EPTOn September 12 2016 20:00 Hider wrote:
to be fair people blame balance in Starcraft instead of themselves.
to be fair people blame balance in Starcraft instead of themselves.
especially in mirrors...
Guardians of Atlas - Page 48
| Forum Index > General Games |
Development ended, game appears to be dead. https://forums.artillery.com/discussion/911/end-of-development -Jinro | ||
|
XIII
483 Posts
especially in mirrors... | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
To be fair people blame luck/cheese/all-ins/bad design in mirrors instead of themselves. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On September 12 2016 19:15 Endymion wrote: to be fair people blame rng in hearthstone instead of themselves i blame it on the opponent's legendaries | ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey419 Posts
On September 12 2016 20:52 Hider wrote: To be people people blame luck/cheese/all-ins/bad design in mirrors instead of themselves. I am not sure if that's true but it could be that players blaiming bad design is worse for the game than players blaming their team mates/rng. If you think you lose because of bad team mates, you can always get better team mates next time or if you think you lose due to rng, you can always get more lucky next time but if you think you lose due to bad design, then you won't want to play the game anymore because the game will always be "poorly balanced/designed". | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I miss GvG, there the rng was on the board not in the deck. played 20 hunter games and had 3 times call of the wild on turn 8 (2 times in deck). Last 20 hunters i played 17 of them had call of the wild turn 8. 6 of those could chain them. So yes I blame RNG and I am so salty about it, that i even go off topic in other game threads.  On September 11 2016 03:57 KrOjah_ wrote: Simply not true that "RTS was always a niche genre." In regards to PC gaming (admittedly PC gaming did have a smaller following back in the day) RTS was most certainly one of the very most popular genres during the mid-late 90's. And rts would still be non niche, if the rts communities wouldn't have felt entitled that they are the elite of pc gaming. But instead everything that tried to change the C&C/Warcraft mixture of micro and macro, was declared not rts. And then Blizzard changed the mixture and brought in tons of people into the gerne. (while the old rts community screamed this is not an rts anymore) But developers jumped the oppertunity to finally make fresh rts games again. But when they arrived with their brand new games, there was only a frozen wasteland left. With only one giant fortress left untouched by the icy colds, while others where slowly grinded away by the ice. People always talk about WoW bringing ruin to so many games. But Warcraft 3 brought ruin to alot of developer studios. my 2nd and 3rd most favorite studio closed down. Okay one was bought by EA, which is probably worse then death. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16962 Posts
Watching dozens of units kill each other on screen in a single player or 1v1 game was super exciting in 1994 ; this created huge customer demand. its fun factor waned as giant spectacular battles between dozens of units became standard and possible on any and every device, every where. As Pardo says: social play is more fun for the average person than solo and 1v1. However, in 1994 you can't get 8 player low ping games going. Everyone is on dialup. by 2005 when internet infrastructure improved the 5v5 low ping team game is possible... and as Rob Pardo's new studio has noted.. social is the direction to go. bye bye 1v1 RTS its a good move by Artillery to focus on a team based game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On September 12 2016 21:43 _Spartak_ wrote: I am not sure if that's true but it could be that players blaiming bad design is worse for the game than players blaming their team mates/rng. If you think you lose because of bad team mates, you can always get better team mates next time or if you think you lose due to rng, you can always get more lucky next time but if you think you lose due to bad design, then you won't want to play the game anymore because the game will always be "poorly balanced/designed". Or you know, maybe having stupid teammates is actually not a good thing for a game. Maybe being frustrated due to things you have no control is actually a disadvantage. And maybe.... just maybe, it's other things that makes some teamgames more played than Starcraft. Maybe one is confusing correlation with causation. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
_Spartak_
Turkey419 Posts
On September 12 2016 23:02 Hider wrote: Or you know, maybe having stupid teammates is actually not a good thing for a game. Maybe being frustrated due to things you have no control is actually a disadvantage. And maybe.... just maybe, it's other things that makes some teamgames more played than Starcraft. Maybe one is confusing correlation with causation. Of course there are other factors. I was just speculating whether or not having other things to blame for losing than the game itself could be benefitting the game. However, I do think team games will remain more popular. It is not a case of game companies not being able to come up with a good 1v1 game. It is not exclusive to video games either. It is the same for sports. The most popular sports are team sports. That's the result of thousands years of humans coming up with new ideas for games. I don't think it will be different for video games. It is just that when video games were young, there were obstacles to team games and now that those obstacles are gone, most popular video games are also team games. Looking back at those years when Quake and StarCraft were the biggest competitive games and expecting that to happen again is futile. Video games have moved past that stage. Competitive 1v1 games will always exist but team games will be more popular. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16962 Posts
| ||
|
eviltomahawk
United States11135 Posts
On September 11 2016 23:09 Foxxan wrote: holy hell the overmind, such a badass voice Abathur announcer voice files have been in the game for at least several months but haven't been implemented yet. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
Now it attracts a much larger audience and as a result demands are much more normalized. Most people are NOT hardcore gamers. Playing 1v1 games is stressful. How many threads are there talking about "ladder anxiety"? There's only 1 stat in games like brood war, your win percentage. In other games there are dozens of stats to hide your inadequacy (you can't even win 50% of your games but luckily you've got a 1.5:1:0.1 KDA ratio). | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Anno <--> Settlers (1 and 2) <--> SupCom <--> AoE <--> SC <--> CnC <--> WC3 <--> Atlas <--> DotA | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16962 Posts
1v1 RTS. | ||
|
Yurie
11927 Posts
On September 13 2016 04:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are playing 1v1 games truly more stressful? Afterall nobody says that playing tennis or badminton or even table tennis is inherently more stressful than other team based sports. In team based sports, people generally do not blame their team mates as a relieve from stress either. Ultimately, I think the cause of ladder anxiety is simply that the SC2 isn't fun or social enough to overcome the lack of sociability they desire. The biggest thing different for physical sports is hours spent on the actual game. Say you are practising tennis at a professional level. Then you might actually play tennis 2 hours a day while the rest is spent on getting better at tennis without playing it. Found following old post that might be relevant. http://www.tennisforum.com/12-general-messages/144334-how-many-hours-does-pro-player-practice-everyday.html#post4627241 A person playing more than average can easily play 4 hours a day of a computer game. Many average that over very long periods of time. That should give rise to different psychological reactions to the game in question, when it is what is taking the time instead of the focus the rest is going towards. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16962 Posts
On September 13 2016 04:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are playing 1v1 games truly more stressful? Afterall nobody says that playing tennis or badminton or even table tennis is inherently more stressful than other team based sports. In team based sports, people generally do not blame their team mates as a relieve from stress either. Ultimately, I think the cause of ladder anxiety is simply that the SC2 isn't fun or social enough to overcome the lack of sociability they desire. with tennis you can be outside with grass and wind and sky. that is inherently less stressful than being inside. playing goalie in hockey gives rise to the "crazy goalie" phenomenon... because any mistake they make can result in a goal...other players can make a stupid mistake and nothing happens. not so with the goalie. baseball pitchers are allowed to act like total wierdos because they do their thing all alone. 1 mistake from the pitcher and the ball goes 500 feet while the team stands around and watches the other team party for 2 minutes. any baseball pitcher that gives up a game winning World/ALCS/NLCS series clinching home run is often never the same. Pitchers have even committed suicide over it. when you are just 1 .. all alone.. its more stressful.. and teams let their goalies and pitchers get away with a lot more BS because they know the game is more mentally taxing for them. Tennis players are a special brand of crazy. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9407 Posts
On September 13 2016 04:26 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are playing 1v1 games truly more stressful? Afterall nobody says that playing tennis or badminton or even table tennis is inherently more stressful than other team based sports. In team based sports, people generally do not blame their team mates as a relieve from stress either. Ultimately, I think the cause of ladder anxiety is simply that the SC2 isn't fun or social enough to overcome the lack of sociability they desire. I have to come clean though. Playing table tennis is as stressful as taking a penalty kick in soccer. Such a nervewrecking game. Don't think there is another sport where kids (after losing) cries as much. But the issue is that people try to present it in such a way that teamgames is the superior approach for generating a large databae. And heartstone simply disproves that. Teamgames have advantages and ALOT of disadvantages. The main difference between teamgames in traditional sports and online games is that with the former you are always playing with friends. For online games, the majority of the time you aren't. | ||
|
Yurie
11927 Posts
On September 13 2016 05:16 Hider wrote: I have to come clean though. Playing table tennis is as stressful as taking a penalty kick in soccer. Such a nervewrecking game. Don't think there is another sport where kids (after losing) cries as much. But the issue is that people try to present it in such a way that teamgames is the superior approach for generating a large databae. And heartstone simply disproves that. Teamgames have advantages and ALOT of disadvantages. The main difference between teamgames in traditional sports and online games is that with the former you are always playing with friends. For online games, the majority of the time you aren't. Most table tennis that I was part of was round the table. Partially because people didn't want to wait for a table, partially because it wasn't as stressful and the game length was much shorter, leading to easier joining and leaving during breaks. This element of alternative modes is something that made WC3 and SC BW successful, keeping the "casuals". In Dota I am probably playing 60% normal dota and the rest custom games (watching more than playing). I don't think there is a single game that anybody will be happy with forever. All the different playing fields, rules and amount of people in normal games is part of what makes them sustainable for a larger audience. During DotA's time we would play 3v3s, play normal b-net games we were likely to stomp or even playing other WC3 custom maps. Now these things are often people playing 2-3 games at the same time. CS GO + Dota is a popular combo, bound to be many more. Generally one often sees an FPS as one of the games, often not the one with most play time though. I think a design for a game should take into account that people often play multiple games and either try to be the main game or the one that is used between sessions in another genre. Does not apply as much to single player games I guess. That is something I need to take into account as a player as well. I often find myself looking for a new main game and find secondary or tertiary games that I then drop even though they are fun in small doses. (For me this is especially true of MMOs where I do an 4-8h session once then throw the game away instead of doing an hour here and there.) | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
These concepts can probably be defined more sharply though. For instance by separating some sort of descriptive analysis of the gameplay from various types of psychological experiences. What I will say is that in SC2 you can not easily play cooperatively by virtue of 1 vs 1 being the only refined game mode, while MOBAs allow both cooperative and competitive approaches. If one looks at the experience of a typical player I think both WCIII and BW also allowed for more cooperation because of the UMS / team mode popularity. The only real type of cooperation I can conceive of in SC2 is to have training partners, but there was never a strong culture for that. I am not an expert on any co-op modes Blizzard has added more recently. | ||
| ||
