GunZ is a great game when played at the competitive level. I would love to be good at it, but I'm just not. I can butterfly but thats it. People are very talented at this game and there is such a steep learning curve that I am completely turned off by it now. VERY few can pick up gunz today and beat the vets who have been playing and glitching since 2004.
This article was very eye catching to me because I just re downloaded gunz for the first time in two or three years yesterday, when this was posted. I thought my sc2 skills would help me out with keying fast enough in gunz to keep up with at least noobish players. I was very wrong. I made a room called "First Time" and levels 1-5 were doing k-style shit everywhere. Not even fun.
I think blizzard has reached something in sc2 which doesn't allow room for glitches like in scbw and gunz. Their game engine is very tight and the units act like their supposed to. This allows for a learning curve that is not based off of glitches like it is in gunz. Noobs will be playing together in sc2 and having a blast. People are getting good at sc2 because they are getting good at the skills blizzard wants them to. IMO, if there was no glitching like that in guns to allow kstyle glitch moves, it would be more fun for me and for newcomers. I think gunz should have roughed it out and let the vaginas flake off because they couldnt own noobs like they used to. I would have been able to relate my experience with the UT series (particularly instagib game mode which requires intensive accuracy and strategic movement and prediction). I think I have good aim, and I can't apply it because I have to hit [space w w lclick shift e q shift dd] or some shit like that just to fire one shit (you know, while slashing, dashing, and sword blocking simultaneously like gosu vets.
SCBW eventually lost an audience too, when everything got figured out and the engine was exploited to the fullest in melee mode. Like if you are not tight playing on iccup against most D+ players (who all have like 200apm at least) you are fish in a bucket. My friends tried to pick up SCBW year ago, and they were completely turned off by how you need to know EVERYTHINGG for the game to be playable and fun. Even most UMS games are like "pro or gtfo" "dl = ban"
This comparison is just another way of saying SC2 is too easy QQQQQQQQQQQQ
Obviously it isn't, since the same people win the tournaments, they must be doing something right, no?
Almost all of these current top SC2 players have backgrounds in other RTS games, they are not new to fastpaced gameplay, they all know what macro and micro is and how to utilize them.
Even without difficult glitches and such, some players prove better than others, even in such an easy game as SC2! Peculiar...
As for the CS bunnyhopping etc. as far as I know these glitches aren't allowed at the serious tournaments and/or leagues.
On May 11 2010 00:57 FieryBalrog wrote: While I like the glitches in Starcraft BW, not a single one was really game-changing except muta stacking, and that's not even really a glitch, just a feature of how the game groups units. A lot of glitches DID get fixed in BW because they were gamebreaking (flying drones, infinite minerals...). BW would have still been a fantastic game and not nearly much different if you removed Dragoon stupidity (so attack move worked just as well), or allowed vultures to moving shot with attack command instead of patrol command, or didn't allow probes and scvs to jump over minerals.
Also, this is a perfect example of a community not knowing much about making a great game, yet having massive confidence in their own opinions. You see it in every game with an old, "hardcore" fanbase.
I was listening to the Idle Thumbs podcast and Jake Rodkin, who's a game designer of adventure games, made this point brilliantly. That feedback (whether on the forums or whatever) from the dedicated community is usually a symptom. When the community complains about something and suggests some fix (usually the most unimaginative fix that panders directly to them), the game designer should treat this suggested fix as a symptom to be solved, not a cure to be implemented.
In other words the community is good at knowing something is wrong, but its terrible at fixing it.
Holy shit I love you. Now I don't have to write a thoughtful post.
Catering to the communities every whim and not optimizing your game is not the way to go about making an e-sport. GunZ had a small user base compared to any true competitive game. Competitive games that are made popular by how poorly they were coded are in the minority and the ones that are do not rely solely on bugs and exploits for their success.
GunZ is just an example of a developer and a community working together to keep their very tiny symbiotic relationship going. It is not a basis for any argument on how to design an e-sport worthy game.
On May 10 2010 19:45 Fizban140 wrote: Halo 3 is insanely popular and has no real glitches (flag tossing maybe, but not really helpful) that are hugely ingrained into the gameplay. The Call of Duty series is like that too.
These are bro games. No offense, but these are the standard games that moms and dads buy their kids for their xbox on Christmas and birthdays. These kids grew up into bros and started playing a little more serious. Now they crush "Christmas noobs"
people play sc because they want to and they know its the shit. a lot of people play cod and halo because it was the game shoved down their throat.
On May 10 2010 19:45 Fizban140 wrote: Halo 3 is insanely popular and has no real glitches (flag tossing maybe, but not really helpful) that are hugely ingrained into the gameplay. The Call of Duty series is like that too.
These are bro games. No offense, but these are the standard games that moms and dads buy their kids for their xbox on Christmas and birthdays. These kids grew up into bros and started playing a little more serious. Now they crush "Christmas noobs"
people play sc because they want to and they know its the shit. a lot of people play cod and halo because it was the game shoved down their throat.
So because you don't think Halo 3 is e-sport worthy that makes it not so?
How many Halo 3 tournaments do you think there were compared to GunZ? Think about that a minute.
Sorry but these games aren't even comparable, some imprecise weird(protip weird means hella bad) hybrid shooter created by 5 enthusiasts in Korea is not even a speck on the world of gaming and Yo Team Liquid, i'm really happy for you and i'ma let you finish - but Starcraft 2 is the biggest strategy game launch of all time.
OF ALL TIME!
Honestly I'm seriously pissed at you stupid dicks who keep making these style of threads and claim to know what is best for starcraft as a game and a community. Blizzard could of easily mined starcraft for it's potential as a mmo franchise and instead they are release a rts that should be the most balanced strategy game launch ever. As opposed to something unbalanced as fuck say like original starcraft when it first launched. All you assholes begging for a re skinned starcraft 1 can still play brood war. Anyone who claims something like muta micro which appeared like what 7-8 years after starcraft launched made the game what it was so much to the point that all that buggy ass ai needs to come over to starcraft 2 need to calm down.
Like seriously please stop making these thread because Dustin Browder is reading TeamLiquid and if you keep driving him to tears he's gonna pull the plug and make a Starcraft mmo. If my level 56 Protoss Zealot ends up tanking an ultralisk while I get healed by a 55 Terran Medic Imma straight up find and murder you guys.
On May 10 2010 00:03 nihoh wrote: Valve obviously considered bunnyhopping a glitch. From 1.3 to 1.6, they removed bunnyhopping.
Bunnyhopping is a glitch in Quake that made it an amazing game. Bunnyhopping is a glitch in CS.. that got removed.
i came buckets back in 01 after my first time making b2r in q3dm6. same as i came buckets when i saw the bunnyhops in dde2 on dm4 (i think it's dm4 .. never played qw ).
audio got disabled due to copyright fuck ... it's disturbed - remember iirc.
that beeing said ... some bugs rock, some dont. i'm off watching dde2 ... you all should too.
No matter how advanced games get, there will always be "flaws" and "glitches" to be exploited into unintentional competitive perfection and SC2 will be the same, there just needs to be half a decade of experimentation and a formation of a complex meta-game from a devout fanbase.
Sure the incredible balance and complex dynamics of SC1 was a fluke in many ways but that doesnt mean many things Blizzard implemented for specific effects are ignored.
On May 10 2010 00:25 Snowfield wrote: Yeah, SHAME ON YOU BLIZZARD FOR MAKING THE GAME TOO BUG FREE!
Its a bit ironic though. It's not easy (read: you have to be lucky) to get good bugs that make the game fun and challenging.
Where is the line between a bug thats abusable to such an extend where you have to remove it, and a good bug though? do you balance the game around said bugs?
there is alot of things that could go very very wrong.
How should game developers go on by making their game intentionally very hard for the pros, without making it too unintuitive for the newcomers?
What the RTS community really wants, seems to be some sort of devil child born from RTS and Fighting games, where you make units, and actually have to do "moves" with them (not abilities, but actual tricks) to be fully used.
But where does such moves become too hard?
Does game developers simply have to get lucky to make a good game?
It's funny you say that, as I've always thought of sc1 as half fighter half RTS, the high apm requirement, the counter and counter-counter mindgames. When you micro a reaper(vulture) to kill 4 zealots while macroing it definitely feels like I'm playing blazblue or GGX or something =p
I never thought I'd say this but maybe the randomness needs to come back, like when you watch basketball and there's a really long shot going for the basket, everyone holds their breath waiting to see if it will go in or not, even though it's pure skill on the player's side, the uncertainty from the spectator's side really does add to the intensity imo. Watching scarabs and mines do craziness really got me on the edge of my seat in sc1.
(Though I'd be happy if all air units had the animation cancelling/ sc1 style moving shot back)
On May 10 2010 00:03 nihoh wrote: @Fizban As with any other game in CS you need to know the game perfectly to have a chance at it.. It's just one of the things CS needs in addition to a host of other things..
Valve obviously considered bunnyhopping a glitch. From 1.3 to 1.6, they removed bunnyhopping. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfS9i5Z5Hw8 It's back in Source, but you need a lot less feeling to do it in Source. Duckrunning is not possible to ignore at a high level of play in 1.6. most players don't break from duckrunning at all nowadays in the modern, 2010 CS, when it comes down to a clutch situation.
Bunnyhopping is a glitch in Quake that made it an amazing game. Bunnyhopping is a glitch in CS.. that got removed.
Bunny hopping was fucking stupid to play against, as is the current duck jumping to fuck with models. What about the old style flashes? There's plenty of silly tricks that would improve the game if they were removed. I'm willing to bet anyone that thinks bunnyhopping was the best thing ever didn't actually play competitive CS when it was around. You just thought it was awesome to go long A on D2 in 5 seconds, but you didn't deal with the kind of retardedness that ensued in serious place.
You need to keep in mind that this is a matter of opinion too. I thought 1.5 was the best competitive version of CS, but most people would consider it to be 1.6, which tightened up the engine a lot. Everyone thought games would just come to a halt and rushes would be gone when +move was taken out, and everyone, myself included, was completely wrong.
Either way, the idea that bugs need to be in a game or the notion that SC2 doesn't have bugs and will therefore fail, is stupid. Does the OP realize how long it took people to discover most of the mechanics that are commonplace today? And who are you to determine that a bug like muta stacking or mineral hopping is fair, but obs over turret isn't?
I know very few people here follow hardcore MMO PvP, but in 2007 a game was released that was supposed to fix all the mistakes Blizzard had made with WoW, and would be a truly skill based PvP game, and the devs took into account all the recommendations of the hardcore WoW PvPers. That game was Fury. It sucked hella balls. You fools don't know what you're talking about.
On May 10 2010 00:25 Snowfield wrote: Yeah, SHAME ON YOU BLIZZARD FOR MAKING THE GAME TOO BUG FREE!
Its a bit ironic though. It's not easy (read: you have to be lucky) to get good bugs that make the game fun and challenging.
Where is the line between a bug thats abusable to such an extend where you have to remove it, and a good bug though? do you balance the game around said bugs?
there is alot of things that could go very very wrong.
How should game developers go on by making their game intentionally very hard for the pros, without making it too unintuitive for the newcomers?
What the RTS community really wants, seems to be some sort of devil child born from RTS and Fighting games, where you make units, and actually have to do "moves" with them (not abilities, but actual tricks) to be fully used.
But where does such moves become too hard?
Does game developers simply have to get lucky to make a good game?
It's funny you say that, as I've always thought of sc1 as half fighter half RTS, the high apm requirement, the counter and counter-counter mindgames. When you micro a reaper(vulture) to kill 4 zealots while macroing it definitely feels like I'm playing blazblue or GGX or something =p
I never thought I'd say this but maybe the randomness needs to come back, like when you watch basketball and there's a really long shot going for the basket, everyone holds their breath waiting to see if it will go in or not, even though it's pure skill on the player's side, the uncertainty from the spectator's side really does add to the intensity imo. Watching scarabs and mines do craziness really got me on the edge of my seat in sc1.
(Though I'd be happy if all air units had the animation cancelling/ sc1 style moving shot back)
Rts community =/= you. Also blazblue sucksssssssssssssss assssssssssssssssssssss if you wanna talk about a sf4 sc hybrid maybe I'll be on board.
Alot of the time the dagger was really ignored in the metagame cause it was considered an inferior weapon by both the sword users and dagger users. However, me and a group of tight friends formed D-style clans such as Keuk, 1/4Katana, Sicaria, and such. I had a great time in those clans using dagger rather than the boring sword. I don't know why, maybe we were masochists, but we enjoyed being at a disadvantage compared to k stylers. to give an example:
On May 11 2010 01:53 FireBlast! wrote: No matter how advanced games get, there will always be "flaws" and "glitches" to be exploited into unintentional competitive perfection and SC2 will be the same, there just needs to be half a decade of experimentation and a formation of a complex meta-game from a devout fanbase.
Sure the incredible balance and complex dynamics of SC1 was a fluke in many ways but that doesnt mean many things Blizzard implemented for specific effects are ignored.
Yes, there will always be flaws and glitches.
No, these glitches will not nearly be as useful as previous serendipitous glitches that we (a) already know about and (b) know make the game awesome.
The people who say that these bugs are only important because of the amount of control given to those who use them are right. At the same time, future bugs in SC2 are by no means guarenteed to change the metagame. Even if they do change the metagame, are you even sure that they won't be patched out? What would have happened if, say, muta stacking was considered a "bug" and patched out of the game? If magic boxes no longer existed?
Pretty much the same exact thing happened with Super Smash Bros Melee and Super Smash Bros Brawl.
Melee had a small cult competitive scene. For a few years no one knew about wave dashing, crouch canceling, wave landing, and dash canceling. Though all of these were important, wave dashing was by far the definitive glitch of Melee. This was because it gave you so many options as a player. You could chose how far you wanted to dash. Dashing allowed you to attack and retreat with any move that you could perform from the standing position or even move while shielding. The number of options it opened up was incredible, at least for some characters. The game was horribly imbalanced but it didn't matter.
Then Brawl came out. Now, Nintendo had the exact opposite approach from Blizzard when it came to the sequel. The competitive melee scene, small as it was, wasn't even on its radar. Leaders of the project emphasized how they wanted everyone to win. Tripping was somehow supposed to make the game more fun. People held out that perhaps, despite everything Brawl had going against it, maybe it could still live up to Melee. Maybe there would be new glitches discovered later.
There weren't As far as new glitches went, people knew what they were looking for. Some glitches were discovered, and some of these glitches were even impressive, or interesting. But the competitive game just wasn't the same. Now, Brawl, as far as I know, still has competitions and such. It's a newer game and its shiny. But did it live up to Melee, were there new amazing glitches discovered to replace those which had been removed? No. In fact, some of the fans went so far as to hack the game just so that they could program a bunch of them back in to one extent or another.
The fact is that whether SC2 lives up to SC1 or not is up to Blizzard. They control the standard, they control the game, they control what sort of things are and aren't difficult for the player, and what options the player has. It's up to them. Right now though, even with the addition of scootshoot on the pheonix, I don't think they get it.
Starcraft quadrupled, possibly quintupled those games sales figures.
Could you stop making crap up?
Counter-Strike should be higher than 4.2 million.. Up until the middle/end of 1.5, CS was a free download. Actually it was a free download in 1.5 and 1.6 (if you had half-life) So CS could be anywhere from 2nd to 13th place..
On May 11 2010 01:32 keV. wrote: GunZ was such a piece of shit game. Why is anyone even talking about it.
ima take a wild guess here and say you were probably terribad at the game, played for an hour and proceeded to rage quit because you got raped. dunno how your even a starcraft player.
On May 11 2010 00:57 FieryBalrog wrote: While I like the glitches in Starcraft BW, not a single one was really game-changing except muta stacking, and that's not even really a glitch, just a feature of how the game groups units. A lot of glitches DID get fixed in BW because they were gamebreaking (flying drones, infinite minerals...). BW would have still been a fantastic game and not nearly much different if you removed Dragoon stupidity (so attack move worked just as well), or allowed vultures to moving shot with attack command instead of patrol command, or didn't allow probes and scvs to jump over minerals.
Also, this is a perfect example of a community not knowing much about making a great game, yet having massive confidence in their own opinions. You see it in every game with an old, "hardcore" fanbase.
I was listening to the Idle Thumbs podcast and Jake Rodkin, who's a game designer of adventure games, made this point brilliantly. That feedback (whether on the forums or whatever) from the dedicated community is usually a symptom. When the community complains about something and suggests some fix (usually the most unimaginative fix that panders directly to them), the game designer should treat this suggested fix as a symptom to be solved, not a cure to be implemented.
In other words the community is good at knowing something is wrong, but its terrible at fixing it.
i like your insight, thanks for the post. i really think your onto some truth here
EPT
).
