|
On July 11 2010 14:51 Chairman Ray wrote:
Great read. I completely agree that all the exciting action has been depleted. In addition, I think it's boring to watch as well. After watching scbw for 3+ years, I'm still watching it. After a few games of sc2, I just can't get through the first 5 mins of the most exciting matches.
If you're only watching the first 5 minutes, isn't it possible you are missing the parts that made the game exciting in the first place?
|
On July 11 2010 14:50 cHaNg-sTa wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2010 11:59 ApacheChief wrote:
I don't think this is true at all.
StarCraft 2 probably has MORE interactions between the races, with early game spells like forcefield, EMP and fungal growth.
I don't understand... Have you played/watched BW a decent amount? I'm guessing you haven't. Spells were a lot more devastating in BW. They were ESSENTIAL to some tactics. Getting storm out for the mass hydra bust, getting dark swarm to save yourself from the M&M/tank push, getting irradiate out to stop the powerful muta sniping, getting spider mines to deal with the mass speedlots, and many more. These were all absolutely critical and powerful to stopping the opponent's powerful push/strategy. But the beauty about it is that even though it's a great and powerful spell to repel the opponent's strategy, the opponent can still make use of his units with superior micro. Storm dodging, moving all units out of dark swarm quickly, scourging science vessels (which even the Terran can counter with even better micro), zealot bombing, etc. SC2 introduces too many elements that weaken the effect of these awesome spells because of how easy smart casting is. This is an extremely poor decision in terms of game dynamics because now everyone can storm with similar efficiency. On the other hand, a greater player in BW can make less templars AND storm far more effectively and faster than a player who is slower and not as micro-prepped. This is key, a BW player with a couple of templars against zerg is scary. But it's not scary at all in SC2 until they have a ton of templars. You EARN your "terrible terrible damage" in BW, the game doesn't just give it to you. Things in SC2 like FF, fungal growth, marauders' concussive shells, etc, don't allow the opponent to overcome these "counters" with greater micro. It's just not possible. If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. There's really nothing else you can do. Fungal growth? Well, you're just trapped until it wears off. And I'm sure everyone has experienced trying to run away from marauders with the trailing units have zero hope of living. They don't give the option of "hey, great micro can get me out of this pinch!" And that's what makes BW the great spectator sport it is today. I think SC2 is fun to watch, but just for how long? Who knows. I still get goosebumps watching BW games. I hope SC2 can still do the same, but that might be asking for too much.
On July 11 2010 14:53 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Yeah likewise, SC2 has had 7 years of design time plus 12 years of BW evolution, to create a game that should be 100x better than BW from the get-go.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
I like both these posts :D. exactly right guys 
|
I agree, there's a fundamental design change between the "everything is broken" school of design of SC1 and "everything is balanced" school of design in SC2.
In SC1 150 minerals in vultures have the potential to kill eight dragoons or twenty hydras (ggaemo style), 400 combined resources in templar or reavers can kill dozens and dozens hydralisks and floods of of zerglings besides, and a relatively small investment in mutalisks, lurkers, or defilers have the potential to dish out dozens of times their cost in damage.
All of these also have the potential to fail spectacularly and do nothing at all. It's not like that in SC2.
|
The years we've spent since SC was released were not just spent learning how to play that game - they were largely spent learning how to play RTS games. The best WC2 players on Kali, the best SC players at launch... players at that skill level would have trouble holding D on iccup today. The first day a player like Idra or Nony touched SC2, they were better at it than anyone was at SC for years. This is how far the RTS world has come since.
What I'm getting at is that all of these 'give it time' posts are ridiculous. Do you really think the top players aren't trying out every possible way to win? With players being picked up by eSports teams before the game is even released, you'd better believe they're trying every little trick they can to get the advantage over others. Despite everything though, they can't make infestors as game-changing as defilers were. They can't make skirmishes come as interesting as marine vs lurker or goons vs early terran pressure. There are limitations in place that simply cannot be overcome by 'figuring more stuff out'.
By the way, there's a terrible misconception going on here. It didn't take 10+ years for Starcraft to be an amazing and dynamic game to play and watch. In fact, we've enjoyed it for that long.
|
I like the points you make. Yes, SC2 spells are still pretty sweet but it seems rather dumbed down and does lessen the dynamics of each unit.
|
sad but true, great article anyway
|
"If I get FF'd, the only thing I can do is just.. let my trapped units attack. "
But why are the units trapped in the first place? There was crucial positioning involved. Also, I want to mention the addition of large units being able to break through forcefields. This isn't me saying "obviously it's now equal to brood war" amazingness - I'm just adding a new window of support for the already stated fact that Brood War has had 12 years of development. People are simply sanctifying and worshiping Brood War without giving SC2 a chance - these are NOT unchangeable issues - spell effects, cast speed, etc. are all changeable and rather simple changes in terms of object data. Spells can have game-changing effects: TLO's round in I believe the quarterfinals of the HDH proves this when fungal spores were used to great effect. Does it still have constraints on micro like the inability to move? Sure. But that doesn't mean there aren't ways to change that or move beyond that.
People are also making claims like "it just isn't as interesting." To me that seems incredibly odd to make such an absolute claim over a hugely subjective statement.
SC2 should have taken what was so captivating in BW and made it even better. IMO SC2 just seems to be riding on the success of BW, and hoping that any change will still lead to a good game.
And so many also have exclaimed that SC2 should have tried to be more revolutionary.
|
On July 11 2010 14:03 N(o)sarcasm wrote:
I'd have to agree that the attentiveness required to be comparatively decent to the next fellow in Brood War was a lot larger than in the current beta phase of Starcraft 2. However, as has been mentioned, ranted, raved, and beaten to death is the small, minute, minuscule thing that is the following.
--- Starcraft and its predecessor are 12 years old.
--- Starcraft 2 and its three expansions are 0 days old. It is still in its beta phase.
To expect a legacy like Starcraft to be followed without flaw or fault is simply being naive. Starcraft took years to captivate the lives of millions upon millions of players and viewers. Starcraft 2 seems to have to do this before it ever hits the shelf. I understand the sentiments of needing to macro a marine around to make the most of its usage on the field. The desire to dodge that lurker shot, split the armies to avoid the mass tank damage that could potentially end the game if you so much as a half a second off. Give the baby of this Legacy time to grow into what we all hope it will be. To expect a child to have the same aspects as its parent before its even been given time to grow is, I'll use the word selfish. People are being selfish with the seemingly unwavering desire for starcraft 2 to simply be a polished up starcraft 1 in every aspect, good or bad. It seems that perhaps while what made starcraft one great, also poses a sense of.. arrogance to the newer generation of children that haven't had more than a decade to perfect what seems to easy when we watch. Let Starcraft 2 have a chance to apply that 'awe' factor that the original had. I'm sure there will always be "I wish this was like that" moments in games, but to isolate those who want to take part in the creation of a game that is, in my opinion, a legacy by which most rts compare themselves to, seems very selfish.
In closing, I understand most, if not all of what I am typing has probably been posted or said a hundred million times over on various threads, forums, and conversations with friends. Though I would hope that some will gain a little insight if I have covered something that hasn't been said before.
I will reply to this post because you put a lot of effort into it. It's very well thought-out and structured (and respectful, lol), and it seems to sum up pretty much all the complaints pretty well, barring nextstep's comment about rather watching pros, Lord_of_Chaos's comment about maps affecting micro, and Hautamaki's comment about old school micro, which are all very good points points (as well as the point that there are two more expansions coming).
I originally wrote this article a while back, around when phase one was ending. SC2 is extremely fun to play. In fact, now that Beta is back up again, I don't play SC1 anymore. It's all SC2. I'll be honest: I like having drones that don't bug out, and that mine in a straight line, and stalkers that fire reliably. I like how silky smooth everything feels. I like the competing on the ladder, or messing around with friends. SC2 is a great game. And I'm not ashamed to say that I play it over SC1.
But the thing is, there just feels like there's something missing. SC2 is more about positional attacks and SC1 is more about unit micro. You can't deny this fact. In the past 5 months, SC2 has developed more than SC1 has over 5 years. We've come a long, LONG way since the Beta first started. Our play has been refined over and over again. Just how much more that's going to continue, I cannot say. But I'll say this: the entire point of this article is to pinpoint the thing that seems missing in SC2. And that's interactivity. It's something that either exists or it doesn't. We're not going to suddenly "discover" how to be interactive with units and spells in 5 years, or when Korean pros move over. It's more of a tool that Blizzard can give us to work with. And in this case, they didn't (to an extent). I'm not blaming Blizzard for this. I just wanted to make this issue known.
|
More nostalgia.
We've already seen how the metagame as evolved from 1-base all-ins to something more resembling current BW.
SC2 is an amazing game.
BW is and was an amazing game, but get over it. Stop bashing SC2 based purely on nostalgia.
|
I don't get it. You guys seem to just not like change and seem to be complaining a lot.
I mean one of your biggest complaints is that things are overpowered but you can overcome them by using either more overpowered things or simply micro. But now things are more balanced and there aren't things you have to overcome? It seems like such a bizarre argument. "Planes used to be SO much better because there was always that risk of dying. Now it's like it's stable and fun for most people, it's so lame."
I think this whole thing is more of a fact you've been playing Brood War for so long that you're not willing to accept a new mode of play. I mean if you've been playing the same game for a few years I can see why it's hard to change, but that's just the way works. It happens in sports too and you either have to get used to it or just quit, but stop whining! 
|
SC2 is the succession of BW it's stupid to make the excuse that it needs 10+ years to develop when Bw has already laid the ground work.
|
Everyone.
Give <3 to both SCBW and SC2.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On July 11 2010 16:03 PhilipJWitow wrote:I don't get it. You guys seem to just not like change and seem to be complaining a lot. I mean one of your biggest complaints is that things are overpowered but you can overcome them by using either more overpowered things or simply micro. But now things are more balanced and there aren't things you have to overcome? It seems like such a bizarre argument. "Planes used to be SO much better because there was always that risk of dying. Now it's like it's stable and fun for most people, it's so lame." I think this whole thing is more of a fact you've been playing Brood War for so long that you're not willing to accept a new mode of play. I mean if you've been playing the same game for a few years I can see why it's hard to change, but that's just the way works. It happens in sports too and you either have to get used to it or just quit, but stop whining!
This is the type of argument I despite more than anything else on TL. The vast majority of people who played BW before SC2 are significantly better than those who did not. Furthermore, we understand the game better than the average gamer does and we know how things work. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be dominating so hard at the moment. This may sound stuck up and elitist but it's fact.
Saracen's article does compare BW to SC2 and in a valid way. The game breaking elements that were present in SC1 like reavers, mines, swarms etc are all missing in SC2. The dynamic relationships discussed in the article are lacking. These are also facts. We know that this is a new game, but these things enhance spectator value and create a more interesting game. We are willing to accept a new mode of play, but it is fairly clear that there is room for improvement. If sc2 is just about whomever creates the correct unit composition then it is going to be a very boring game in a few years time. The elements in BW made it so that creating the correct unit composition wasn't always going to be the winning element - you could do things like storm drops, utilise mines effectively, use tricks like hold lurkers and whatnot to regain lost ground. These things are just not possible in SC2 at the moment - and indeed the game would benefit from having some of these elements introduced.
A good example of the different is TLO's colossus drop build which is a complete gimmick in SC2 and isn't really going to be viable long term vs the Reaver drop build from the early days of SC/BW which was a perfectly legitimate opening - and still is today.
We all love SC2, and we want to it to be the best it can possibly be - that's why we write these articles. Not because we're lost in the past wishing the game was just SC1 again. We don't want SC1 one again - but we do want the elements which made SC1 amazing present in SC2 - that was Sc2 can live for another 10 years and still be an amazing game like SC1. The points Saracen raises are things I hope the devs take to heart in the upcoming expansions (since nothing is going to change before retail i dont think) and we get to see some amazing units come into play .
|
As nostalgic as the article is, I don't see the point in stating things everyone who loves BW knows and then using it to say "the excitement is gone".
The overly-simple persuasive structure of the whole piece makes it seem like the author is trying to convince newcomers to TL that SC2 is nothing compared to BW.
Edit: Reading recent posts I see that this was made a long time ago when the change was still leaving some players unstirred; it makes a lot of sense now that it's in context.
|
I have been thinking about small scale micro battles recently and it seems to come down to two mechanics. Unlimited unit selection and smart casting.
The potency of storms and mutalisk harass need to be limited with the incorporation of these mechanics. Just imagine 25 stacked mutalisk harass or a dozen brood war strength storms going off at once. Transitions are hugely limited because of the need to weaken these spells.
The specific situation I was looking at was midgame protoss versus terran where P is rushing storm. The upgrade basically has no immediate affect on the marauder balls because 1 or 2 storms are too weak and the marauders are too efficient at dodging with unlimited select. Later storm becomes impossible to dodge because you can constantly blanket his army with smart casting. Blizzards answer to this was simply add in a counter unit, the ghost. Now it comes down to as you said unit compositions rather then army control.
I really don't see why taking these two mechanics out will ruin the game but I highly doubt blizzard will do so. Zealots in the midgame will be more effective since 20 marauders won't be able to kite all together. Forcefield won't need a nerf since casting 10 to walloff will be a difficult micro moment. Storm can be buffed so transition will be safer and you cannot infinite storm easily.
|
On July 11 2010 16:03 PhilipJWitow wrote:
I don't get it. You guys seem to just not like change and seem to be complaining a lot.
Yeah if its change that makes the game worse, then of course we don't like it.
|
It's sad because in the BW scene no one ever played a "perfect game," no matter how extraordinarily skilled each and every contender was. I fear that because SC2 is so much easier to control, that mistakes for these players will completely become a thing of the past. Bisu will never miss a force field, nor will he never be able to cover an entire screen with storms in under a second. The potential for these "perfect games" could lead to a true competitive strategy game where build orders mean the difference between a win or a loss, which will become very boring to watch and to play after a while. BW was a lot like playing sc2 and counterstrike together, and with the lack of the counterstrike aspect apm requirements will be lowered, and perfect BOs will be found even faster (from what I see anyways).
EDIT: sorry, restated a lot of Plexa's arguement, but it's all true..
|
I teared up as I read this :'( Nothing can ever replace BroodWar in terms of gameplay. It really is a clusterfuck of seemingly imbalanced ideas that meshed together to form the most balanced RTS ever. You players who have never been into the BW scene don't understand just how much SC2 is lacking compared to BW... Threads like these make me sad. I want to tell myself that SC2 is a newer and better game thats just as good as BW, but the more i play and the more I watch VODS and streams i realize it will never be as intense as watching savior's last sunken colony die just as consume is done researching :/ I feel like a part of me is dieing with SC2 being released :'(
the single player should be nice though
|
|
|
Agreed. What more can I say. I also like Plexa's post:
On July 11 2010 16:17 Plexa wrote:
This is the type of argument I despite more than anything else on TL. The vast majority of people who played BW before SC2 are significantly better than those who did not. Furthermore, we understand the game better than the average gamer does and we know how things work. If this weren't true, we wouldn't be dominating so hard at the moment. This may sound stuck up and elitist but it's fact.
Saracen's article does compare BW to SC2 and in a valid way. The game breaking elements that were present in SC1 like reavers, mines, swarms etc are all missing in SC2. The dynamic relationships discussed in the article are lacking. These are also facts. We know that this is a new game, but these things enhance spectator value and create a more interesting game. We are willing to accept a new mode of play, but it is fairly clear that there is room for improvement. If sc2 is just about whomever creates the correct unit composition then it is going to be a very boring game in a few years time. The elements in BW made it so that creating the correct unit composition wasn't always going to be the winning element - you could do things like storm drops, utilise mines effectively, use tricks like hold lurkers and whatnot to regain lost ground. These things are just not possible in SC2 at the moment - and indeed the game would benefit from having some of these elements introduced.
A good example of the different is TLO's colossus drop build which is a complete gimmick in SC2 and isn't really going to be viable long term vs the Reaver drop build from the early days of SC/BW which was a perfectly legitimate opening - and still is today.
We all love SC2, and we want to it to be the best it can possibly be - that's why we write these articles. Not because we're lost in the past wishing the game was just SC1 again. We don't want SC1 one again - but we do want the elements which made SC1 amazing present in SC2 - that was Sc2 can live for another 10 years and still be an amazing game like SC1. The points Saracen raises are things I hope the devs take to heart in the upcoming expansions (since nothing is going to change before retail i dont think) and we get to see some amazing units come into play .
This is so true. We do not want a unit-composition game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
