|
On April 27 2010 12:39 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:36 Fallen wrote:
I think this is all blown out of proportions. There's plenty of micro in sc2 to do.
Have you seen that bob vs idra game? if thats not a micro win im not sure what to tell you.
There's countless example!
Leave brood war behind guys, this is a new game. Stop comparing them you're wasting your time and breath.
Have you watched Starcraft Brood War Proleague games? Have you seen Idra play Starcraft Brood War? Or are you another one of those people that have been raised solely on Starcraft 2 spectating? Go to the VODs tab at the top of this page, and watch a series of games, both short and long. THEN you will get a feel for true micro (not just unit micro, but also large army control).
Are you comparing an incomplete game with completely new mechanics and a small pool of players, to a came played professionally by the best in the world? Or are you another one of those people that are unable to understand the difference between watching American amateurs play a game still evolving, and Korean experts playing a game that has been thoroughly analyzed both mechanically and strategically?
Or do you really believe that, If SC2 was being played for thousands of dollars by Koreans, we would not see micro and macro that would blow our minds away? Please put things into context before you continue to demand a SC1 with better graphics.
|
The high intensity micro is gone. Different is not better, better is better. Why go one step backward and take away what was good entertainment from BW when we have the opportunity to take it to the next level?
|
On April 27 2010 12:38 fulmetljaket wrote:
i would really like to see any one of you guys who think blizzard is doing a bad job come up with your own game. maybe then you'll see about how hard it is to make millions of people happy.
and like an above poster said. youe xpect them to just have everything down within a few months? the game isnt even out yet... let them do their thing, ffs.
cry about it AFTER the game comes out?
why would we wait until the release of the game to make changes when they are hosting a fucking beta in order to make those changes NOW.
why do you keep trying to argue this terrible point? it's like you think procrastinating is actually a good idea
|
Thanks for the excellent read.
Beyond your main focus on micro and control, I think the points you raise about the players and their standards are what really connected with me.
I did not play SC religiously but it does not take an experienced pro to notice some fundamental differences that are not just "a new game." They feel like a step backwards.
I would like to conclude this post by making a quick comparison between SC2 and HoN. Both games wrote a new engine to build on a previous title. However, only HoN is making major and significant all-round improvements to their game. Excellent servers/latency, game interface and meta-features with frequent content patches. If you asked me to play one more Dota/HoN game, I would ask you to fuck off. But I see my gf playing HoN while I play SC2 and you'd have to be confused to not think "Gee, if only they replaced the dota in HoN with SC2"
I've waited as many years as anyone else for SC2 but I'm really struggling to accept the fact that its a new development team and that this is what they built in 6 years of development. I've stopped holding my breath.
|
Really nice article, thanks. Glad its frontpage'd.
The game will only evolve as much as the engine allows it to!
|
just because the game hasn't come out yet doesn't mean you can't criticize gameplay aspects. whenever i visit a thread in the sc2 forum half the posts are "omg you cant complain its a new game let it develop!"
even though the op spent like a friggin hour writing an essay about how the fundamental problems of the game will stop the very development of intensive micro control
|
On April 27 2010 12:45 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:39 LunarC wrote:On April 27 2010 12:36 Fallen wrote:
I think this is all blown out of proportions. There's plenty of micro in sc2 to do.
Have you seen that bob vs idra game? if thats not a micro win im not sure what to tell you.
There's countless example!
Leave brood war behind guys, this is a new game. Stop comparing them you're wasting your time and breath.
Have you watched Starcraft Brood War Proleague games? Have you seen Idra play Starcraft Brood War? Or are you another one of those people that have been raised solely on Starcraft 2 spectating? Go to the VODs tab at the top of this page, and watch a series of games, both short and long. THEN you will get a feel for true micro (not just unit micro, but also large army control). Are you comparing an incomplete game with completely new mechanics and a small pool of players, to a came played professionally by the best in the world? Or are you another one of those people that are unable to understand the difference between watching American amateurs play a game still evolving, and Korean experts playing a game that has been thoroughly analyzed both mechanically and strategically? Or do you really believe that, If SC2 was being played for thousands of dollars by Koreans, we would not see micro and macro that would blow our minds away? Please put things into context before you continue to demand a SC1 with better graphics.
Alright, better example. Watch old Boxer VODs from before the era of Starcraft perfection. You will still see more than you see in Starcraft 2.
What we are concerned with is the CAPACITY for micro in the game, and by that we mean interesting, engaging, dynamic LARGE ARMY control AS WELL as individual unit control. And no amount of money that is dumped into Starcraft 2 will increase its capacity for micro.
|
First of all, sounded a little like a rant, which usually isn't a good thing because it makes cogent points sound unreasonable.
Second, while YOU and many of the people who replied to this enjoy a game that utilizes the move-shot micro mechanic, Blizzard is indeed a company that is aiming to sell games, and such a mechanic is not something that encourages less skilled players to join. If they get more sales this way, this is the way they will choose to follow.
Third, there still is micro in the game, it is just not the micro you are used to. As this game is still recently released, and still in the beta stage, ways to utilize the existing micro to enjoy the game and enhance the skill ceiling are still being discovered and will continue to be discovered for a while. Additionally, the existing micro will be changed as the beta advances and when the full-version is released, and also in patches after the game is released, that also will likely heighten the skill ceiling created by micro.
Fourth, this one is pretty simple, this game is an RTS, not RTT (real-time tactics) or a simulator. If you know the differences, you'll understand why it makes sense your units are not fully able to do anything you want, and even explains smart-cast. You have a plan coming into battle, you know what units you want, what to counter other units with, you have BOs and other plans. Then, you have the tactical element where you give orders to succeed at your strategy. However it is not YOU the player who controls those units in movement and casting, but rather you tell them to do what you want where you want it, and they do it the best they can. So a group of templars decide which of them will storm the spot you want stormed, and the pilots of your phoenixes fly to the spot you want and start killing what you want them to kill. Without you having the need to pick the individual templar, or be able to essentially pilot the phoenixes yourself as you would be able to do in a simulator.
These are just some thoughts, not exactly counters, they are different ways of thinking about this game. The people who replied to the OP and said this game doesn't take skill, or similar comments, are simply stating a subjective (and harmful) opinion that as this game does not take the skill they want used, it takes none at all. This game takes skill, it's just a different kind, and people need to understand that too.
P.S.-- For anyone not knowing difference between tactics and strategy. Strategy is an overall military effort and plan, like BO's and counters you plan, build for, and use in game. You could even have a strategy in a best out of 5 to win the first game, and the last two, because those maps are your best (for example). While tactics are the direct unit control to adapt to attacks or yourself attack. While the game certainly has broad tactics like retreating at certain times, attacking, specifically moving units or building units, you live and die by your strategy. If you don't know how to counter a build, you're dead, if you don't have an efficient enough BO, you're dead (assuming players of equal skill). So basically, tactics win if you have a hole in your strategy, and strategy can carry a game because it's either out-macroing your opponent, or doing some other plan (like a rush) that they had no strategy to beat, and thus none of their tactics can help.
|
On April 27 2010 12:44 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:40 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:33 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:31 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:24 Spazer wrote:On April 27 2010 12:16 Backpack wrote:Blizzard design philosophy pre Dustin Browder-era
“Let’s design a great engine and worry about units, graphics and art later. Hell, let’s even throw a game in the trash bin and recode it from scratch if people think it sucks.”
Blizzard design philosophy post Dustin Browder
“Hey guys let’s design awesome, cool and unique units and worry about the game and balance afterwards. We can always fix that. Sure people will think the game has flaws, but balance and time will sort that out” . "Let's design awesome, cool and unique units and just balance the game exactly like the prequel that came out 12 years ago. Brood War was a good game, so lets just copy the balance from that." This is the same thing I said about the "ProMod" (before i realized it was a joke.) Starcraft 2 IS NOT supposed to be BW with fancy graphics. It is a new game, but many people don't seem to understand this. SC2 would be a waste of time and money if it were to play EXACTLY the same as broodwar. Your so called "TTD syndrome" is not a failure on Browders part, it's a design they choose to implement into their *NEW* game. Just because it's a new game doesn't mean that it can't have some elements similar to BW beyond "you need to macro and micro". Obviously something was done right with BW - it'd be stupid to just ignore everything that could be learned from the most successful RTS in the past decade. Besides, I don't really think Lalush is arguing that the balance should be exactly the same as Broodwar's. It's arguing more for improved unit control, which, in his examples, is the moving shot. What was done right was years and years of stringent gameplay + excellently balanced maps by the community. And even Starcraft 1 has its flaws in terms of unit diversity, which is practically non existent. The moving shot was a nice discovery of SC1, but ultimately unnecessary in SC2. The main issue is the units themselves, and their capacity to both do heavy damage and keep units from retreating (Forcefield, Marauder slow, Zerg Creep). If those were in SC1, moveshooting would be just as irrelevant. um, nuh uh? muta micro was still incredibly potent in ZvP even though maelstrom existed. also maps weren't made by the community, they were made by professionals in KoreaLand You, like most other posters, including the original poster, seem to just be lamenting about the removal of muta micro. Yes, it was interesting to watch, but I'm willing to move onto a new game with its own mechanics, many of which have yet to be discovered, instead of writing an essay that summarizes to: a) Corsairs are better than Phoenix's b) I miss muta micro c) I don't like Dustin Browder. you, like most other posters, seem to want to ignore a perfect game and act like it never existed. i was merely stating an example. i play toss in both games and couldnt care less about muta micro. "I only saw so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants" eh? let's build on the past.
They are building on the past just fine. There are legitimate complains with regards to SC2, but micro is certainly not one of them. I could understand the desire for a Zerg or Toss player to miss MutaStacking and Dragoon mechanics, but ultimately I love Starcraft 1 for much much for than just two early/mid game occurrences.
As for shoot/move micro, that has less to do with the game engine, and more with SC2 being a different game with different units, and that is the main point I disagree about with the OP (aside from his claim that SC2 requires less micro).
|
This is RIGHT ON THE DOT.
I couldn't agree more. I always believed that air units in a way have taken some of the fun out of the game. I feel like Blizzard decided to ruin the air units mobility and compensate it with tons of damage. Why Blizzard? Why do we need more bonus damage in the air? Do you feel implementing the Immortal and Marauder via Roach wasn't enough? Why ruin such an integral micro part of the game by limiting air's mobility harass? It's basically saying "wow, air units needed too much skill to be used properly.. let's make them deal a lot of damage so everyone can use them and.. since that would be too OP with SC1 mechanics, let's make them weaker in terms of micro.
This is the wrong thinking! Non-capital ships should have this hit and run feel to it rather than omg i deal 298401923749012 damage feel to it. Everything becomes to 1-dimensional by letting our non-capital air units deal insane damage without much micro/effort behind it.
EDIT: I just want to add that it's unfortunate it's this late into beta. I don't think Blizzard wants to change any of the aerial mechanics this late into beta as it would probably dramatically change the balancing of the game. Sigh.. come on Blizzard! It's ok to delay the game a little to drastically improve the depth/gameplay of the game!
|
Strategical skill is just as valid as mechanical skill. Just because broodwar was more mechanics heavy doesn't mean starcraft 2 has to be the same. There is still just as much potential for skill, but in a different and more exciting way. Now, people will have to play more strategically, rather than mechanically. And at a high level as well.
In broodwar, to be a top player you needed to be able to smash the APM and flip out insane moves like a robot to be the best. You had to be clever, but not THAT clever.
In starcraft 2, the top players will not need AS MUCH mechanical skill, but will need to be masterminds to win long drawn out macro games.
I used to get dissapointed seeing pro broodwar games get turned on their heads just because of some small mechanical based error which could win or lose you the game. For example, mis-microing mutas with one click.
In conclusion, i don't think you can call a game 'skill less' just because the set of skills it requires is different from what you expect or desire. And being a top strategist is probably harder than being a top mechanical player, because afterall, all the 'skill' in mechanics is really just something you can practice. If someone is truly dumb, they wont be able to get away with being a robot in starcraft 2.
Perhaps more on topic, i really can't see how using super mobile phoenixes to fly around and snipe overlords from under hydras noses is going to make the game any more balanced, or fun.
|
On April 27 2010 12:50 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:44 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:40 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:33 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:31 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:24 Spazer wrote:On April 27 2010 12:16 Backpack wrote:Blizzard design philosophy pre Dustin Browder-era
“Let’s design a great engine and worry about units, graphics and art later. Hell, let’s even throw a game in the trash bin and recode it from scratch if people think it sucks.”
Blizzard design philosophy post Dustin Browder
“Hey guys let’s design awesome, cool and unique units and worry about the game and balance afterwards. We can always fix that. Sure people will think the game has flaws, but balance and time will sort that out” . "Let's design awesome, cool and unique units and just balance the game exactly like the prequel that came out 12 years ago. Brood War was a good game, so lets just copy the balance from that." This is the same thing I said about the "ProMod" (before i realized it was a joke.) Starcraft 2 IS NOT supposed to be BW with fancy graphics. It is a new game, but many people don't seem to understand this. SC2 would be a waste of time and money if it were to play EXACTLY the same as broodwar. Your so called "TTD syndrome" is not a failure on Browders part, it's a design they choose to implement into their *NEW* game. Just because it's a new game doesn't mean that it can't have some elements similar to BW beyond "you need to macro and micro". Obviously something was done right with BW - it'd be stupid to just ignore everything that could be learned from the most successful RTS in the past decade. Besides, I don't really think Lalush is arguing that the balance should be exactly the same as Broodwar's. It's arguing more for improved unit control, which, in his examples, is the moving shot. What was done right was years and years of stringent gameplay + excellently balanced maps by the community. And even Starcraft 1 has its flaws in terms of unit diversity, which is practically non existent. The moving shot was a nice discovery of SC1, but ultimately unnecessary in SC2. The main issue is the units themselves, and their capacity to both do heavy damage and keep units from retreating (Forcefield, Marauder slow, Zerg Creep). If those were in SC1, moveshooting would be just as irrelevant. um, nuh uh? muta micro was still incredibly potent in ZvP even though maelstrom existed. also maps weren't made by the community, they were made by professionals in KoreaLand You, like most other posters, including the original poster, seem to just be lamenting about the removal of muta micro. Yes, it was interesting to watch, but I'm willing to move onto a new game with its own mechanics, many of which have yet to be discovered, instead of writing an essay that summarizes to: a) Corsairs are better than Phoenix's b) I miss muta micro c) I don't like Dustin Browder. you, like most other posters, seem to want to ignore a perfect game and act like it never existed. i was merely stating an example. i play toss in both games and couldnt care less about muta micro. "I only saw so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants" eh? let's build on the past. They are building on the past just fine. There are legitimate complains with regards to SC2, but micro is certainly not one of them. I could understand the desire for a Zerg or Toss player to miss MutaStacking and Dragoon mechanics, but ultimately I love Starcraft 1 for much much for than just two early/mid game occurrences. As for shoot/move micro, that has less to do with the game engine, and more with SC2 being a different game with different units, and that is the main point I disagree about with the OP (aside from his claim that SC2 requires less micro).
All i'm saying is
if you had played SC competitively like a large percent of this forum, you would be reasonably upset about the lack of micro in this game.
i understand your confusion. but the fact that you think muta stacking and dragoon mechanics are the micro we're referring to is naive.
|
On April 27 2010 12:49 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:45 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:39 LunarC wrote:On April 27 2010 12:36 Fallen wrote:
I think this is all blown out of proportions. There's plenty of micro in sc2 to do.
Have you seen that bob vs idra game? if thats not a micro win im not sure what to tell you.
There's countless example!
Leave brood war behind guys, this is a new game. Stop comparing them you're wasting your time and breath.
Have you watched Starcraft Brood War Proleague games? Have you seen Idra play Starcraft Brood War? Or are you another one of those people that have been raised solely on Starcraft 2 spectating? Go to the VODs tab at the top of this page, and watch a series of games, both short and long. THEN you will get a feel for true micro (not just unit micro, but also large army control). Are you comparing an incomplete game with completely new mechanics and a small pool of players, to a came played professionally by the best in the world? Or are you another one of those people that are unable to understand the difference between watching American amateurs play a game still evolving, and Korean experts playing a game that has been thoroughly analyzed both mechanically and strategically? Or do you really believe that, If SC2 was being played for thousands of dollars by Koreans, we would not see micro and macro that would blow our minds away? Please put things into context before you continue to demand a SC1 with better graphics. Alright, better example. Watch old Boxer VODs from before the era of Starcraft perfection. You will still see more than you see in Starcraft 2. What we are concerned with is the CAPACITY for micro in the game, and by that we mean interesting, engaging, dynamic LARGE ARMY control AS WELL as individual unit control. And no amount of money that is dumped into Starcraft 2 will increase its capacity for micro.
That, is a legitimate concern. Lets assume the premise is true, that SC2 has less instances of spectacular micro than SC1. Ask yourself, is that because of the game engine, or because SC2 is a new game with new units, that work and synergize completely differently than their SC1 counterparts? The original poster claims its the engine - I disagree, believing that because units in SC2 do more damage overall, and have a greater capacity to ensare/surround the enemy units, its harder to pull off harassment moves like the above and get away with it.
Also, SC2 is still in beta, and there are 2 more expansions, which could easily introduce units capable of replicating any feats of micro SC1 was capable of (I believe that such feats could be accomplished now).
|
I feel as though your attitude towards blizzard is a bit harsh overall but I agree that SC2 doesn't have that much micro in it.
edit: also i'm pretty sure most of what makes bw great micro-wise was accidental
|
On April 27 2010 12:44 mOnion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:40 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:33 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:31 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:24 Spazer wrote:On April 27 2010 12:16 Backpack wrote:Blizzard design philosophy pre Dustin Browder-era
“Let’s design a great engine and worry about units, graphics and art later. Hell, let’s even throw a game in the trash bin and recode it from scratch if people think it sucks.”
Blizzard design philosophy post Dustin Browder
“Hey guys let’s design awesome, cool and unique units and worry about the game and balance afterwards. We can always fix that. Sure people will think the game has flaws, but balance and time will sort that out” . "Let's design awesome, cool and unique units and just balance the game exactly like the prequel that came out 12 years ago. Brood War was a good game, so lets just copy the balance from that." This is the same thing I said about the "ProMod" (before i realized it was a joke.) Starcraft 2 IS NOT supposed to be BW with fancy graphics. It is a new game, but many people don't seem to understand this. SC2 would be a waste of time and money if it were to play EXACTLY the same as broodwar. Your so called "TTD syndrome" is not a failure on Browders part, it's a design they choose to implement into their *NEW* game. Just because it's a new game doesn't mean that it can't have some elements similar to BW beyond "you need to macro and micro". Obviously something was done right with BW - it'd be stupid to just ignore everything that could be learned from the most successful RTS in the past decade. Besides, I don't really think Lalush is arguing that the balance should be exactly the same as Broodwar's. It's arguing more for improved unit control, which, in his examples, is the moving shot. What was done right was years and years of stringent gameplay + excellently balanced maps by the community. And even Starcraft 1 has its flaws in terms of unit diversity, which is practically non existent. The moving shot was a nice discovery of SC1, but ultimately unnecessary in SC2. The main issue is the units themselves, and their capacity to both do heavy damage and keep units from retreating (Forcefield, Marauder slow, Zerg Creep). If those were in SC1, moveshooting would be just as irrelevant. um, nuh uh? muta micro was still incredibly potent in ZvP even though maelstrom existed. also maps weren't made by the community, they were made by professionals in KoreaLand You, like most other posters, including the original poster, seem to just be lamenting about the removal of muta micro. Yes, it was interesting to watch, but I'm willing to move onto a new game with its own mechanics, many of which have yet to be discovered, instead of writing an essay that summarizes to: a) Corsairs are better than Phoenix's b) I miss muta micro c) I don't like Dustin Browder. you, like most other posters, seem to want to ignore a perfect game and act like it never existed. i was merely stating an example. i play toss in both games and couldnt care less about muta micro. "I only saw so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants" eh? let's build on the past.
sc1 was not perfect, alot of the things and tricks you could do in sc1 was because of game flaws and limitations. its like this in alot of oldschool games and then compare it to a more modern game. i think super smash bros melee vs super smash bros brawl is the best example of this. ppl like to abuse mechanics that were never ment for real game play and because its so hard to do these tricks they automatically become a "pro" thing to do/use. if everyone is able to do it then the "pro" factor is gone. this is why ppl find these little flaws in the game because they know only certain ppl will be able to pull it off.
its like this with all games. blizzard tried to make the game more modern and flawless as they could and thus alot of the micro/tricks you could do is sc1 is not possible in sc2 because the devs tried to make a more modern and better game.
again if you follow the super smash bros pro scene then you can use that as a prime example. its essentially the exact same thing in what happened to sc1 going into sc2.
|
This article was amazing
I dont understand how some people are saying
"oh this isn't scbw, its sc2, its a whole different game with DIFFERENT KINDS OF MICRO!"
Why the fuck AREN"T we asking for scbw with better graphics? why on earth would we want to get rid of broodwar micro and replace it with mundane tasks like chronoboosting/muleing.
(And please, don't tell me it's a "strategical decision", once the standard builds are set in a a year or so, what to chronoboost and when to do it won't be a strategical decision, it will be a mathematical proof. It's like saying BW had a strategical decisions like when to put down your 2nd hatch as zerg, 12 hatch or 10 hatch. It's not a decision anymore, 12 hatch is just mathematically superior.)
Micro in broodwar has been refined and honed to a razor's edge. And even now, people like flash amaze us with even further advancements. And thats after 10 years of the same units. Just throw in two new units and the impact will be huge.
If I wanted a game that wasn't starcraft 1, I would buy a game NOT called starcraft 2. Starcraft broodwar was the greatest game of all time. We can all agree on that. So why, WHY are we defending starcraft 2 for trying really hard to NOT be the greatest game of all time?
I want sc2 = sc1 with better graphics. Actually screw better graphics, just give me another expansion to sc1.
|
On April 27 2010 12:56 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 12:44 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:40 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:33 mOnion wrote:On April 27 2010 12:31 GaMeOfFeAr wrote:On April 27 2010 12:24 Spazer wrote:On April 27 2010 12:16 Backpack wrote:Blizzard design philosophy pre Dustin Browder-era
“Let’s design a great engine and worry about units, graphics and art later. Hell, let’s even throw a game in the trash bin and recode it from scratch if people think it sucks.”
Blizzard design philosophy post Dustin Browder
“Hey guys let’s design awesome, cool and unique units and worry about the game and balance afterwards. We can always fix that. Sure people will think the game has flaws, but balance and time will sort that out” . "Let's design awesome, cool and unique units and just balance the game exactly like the prequel that came out 12 years ago. Brood War was a good game, so lets just copy the balance from that." This is the same thing I said about the "ProMod" (before i realized it was a joke.) Starcraft 2 IS NOT supposed to be BW with fancy graphics. It is a new game, but many people don't seem to understand this. SC2 would be a waste of time and money if it were to play EXACTLY the same as broodwar. Your so called "TTD syndrome" is not a failure on Browders part, it's a design they choose to implement into their *NEW* game. Just because it's a new game doesn't mean that it can't have some elements similar to BW beyond "you need to macro and micro". Obviously something was done right with BW - it'd be stupid to just ignore everything that could be learned from the most successful RTS in the past decade. Besides, I don't really think Lalush is arguing that the balance should be exactly the same as Broodwar's. It's arguing more for improved unit control, which, in his examples, is the moving shot. What was done right was years and years of stringent gameplay + excellently balanced maps by the community. And even Starcraft 1 has its flaws in terms of unit diversity, which is practically non existent. The moving shot was a nice discovery of SC1, but ultimately unnecessary in SC2. The main issue is the units themselves, and their capacity to both do heavy damage and keep units from retreating (Forcefield, Marauder slow, Zerg Creep). If those were in SC1, moveshooting would be just as irrelevant. um, nuh uh? muta micro was still incredibly potent in ZvP even though maelstrom existed. also maps weren't made by the community, they were made by professionals in KoreaLand You, like most other posters, including the original poster, seem to just be lamenting about the removal of muta micro. Yes, it was interesting to watch, but I'm willing to move onto a new game with its own mechanics, many of which have yet to be discovered, instead of writing an essay that summarizes to: a) Corsairs are better than Phoenix's b) I miss muta micro c) I don't like Dustin Browder. you, like most other posters, seem to want to ignore a perfect game and act like it never existed. i was merely stating an example. i play toss in both games and couldnt care less about muta micro. "I only saw so far because I stood on the shoulders of giants" eh? let's build on the past. sc1 was not perfect, alot of the things and tricks you could do in sc1 was because of game flaws and limitations. its like this in alot of oldschool games and then compare it to a more modern game. i think super smash bros melee vs super smash bros brawl is the best example of this. ppl like to abuse mechanics that were never ment for real game play and because its so hard to do these tricks they automatically become a "pro" thing to do/use. if everyone is able to do it then the "pro" factor is gone. this is why ppl find these little flaws in the game because they know only certain ppl will be able to pull it off. its like this with all games. blizzard tried to make the game more modern and flawless as they could and thus alot of the micro/tricks you could do is sc1 is not possible in sc2 because the devs tried to make a more modern and better game.
yeah because modern and better games dont have intensive micro. you don't seriously think that blizzard devs hate watching pro-level micro, do you?
|
On April 27 2010 11:37 BDF92 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 11:32 teekesselchen wrote:
Overall the really cool spectacular ZOMFG micro got lost! No cool "2 units kill 20"-moves exept for ultralisk vs lings maybe, but nothing that is much about micro.
Where in SC1 did you have 2 units killing 20 units that isn't in SC2?
reavers/firebats/vultures. Even marines and dragoons could pull off sweet ass micro and gather huge kill streaks.
|
On April 27 2010 12:59 Twilight Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 11:37 BDF92 wrote:On April 27 2010 11:32 teekesselchen wrote:
Overall the really cool spectacular ZOMFG micro got lost! No cool "2 units kill 20"-moves exept for ultralisk vs lings maybe, but nothing that is much about micro.
Where in SC1 did you have 2 units killing 20 units that isn't in SC2? reavers/firebats/vultures. Even marines and dragoons could pull off sweet ass micro and gather huge kill streaks.
also there was like a 40 kill archon in a recent pro game that had the commentators going crazy.
technically the archon is still in the game, but we all know it's not the real archon.
|
I just took the time to read through the thread and I am just baffled. Do you know why the games market is full of shitty games? Do you know why MMORPGs are failing left and right in the wake of WoW?
There is no "12 years to develop." Blizzard has always been successful because their games tend to be solid at release. Not down the line. The game is in beta and NOW is the last chance to have any meaningful impact on the development of the game.
And ultimately, you can disagree with the majority of the posters here about whether SC2 is actually SC0.5, SC1.5 or SC2, the reality is that gamers are tired of playing the same old shit and are interested in games that are even worse than the same old shit they've been playing.
SC1 isn't a major title here and look how "perfect" that's considered to be? If you want to see SC2 succeed, you better jump on the bandwagon and let Blizzard know that you want a lot more than what they've managed to produce in 6 years.
"Go design your own game and see how hard it is!" - Take a look at heroes of newerth. Compare what they've done in 3 years - the game itself, the engine, the servers and infrastructure, the content patches, matchmaking, stats and everything. Tell me if SC2 compares in a single category to HoN. For the record, I can't stand DotA anymore, but I can see that they are on the ball in many areas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
