumps? Did the developers of Starcraft intend Macro Games like we see them nowadays, on high speed? Did the developers of WC3 expect that their most popular mode of playing would be a map where you only control your hero and can assemble a vast number of items? Perhaps some did, perhaps others did not. But simply because the developer of a game labels some speed as "normal" it has no normative implications for the community playing the game. The community defines the mode of gaming, not the developer. Therefore claiming that normal speed is the best speed to play at because the developers named it as "normal" is totally hayward logic yet again. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:03 InterWill wrote: Why would voicing ones opinion on RTS-games disqualify said person from writing for publication, covering RTS-games or otherwise? It doesn't. Being completely wrong and arrogant at the same time, however, does. Just because there's a strong community of players playing a certain game a certain way, it doesn't necessarily follow that other ways of enjoying said game are wrong. Did you read the article? He doesn't just say "I like to play on a slower speed." He's saying garbage like: What's worse, though, is wthat when you're playing at that rate, you can go ahead and toss strategy out the window along with the realism. Min/maxers (people who bust out Microsoft Excel to figure out how to build the strongest possible force with the minimum possible time/resource investment) make the real strategic value of many RTS games debatable at normal speeds, but when sped up to two or three or four times as fast, it's not even a questions.It's no longer about out-thinking your opponent and the big picture, it's about reflexes, rehearsal of a super effecient build order, and micromanaging individual unit movement and abilities-no higher-level thinking required. Seriously, there's no strategy on the fastest speed? That's not a valid opinion; that is just plain wrong. And "min/maxers" take strategy out of the game? People who devise efficient strategies take the strategy out of the game? How does that make any sense at all? And then there is this: there were a few moments when, while waiting for resources to acumulate or units to build, they felt they "didn't have anything to do." Isn't that when you're suposed to think? People who are good at real-time strategy games don't ever stop thinking when they play the game. Just because someone has a different opinion of a game, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're "ignorant". This person could, even if bestowed with your eternal wisdom regarding StarCraft, come to a different conclusion and form a different opinion than you. Your opinion isn't divine. Accept the fact that people can have different opinions, try not to alienate them. Discuss it in a civilized manner. At the end of the day, people living outside of the box might offer interesting perspectives and innovative ideas - which might make StarCraft II better. If he had simply stated that he liked to play at slower speeds, it is doubtful that there would be any hostility. He didn't simply state that he liked playing at slower speeds. He made incorrect statements in an attempt to support his view and he did so in an arrogant manner. | ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
It´s really diappointing how many are ranting here. The autor prefers a game like SINS where reflexes play only a minor role - this has nothing to do with his value as a writer. He bought up a good point - should SC2 be even faster than the practical standart of SC? He even bought up a argument - the faster the game becomes the more important reflexes/handspeed is relativly to "Strategy". Disagreeing and counter arguments (no, "hes a scrub and doesn´t get it is NOT an argument) is fine, but most of what we have here is just immature. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
And yes, it does threaten our way of life. PCGamer is probably the most respected english language gaming magazine. The fact that PCGamer is out of touch with competitive gaming is a major concern. Not that we need or even want them reporting on progaming matches in Korea, but they should understand the progaming scene as a whole and occasionally write articles that inform people about it. Dan's solution, having "pauses to think," is completely against everything it means to be an RTS. Because you are playing in real time, your decisions are made in real time as you play. But if mechancis are to have no meaning at all and if players are to have large amounts of thinking time, then isn't that the same as playing a turn based strategy game? That completely goes agaisnt the motivation for "real time" anything. Further, just because we have labeled him as ignorant does not make us uncivilized. Ignorant is a word with a meaning and we are applying that word correctly. He does not understand competitive RTS gaming. That means he is ignorant. If you tell me that I am ignorant of women's fashion, does that make you uncivilized? I know almost nothing about women's fashion so that statement would be true to begin with. Dan knows almost nothing about RTS gaming. The proof is in the statements he made about how all we do is click and write down build orders in Excel. If anything, I'd sooner bust out Excel for HMM 3 or MOO 2 than for Starcraft. In Starcraft, you have to adapt to what your opponent is doing in REAL TIME, so theorycrafting a "perfect" build order is a complete waste of time since there is no such thing. There are only "best" solutions to a given circumstance, and there may be multiple "best" solutions, and the "best" solution at a given time may involve changing the build order you planned when you started the game on the fly. Okay, so some people honestly flamed him, but those people don't represent the community as a whole; they are just pissed off because they feel deeply insulted. Most of the things that Dan has labeled as "hate mail" were not very hateful at all. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
I appreciate your taking the time to write. I understand why you disagree with my opinion, but that does not make it false - decreasing a player's clock time in chess forces hasty, non-strategic decision making, and it has an identical effect in StarCraft. I'm not saying it isn't a challenging, intricate game that deserves its popularity, but I am saying that the actual strategy of gameplay is reduced by increasing the play speed. -Dan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: steve steve [mailto:sxxxx@hotmail.com] Sent: Sun 5/4/2008 7:10 PM To: Dan Stapleton Subject: Recent Starcraft Article In the future please try to do some actual research and writing. Your analysis was poor to say the least. In the article you state "What's worse, though, is wthat when you're playing at that rate, you can go ahead and toss strategy out the window" This is a blatent flasehood, and you've clearly shown your ignorance of the game with this statement and many more like it. I don't have time to proof read your entire editorial for you but please in the future do not print such rubbish. Understanding starcraft takes more then a weekend, hell for some it takes the better part of a decade so please don't taint this dynamically complex wonder of a game with your otherwise fine Mag. -itfray ill update if he sends a second reply cause after his retarded reply i had to correct him again also, i like how he suggest 'ideas for improving starcraft 2' when he clearly doesn't know what made starcraft 1 so great | ||
|
BlackStar
Netherlands3029 Posts
You can't make a game that he won't criticize that's still within the conventional RTS genre. Plus, even then one can make fallacious claims about there being no strategy at the high level when it's just absent at low level play. And this guy is a 'progamer': he is a pro at writing articles about RTS games. Yet he doesn't even know what those games are about. All his criticism that isn't clearly fallacious is based on not willing to accept the nature of RTS games; they are based in management, control and multitasking, which all have their twitch skill factor as well. | ||
|
lololol
5198 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:03 InterWill wrote: Why this immature reaction to the article? Why would voicing ones opinion on RTS-games disqualify said person from writing for publication, covering RTS-games or otherwise? You are acting like frightened children. If someone brings up an opinion which you do not agree with they are met with a torrent of responses like: "You are not qualified to..." "You are ignorant..." "You should be BANNED from ever writing..." "You do not understand..." "It's on wikipedia..." "We've discussed this already..." Just because there's a strong community of players playing a certain game a certain way, it doesn't necessarily follow that other ways of enjoying said game are wrong. Just because someone has a different opinion of a game, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're "ignorant". This person could, even if bestowed with your eternal wisdom regarding StarCraft, come to a different conclusion and form a different opinion than you. Your opinion isn't divine. Accept the fact that people can have different opinions, try not to alienate them. Discuss it in a civilized manner. At the end of the day, people living outside of the box might offer interesting perspectives and innovative ideas - which might make StarCraft II better. You can repeat all day long that grass is pink(or whatever retarded thing you have on your mind) and then cry when people say you're wrong, because you're "just expressing your opinion". Fact is grass is not pink and stating that it's is, just proves you're an idiot. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5860 Posts
On May 06 2008 01:03 InterWill wrote: Why this immature reaction to the article? Why would voicing ones opinion on RTS-games disqualify said person from writing for publication, covering RTS-games or otherwise? You are acting like frightened children. If someone brings up an opinion which you do not agree with they are met with a torrent of responses like: "You are not qualified to..." "You are ignorant..." "You should be BANNED from ever writing..." "You do not understand..." "It's on wikipedia..." "We've discussed this already..." Just because there's a strong community of players playing a certain game a certain way, it doesn't necessarily follow that other ways of enjoying said game are wrong. Just because someone has a different opinion of a game, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're "ignorant". This person could, even if bestowed with your eternal wisdom regarding StarCraft, come to a different conclusion and form a different opinion than you. Your opinion isn't divine. Accept the fact that people can have different opinions, try not to alienate them. Discuss it in a civilized manner. At the end of the day, people living outside of the box might offer interesting perspectives and innovative ideas - which might make StarCraft II better. This guy said there's no strategy in StarCraft even though his understanding of it (or rather a complete lack of thereof) is VERY superficial. | ||
|
Centric
United States1989 Posts
As a writer in a potentially influential publication, he has the responsibility to not report ridiculous nonsense. His editorial was very ignorant and biased, and has no place in the world of journalism. | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
On May 06 2008 02:07 Unentschieden wrote: So true InterWill. It´s really diappointing how many are ranting here. The autor prefers a game like SINS where reflexes play only a minor role - this has nothing to do with his value as a writer. He bought up a good point - should SC2 be even faster than the practical standart of SC? He even bought up a argument - the faster the game becomes the more important reflexes/handspeed is relativly to "Strategy". Disagreeing and counter arguments (no, "hes a scrub and doesn´t get it is NOT an argument) is fine, but most of what we have here is just immature. You and Interwill need to read the whole thread before posting your blasphemy. Yes, you NEED to. "He even brought up an argument?" Seriously read and be educated before posting your rant. | ||
|
LetMeBeWithYou
Canada4254 Posts
Quit posting, dickhead. | ||
|
AdamBanks
Canada996 Posts
Lets make all the skaters in the nhl skate at the same speed because it will produce a more strategic game.. Lets make all pitchers in MLB pitch at the same speed because it will be more strategic? SPEED IS A STRATEGY DO YOU UNDERSTAND? MAKING THE GAME SLOWER WOULD HAVE THE OPPISITE EFFECT.... Its like saying stealing a base in baseball ruins the strategy of the pitcher because it forces him to act quickly, so lets eliminate stealing bases in baseball. Now rather then having increased the strategic bass of the game you have simple restricted it because there is one less varible to manipulate (stealing a base). Don't you see? Its selfevident .... its like saying no rush for 20 mins so i can build up a big army in starcraft, rather then increasing the strategic value of the game u have simple eliminated the early and midgame strategy thus REDUCING two thrids of all starcraft strategy right off the hop. You seem unable to understand 'real time' strategy...... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Recent Starcraft Article Date: Mon, 5 May 2008 10:57:44 -0700 From: xx.com To: spaxxx33@hotmail.com I'd argue that what you're describing is more a test of reflexes than one of strategy. And I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have to think quickly - otherwise I'd be saying that all RTS games suck and everyone should be playing turn-based games, which I am not doing - but I do think that the faster you go, the less strategic you get. Thus the inverse relationship. Both players having equal time makes the playing field level, but it does not make it as strategic as it is if they were given a reasonable amount of time to gather intelligence, analyze the situation, and organize a response. (Going back to the speed chess analogy, both players have equal time on the clock, but they are forced to make hasty decisions that will almost always lose to someone with a reasonable amount of time to consider his moves.) Turning up the speed deprives players of time to make informed decisions, which is what strategy is all about. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad game, I'm just saying it isn't as strategic this way. -Dan -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: steve steve [mailto:spxaxxxxxx3@hotmail.com] Sent: Mon 5/5/2008 10:03 AM To: Dan Stapleton Subject: RE: Recent Starcraft Article Thank you for your reply, in response to your agruement I would say this: Firstly, you are compearing apples to oranges when compearing starcraft to chess. Chess is static where as starcraft has a dynamic flow which has been developed and mastered for some 10 years now. This game is dependant on timing and speed is apart of that. In a battlefield the best strategist is the person who can think the most quickly and correctly when presented with a problem while all chaos is raining down around him/her. This is what i believe you fail to comprehend when playing starcraft, as many with your skill level do. To understand starcraft and its infinitly complex strategy you must understand the game on several fundamental levels involving multiple varibles such as economy, timing, recon, production, flanking/angles, specific unit manuvers, counters and the list goes on. Normally i would not care about some tiny article to the extent of writing several emails but your dismissal and description of the game is insulting to many gamers such as myself. In any game, no matter how much or little time you are givin as long as the oppenent receives the same the winner will be he who can spot the pattern the fastest and exploits it. There is no such thing as a 'non-strategic play' in any game, and as long as you continue to hold to your static/flat understanding of strategy you will never understand this and will be doomed to view all rts, tbs, and any genre ending or containing the consonant 'S' as a shiney new form of rock, paper, sissors. -Steve 'IntoTheFray' Mxxx | ||
|
ATeddyBear
Canada2843 Posts
| ||
|
Mora
Canada5235 Posts
i wouldn't be surprised if 90% of gamers would agree with his opinion, and further think that 99.9% of PCGamer's audience agrees with his opinion. A journalist writing for his target audience? *gasp*! | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5860 Posts
On May 06 2008 05:42 Mora wrote: while i won't defend the guy writing the article, and find it as repugnant as the next guy, i think people may be missing his target audience? i wouldn't be surprised if 90% of gamers would agree with his opinion, and further think that 99.9% of PCGamer's audience agrees with his opinion. A journalist writing for his target audience? *gasp*! Not like he has any reason to bash something he knows nothing about. T______T | ||
|
Doctorasul
Romania1145 Posts
| ||
|
EGMachine
United States1643 Posts
On May 06 2008 05:59 Doctorasul wrote: I want Blizzard to invest 0.00001% of the profit they'll get in the first week after the SC2 launch and buy PCGamer magazine, then make Dan play a game vs a regular SCer on slowest. If he can't win with his brilliant strategies vs a mere click-fester he gets kicked in the nuts and thrown in the street, never to be seen in the world of journalism again. Great idea ^^ | ||
| ||
