|
On February 05 2004 14:54 Taguchi wrote: Show nested quote +On February 05 2004 12:36 Orlandu wrote:
Yikes you guys are incredibly narrow-minded. I far from agree with Insomnia, but you can't honestly believe you're right and that he's an idiot based off an opinion that you have. It's not fact that Brood War is a better game (it's an opinion many people share), that's all about taste and what each individual finds fun. You can't call him an idiot, or wrong, for stating his opinion. If he had more fun with Brood War he'd still be there. Is he wrong for trying to do what he finds fun? Dude stating your opinion is fine and all, but here mrx states that perfection can be achieved in war3 while it cant in starcraft, thus war3 is better! This is like the best argument FOR starcraft being better as a competitive game than war3, so yeah we can call his opinion idiotic, moronic and whatever else, without making any conclusions about him as a person in the meantime of course 
His statement is false. Perfection *cannot* be attained in war3. It may be easier to get *closer* to perfection, but it's never possible to achieve perfection itself.
The closer a person can get to perfection, the *higher* the competition will be. It will be less based off of luck and speed, and more so on consistancy. Look at the world cyber games for example. Did boxer, nal_ra, yellow, nada, or any other top pro-gamer in korea qualify out of korea? No. They did not.
I am not saying that i think war3 is the better game. I am only trying to point out that what insomnia says (or is said to have said, as i have not read his interview) and what he means are 2 different things. To call him an idiot for believeing what he believes when he is justified in believing it, is wrong. Especially when you didnt even grasp what he was trying to say in the first place.
My apologies if i am wrong in my interpretation of what insomnia has said. I only know that he is extremely intelligent, and wish to think he wouldnt believe in such an obviously flawed statement.
---
As to my opinion on the 2 games (as i have seem to said everything but) i must remain undecided. (go figure). I find it frustrating that a game based on strategy is so closely linked with one's speed. My clanmate and close friend, [GiTM]-Druid, is one of, if not THE smartest bw player i have ever met. His apm of 45, however, really holds him back. I find it amazing that he is still able to beat me (on occaision), when i average 180 apm, and am a member of the Canadian national team (though many contest that position). I have no doubt that he could kick my ass in war3, if even he spent only a tenth of the time learning the game as myself.
So what's the better game? One that rewards speed *and* intelligence or just intelligence? Tough question. I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all). However, when trying to take a computer game from a level so simple as a computer game, to the next tier: one of sport, to take out speed when speed is so integral to sport, i believe you draw that definitive line that * does * deferentiate the two.
|
It will be less based off of luck and speed, and more so on consistancy. incorrect.
if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.
To call him an idiot for believeing what he believes when he is justified in believing it, is wrong. Especially when you didnt even grasp what he was trying to say in the first place. we grasped it, its wrong.
So what's the better game? One that rewards speed *and* intelligence or just intelligence? war3 doesnt reward intelligence.. the counters in that game are so stupid.
I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all). it should, as a foundatoin, it should then need other skills LIKE speed to be better. otherwise why not make bw /wc3 turn based? weeeeee fun right? yea thats what i thought --
|
I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all).
You should play chess then. How fun is chess to play or watch? Not nearly as fun as BW but it's a game that is based entirely on strategy. Speed and precision is what makes brood war better than WC3, because now a person not only has to be smart but have the ability to think on his feet while constantly clicking and pressing keys. In WC3 you can literaly stop and think in mid game while your armies march around killing creeps, no such luxary is afforded in BW.
|
interesting, i remember reading some old gg99 slayer interview, and he was asked about why BW is a good game. He replied that because there is no perfect strategy and no perfect game noone can really play perfect, thats what makes it so good.
|
On February 05 2004 17:59 green-tea wrote: Show nested quote +On February 05 2004 15:24 SoleSteeler wrote: like i said... you can't reach your limit in war3.. show me someone who has, or a replay of perfect play and prove me wrong there's ALWAYS room for improvement Ya but it's a lot lot lot easier to play a game almost totally perfectly, I have one replay between Kenshin.Werra and Linyu)BadPlayer in which Kenshin played "perfectly" or near that, but it's version 1.05 classic.
I doubt it... Since so many people think that the units in war3's HP are so high and they take so long to die... Did he not lose a unit? it shouldn't be hard to move units back that are nearing death, if you're playing perfect then the only reason you should ever lose units is from near impossible situations to survive in... like a triple hero nuke on a lower HP unit, or something to that effect.
Plus playing perfect is relative... I could look at a replay and say, well if he had made that sorc cast slow on the MK instead of the AM, then he wouldn't of been able to catch up and bolt that last hero...
There's way too many factors you could use in like every second to say someones played perfectly =/
I know this is nitpicking... but i'm just saying you cannot play perfectly
|
On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote: incorrect. if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.
Did u read what i said? Try quoting the *whole* concept. "The closer a person can get to perfection, the *higher* the competition will be. It will be less based off of luck and speed, and more so on consistancy." This is logical thought. This applies to every game u will ever play. Be it sport, chess, pogs, diving, figure skating, etc. Item drops and creepjacking are *random* factors. *those random factors* make the game about luck. *not the nearness to perfection*.
Show nested quote +To call him an idiot for believeing what he believes when he is justified in believing it, is wrong. Especially when you didnt even grasp what he was trying to say in the first place. we grasped it, its wrong.
i would beg to differ. You couldn't even establish a clear rebuttle to me, when what i said was clear and concise. If you can't understand someone who states what they mean clear and concisely, then it would be my experience to doubt your ability to understand someone who *isnt* clear about what they mean.
Show nested quote +So what's the better game? One that rewards speed *and* intelligence or just intelligence? war3 doesnt reward intelligence.. the counters in that game are so stupid.
Thats a pretty arbitrary statement. I can't refute as u did not provide an example. You could tell me that god is a giant mango covered in feathers that has a 63 legs, and i couldn't refute that either. It doesn't make u inherrantly right.
Show nested quote + I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all). it should, as a foundatoin, it should then need other skills LIKE speed to be better. otherwise why not make bw /wc3 turn based? weeeeee fun right? yea thats what i thought --
I don't understand what you were trying to point out here. Chess is a superior *strategy* game to brood war, for there are no random factors. it is 100% strategy. Brood war is not. However, that does not make chess a *better game*, for that is only preference. Infact, i said that speed and other factors *make bw the better game*, but that does not mean its superior in *strategy*.
Being that u didnt understand me the first time, i doubt my words will fall any wiser this time round. I will cross my fingers.
|
On February 05 2004 19:06 BlueShift wrote: Show nested quote +I believe that a strategy game *should* be based on intelligence (the majority, if not all). You should play chess then. How fun is chess to play or watch? Not nearly as fun as BW but it's a game that is based entirely on strategy. Speed and precision is what makes brood war better than WC3, because now a person not only has to be smart but have the ability to think on his feet while constantly clicking and pressing keys. In WC3 you can literaly stop and think in mid game while your armies march around killing creeps, no such luxary is afforded in BW.
Did u read all of what i said? I doubt it, cause ur response does not make sense. If u * did * read everything i said, then i won't waste my time responding to you. You won't get me any better this time around.
|
On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote: incorrect. if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.
Item drops aren't random. Incase you haven't noticed, the harder the creeps, the better the items they drop. You don't go around picking up raise dead from lvl.2 murguls....And Creepjacking is a skill, not luck.
|
United States4471 Posts
Mr.X aka Insomniac is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. However, his reasons for his opinion were clearly flawed from the way he stated them, the people in this thread trying to defend him are just trying to read into what they hopeed he meant. Being able to achieve perfection in WC3? Being able to achieve perfection means a game is clearly better? Please.
The main problem I have with what I read in the initial post is that he states that it's obvious that WC3 is better than SC/BW. He makes a pretty strong statement but provides very weak (or stupid) support for it.
If he can make a comment like that with the reasoning he provided, then I don't see why the people on the forum can't bash him with similarly bad backup/reasoning.
P.S. As to the item dropping in WC3, it IS random to a certain extent. Sure items have their own levels and so you can have a reasonable expectation of what you might get from a given creep, but the issue has always whether some items were put at the correct levels and the fact that some items, although equal in usefulness generally, are more useful in different situations, with different heroes, and different strategies. The fact that it's a relatively uncontrollable variable that can tip the balance in a match is what makes some people dislike item dropping in WC3.
|
On February 05 2004 18:50 intotherei wrote: incorrect. if 2 people keep playing as perfect as they can and are at the same level of perfectoin, the results will be much closer in brood war than in war3 simply because war3 is based alot off of luck because of item drops and creepjacking.
just incase someone other half-wit didn't understand what i was saying, i will put it into a real crystal clear example, with numbers even!.
If bw requires a lot of skills to master it, a smaller amount of people will be in the 'excellent range'. We are going to give this range a figure between 1 and 10. How about a 9.4. Now, because bw * does * require so many skills, very few people can reach a level of 9.4. Those people are the limited: Nal_ra, Yellow, Boxer, Nada, and a very few others. The other pro-gamers in korea range from just below their level, to greatly below their level. We'll give this range a rating of 8.3 - 9.3. Lets use TheMarine, Ogogo, Mumyung and Silver as examples for this category. Below *them* would be foriegners, which we will rate from 6.3 - 8.5. These would include Nazgul, Fisheye, Eriador, Froz, Assem, ZealotITO, and down to iG.Korn[tC]. Korn, then one day, *beats NADA*. Now, are u going to tell me that a Chess player with a rating of 6.3, has a *better chance* of beating a chess player of 9.4 than that of korn and nada?
And not only that, but only maybe 10 people in the world would be ranked on the same level as nada/boxer. My initial point was *the more people that get closer to perfecting their game, the more competition that will be provided*. War3 *is* easier to master. There won't be 10 people who dominate the rest, but 100 or 200 people who do. There will be *many* 9.0+ players instead of the relative few.
Now, whether this is *good or bad* is up to *the person* to decide. Every1 will have an opinion, and those *opinions* can be debated at will. But "the more the players that can reach a high level, the LESS the competition will be" is false. *that* cannot be debated. (unless there IS a flaw in my logic, feel free to point out).
P.S. I'm sure there will be one of those nit-pickers out there who will say my rating system is off, and to them i say: 'ur right'. It was not meant to be black and white, but only a generalization of skill.
|
Teroru, as you seem to somehow amazingly comprehend what Insomnia is saying, what exactly did he mean by WAR3 is a much more advanced game in every way.
maybe there is an undermeaning to this statement that I am missing? Wouldn't that directly neutralize his previous statement of in BW it's impossible to play the game at it's best, because there are so many things to do. If something gets more advanced, it usually gets harder to comprehend/do/etc?
|
Went to eat, but now i'm back!
how exactly did War3 get more advanced? Apart from graphics and ladder features that is.
I, for one, don't consider AutoCast and SmartCast an advancement. I don't consider rallied workers on resources an advancement, nor the rallied wisps on a building goldmine automatically entering it upon its completion an advancement. Heroes - meh, they were in single player SC. Low unit cap, upkeep, buiding queue, buildings on one hotkey, HP of all units on the screen, prerevealed maps, AI controlled creeps - imo they are not advancements. They are helper objects; the 'newbie-friendliness' if you wish - helping the low APM people compete.
Someone please tell me! [if it's anything concerning heroes, please don't bother]
|
On February 05 2004 18:04 Teroru wrote: Show nested quote +On February 05 2004 17:53 green-tea wrote: On February 05 2004 11:37 IcedEarth wrote:
SC/BW is 2nd best, according to gamespy, but they have about as much clue about what they're saying as Mr.X does. DOUBLE YU TEE EFF MATES!!!!!!!! Whats wrong with game spy??!?!?! If it was only the second best RTS how come it's become one of the national forms of entertainment in Korea? NOt to mentions millions of people are still playing it even though it's 6 or 7 yeas old. did u pronounce the comma's in what he said?? if not, do so. And if u did, then u completely missed what he's saying. He didn't say he agreed with gamespy, he said that gamespy say's its only 2nd best. You supported his criticization of gamespy by agreeing with him. He said gamespy is too inept to acknowledge that bw is the best rts. You tried to point out that *he* was inept for the very same reason.
She*
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Female bw player, this forum will soon be infested with swooning basement shut-ins 
|
On February 05 2004 20:49 radiaL wrote: Teroru, as you seem to somehow amazingly comprehend what Insomnia is saying, what exactly did he mean by maybe there is an undermeaning to this statement that I am missing? Wouldn't that directly neutralize his previous statement of Show nested quote +in BW it's impossible to play the game at it's best, because there are so many things to do. If something gets more advanced, it usually gets harder to comprehend/do/etc?
Heh, its hard to say. He's better at bw and war3 than me and u combined, so i can only suppose - as i did before. Being that i believe war3 to be inferior to bw, i cannot defend that statement.
I *could* defend his arguement about perfection *if* (which i DID say) he meant it in the terms i said. I also mentioned that i could be completely off. I was voicing my interpretation of what he said instead of immidiately condemning it. bah, fuck it. I will just hop on the band wagon of the TL.net masses, stop using my brain, and flame~! (WHOA IT RHYMED YO).
|
On February 05 2004 20:28 XaI)CyRiC wrote:
Mr.X aka Insomniac is entitled to his opinion, as are the rest of us. However, his reasons for his opinion were clearly flawed from the way he stated them, the people in this thread trying to defend him are just trying to read into what they hopeed he meant. Being able to achieve perfection in WC3? Being able to achieve perfection means a game is clearly better? Please.
The main problem I have with what I read in the initial post is that he states that it's obvious that WC3 is better than SC/BW. He makes a pretty strong statement but provides very weak (or stupid) support for it.
If he can make a comment like that with the reasoning he provided, then I don't see why the people on the forum can't bash him with similarly bad backup/reasoning.
P.S. As to the item dropping in WC3, it IS random to a certain extent. Sure items have their own levels and so you can have a reasonable expectation of what you might get from a given creep, but the issue has always whether some items were put at the correct levels and the fact that some items, although equal in usefulness generally, are more useful in different situations, with different heroes, and different strategies. The fact that it's a relatively uncontrollable variable that can tip the balance in a match is what makes some people dislike item dropping in WC3.
ur exactly right. I clearly wrote it "i wish he meant...". I didn't say *thats what he means*. Im saying that based on his obvious intelligence, i would wish and hope he meant something different, and i voiced it.
I find it hard to comprehend that someone who has obvious high intelligence would honestly believe that u can be perfect at everything. Whether its war3, bw, or whatever the fuck else crosses ur mind.
Cyric, i nearly always affirm with what you say. But i must give pause if u believe that ones lack of reasons for his opinion is justification for anothers lack of reasons in theirs. If one is inherrantly wrong, the other is as well. Despite his lacking skills in communication, i *was* trying to bring the level up a notch by not being arbitrary. Apparently i fucked up.
I owe an apology to the lot of you: go back to your mindless flaming, the majority supports it, so it must be A-OK!.
|
Braavos36402 Posts
Anyone think if Nada played War3 seriously for 2 months he'd rape the shit out of Insomnia, or at least be close to his level of "perfection"?
In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game.
Also, speed is very important in chess, whoever brought up that analogy, even in an untimed game. You can't separate speed from intelligence in strategy games because to be physically fast you have to be able to think fast (what action or strategy to do next, etc).
I think part of what makes Brood War fun is the "how did he do that?? that's crazy!!" aspect of watching it. I played War3 for a couple months, did pretty well, but I never got the same kind of feeling from playing or watching War3 games and replays.
Perhaps what Insomnia means by "more advanced" is the stuff like binding multiple buildings to one hotkey, autocast, etc. In his opinion these things are "more advanced."
|
On February 05 2004 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:
In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game.
Then the sports of hockey, soccer, cycling, swimming, lacrosse, basketball, and baseball are all automatically and simultaneously inferior to the Decathalon.
Odd how all of those sports are somehow more enjoyed and watched than the decathalon.
|
On February 05 2004 23:28 Hot_Bid wrote:
Anyone think if Nada played War3 seriously for 2 months he'd rape the shit out of Insomnia, or at least be close to his level of "perfection"?
In my opinion, the greater you allow for skill differentiation, the greater the game.
Also, speed is very important in chess, whoever brought up that analogy, even in an untimed game. You can't separate speed from intelligence in strategy games because to be physically fast you have to be able to think fast (what action or strategy to do next, etc).
I think part of what makes Brood War fun is the "how did he do that?? that's crazy!!" aspect of watching it. I played War3 for a couple months, did pretty well, but I never got the same kind of feeling from playing or watching War3 games and replays.
Perhaps what Insomnia means by "more advanced" is the stuff like binding multiple buildings to one hotkey, autocast, etc. In his opinion these things are "more advanced."
how is speed important in an untimed game of chess? And the ability to process information at a certain speed, and the ability to click at 300 APM are extremely different things.
Perhaps the better question would be 'Who would kick Nada's ass if only they could click as fast'. My estimate would be in the hundreds. One of them may even be insomnia !~ !~ !~```1111
|
Nowadays pro-gaming is business.And mr.X benefits of this business.OF COURSE that he will say that Warcraft is the better game.ITS SO SIMPLE TO UNDERSTAND.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
