|
On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone
Why do ppl keep saying: "It's not supposed to be like SC:BW - it's a new game..."
That's ridiculous, cuz SC:BW is the best RTS ever made and if SC2 want's to be the best RTS it can be, it should be resembling SC:BW in various ways, like the perfect controls over the Units, perfect balance, intersting units that allow great micro etc.
Every time you say that SC2 shouldn't be like SC:BW, you just make an excuse for SC2 being not as good as SC:BW!
|
thanx a bunch...always ssssoooo classy to illustrate
sadly blizz products or marketing are not what they use to be
the whole fun of sc1 was the variety of play styles possible
(in this case massing vs microing, now mostly massing by default)
perhaps for blizz in sc2 the whole point was to make the moving attack disappear and to try to rely on the cooldown and attack genres only (probably for giving more cach for the graphics?), they know it will sell more copies that way (and after all this is bizness as it should be), the extra apm and talent apparently going to waste
(not when you'r watching nazgul vs the little one though)
on one hand (sorry to di-sagree for a while),
micro is still real present with strategy:
scouting, precise attack unit placement, techtree choices and expand timing and finally attack timing ... all this in faster
and that still makes sc2 (from where i stand) a very real time micro oriented game
on the other
you hit the nail on the head with your excellent post
it's clear blizz has not created a new perfect high gamer rts
mostly by not stepping up to a real change
sc2 "3D" maps are still chessboards (maybe more like the "chinese" GO)
even though this is off topic i feel that a real 3D translation of sc1 would answer everyone's wishes, with new "features" only being the icing...
sc2 is sc1 without quirks and with automicro for macro requirements
super graphics as to hide (that it's sc1) your units behind ledges or doodads (possible in sc1 as well, old as the mountains, still it realy suits my fancy)
and lots of difference between the 3 races (you would of thought that in more than a decade they would have a fourth ...), except maybe not: mass roach and hydra vs mass m and ms is not much to look at
etc...
and most of the "changes" have negated revered specifics of sc1
i feel your right on the money ... buuuuuut
i think "sc1 analysts" (and i say that with tons of regard) should just steal the rug from under the feet of blizz
creating a standard
and it's already started, ..the only thing that i don't really get is that this "promod" that highly involved players like nony are advocating is so weird and not what you would expect
... did they manage to tackle the moving attack issue?
sure didn't strike me if they did...
i sure hope the editor allows the reintroduction of this precious mechanic
hopefully blizz has created a map editor for this decade
you cool cats put it to good use (sorry the weird promod's not it), or find people to do it, all willing to acknowledge that in any work of art, you need technicians to produce and practitioners to refine ... (i'm on mac (sigh) and up for it)
if one standard custom map solves this lack of sc1's vital mechanic that you so eloquently described, sc2 could just be a nice reboot of sc1 (with a number of things "added"), and not to sound to pro blizz but not everything back to square one: micro for macro has not disappeared from the game with the auto mining ability, nor has defense with auto repair ... is priority targeting of "peons" such a bad idea ...
oh and before i forget ... lurker as a tier 2 seems perfect (they nerfed the hydra, its direct possible conversion would be a perfect buff), as for Scurge, boy do i miss them ... just need to reintroduce the moving attack
in short
death to the phoenix's decelerations!
|
On April 27 2010 21:17 ketomai wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Unfortunately, what many of us want is not just a great game, because starcraft 2 will obviously be a great game, but a game that will last more than 12 years competitively (something wc3 failed at). Some of the things that give games like brood war that longevity is a high skill ceiling, especially mechanical, which sc2 lacks. It's not a clone just because it requires the same skill set to be good at it.
I feel that eventually with SC2 everybody will be roughly the exact skill level. It'll be kind of like the Koreans now with SC1 but much much worse with foreigners being included in the fray.
|
On April 27 2010 20:07 marshmallow wrote:
SC2 is the CS: Source of StarCraft. A fun little diversion, but ultimately you return to the superior original.
What makes you say that? I mean, how can you (along with several others, to be honest) be so absolute when the game isn't out yet?
|
Nicely written article.
I have been reading this argument in one form or the other since the launch of the beta. It basically argues that SC2 takes less skills than BW micro-wise, thus, it does not take nearly as much skill as BW to be a top player.
I can't argue against or for this argument in content because I haven't played BW competitively. However, when I look at all the SC2 tournaments or top of sc2 beta ladders, I see the same pro players from BW or WC3. Makes me wonder how this can be, considering sc2 'supposedly' requires less skill.
|
On April 27 2010 21:18 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Why do ppl keep saying: "It's not supposed to be like SC:BW - it's a new game..." That's ridiculous, cuz SC:BW is the best RTS ever made and if SC2 want's to be the best RTS it can be, it should be resembling SC:BW in various ways, like the perfect controls over the Units, perfect balance, intersting units that allow great micro etc. Every time you say that SC2 shouldn't be like SC:BW, you just make an excuse for SC2 being not as good as SC:BW!
No; believe it or not, I want SC2 to be BETTER.
|
Fantastic post. Dead on with the micro part.
|
On April 27 2010 11:21 diehilde wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 11:09 Tdelamay wrote:
I find it irritating that more APM is linked to better gameplay and entertainment. The game is plenty of fun to watch and play, should we reconsider our stance toward the validity of these sort of micro in the game? It might be some misguided attitude we have toward our game.
If Jaedong didn't transfer over to SC2, it would take away nothing. The players we've seen play so far are a lot of fun to watch. I doubt that having more APM can make the game more exciting. as im a pretty low apm player myself it hurts me to say this but u are incredibly wrong. It would take away a huge deal if JD didnt switch over. And of cus more APM can make a game more exciting if the skill ceiling is high enough. Its like saying players with more speed or stamina dont make a soccer game more exciting. If somebody like JD with a very high effective APM and insane multitasking plays the game he can perform shit like managing creep tumors, macro, micro and dropping several expos at the same time. Would that make the game more exciting? Fuck yeah. Nobody wants the stuff that you see the top players do now to require 400 APM for the same result. But fact of the matter is that the current top players arent on the level of a player like JD. Given JD has the same level of strategic understanding/decision making but has 150 more effective APM and multitasks twice as fast - why shouldnt he be able to pull off insane moves his opponents cant and why on earth shouldnt the game get more exciting as a result of the higher level of play?? The limits of a game should always lie within the player and not within the game imo.
this is another type of limitations
Sc2 is more like chess, where u have to think more moves ahead of your opponent
Sc1 was more like an arcade game, where you could micro your units to get the most of them
I really like a guy like Nony, WhiteRa, Nazgul, Ret, MorroW, .......etc. over some guys who just spam commands here and there, and beat you up because they practice 24h a day and don't have a good understanding of the game whatsoever.
Nony and WhiteRa are my personal favourites because they can understand the game better than other players, not because they spam a certain command over and over again. They also kick ass :p
|
This is very good read! Thanks.
And lol'd at anecdote
|
did anyone else think this article was bogus? O.o
|
On April 27 2010 21:22 Ghazwan wrote:
Nicely written article.
I have been reading this argument in one form or the other since the launch of the beta. It basically argues that SC2 takes less skills than BW micro-wise, thus, it does not take nearly as much skill as BW to be a top player.
I can't argue against or for this argument in content because I haven't played BW competitively. However, when I look at all the SC2 tournaments or top of sc2 beta ladders, I see the same pro players from BW or WC3. Makes me wonder how this can be, considering sc2 'supposedly' requires less skill.
Because they practice a lot...
|
On April 27 2010 21:22 Ghazwan wrote:
Nicely written article.
I have been reading this argument in one form or the other since the launch of the beta. It basically argues that SC2 takes less skills than BW micro-wise, thus, it does not take nearly as much skill as BW to be a top player.
I can't argue against or for this argument in content because I haven't played BW competitively. However, when I look at all the SC2 tournaments or top of sc2 beta ladders, I see the same pro players from BW or WC3. Makes me wonder how this can be, considering sc2 'supposedly' requires less skill.
I was a C- player in BW (aka trashy). In sc2, I have occasionally beaten people considered top players such as incontrol and louder. In BW, I would be lucky to win even once in 300 games against them.
|
On April 27 2010 21:18 kickinhead wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Why do ppl keep saying: "It's not supposed to be like SC:BW - it's a new game..." That's ridiculous, cuz SC:BW is the best RTS ever made and if SC2 want's to be the best RTS it can be, it should be resembling SC:BW in various ways, like the perfect controls over the Units, perfect balance, intersting units that allow great micro etc. Every time you say that SC2 shouldn't be like SC:BW, you just make an excuse for SC2 being not as good as SC:BW!
different, my friend, doesn't mean worse
remember that when sc1 and then bw were released they weren't balanced at all
remember that reaver/shuttle instant hit on drop thingie than come back up could wipe out terran bases fully, turrets or not
and : ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE SCBW
get that !! it's a different game, looks different, feels different, it's not a clone
OP complained about the lack of micro. Micro is here, just in another form. To some people, micro different from SCBW micro is not micro. Well, it is.
Some people also complain about the automining and mbs. Well, apm is really not as important in this game, not really like it was in SC1, and that is normal. There is a lot of skill involved, but this doesn't necesairily have to be keyboard bashing and mouse click spamming.
It's thinking, planning, executing a plan to perfection. Not making some micro-interesting units and then dance them around, not losing one. This type of gameplay resembles arcade style more than strategy style anyday.
Just remeber sc2 is a RTS, which stands for real time strategy , its not a real time apm, real time arcade, real time spamming or so on
|
It's hard to imagine TMA or Micro Tourney being remotely interesting as mod maps in sc2. This article was so necessary. Great job!
|
On April 27 2010 21:30 Daimon wrote:
did anyone else think this article was bogus? O.o
Yeah^^;. But to each their own!
|
On April 27 2010 21:38 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:18 kickinhead wrote:On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Why do ppl keep saying: "It's not supposed to be like SC:BW - it's a new game..." That's ridiculous, cuz SC:BW is the best RTS ever made and if SC2 want's to be the best RTS it can be, it should be resembling SC:BW in various ways, like the perfect controls over the Units, perfect balance, intersting units that allow great micro etc. Every time you say that SC2 shouldn't be like SC:BW, you just make an excuse for SC2 being not as good as SC:BW! different, my friend, doesn't mean worse remember that when sc1 and then bw were released they weren't balanced at all remember that reaver/shuttle instant hit on drop thingie than come back up could wipe out terran bases fully, turrets or not and : ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE SCBW get that !! it's a different game, looks different, feels different, it's not a clone OP complained about the lack of micro. Micro is here, just in another form. To some people, micro different from SCBW micro is not micro. Well, it is. Some people also complain about the automining and mbs. Well, apm is really not as important in this game, not really like it was in SC1, and that is normal. There is a lot of skill involved, but this doesn't necesairily have to be keyboard bashing and mouse click spamming. It's thinking, planning, executing a plan to perfection. Not making some micro-interesting units and then dance them around, not losing one. This type of gameplay resembles arcade style more than strategy style anyday. Just remeber sc2 is a RTS, which stands for real time strategy , its not a real time apm, real time arcade, real time spamming or so on
Strategy has a limit. Even chess, a game with much, much, much more strategical depth than starcraft, is approaching a point where it can be 'solved'. The point of an RTS is that it places a limit on time so that mechanics ARE important. What you describe as "keyboard bashing" and "mouse click spamming" are the raw mechanics that separate a theorycrafting D newbie and progamers. If you want strategy to be the main focus of starcraft and for macro, micro to be as easy as pushing a button, then sc2 will not last very long.
|
On April 27 2010 21:38 MindRush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:18 kickinhead wrote:On April 27 2010 21:12 MindRush wrote:On April 27 2010 11:09 NegativeInfinity wrote:
I seriously hate these retarded blizzard fan boys who play wow, and have never played SC ebecause they could never get good at it, come in here and call us all SC fan boys and SCII shouldnt be similiar to SC1, umm why not? It is a sequal, is it not? And the OP is stating that moving shot should play a more important role in battles, not that the game should be a carbon copy of SCII, so read the article instead of assuming its a rant thread ffs... warcraft 3 doesn't even begin to resemble warcraft 2, and yet, it's a great game !! take the lore, take the races, add some new stuff but don't make a clone Why do ppl keep saying: "It's not supposed to be like SC:BW - it's a new game..." That's ridiculous, cuz SC:BW is the best RTS ever made and if SC2 want's to be the best RTS it can be, it should be resembling SC:BW in various ways, like the perfect controls over the Units, perfect balance, intersting units that allow great micro etc. Every time you say that SC2 shouldn't be like SC:BW, you just make an excuse for SC2 being not as good as SC:BW! It's thinking, planning, executing a plan to perfection. Not making some micro-interesting units and then dance them around, not losing one. This type of gameplay resembles arcade style more than strategy style anyday. Just remeber sc2 is a RTS, which stands for real time strategy , its not a real time apm, real time arcade, real time spamming or so on
So ideally, you want a game where you don't control your units, don't need to manage your economy, and all you do is decide what to do strategically. Sounds like a lot of fun, I win because I countered your army 5% better or got lucky and attacked you 10 seconds earlier , and no other variables matter or influence the game. You just press 1 button on your keyboard and it sends your units to attack or take an expansion. Boy that sounds like a lot of fun.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
Broodwar fanaticism overwhelming -- it feels like you just try really hard to bash SC2 for whatever reason, but you got half of your facts wrong. E.g. you claim that there is a different damage system in SC2, but it is the same, simpler even, only the numerical presentation is a bit different. 50 explosive damage in SC1 is the same as 25 + 25 to armored bonus. You also claim that phoenixes suck because.. well, because they are not corsairs. They don't suck, they are just different units that require a different way of using them.
However I agree that some animations are excessive, for example the turrets' return-to-default state after move command that makes e.g. tanks and hellions a bit clumsy.
But nothing is fundamentally broken, just needs small tweaks here and there, I see no need whatsoever for such an emotional and a bit whiny post.
|
On April 27 2010 21:31 PokePill wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2010 21:22 Ghazwan wrote:
Nicely written article.
I have been reading this argument in one form or the other since the launch of the beta. It basically argues that SC2 takes less skills than BW micro-wise, thus, it does not take nearly as much skill as BW to be a top player.
I can't argue against or for this argument in content because I haven't played BW competitively. However, when I look at all the SC2 tournaments or top of sc2 beta ladders, I see the same pro players from BW or WC3. Makes me wonder how this can be, considering sc2 'supposedly' requires less skill. Because they practice a lot...
exactly my thoughts - top players in bw were there becuase of 2 things (good multitasking mind + a lot of pracitce) Sure they are on top of the ladders in SC2, beacuse they play much more than casual/good player and there are tournaments and $ they comepte for = motivation
I think SC2 is another game and it should feel a little different than SC:BW, but the main point is to make it better or at least as good as SC:BW and Blizzard is failing at that right now. Many top/good players wouldn't even play it that much if they didn't know there is probably huge future in SC2 esports = $ again.
EDIT: I have to add that the game is a lot of fun to play and definately entertaining thing, i only think that at this stage - it is not as good/skillwide as bw
|
United Kingdom12041 Posts
I'm sorry, but I seriously feel half the comments of SC2 not being as good as Brood War in this thread are completely unnesecary.
Does anyone remember how bad SC1 actually was before Brood War? SC2 comes so close to being as awesome as Brood War was without even being out yet. Have faith in Blizzard and stop putting them down for a game that's still in beta.
You're in the beta so enjoy the privelage of playing it, if you really don't like it just email Blizzard and get them to give your key to someone who will actually enjoy the game for what it is at the moment and enjoy seeing the metagame evolve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
