|
I agree that u cant comprar a 2 weeks old to a 12 years old. And agree that the star 2 beta is more complete then the star 1 release.
I guess that blizzard is doing is send a semi complete game to the public and with the feedback add some things that ll make the game feel more complete. I guess they ll add 2 or 3 units, or some massive rework, to make some possibites of micro.
Just trust them, they ll make another great RTS.
Perfect Topic
|
|
excellent analysis of macro and micro, I couldn't agree more. Blizzard really nailed it with their macro in this game.
|
To all of you who whine about mbs and unlimited units per group, you should go and play Dune 2, that has none of that "multiple unit selection" bullshit. I mean any noob can coordinate an attack with 10units now by simply selecting them and then ordering them with a single click. But in Dune 2, real pros had to select and order each unit separately and that what made the game fun to watch. It was amazing to see coordinated attacks by 10 devastators on the enemy base.
For all of you who whine about automining, you should also demand none of that "auto attacking bullshit". Any noob can leave their units unattended and those units will actually automatically attack enemy units that get close, wtf??? This is an insane noobification. Units should never attack unless they are ordered too, otherwise noobs will have a HUGE edge over pros.
In other words, stfu please. Games evolve and they get better. I am the first one who cries about noobification of modern gaming but sc2 isnt noobified. Autoque on age of mythology titans was a huge noobification and a mistake but mbs and automining are hardly reasons to cry "OMG NOOBIFIED", especially since Blizzard added new, more interesting, game mechanics that increase micro(scanner or mule(huge tactical decision), chrono boost, larva/tumours).
And on top of that, armies are a lot more mobile on sc2 than they were on sc1. Pylon/warp prism teleportation, blink, colossus, worm network, faster movement on creep+overlord vomit+creep tumours, medics that fly and can also carry units, reapers, etc. So you have to pay a lot more attention to the game and act/react a lot faster.
|
suck up! haha just kidding. good article.
|
great read. i agree on almost everything although i do think that SC2 can become the great game that BW has become. once the pro's start to understand the units better and better they will start to alter the way they play with those units and micro will become more interesting.
starcraft needed bw to fix a lot of holes before in became a truly great game. WC3 needed TFT before it could be played competitively. SC2 already is a better game than those original games but we might need an expension pack (or two) before it will become the polished product SC:BW is. it might take some time but i have still high hopes that SC2 can become an equally epic game as BW.
|
Blizzard listened to out need for macro, hopefully they will listen to us once again.
|
The invincible drone is back and better than ever! It can read, it can mine, it can take the place of a cerebrate, and it can write the best article of SC2 compared to SC:BW! Fantastic job drone!
EDITOR PLZ FIX: in the picture of Super Mario2 it says "Sequels sown in succesion", its supposed to be shown(I think)!
|
Nice post!
I totally agree that starcraft's greatness was/is somewhat a fluke; but, I'm hoping, I'm confident, that Blizzard can improve upon its roots through intention and design.
|
On March 02 2010 09:38 riptide wrote: Even the flaws are considered to be a venerable tradition. One big difference between Starcraft I and II is that the sequel is just too smart. Starcraft: Brood War is a game full of stupidity that you have to overcome through quick wits and fast hands. There are no alerts when dark templars one-hit your workers, melee units refuse to acquire targets intelligently, reavers will shoot duds when told to shoot the wrong targets, and a plethora of other annoying things happen on a regular basis. Yet, we enjoy overcoming these inconveniences, call it skill, and say that Starcraft II sucks because it’s not stupid. (...) I was excited when I heard Starcraft II was coming out, but I didn’t know why. Now that I’ve tried the beta test, I realize that I was excited because I wanted to play another excellent Blizzard game. I never needed a sequel to Starcraft, because it was perfect all along.
----
(...)some of the greatness of competing in Starcraft stems from being able to overcome the faults of the AI. Goons killing mines they can’t spot (and often not doing so because they’re dumb – which is why watching someone do it flawlessly is great), vultures jumping past pylons because their pathing gets screwed up for a second when they lay mines, building pylons outside an opponent’s gateway right before his goons spawn because they follow a predictable spawn-pattern which cannot be decided by the player controlling the gateways. The usefulness of Mutalisks suddenly multiplied when someone accidentally noticed that you could stack them if you had them hotkeyed together with a far-away unit. These are all examples of unintentional manipulation of a flawed AI which enabled players to pull of awesome moves.
(...) As a long-lasting competitive game, Starcraft 2 might have less ”Awe-factor” than Starcraft did. It lacks flashy micromanagement. Walking up and down cliffs with reapers raping peons, it feels awesome. But it’s easy. I could pull it off quite decently the second game I played with Terran. Obviously it improves, but most of the micromanagement has the same feel to it. Blizzard has improved the AI to such an extent that the units actually behave the way you tell them to – but this also means that anyone is able to pull off what they are trying to do. Watching someone shoot a perfect free kick in football would not be impressive if you knew he just had to decide to do this, it is impressive because even though he knows exactly what to do, it is really difficult to execute it. This allegory can be transferred to mostly all sports, especially any involving a ball: if it is easy, it’s not impressive. I quoted my favourite parts above, very well said. Very important aspects, and I think you came surprisingly close to wording the magic that is the unique charm of Brood War.
All in all very nice writeup, gj guys.
|
England2647 Posts
I rarely respond to articles, but Drone's section is exactly what I wanted to read and it makes a lot of sense.
I've been longing to know what early Starcraft was like because a lot of people seem to be being very unreasonable when critiquing SC2, as if Starcraft was balanced right from the get-go. It's good to know about the balance issues and strategies that seem incredibly strange to someone following the scene now. People seem to be forgetting that a lot of what kept Brood War going and makes it so great is yet to come. Things like Maps, balance, really strong strategies and top level play won't exist yet. There's a lot of impatience among the Brood War fans and I think Drone's point about it being three years before the balance got to what it is now is something very important to think about. I'm not sure how many people would wait three years with Starcraft 2, but that is something that depends on a lot of other factors that are near impossible to predict right now.
Either way, everything Drone has said makes a lot of sense and very accurate. Very good read.
|
I loved the analog to other sports! Very fitting
|
nice read. Good statements
|
Good read. However, I have to disagree on one point. The glitches and bugs do not, for me, add fun/spice to the game. They feel like cheating to me. Compare to chess, as you sort of did in the article. There are no bugs/glitches that can be taken advantage of...it is that polished and elegant a game. There are myriad strategies and tactics to use or be aware of, but that is what makes the game so great, and for my money, ultimately made SCBW so good. There were tons of strategies and options available, but there was no need for a glitch or bug. Another reason you wouldn't really ever want to rely on a glitch/bug is that it is safe to assume Blizzard might someday remove or fix it, so why not work on improving the things you know will be there for the lifetime of the game.
|
This was an excellent read. I think it fairly represents the two viewpoints on SC2. I personally side with the later, and the view that, "Hey its still beta.". This just really gets me motivated to explore SC2 and develop strategies etc.
If only I had a beta key
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
Ha wow. I agree completely with what both articles said. Starcraft was essentially a bundle of coincidences. SC2 just lacks the... Charm of SC. There's just something missing that I feel can't be replicated.
|
Well, this helped me be less skeptical of the game now. Nice post.
|
I can confidently say that I am already a better Starcraft 2 player than I was a Starcraft 1 player in early 2000
I liked the overall article, but I think that's pretty strange you would come up with that assessment I've quoted. Seems a bit early to say this.
I can count on one hand the number of times people have upgraded their units attack/armor. When they do it's almost always air dmg for warp rays. I've faced ultras probably 15 times and guess what, they've been 0-0 EVERY time. I have a 64% win ratio in SC1 at A-/A rank as Z and a 61% at A- as T. I have a 93% win ratio playing random in SC2.
I don't think you can compare your abilities effectively between SC1 and SC2. You're basically stomping noobs right now. I really have no memorable losses where it was a close game. I've lost to being totally dumb and trying to tripple hatch and losing to void ray timings, I've lost to my internet/computer dying, I've lost games not realizing what units counter what, but I think once I got a firm grasp on what each unit was it's been smooth sailing on the noob basher express.
It's not SC2's fault though. Every beta is like this. Pillars is one of the people I see in every obscure RTS beta and he does very well in every RTS beta because he is a strategist and most people who pickup a new beta can't keep up with him.
|
On March 03 2010 01:07 Bonewalker wrote: Good read. However, I have to disagree on one point. The glitches and bugs do not, for me, add fun/spice to the game. They feel like cheating to me. Compare to chess, as you sort of did in the article. There are no bugs/glitches that can be taken advantage of...it is that polished and elegant a game. There are myriad strategies and tactics to use or be aware of, but that is what makes the game so great, and for my money, ultimately made SCBW so good. There were tons of strategies and options available, but there was no need for a glitch or bug. Another reason you wouldn't really ever want to rely on a glitch/bug is that it is safe to assume Blizzard might someday remove or fix it, so why not work on improving the things you know will be there for the lifetime of the game. Its pretty hard to define "glitch", and your approach seems very keen on that. What is a glitch, something thats "clearly" not meant to work that way? Either according to the rules of physics or common sense? Do you consider mutalisk stacking a bug/glitch? What about worker stacking on minerals, and workers passing through units when in gathering mode? What about several siege tanks targeting a single zealot right between 4 friendly tanks? What about scarabs not dealing friendly splash damage? What is the difference between a glitch and an arbitrary out of the ordinary rule? I think the above "glitches" (just for example) are a very important part to a lot of strategies, and as such, are integral to the current state of starcraft. You really cant list that many options and strategies that dont involve glitches of some kind.
|
As a real Starcraft fan from the very beginning all I can say is "Yes.. this is exactly it" It felt great to read your write-up and it brought back memories, you touched my heart, hehe
|
|
|
|