|
On April 28 2010 22:24 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:57 sluggaslamoo wrote:
How did you quote two sentences and not even be able to read it properly? Incredible. Because "one size fits all" is a retarded description for a system with 3 different damage types, with different percentage modifiers against 3 different armor types?
It's not the same thing. If you gave a hydra +5 attack, for example, that attack affects each type in different ways. You could also change the hydra damage type, I suppose, but that also affects how it does damage to all types of units across the board.
In sc2, you can tack on +5 to light units to the hydra and isolate the change to that.
"one size fits all" may not have been the best choice of words, but he meant bw's damage system is much much less flexible than it is in sc2
|
Finally some great responses here by TotalBiscuit and Excalibur
|
On April 28 2010 22:38 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem. This is really not what a sequel is at all. Never has been, never will be. Sequels often bring changes, some are good, some not so good, others a matter of opinion and preference. We're not talking about yearly franchise updates like Madden here, but a game built 12 years after the original in a gaming landscape and market that has changed a ton since then and doesn't even have all the same designers working on it.
You've obviously played too many bad sequels.
Here's a few examples of sequels done right.
Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2
-The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away.
Age of Empires => Age of Empires II
-Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories.
Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert.
-Better in all categories.
The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers.
|
On April 28 2010 22:52 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 22:38 TotalBiscuit wrote:It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem. This is really not what a sequel is at all. Never has been, never will be. Sequels often bring changes, some are good, some not so good, others a matter of opinion and preference. We're not talking about yearly franchise updates like Madden here, but a game built 12 years after the original in a gaming landscape and market that has changed a ton since then and doesn't even have all the same designers working on it. You've obviously played too many bad sequels. Here's a few examples of sequels done right. Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2 -The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away. Age of Empires => Age of Empires II -Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories. Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert. -Better in all categories. The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers.
Sorry, but you missed the rest of his post. He said 12 years in a gaming landscape that's changed.
Also most of those games are only better in all categories for the single player which obviously Sc2 will achieve as well. None of those games were very good for multiplayer except maybe C&C Red Alert?
|
On April 28 2010 20:37 SubtleArt wrote:
And having to use macro abilities does NOT make the game as hard as brood war...not even close. MBS kills that. It's so easy to macro, and if you hotkey properly you don't even have to go to your base half the time. Just click on the hotkey and click the unit you want to make. You don't need to juggle between base management and micro nearly as much (especially with automine), and even Browder admitted this much. I played 160 APM in broodwar and I feel I can macro much much more consistently at 80 APM in Sc2
How I macro with Protoss in Brood War: F2 to my 12-15 gateways, individually click each one and press the corresponding hotkey for the unit I want. Total actions: 25-31
How I macro with Protoss in SC2: 5 to MBS my 12-15 warp gates, press the corresponding hotkey to the unit I want, then click inside pylon power to build. Total actions: 25-31.
I know this is a mechanic that is only limited to Protoss, but in the end, once warp gates are out, macroing requires the same amount of actions in BW and SC2. In fact, without MBS, warp gates would be completely impractical.
A competitive game requires a high skill ceiling; a casual game requires a low skill floor. The two are not mutually exclusive, but can be if you don't plan carefully.
The only reason we returned to our base to macro in BW was because we didn't have enough hotkeys to cover all of our production buildings, unless we played zerg. We're limited by the interface, not a feature built into the game. Blizzard is making the interface easier by adding MBS, thus lowering the skill floor. It really doesn't make you macro any faster; in both games, you'd still press the necessary hotkey the same amount of times, and even without the clicks required in BW, it takes about the same amount of time in either game; If you don't believe me, get a stopwatch and test it. I'm pressing the key as fast as I can in both games, and timing my mouse clicks in BW to alternate between my key presses. Requires more skill to manipulate the interface, but the skill difference in decision making is null.
Getting back to the original topic, what I think is missing are the countless unit counters where, if unmicroed, one unit would win, but if microed correctly, the other unit would win. How many situations are there where one player will ask "what unit counters this?" and the reply is something along the lines of "this unit counters that with good micro?" A good example of this is ranged dragoons versus a FD. Four dragoons versus four marines, a vulture, and a tank. Unmicroed, terran wins, but if the dragoons are microed correctly, protoss wins. I don't know if situations like this exist yet in SC2, but kiting is definitely necessary for such matchups. The units that are designed to be harrassers especially need it. Mutalisks and vultures were such good harassers because of it.
Ironically, I think the Void Ray is the one unit that shouldn't have moving shot, since it's designed as a siege unit. However, that's not my call. I do think more units need that ability, though, even if it's not explicitly stated.
|
On April 28 2010 21:26 LaLuSh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 21:18 Fizban140 wrote:
No but there are some people in here who still want the changes to go away. I think this game just needs a little more time before the mechanics are worked out and some micro intensive trick is figured out. That's just an argument I hate. Most people in here arguing against moving shot only do it because they resent what they think are Brood War players wanting SC2 to be a carbon copy of BW. I don't see any actual arguments being made as to why it'd be a dangerous thing for the game to allow for more and better control. Why shouldn't the game be more realistic? What's the danger in that aside from that it "might resemble Brood War"? Is that a reason to be opposed to a change that would allow for a more fun game?
The danger is the that the game would have to be completely rebalanced for it at this point, if something like moving shot can even truly be balanced with the ability to select an unlimited amount of units (probably the biggest concern with mutas, since banshees already shoot and scoot pretty effectively)
|
On April 28 2010 22:52 KungKras wrote:
You've obviously played too many bad sequels.
Here's a few examples of sequels done right.
Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2
-The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away.
Age of Empires => Age of Empires II
-Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories.
Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert.
-Better in all categories.
The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers.
I'm noticing a bit of confirmation bias on your part, cherrying picking the parts of those sequels that are superior to their predecessors while ignoring the flaws. I don't want to weigh in on either side of this argument because I feel that discussing Brood War without sufficient knowledge of the game is disrespectful to the community and the debate, it is not conducive to a proper, civilised discussion between peers. However, I will happily discuss sequels.
Each one of those games was released within a couple of years of each other. The technology and the design conventions had not changed by a significant degree, which is why those sequels did not change much either. You're talking about the iterative style of sequel here, which is one of several philosophies behind the design of sequels. May I also point out that your analysis is highly subjective. For instance, I personally found the level design of some (by no means all) of Sonic 2 to be inferior to the original, relying too much on gimmicks and less on platforming. I also preferred Sonic 1's special stage. Red Alert had an inferior storyline, less imaginative units and less compelling mission design. Everything you listed certainly improves in many areas, but your qualification for a sequel is, to paraphrase, 'to improve everything, otherwise it's not a proper sequel'.
I would suggest that your interpretation of sequel is flawed on that basis and your standards are subjective. That's cool, everyone has subjective standards, they just don't always rain down broad-stroke condemnation upon a game on that basis.
Blizzard do not make iterative sequels. Warcraft 2 varied from Warcraft Orcs and Humans, Warcraft 3 varied drastically from Warcraft 2. When it comes to their RTS, Blizzard is known for making big changes. Nor can we ignore the improvements that Starcraft 2 has brought to the table, of which there are many. Whether or not you agree, disagree or hold a neutral standpoint on the issue of moving/gliding shot, it is not logical to condemn a sequel simply because it does not 'improve on everything' in your opinion.
|
On April 28 2010 23:01 Makica wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 22:52 KungKras wrote:On April 28 2010 22:38 TotalBiscuit wrote:It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem. This is really not what a sequel is at all. Never has been, never will be. Sequels often bring changes, some are good, some not so good, others a matter of opinion and preference. We're not talking about yearly franchise updates like Madden here, but a game built 12 years after the original in a gaming landscape and market that has changed a ton since then and doesn't even have all the same designers working on it. You've obviously played too many bad sequels. Here's a few examples of sequels done right. Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2 -The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away. Age of Empires => Age of Empires II -Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories. Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert. -Better in all categories. The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers. Sorry, but you missed the rest of his post. He said 12 years in a gaming landscape that's changed. Also most of those games are only better in all categories for the single player which obviously Sc2 will achieve as well. None of those games were very good for multiplayer except maybe C&C Red Alert?
I ignored the part about the gaming landscape that has changed because it didn't add anything to the discussion. The only real changes I have seen from the gaming of the early 2000 and the 90.s are the lowered standards of quality. Just about every games company these days just copies each other or makes lackluster sequels. Only a few have remained consistent in quality.
A changed gaming landscape doesn't excuse lackluster game mechanics either.
C&C Red Alert has about the same multiplayer gameplay as C&C only bigger and better.
Sonic 2 introduced Multiplayer into 2D Sonic so it improved multiplayer by 100% and Sonic 3 made it even better with tails gaining the ability to fly Sonic to places he couldn't reach before.
Age of Empires II multiplayer is also better than the multiplayer of AoE1. AoE2 is still the multiplayer RTS for many and has a competitive scene larger than that of the original (Does AoE1 even have a competitive scene?) though, it's dwarfed by Starcraft of course.
I can add as a more recent example of a sequel that lived up to expectations released in an even larger time frame (20 years): New Super Mario Brothers Wii. It added multiplayer without removing anything that old time fans liked about the older games.
My point still stands, a good sequel should be better in all categories. Or it should at least improve on the values that made the first game great without compromising anything.
|
Where this goes off the rails, especially in the comments, is when people say SC2 has little or no micro. I've been Blink micro that rivals anything in SC1 and almost anything in WC3. Force field micro is also impressive (and more importantly, accessible to players with lower APM).
Right now all the energy is focused on developing strategy (or what some people call the "meta game"). Having a better strategy than your opponent is always going to trump any amount of micro in BW or SC2. And the strategy landscape changes with every patch. As time passes, strategies will be optimized, and the difference between victory and defeat will be micro, at which point you will see the development of micro tactics like you saw with BW (and then the whole process starts over because one new micro tactic can completely change optimal strategy).
Nothing in BW is an "accident". Blizzard could have fixed any of those bugs. They chose not to which means its now part of the design of the game, regardless of original intention. So please, enough with this canard.
|
On April 28 2010 23:29 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 23:01 Makica wrote:On April 28 2010 22:52 KungKras wrote:On April 28 2010 22:38 TotalBiscuit wrote:It should do everything that SCBW does but better in all categories or it's a lousy sequel.
Currently SC2 doesn't outshine SC in every category and that is a huge problem. This is really not what a sequel is at all. Never has been, never will be. Sequels often bring changes, some are good, some not so good, others a matter of opinion and preference. We're not talking about yearly franchise updates like Madden here, but a game built 12 years after the original in a gaming landscape and market that has changed a ton since then and doesn't even have all the same designers working on it. You've obviously played too many bad sequels. Here's a few examples of sequels done right. Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2 -The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away. Age of Empires => Age of Empires II -Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories. Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert. -Better in all categories. The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers. Sorry, but you missed the rest of his post. He said 12 years in a gaming landscape that's changed. Also most of those games are only better in all categories for the single player which obviously Sc2 will achieve as well. None of those games were very good for multiplayer except maybe C&C Red Alert? I ignored the part about the gaming landscape that has changed because it didn't add anything to the discussion. The only real changes I have seen from the gaming of the early 2000 and the 90.s are the lowered standards of quality. Just about every games company these days just copies each other or makes lackluster sequels. Only a few have remained consistent in quality. A changed gaming landscape doesn't excuse lackluster game mechanics either. C&C Red Alert has about the same multiplayer gameplay as C&C only bigger and better. Sonic 2 introduced Multiplayer into 2D Sonic so it improved multiplayer by 100% and Sonic 3 made it even better with tails gaining the ability to fly Sonic to places he couldn't reach before. Age of Empires II multiplayer is also better than the multiplayer of AoE1. AoE2 is still the multiplayer RTS for many and has a competitive scene larger than that of the original (Does AoE1 even have a competitive scene?) though, it's dwarfed by Starcraft of course. I can add as a more recent example of a sequel that lived up to expectations released in an even larger time frame (20 years): New Super Mario Brothers Wii. It added multiplayer without removing anything that old time fans liked about the older games. My point still stands, a good sequel should be better in all categories. Or it should at least improve on the values that made the first game great without compromising anything.
Its like you believe there is a objective one dimensional scale going from bad to perfect.
|
On April 28 2010 23:17 TotalBiscuit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2010 22:52 KungKras wrote:
You've obviously played too many bad sequels.
Here's a few examples of sequels done right.
Sonic the Hedgehog => Sonic 2
-The sequel had every gameplay aspect of the first only longer levels. Third zone was gone, but that doesn't count since it had no effect on gameplay. Tails was added. Spindash was also added wich added to the already existing gameplay without taking anything away.
Age of Empires => Age of Empires II
-Different setting, but gameplay that's more satisfactory and better than the predecessor in all categories.
Command & Conquer => Command & Conquer Red Alert.
-Better in all categories.
The fact that SC2 will be 12 years younger than SCBW and still hasn't got gameplay mechanics up to par is not an argument to 'forgive' the game for its faults. Nor is the fact that it has different designers. I'm noticing a bit of confirmation bias on your part, cherrying picking the parts of those sequels that are superior to their predecessors while ignoring the flaws. I don't want to weigh in on either side of this argument because I feel that discussing Brood War without sufficient knowledge of the game is disrespectful to the community and the debate, it is not conducive to a proper, civilised discussion between peers. However, I will happily discuss sequels. Each one of those games was released within a couple of years of each other. The technology and the design conventions had not changed by a significant degree, which is why those sequels did not change much either. You're talking about the iterative style of sequel here, which is one of several philosophies behind the design of sequels. May I also point out that your analysis is highly subjective. For instance, I personally found the level design of some (by no means all) of Sonic 2 to be inferior to the original, relying too much on gimmicks and less on platforming. I also preferred Sonic 1's special stage. Red Alert had an inferior storyline, less imaginative units and less compelling mission design. Everything you listed certainly improves in many areas, but your qualification for a sequel is, to paraphrase, 'to improve everything, otherwise it's not a proper sequel'. I would suggest that your interpretation of sequel is flawed on that basis and your standards are subjective. That's cool, everyone has subjective standards, they just don't always rain down broad-stroke condemnation upon a game on that basis. Blizzard do not make iterative sequels. Warcraft 2 varied from Warcraft Orcs and Humans, Warcraft 3 varied drastically from Warcraft 2. When it comes to their RTS, Blizzard is known for making big changes. Nor can we ignore the improvements that Starcraft 2 has brought to the table, of which there are many. Whether or not you agree, disagree or hold a neutral standpoint on the issue of moving/gliding shot, it is not logical to condemn a sequel simply because it does not 'improve on everything' in your opinion.
Well, I guess it would be hard to find a sequel that improved on just about everything imaginalbe, but the games I mentioned still had an outstanding Better/worse ratio, like 9/0.5 it feels like those games improved on everything. I wouldn't say the same for SC2 yet though.
If iterative sequels doesn't make a good example, then how about New Super Mario Brothers Wii? It was released almost 20 years after the previous 2D mario and introduced multiplayer yet didn't compromise anything that was good about the older games.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand is compromising the skill ceiling to give the game a better skill floor. It should do both, not sacrifice one for the other. Warcraft 3 is a better game than Warcraft 2 in almost all regards because Warcraft 2 is so primitive in comparison, but Starcraft 2 feels like a more primitive game than Starcraft 1 in some very important aspects and it shouldn't.
EDIT: I Do acknowlege the good things it introduced too, and I actually like MBS. But the unit mechanics are simply too important, and the way they work now overshadows the improvements of SC2. At least to me.
|
all the people who say there would be things to be "discovered" that equal the cute micro tricks we had in bw: where is the proof? at the moment it's not more than a "belief" in my opinion. especially given that the sc2 engine was introduced as a vast improvement over the old one (browder's words) - where would the bugs be that lead to many of the cool stuff only the best players could do in bw?
and to the argument "sc:bw had 12 years to develop.. how should we know now... etc." - exactly BECAUSE it had all this time and we know what can and what can't be done with our good old game we can apply all this to sc2 (which cleared up with unintended interface bugs) and see what's working and what's not working. when a new religion pops up in the 21st century you don't have to reinvent science to refute many of its arguments (meaning we start on a way higher "level" with sc2). we've made progress and sc:bw is more like a very "raw" predecessor of sc2 which requires a lot more manual labor, so we should even better be able to evaluate this shiny and streamlined version named sc2.
and to introduce another metaphoric analogy i've just now made up:
imagine street fighter's intended attacks would only be the four different attacks you get by pressing the respective buttons and all combos would only be "bugs". would or would you not favor the game to have these bugs (to make playing it more fun/challenging)? making use of the bugs/micro tricks in sc:bw required the player to master their execution which was - done perfectly - hellishly difficult. as many times stated: this is what distinguished the god level players from the normal scrubs and what often made bw fun to watch for people who could grasp what these individuals on screen were actually doing.
|
fallout 2 was better than fallout 1  (both perfect games tho)
|
The author of the discussion was lost on two things:
1) He should not have unleashed the fury against Blizzard, it adds nothing to his argument.
2) He should not have exaggerated by saying that it has no micro, because it distracts from the topic because most person think that showing any micro prov invalidating the whole topic
Now going to the center of the discussion:
Everyone here knows that the star Beta 2 is more evolved that star 1 beta, however this is not the discussion, the problem is that today we know about the incredible micro that can be made that we did not know the first beta. And that makes all the difference because it was a conscious decision not Blizzard put them in the game. This is more than clear that the editor can make moving shooting , but not in the game by a decision of the devs. And this is beta, that´s why we shoud complain.
Another thing that needs clarification is that there is micro star 2, and there are many that are not used yet, so far not seen a gosu roach with micro burrow, hellion in the big fights are still poorly positioned, was not seen lings individually controlled for killing a hellion, and so on.
Finally, I believe that adding the shot in motion for some units will be beneficial to the game, do not say to all, but some can improve the gameplay
|
|
|
On April 28 2010 23:38 fantomex wrote:
Where this goes off the rails, especially in the comments, is when people say SC2 has little or no micro. I've been Blink micro that rivals anything in SC1 and almost anything in WC3. Force field micro is also impressive (and more importantly, accessible to players with lower APM).
Right now all the energy is focused on developing strategy (or what some people call the "meta game"). Having a better strategy than your opponent is always going to trump any amount of micro in BW or SC2. And the strategy landscape changes with every patch. As time passes, strategies will be optimized, and the difference between victory and defeat will be micro, at which point you will see the development of micro tactics like you saw with BW (and then the whole process starts over because one new micro tactic can completely change optimal strategy).
Nothing in BW is an "accident". Blizzard could have fixed any of those bugs. They chose not to which means its now part of the design of the game, regardless of original intention. So please, enough with this canard.
Please, blink micro is the exact same as undead crypt fiend burrow micro in wc3, it's been around for years, and any scrub player could do it. It's not complicated. The examples people defending the micro in sc2 is laughable. Force field micro? It's probably the most basic and necessary thing of the protoss arsenal. Force field is the power behind 4 warpgate rushes, 3 warpgate rushes, and required for early defense. It's almost crucial in taking on a midgame zerg army. I would guess that 90% of platinum protoss players are competent in using force field. It does not separate the skill level between good players and bad players. I'm not trying to attack you, but citing these examples as micro in sc2 is off base.
I agree that strategies change from patch to patch, but that's entirely due to nerfs and buffs, and the resulting shifts to counter. It's not because we're "discovering" new strategies, it's because those strategies were already present, but less effective as the previously (possibly overpowered) strategies.
|
"We're not trying to be innovative. We're not trying to make a game that will be a good eSportsgame for more than half a year. Actually, we didn't even try make a good game, we just thought about mixing some SC with CnC, but it will be more successfull as it's labelled Starcraft."
"It prevented as much movement from happening on the battlefield, slowing the game down," he explained. "Our game is about dancing: advance, retreat, advance, using the choke points -- until, 'Oh no! The enemy went air, the choke is useless!' It's about give and take. For our game, [cover] was a disaster."
The game is about dancing, however, we took out Micro BUT we added a /dance chat command.
Great Stuff.
|
On April 29 2010 01:27 teekesselchen wrote:"We're not trying to be innovative. We're not trying to make a game that will be a good eSportsgame for more than half a year. Actually, we didn't even try make a good game, we just thought about mixing some SC with CnC, but it will be more successfull as it's labelled Starcraft."
rofl
|
Haha nice find.
I recall reading somewhere that they weren't necessarily expecting to make a profit out of SC2. Profit would be an added bonus. So the ones going on about "Blizzard only wants to make money", need to rethink.
I honestly don't think Dustin Browder is aware of this issue (and that's part of why I was bashing him). If he could make units dance, he would.
*edit: I get the feeling he doesn't really understand what dancing means.
|
I think SCVs should be taken out. They remind me of Brood War too much. This isn't BW 2.0 fellas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
