| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
RaptorX
Germany646 Posts
Dude you are an excellent writer, that was a wall of text but you sure got me reading the whole thing. :D I am of the believe that when you go too far away from the original game/movie the things turn bad... they simply suck... and in my opinion SC2 is going too far away from the original game. Is good to innovate but changing the nature of the game by trying to make it more "newbie friendly" is going to hurt the game in the long run. I agree 100% with HeartOfTofu... | ||
|
NatsuTerran
United States364 Posts
 | ||
|
Jazriel
Canada404 Posts
On December 23 2009 10:13 TheYango wrote: That's my point. I directed the post at Jazriel because he postfixed that statement with "ultimately this is the truth". Obviously it can't *just* be the truth if it takes true premises and leads them to a questionable conclusion. You're assuming you're a competent enough judge to decide what objective truth is. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On December 25 2009 11:33 Jazriel wrote: You're assuming you're a competent enough judge to decide what objective truth is. No, I'm saying no one here is, including you and I. I don't pretend to say I know what the truth is. I do think I can come up with a reasonable counterexample to a false statement, however. Of course there is the possibility that you want to argue with my "true" premises that basketball is a game and that dribbling is repetitive. | ||
|
phyvo
United States5635 Posts
On December 25 2009 10:23 HeartOfTofu wrote:I wrote the longest but bestest wall of text ever at the end of page 10. The poster now quoting me is begging you to read it. This dude pretty much said absolutely everything good that's possible to say about this. The thread's definitely over now if it wasn't already. | ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
By far the largest part of strategic depth in Starcraft or any RTS game for that matter comes from having to make decisions about the allocation of your attention, and your mechanical performance. IT IS HUGE. Strategy is easy, you can write down a build order, with its game plan, and its general guidelines for execution for a lot of the variations on a single piece of paper, but so much more decision making goes into it when you actually play it, and that's because you need to make decisions on how you're going to prioritize in your execution of the build, knowing full well that you can not do it perfectly. Mathematically, think of it this way: You know you need to do 10 things at a certain point in time. You know them ahead of time, which is actually another reason why general strategies is NOT where most of the strategic depth comes from in the game (because you can, and probably should for ideal results figure out your strategy for the game before you even start it.) If you can do all 10 things, then you don't really have an option, you just do them ,because you've already decided earlier that that's what your strategy is. If you can do one of them, you have 10 things to choose from. If you can do 2 of them then you have 45 different combinations to chose from... and so on. If you can do 3 of them, you have 105 different options. and so on, and so forth. Mathematically, you get the most actual options when you can only do half the things that you want to do. When people say, things like "telling your workers to go mine after they build is just useless clicking, auto-mine is just improving an outdated feature," they don't know what they're talking about. It's not the decision of your worker mining vs worker not mining. It's the decision telling your worker to mine vs whatever else you want to be doing, and in what order you're going to these two things. | ||
alffla
Hong Kong20321 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
Strategy is easy, you can write down a build order, with its game plan, and its general guidelines for execution for a lot of the variations on a single piece of paper Should it be easy? | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
No, but that has no relevance to the issue at hand. You don't get complex and deep strategy by lowering the mechanical requirement. You get complex and deep strategy by designing complex and deep strategy. EDIT: After finally reading Tofu's huge wall of text, I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree. Addressing a specific piece: On December 25 2009 10:23 HeartOfTofu wrote: Having a high APM is not a "pre-requisite" to one's enjoyment of Starcraft. It is simply required to compete at certain levels and even then, it does not determine the outcome of a game. Plenty of people with crappy reaction time and aim enjoy playing Counterstrike just fine. Plenty of people who will never play in the World Cup enjoy playing soccer just fine. And plenty of people with low APM enjoy playing Starcraft just fine. Your enjoyment of a game is determined not by your skill at the game, but rather your skill in relation to your goal. Obviously if you want to be highly competitive, you need to be quick with your hands in Starcraft because the game is designed that way. Complaining about this fact is like complaining that there's some sort of unfairness in the faster runner's ability to break away from the defense and score more often. Speed in both running and Starcraft can be trained and honed if you desire. Instead of complaining that it matters that people are faster than you, why not train yourself to be faster than you are if you care so much about it? Change yourself to match the game or find a game that better suits you. Don't sit there and demand that the game change to match you. I feel like this is worth emphasizing. A lot of people who complain about interface limitations on enjoyment bring up the scenario that it was not fun to be beaten by someone on iCCup/B.net whose sole advantage was that they played faster. Somehow, being beaten by someone faster or more dextrous is ok in soccer, or in Street Fighter, or in Counter-Strike, but as soon as the buzzword "Strategy" enters in, there's some expectation that dexterity and handspeed become non-issues. I think HeartOfTofu puts it wonderfully--no matter how many interface features you put in to make things easier, inevitably it's hamstringing people at some level. The best you can do is try and strike a balance where it adds to the game experience, but is not overly annoying (this is part of why people haven't complained about unlimited unit selections--even those against stuff like MBS and automine admit that the 12-unit-restriction is arbitrary and annoying). Obviously this is a subjective balance, and different RTS games have placed the bar at different places, but as Starcraft has evolved over the years, the spirit of it has found it in a relatively mechanically-focused equilibrium. Will everyone agree with it? No. But the long-term success of the original certainly implies that it's done a better job of pleasing people than more "strategy-centric" models. | ||
LosingID8
CA10829 Posts
Great post! I really appreciate the obvious amount of effort you put into writing that. I agree with pretty much every single thing you wrote. Have you emailed that to sirlin? I am curious to read his response. PS: welcome to TL! | ||
|
Archerofaiur
United States4101 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution, just like n is insignificant numerically to to C(n, n/2) for when n gets to be a decent sized number. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
No, but that has no relevance to the issue at hand. You don't get complex and deep strategy by lowering the mechanical requirement. You get complex and deep strategy by designing complex and deep strategy. I don't see how an admission that sirlin's prime premise is true is not relevant to a discussion surrounding his view. It will always be easy relatively to how difficult the decision making is during its execution How so? Assume there's zero interface barrier; the execution of the strategy becomes a given, while the creation of it becomes by default more difficult. The magnitude of how different the two difficulties are is the object of the discussion itself. As the interface barrier decreases, the amount of difficulty that a variably complex strategy component needs to kick in increases in order to reach a similar plateau.Either way, you're still left answering 'should strategy be easy'. If you think it should, the execution needs to pick up the slack. If you think it should be hard, then it can either be hard enough to supplant an execution barrier, or it can be too simple to warrant an elimination of said barrier. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On December 25 2009 16:38 L wrote: I don't see how an admission that sirlin's prime premise is true is not relevant to a discussion surrounding his view. Because admission that his premise is true and admission that his conclusion is true are two very different things. | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
Logical fallacy n°1. The false analogy with Civilisation. This is a common rethorical figure used by a lot of people on pretty much every forums nowadays. Terrible analogies to give substance to a weak point. Here is the logical fallacy, called a syllogism. Assumption a).Civilisation is not restricted by the user interface and is not a spectator friendly game. b). Starcraft is heavily restricted by the user interface and is a spectator friendly game. Conclusion: Restricting the user interface is needed to have a spectator friendly game. Logical fallacy n°2. Stating well-known facts such as 1+1=2 and acting like they were somehow proofing your point. Part a). On December 25 2009 10:23 HeartOfTofu wrote: It'd be nice to have a world where all things were equal and individual differences wouldn't separate players, but where would that leave us? (( I will pass this obvious non-sensical point, what can differentiate 2 players apart from their individual differences ? His whole point is here made stronger, because it is presented as a contradiction of a nonsensical point that no one ever made)) [...] Somewhere along the line, every game separates those who are better from those who are worse. This is the nature of games. ((o rly ?) Then he talks about "Starcraft" as a whole genre. SC2 is never directly mentionned, but is referred as an "alteration" of the first SC. You will see that this was needed for his second logical fallacy, Part b). On December 25 2009 10:23 HeartOfTofu wrote: The irony evident in trying to alter the game in an effort "not to restrict players" is that you end up helping players who are less skilled and feel "restricted" by the difficulty of mastering the skills needed and in turn, you hurt more skilled players by placing an arbitrary ceiling on their skills. We could entirely eliminate the time-factor and completely remove the "click-fest. The "less skilled players" refers to the less skilled SC1 players (who're having trouble mastering the SC1 skills) and vice-versa. Apart from this logical fallacy, no other argument than an obscure analogy will be used to explain why these "SC1 skills" should be all adopted by SC2. Part c). I play at 70APM average and I honestly enjoy the game just fine playing with my friends. Do I expect to be able to compete with better players or professionals? Of course not, just like I wouldn't expect to beat Kobe Bryant in a 1-on-1 on the basketball court. Does my inability to compete with Kobe Bryant signify some sort of inherent problem in basketball? Hum hum... he will keep on using these false annalogies to somehow proof by induction his main point Conclusion. Change yourself to match the game or find a game that better suits you. Don't sit there and demand that the game change to match you. Keep in mind that he doesn't consider SC2 as a new game, merely an "alteration" of the original... Logical fallacy n°3. Lying by ommission. Starcraft isn't a perfect game by any means, but it fills a niche in its balance of speed and strategy that isn't currently available in other games. There have been many, many RTS games released since Starcraft's release, some slower, some faster, some more complex, and some easier, but Starcraft has held its place because there is simply no other game that has the right balance to replace it at the moment. First of all, SC1 is not the Holy Graal, it has not held its place everywhere and is now internationaly dead compared to other games like War3 or CS. Of course if you don't acknowledge this fact you will have troubles finding reasons to modify SC1 stuffs. However, the scene remains strong in South Korea. Why ? Of course SC1 greatness has something to do with that, but they are other reasons than the game's "balance" behind this, cultural and economical factors. 1). Starcraft has been launched in 1998, just after Korea's economical recession and the introduction of the "cybercafés". Back at the time, it was considerd cheaper to go to the cybercafé rather than buying you own computer. This is where a lot of people has discovered SC. 2). During WW2, approximately 100,000 Koreans were forced to serve in the Japanese Army, and some Korean women have been used as sexual slaves.There is a deep anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea. An embargo against Japanese made imports was even instaured (playstation, megadrive...) . This is the niche that SC1 has filled, it was the first really competitive PC game that wasn't already massively plaid oversea. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On December 25 2009 16:55 TheYango wrote: Because admission that his premise is true and admission that his conclusion is true are two very different things. That doesn't change the fact that there's relevance to his main premise being accepted as true, especially granted the fact that a number of people are arguing out of the assumption that it isn't. I mean, I don't even understand why this is an issue; the quoted bit is clearly relevant to the discussion. | ||
|
Vasoline73
United States7828 Posts
And *sigh* is Tewy serious or trolling I cant even tell -_-;;;;;;; | ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
On December 25 2009 19:08 Vasoline73 wrote: What a freaking douchebag... -_-. Reading this article bummed me out. Especially when he started talking about Re4 and 5 compared to the originals... the originals are so much more scary/fun imo. I don't want some stupid brainless action game which is apparently all he cares about -_- And *sigh* is Tewy serious or trolling I cant even tell -_-;;;;;;; me serious -_-;;; Lol, you're calling a well known-guy in the game industry "a freaking douchebag" without any explanations and then asking me if I'm the one who's trolling here ? Is THAT serious ? | ||
|
Neon_Monkey
United States270 Posts
On December 25 2009 17:11 TeWy wrote: I noticed a lot of litigious points made by Tofu, let me point them out. How do you make an argument without litigious points? Logical fallacy n°1. The false analogy with Civilisation. This is a common rethorical figure used by a lot of people on pretty much every forums nowadays. Terrible analogies to give substance to a weak point. Here is the logical fallacy, called a syllogism. Assumption a).Civilisation is not restricted by the user interface and is not a spectator friendly game. b). Starcraft is heavily restricted by the user interface and is a spectator friendly game. Conclusion: Restricting the user interface is needed to have a spectator friendly game. The analogy is only false because you came up with a false conclusion. He is saying that making the game physically demanding helps to make a spectator friendly game, not that it is necessary to handicap each player to give a game spectator value. True, the analogy could be better, but most people probably do not have a wide knowledge of all different strategy games to make the perfect comparison. Logical fallacy n°2. Stating well-known facts such as 1+1=2 and acting like they were somehow proofing your point. Part a). Then he talks about "Starcraft" as a whole genre. SC2 is never directly mentionned, but is referred as an "alteration" of the first SC. You will see that this was needed for his second logical fallacy, I fail to see him mention SC2 being an alteration; it seems to me like he entirely talking about Starcraft Broodwar. Nothing he says could even possibly apply to SC2 since as of right now its interface is not restricting at all. Part b). The "less skilled players" refers to the less skilled SC1 players (who're having trouble mastering the SC1 skills) and vice-versa. Apart from this logical fallacy, no other argument than an obscure analogy will be used to explain why these "SC1 skills" should be all adopted by SC2. He argues by giving his opinion that a sequel should be a sequel in ways other than the largely ignored storyline. The skills that he proposes be adopted are not even obscure skills based solely on SC1; they are applied (to a lesser extent) to all RTS, just like most sports require a certain level of physical fitness other than the actual "skill" in the game (another analogy, oh no!). Whether a sequel should adopt the same "spirit" as its predecessor is not something that can be argued with solid facts, and I think he presents his opinion well throughout the entire post. Part c). Hum hum... he will keep on using these false annalogies to somehow proof by induction his main point From what I understand Sirlin seems to believe that in an RTS, strategy should be the sole factor that decides the game. He is simply saying that just like in Basketball depends a vast majority of factors like experience and dexterity, an RTS that has the goal of being an e-sport should also depend on such factors. I guess for this appeal to make perfect sense you have to know about previous debates involving Sirlin on this board. He also simply uses himself as an example as someone who finds the game great even if he is limited by the interface (on a level even below what most people on this probably are at). The basic argument here is true for all sports and e-sports, but many people seem to forget this when talking about a video game. It is kind of obvious, but doesn't hurt to say... Conclusion. Keep in mind that he doesn't consider SC2 as a new game, merely an "alteration" of the original... If you say so... Logical fallacy n°3. Lying by ommission. First of all, SC1 is not the Holy Graal, it has not held its place everywhere and is now internationaly dead compared to other games like War3 or CS. Of course if you don't acknowledge this fact you will have troubles finding reasons to modify SC1 stuffs. However, the scene remains strong in South Korea. Why ? Of course SC1 greatness has something to do with that, but they are other reasons than the game's "balance" behind this, cultural and economical factors. 1). Starcraft has been launched in 1998, just after Korea's economical recession and the introduction of the "cybercafés". Back at the time, it was considerd cheaper to go to the cybercafé rather than buying you own computer. This is where a lot of people has discovered SC. 2). During WW2, approximately 100,000 Koreans were forced to serve in the Japanese Army, and some Korean women have been used as sexual slaves.There is a deep anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea. An embargo against Japanese made imports was even instaured (playstation, megadrive...) . This is the niche that SC1 has filled, it was the first really competitive PC game that wasn't already massively plaid oversea. It depends what you mean by internationally dead... If you consider that a game like WoW has 11+ million subrcribers then I guess you might be able to say that (although I doubt you could say that if you compared SC to WC3). But so far as I can tell Starcraft is still by far the most famous and successful as a spectator game, not as a game to be played. The entire e-sports community seems to acknowledge that SC2 holds the most potential for the future of e-sports, and professional gamers from other e-sports even have begun to play SC1 in order to get a feel for what it is like. I am not sure how else I could try to logically argue this though, and I honestly don't have enough knowledge of other e-sports communities to say anything beyond that. | ||
|
Lachrymose
Australia1928 Posts
On December 25 2009 19:25 TeWy wrote: me serious -_-;;; Lol, you're calling a well known-guy in the game industry "a freaking douchebag" without any explanations and then asking me if I'm the one who's trolling here ? Is THAT serious ? actually he gave explaination right there in his post. i can call mark rein, a 'well known-guy in the game industry' a 'freaking douchebag' as well, because i believe he is. being well known doesn't make you immune to crticism. your post is pretty ridiculous. On December 25 2009 19:25 TeWy wrote: Conclusion: Restricting the user interface is needed to have a spectator friendly game. actually, his conclusion was to have a spectator friendly game the game had to be fast paced and that at a sufficiently fast pace the game is likely to have a degree of mechanical stress. applied to starcraft and starcraft 2 fast paced means a lot of action; a lot of battles. unit micro in battles is very mechanically demanding. even if you remove the mechanical demands of macro the fast player will still have the advantage, he will just express his speed through micro. On December 25 2009 19:25 TeWy wrote:Then he talks about "Starcraft" as a whole genre. SC2 is never directly mentionned, but is referred as an "alteration" of the first SC. no other argument than an obscure analogy will be used to explain why these "SC1 skills" should be all adopted by SC2. actually, he stated several times he believes a sequel to a game should contain the same spirit, a notion difficult to argue with that you will find many people both here and elsewhere agree with. your position appears to be designs and story constitutes a sequel. i disagree in general, but i disgree strongly for cases like starcraft where the gameplay is such a big part of the experience. the gameplay is part of the identity of starcraft. reskinning company of heroes with zealots and seige tanks does not make it starcraft 2. On December 25 2009 19:25 TeWy wrote:Hum hum... he will keep on using these false annalogies to somehow proof by induction his main point here he shows the starcraft can be enjoyable even if you aren't a fantastic mechanical player. he then shows that not being able to compete with the best in a particular game or sport does in no way imply there is something wrong with the sport. that is hardly a false analogy. he stops short of making the next point, but to myself and im sure many others, the skill-gap between the best and myself actually shows what is right with starcraft! you then go on to restate your point, again, that what you're asking for is Completely New Game 1: The New Game. you try to show that sc2 shouldn't be like the most successful rts ever with a series of points i can only assume are meant to prove sc1 isnt that successful. only problem is they have no real relevance to that or anything else. btw, this internationally dead game is currently having a $20,000+ tournament. ps. mark rein is a freaking douchbag™. edit: Monkeyz_Rule so zoomy. =D | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
Ultimate Battle
Light vs ZerO
WardiTV Winter Champion…
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
