|
On April 30 2010 21:06 tuukster wrote:
Gotta admire all the hard work put into this article, good job.
Nevertheless, it just has the feeling that says: "We want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics!" and I hardly think that was Blizzard's idea when they started developing SC2.
SC2 is and always will be different from SC1. That's a fact we all know, but apparently not all of us are willing to fully accept. All that bug-abusing micro, gimmicks, 300+ APM and tactics are what SC1 is all about. SC2 will have other aspects that players need to learn in order to become truly great, and I'm sure it's something else that SC1 had. If it means you can't kill 8 mutalisks with 4 corsairs, then so be it. Adapt.
People should be focusing on what SC2 really is, instead of desperately trying to mold it into their wet dream of SC2 before the beta was ever released (which typically is just "SC1 with better graphics!").
It's Blizzard's game, not your baby.
Is it not reasonable to expect SC2 to retain, and expand upon the values that were introduced by its predecessor?
|
On April 30 2010 21:06 tuukster wrote:
Gotta admire all the hard work put into this article, good job.
Nevertheless, it just has the feeling that says: "We want SC2 to be SC1 with better graphics!" and I hardly think that was Blizzard's idea when they started developing SC2.
SC2 is and always will be different from SC1. That's a fact we all know, but apparently not all of us are willing to fully accept. All that bug-abusing micro, gimmicks, 300+ APM and tactics are what SC1 is all about. SC2 will have other aspects that players need to learn in order to become truly great, and I'm sure it's something else that SC1 had. If it means you can't kill 8 mutalisks with 4 corsairs, then so be it. Adapt.
People should be focusing on what SC2 really is, instead of desperately trying to mold it into their wet dream of SC2 before the beta was ever released (which typically is just "SC1 with better graphics!").
It's Blizzard's game, not your baby.
Well I totally disagree with you. Blizzard is creating a game for the community and certainly not for Dustin Browder lol. And if they want the game to be successful they have to listen to what the community demands, in other words - it is our baby.
Secondly, since when is move-attack a bug? This was a built-in game mechanic and was done on purpose (otherwise why make some units be unable to have a move-attack?)
Thirdly, Starcraft 2 is a sequal to Stacraft so, to my mind, it has to have all the same aspects, that is all that hardcore micro. And move-attack is one of the key aspects that just has to be implemented. Otherwise like the OP said: How can pro players take this game seriously even if a noob atm could block Jaedong from fast expanding for 1minute with 1 probe and 100 minerals. That is just sad :/
|
On April 30 2010 21:06 tuukster wrote:
SC2 is and always will be different from SC1. That's a fact we all know, but apparently not all of us are willing to fully accept. All that bug-abusing micro, gimmicks, 300+ APM and tactics are what SC1 is all about.
What?
Do you watch Starcraft Proleague extensively, if at all? Do you have an ounce of understanding of the strategic aspect of Starcraft 1? Are you seriously saying that Starcraft 1's depth is a result of bug-abuse, "cute" tactics, gimmicks, and click-spam?
Firstly, it appears that you don't have the depth of understanding to even BEGIN analyzing the differences between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2. What we as spectators are looking for is a game where different players' subtle actions and commands can greatly affect the outcome of the game, as well as their large-scale decisions and actions.
Bisu's Zealots move SIGNIFICANTLY better than many other players' Zealots. We can see the PLAYER behind the MICRO, partly because of obstructive AI and partly because many units moved in a way that gave them MUCH better utility through better control.
Micro isn't just "I can kite/cast/focusfire", it's also "should I move my units a little closer to the enemy or stay back?", "Should I engage now or later?", "Is it worth exposing myself during transit to gain a better position or should I hold ground?". Positioning was INCREDIBLY important because of limited mobility in armies or the limited amount of hp associated with more mobile units (bad AI/unit design) and large army control skills were incredibly important as well because limited mobility forced players to make very good judgments on where to move the bulk of their forces.
Starcraft 2 under-emphasizes many of these very VERY deep and INTEGRAL aspects of Starcraft 1 army control. These aspects don't have to be lost in the transition: if it's in the engine, then some modifications should be made that allows individual players' micro and control really define who they are in the game rather than allowing AI to take over the bulk of the control. I think removing the ability of units to "push" idle units out of the way and adding a "friction" component to units that brush past one another will allow this sort of distinction.
Also, a lot of the decrease of positioning importance can be attributed to how much more MOBILE every army in the game has become. This can be addressed by tweaks to numbers (making bionic much more vulnerable for its dps aka cut Marauder hp increase Medivac healing rate to compensate and start with slow) and by modifying some units to be significantly more useful while holding position than when on the move (Esp. Roach/Immortal/Colossus).
|
On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements.
No physical exertion required whatsoever.
|
On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever.
Exactly I mean look at bowls, snooker etc. Sport is just a medium for competition.
|
On April 30 2010 23:48 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 21:06 tuukster wrote:
SC2 is and always will be different from SC1. That's a fact we all know, but apparently not all of us are willing to fully accept. All that bug-abusing micro, gimmicks, 300+ APM and tactics are what SC1 is all about. What? Do you watch Starcraft Proleague extensively, if at all? Do you have an ounce of understanding of the strategic aspect of Starcraft 1? Are you seriously saying that Starcraft 1's depth is a result of bug-abuse, "cute" tactics, gimmicks, and click-spam? Firstly, it appears that you don't have the depth of understanding to even BEGIN analyzing the differences between Starcraft 1 and Starcraft 2. What we as spectators are looking for is a game where different players' subtle actions and commands can greatly affect the outcome of the game, as well as their large-scale decisions and actions. Bisu's Zealots move SIGNIFICANTLY better than many other players' Zealots. We can see the PLAYER behind the MICRO, partly because of obstructive AI and partly because many units moved in a way that gave them MUCH better utility through better control. Micro isn't just "I can kite/cast/focusfire", it's also "should I move my units a little closer to the enemy or stay back?", "Should I engage now or later?", "Is it worth exposing myself during transit to gain a better position or should I hold ground?". Positioning was INCREDIBLY important because of limited mobility in armies or the limited amount of hp associated with more mobile units (bad AI/unit design) and large army control skills were incredibly important as well because limited mobility forced players to make very good judgments on where to move the bulk of their forces. Starcraft 2 under-emphasizes many of these very VERY deep and INTEGRAL aspects of Starcraft 1 army control. These aspects don't have to be lost in the transition: if it's in the engine, then some modifications should be made that allows individual players' micro and control really define who they are in the game rather than allowing AI to take over the bulk of the control. I think removing the ability of units to "push" idle units out of the way and adding a "friction" component to units that brush past one another will allow this sort of distinction. Also, a lot of the decrease of positioning importance can be attributed to how much more MOBILE every army in the game has become. This can be addressed by tweaks to numbers (making bionic much more vulnerable for its dps aka cut Marauder hp increase Medivac healing rate to compensate and start with slow) and by modifying some units to be significantly more useful while holding position than when on the move (Esp. Roach/Immortal/Colossus).
If I can point to those SC2 Zealots and say, that's Bisu's Zealots, then we have something to work with. Either progaming micro hasn't evolved yet or this physics engine homogenizes things too easily.
|
On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sport
To be fair, by 1523 usage had already narrowed down into activities requiring physical exercise. Also, in modern usage of the word, definitions that imply physical exertion predominate.
|
On May 01 2010 01:22 EchOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sportTo be fair, by 1523 usage had already narrowed down into activities requiring physical exercise. Also, in modern usage of the word, definitions that imply physical exertion predominate.
Shooting is in the Olympics; would you say it's not a sport?
|
On May 01 2010 01:29 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 01:22 EchOne wrote:On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sportTo be fair, by 1523 usage had already narrowed down into activities requiring physical exercise. Also, in modern usage of the word, definitions that imply physical exertion predominate. Shooting is in the Olympics; would you say it's not a sport?
Not to mention curling.
|
On May 01 2010 01:29 tomatriedes wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 01:22 EchOne wrote:On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sportTo be fair, by 1523 usage had already narrowed down into activities requiring physical exercise. Also, in modern usage of the word, definitions that imply physical exertion predominate. Shooting is in the Olympics; would you say it's not a sport?
I would say that some users of the English language must believe shooting demands physical exercise if they're properly labeling it a sport. I would also personally agree with them.
|
On May 01 2010 01:36 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 01:29 tomatriedes wrote:On May 01 2010 01:22 EchOne wrote:On May 01 2010 01:07 kazansky wrote:On April 30 2010 16:31 Rabiator wrote:
Personally I think the whole word "E-Sport" is a joke. Sports are games which require physical exertion, but no computer game does that. All those Wii-Sports games are a joke too, because they risk injury more than when you are doing real sports, due to unnatural movements when your body is cold. Even chess is not really a "sport" IMO.
erm, you, sir, should look up the origin of the word "Sport" before making such wrong and uneducated statements. No physical exertion required whatsoever. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sportTo be fair, by 1523 usage had already narrowed down into activities requiring physical exercise. Also, in modern usage of the word, definitions that imply physical exertion predominate. Shooting is in the Olympics; would you say it's not a sport? Not to mention curling.
And underwater basket-weaving
|
People arguing over the word "sport", could you be any more offtopic? The meaning of a word is the meaning that people give to it. In this case, "esport" is a word. it doesn't matter diddly fuck squat what "sport" means, we know exactly what people mean by esport. It means competitive video games. Get your head out of your butts and get back on topic.
|
This article is so sad. I actually just created an account to answer to this ^^
1- SCII is an RTS game in its early BETA stage. New strategies/tricks are discovered every day. How many year did it take to find all the micro tricks in BW?
2- You say you don't have the same control on your units after 10 years of BW and 3 months of SCII. O really???
3- Move&Shoot IS a bug exploit in a 10 year-old engine. Or is it written 'Can attack while moving' in the Mutas description?
4- And finally, and more importantly, you actually complain over the fact that an RTS (fyi, the S stands for Strategy) game requires more strategic skills than micro? o_0 You remind me of those people who preferred DotA over War3... the ones who judge a player's skill only on his APM -.-
But well I guess this article perfectly fits in the BW-nostalgia-Blizzard-bashing fashion that most of you seem to find very cool -.-
|
Oh look, I was right about everything.
I've been telling you TL people that Starcraft 2 micro would be a clunky nightmare since literally years ago and was met with nothing but hostility.
It's the fact that it's 3D. 3D ruins RTS, period. You can't program a 3D RTS that micros as crisply as Starcraft, it's totally impossible.
3D is for screenshots on the back of the box, and that's more important to the success of the game than how good it is. Blizzard went mainstream, they don't make good games anymore. Good games are less profitable than bad ones.
|
On May 01 2010 04:08 Kentucky wrote:
Oh look, I was right about everything.
I've been telling you TL people that Starcraft 2 micro would be a clunky nightmare since literally years ago and was met with nothing but hostility.
It's the fact that it's 3D. 3D ruins RTS, period. You can't program a 3D RTS that micros as crisply as Starcraft, it's totally impossible.
3D is for screenshots on the back of the box, and that's more important to the success of the game than how good it is. Blizzard went mainstream, they don't make good games anymore. Good games are less profitable than bad ones.
3D isn't the issue.
Unit movement and pathing should have nothing to do with the 3D itself. So of course your predictions seemed ridiculous when you said it was going to suck because it's in 3D
But later on new problems that don't have anything to do with the graphics emerged....
|
On May 01 2010 04:08 Kentucky wrote:
Oh look, I was right about everything.
I've been telling you TL people that Starcraft 2 micro would be a clunky nightmare since literally years ago and was met with nothing but hostility.
It's the fact that it's 3D. 3D ruins RTS, period. You can't program a 3D RTS that micros as crisply as Starcraft, it's totally impossible.
3D is for screenshots on the back of the box, and that's more important to the success of the game than how good it is. Blizzard went mainstream, they don't make good games anymore. Good games are less profitable than bad ones.
Because Starcraft wasn't a mainstream game, right?
|
Cheebah:
1. It doesn't matter that it's in beta, the game is almost done and the problems being complained about go to the core of its engine. If they wanted to fix the problems outlined in this thread they would literally have to throw the game in the trashcan and start over.
2. The RTS genre was in its infancy at the beginning of Broodwar. We've learned a lot, and all micro tricks learned in Starcraft transfer to other RTS. If we haven't figured hardly any relevant micro out in SC2 already, we are never going to. And again there's just nothing to figure out, the engine almost doesn't allow micro.
3. Move&shoot is not a bug exploit. There's no bug that's being exploited at all.
4. It doesn't require more strategy skills. Compared to the original Starcraft, it requires about 10% of the strategic skills and about 1% of the micro skills. And DotA was better than Warcraft 3.
And APM doesn't trump everything in any game. Just because you're slow doesn't mean every game is decided on speed.
You just don't understand competitive RTS at all. That's not your fault though I forgive you. You're more casual though, you should go to the Blizzard forums or something. Talk to people about turret defense.
|
On May 01 2010 04:21 PanzerDragoon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 04:08 Kentucky wrote:
Oh look, I was right about everything.
I've been telling you TL people that Starcraft 2 micro would be a clunky nightmare since literally years ago and was met with nothing but hostility.
It's the fact that it's 3D. 3D ruins RTS, period. You can't program a 3D RTS that micros as crisply as Starcraft, it's totally impossible.
3D is for screenshots on the back of the box, and that's more important to the success of the game than how good it is. Blizzard went mainstream, they don't make good games anymore. Good games are less profitable than bad ones. Because Starcraft wasn't a mainstream game, right?
It was a mainstream game. Games weren't mainstream though. Back then they didn't know how to manipulate the large mass of Comedy Central preteens the way they do today.
Videogames have become far more profitable than movies or music, it's all about appealing to the lowest common denominator now.
The lowest common denominator will not pay $59.99 for a 2D game in the year 2010. The game would be better in 2D, doesn't matter
And yes it is a 3D thing. It is absolutely a 3D thing.
|
On May 01 2010 03:42 Cheebah wrote:
This article is so sad. I actually just created an account to answer to this ^^
1- SCII is an RTS game in its early BETA stage. New strategies/tricks are discovered every day. How many year did it take to find all the micro tricks in BW?
2- You say you don't have the same control on your units after 10 years of BW and 3 months of SCII. O really???
3- Move&Shoot IS a bug exploit in a 10 year-old engine. Or is it written 'Can attack while moving' in the Mutas description?
4- And finally, and more importantly, you actually complain over the fact that an RTS (fyi, the S stands for Strategy) game requires more strategic skills than micro? o_0 You remind me of those people who preferred DotA over War3... the ones who judge a player's skill only on his APM -.-
But well I guess this article perfectly fits in the BW-nostalgia-Blizzard-bashing fashion that most of you seem to find very cool -.-
HOLY CRAP A 1 POSTER WHO ACTUALLY MADE ME AGREE WITH HIM!
Whoa capslock fury- sorry for that- but DAMN dude, way to be the best poster with 1 post of all time. +1 for this.
Im gonna break down why i love this post so much bullet by bullet:
1- Dead on. We dont know the micro thats gonna be around TOMORROW in SC2, let alone when the game comes out, or a year after.
2: YARLY!
3: Duly noted! It's awesome that people have mastered the move shoot aspect of muta and vulture micro and goon dancing and whatnot- but only god (read:dustin browder) knows what kind of micro abuse can be expected with sc2.
4: "How did i lose your apm is like 40 less than me u r teh haxor." No- you ran your roach army into my fortified position of tanks and thors, and dont know the meaning of the word "strategy"
I totally apologize for this post to the mods- but DAMN! I loved his post 
|
While the inherent point of the article may have validity (I'm not a pro by any means, so I'll pass judgment on that), there are a number of criticisms I have for the article.
First of all, your attitude and biases are suspect. The tone of the article was very negative, and at times came off as downright hostile to Blizzard. I can tell you that the tone in and of itself turned me against you regardless of your points.
An extension of that is that some of your arguments can be boiled down to:
X was in BW
X is not in SCII
SCII doesn't feel right to me
Therefore,
SCII must have X to live up to SC
Correlation does not equal causation is the essential fallacy here. The correlation between the removal of "x" and you not liking SCII as much as BW does not mean the removal of "x" caused it. You also committed the circular reasoning fallacy because you went in with the assumption that SCII had less micro.
You also oversimplified things. Tying the decrease of micro in SCII to one (or a handful) of mechanics misses the inherent complexity of any large video game.
Finally, you cannot compare a game in beta to game that had been out for over a decade. I doubt many of your examples of micro in BW that you cited existed within the first few years of its existence.
You say that skill doesn't matter enough. However, should a perfectly executed cookie-cutter strategy by some dude with 300 APM defeat a creative and knowledgeable player with only 150 APM?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
