I dont really agree.. If you havent played gunz (i have for 5 years now), you wouldnt know the type of community the game has, or that its really just a one trick pony.
You exploit game mechanics to cancel your moves so you can move into other moves faster.
Example: Reload Shot. If you have 2 shotguns on, you shoot one, hit reload, switch to the other gun, and it will shoot as if it has no cooldown.
The community is awful (im not excluded in this :3) Its like..I'd call it the mexican drug cartel ghetto of the internet.
On the "pro" forums, a post could be described as this
Random1: LOL I BEAT THIS GUY, I ONLY WON 11-9 BUT I FREAKIN TRASHED HIM HES SO BAD I WIN DEMOLSIHED EZ *screenshot*
random 2: posts 1248 screenshots of beating poster 1
etcetera.
Games that rely on exploitation, while seemingly cool at the start, really show their true colors when the game starts dying and theres only about 200 people online average, which is what gunz has turned into.
An EXCELLENT analogy. This topic is well-articulated and nails Blizzard to the wall.
I made this point in my video: "What's wrong with Starcraft 2" over two years ago, and predicted a lot of what we see in the game today. Not everything I said has come true, but I tried pointing out the obvious fact that people like Dustin Browder have no idea what made Starcraft a unique gem. Sure, it was a good game for its time, but so is Gears of War.. Nobody will remember Gears of War a few years from now..
What's wrong with Starcraft 2 video, made in 2007:
[EDIT] Wait, wait! You're all missing the point of the OP. His point was that Blizzard unintentionally created an incredibly competative game in 1997, ment to be played on the normal speed. Forget all this talk about "bugs" and "exploits". The core mechanics of the game allowed indefinite player skill, and is the reason most of us are on this website right now. Those mechanics were unintentionally put in place by Blizzard, exploits or not. They could just as well have included no "faster" speed setting, and none of us would be on TL today. Starcraft 2 simply doesn't have all those mechanics. Some more skilled developers might have been able to pull it off, but the game engine that is in place now restricts gameplay more than anything.
I'm not sure this is the best analogy, take games like DotA or HoN, are there any unintended exploits or bugs that the creators didn't include in their original game design that somehow makes the game more fun and competitive? No. And any unintended bugs or exploits are fixed with the next patch.
Take, for example, getting a radiance on flying monkeys in HoN. The aoe dot effect wasn't intended to work on couriers, but for a while it did and players exploited that. It was patched quickly. Did the game's skill cap suddenly drop? Did the player base exodus to a new game in hordes? Is HoN any less competitive of an e-sport? No.
This has to be the WORST example possible to fight your idiotic "sc2 needs more bugs" debate you all keep bringing up.
The bug in that game allowed for a combo that shouldnt have been allowed. It altered the way the game is played. The glitch turned into a feature.
Take the same game, and now every once and a while decide the combo doesnt work. There is no reason for this, just bad luck. Does this make the game better? NO.
Failed scarab AI was fun to watch, but aggravating as hell to experience. It makes the game fun to watch, but aggravating to play. Who ever watched their own scarab glitch out and go "OMG THAT WAS AWESOME, I LOVE THIS GAME!" No on. It pisses you off.
On May 11 2010 10:46 tontonba wrote: I'm not sure this is the best analogy, take games like DotA or HoN, are there any unintended exploits or bugs that the creators didn't include in their original game design that somehow makes the game more fun and competitive? No. And any unintended bugs or exploits are fixed with the next patch.
Take, for example, getting a radiance on flying monkeys in HoN. The aoe dot effect wasn't intended to work on couriers, but for a while it did and players exploited that. It was patched quickly. Did the game's skill cap suddenly drop? Did the player base exodus to a new game in hordes? Is HoN any less competitive of an e-sport? No.
The amount of reflexes and innovation required to win a korean Starcraft tournament can only be examplified by combining chess and world class table tennis.
I'm sorry, but your comparison falls short. Skill in DotA is determined by knowledge of all the item and skill abilities, and teamplay. Starcraft has that - and those extra mechanics that allow players to become untouchable simply because of their reflexes and quick thinking. The point is that unintended mechanics in Starcraft raised the glass ceiling above human ability. Starcraft 2 mechanics are intentionally put into the game, but do not require the same amount of agility to pull off. Most progamers confirmed this after weeks of playing the beta, it simply doesn't have that special something - that doesn't mean it's a bad game.
Starcraft 2 is a GREAT game, and bugs/exploits are not what made Starcraft BETTER. What made Starcraft BETTER was that it had BETTER gameplay mechanics.
Starcraft 2 is a GREAT game, and bugs/exploits are not what made Starcraft BETTER. What made Starcraft BETTER was that it had BETTER gameplay mechanics.
Even though that may be the case don't agree with the op because GunZ is mad terrible bro and comparing it to starcraft2 is like comparing a poo stain in your underwear to the mona lisa.
I don't get why it's called "bugs" or exploits. Bugs and exploits would be like the recent larva canceling exploit. Anyone can pull them off and 6 pool others.
However, the skill set to do the 'exploits' in Gunz is (somewhat) skill based. It is extremely hard to pull off, and that's the key difference. Players want to be able to 'improve' and this is a measurable quantity.
APM could be considered an exploit in SC2. If someone can work 2ice as fast as I can, doesn't mean they 'exploiting' anything. APM allows a player to both macro and micro, and the Gunz trick allowed a player to both move fast and shoot. They aren't exploits
On May 11 2010 11:37 LSB wrote: I don't get why it's called "bugs" or exploits. Bugs and exploits would be like the recent larva canceling exploit. Anyone can pull them off and 6 pool others.
However, the skill set to do the 'exploits' in Gunz is (somewhat) skill based. It is extremely hard to pull off, and that's the key difference. Players want to be able to 'improve' and this is a measurable quantity.
APM could be considered an exploit in SC2. If someone can work 2ice as fast as I can, doesn't mean they 'exploiting' anything. APM allows a player to both macro and micro, and the Gunz trick allowed a player to both move fast and shoot. They aren't exploits
Nicely put. The term "exploit" can't be applied to something that requires more skill than what your opponent is doing.
One key difference: Macro was unintentional in Starcraft, where it is intentional in Starcraft 2. As the OP pointed out, every time game developers intentionally implement new mechanics to raise the skill ceiling, it fails.
On May 11 2010 10:46 tontonba wrote: I'm not sure this is the best analogy, take games like DotA or HoN, are there any unintended exploits or bugs that the creators didn't include in their original game design that somehow makes the game more fun and competitive? No. And any unintended bugs or exploits are fixed with the next patch.
Take, for example, getting a radiance on flying monkeys in HoN. The aoe dot effect wasn't intended to work on couriers, but for a while it did and players exploited that. It was patched quickly. Did the game's skill cap suddenly drop? Did the player base exodus to a new game in hordes? Is HoN any less competitive of an e-sport? No.
The amount of reflexes and innovation required to win a korean Starcraft tournament can only be examplified by combining chess and world class table tennis.
I'm sorry, but your comparison falls short. Skill in DotA is determined by knowledge of all the item and skill abilities, and teamplay. Starcraft has that - and those extra mechanics that allow players to become untouchable simply because of their reflexes and quick thinking. The point is that unintended mechanics in Starcraft raised the glass ceiling above human ability. Starcraft 2 mechanics are intentionally put into the game, but do not require the same amount of agility to pull off. Most progamers confirmed this after weeks of playing the beta, it simply doesn't have that special something - that doesn't mean it's a bad game.
Starcraft 2 is a GREAT game, and bugs/exploits are not what made Starcraft BETTER. What made Starcraft BETTER was that it had BETTER gameplay mechanics.
I agree with everything you just said, but it doesn't really address my post. I was arguing the topic of how unintended bugs/exploits affect the viability of a game as an e-sport. I'm not arguing whether dota/hon has the same skill cap as sc:bw or not.
On May 11 2010 11:30 Perfect Balance wrote: The point is that unintended mechanics in Starcraft raised the glass ceiling above human ability.
What unintended mechanics? Muta-stack? Vulture and Muta patrol-micro? Notice, those aren't Protoss mechanics and, in fact, Protoss doesn't have such mechanics at all - the only glitches Protoss have can't be controlled and player can only suffer from them (like occasional goon path-finding issues). Does that mean that top Protoss players could never be as skilled as top zerg and terran players? Does that mean that Protoss is worser race than Zerg and Terran? =)
On May 11 2010 11:30 Perfect Balance wrote: The point is that unintended mechanics in Starcraft raised the glass ceiling above human ability.
What unintended mechanics? Muta-stack? Vulture and Muta patrol-micro? Notice, those aren't Protoss mechanics and, in fact, Protoss doesn't have such mechanics at all - the only glitches Protoss have can't be controlled and player can only suffer from them (like occasional goon path-finding issues). Does that mean that top Protoss players could never be as skilled as top zerg and terran players? Does that mean that Protoss is worser race than Zerg and Terran? =)
Toss have plenty. For example, goon hold position micro and corsair moving shot. And possibly magic boxes for spells.
On May 11 2010 11:50 Fizban140 wrote: Macro was unintentional? Please explain that before my head explodes.
Starcraft 1: Blizzard would have implemented auto-mining if they could, it was unintentionally left out. Blizzard implements speed settings by random, NOT because of progaming. Tried playing on normal? Blizzard has no advanced AI coding, units unintentionally need more control and skill to master.
Example:
"Toss have plenty. For example, goon hold position micro and corsair moving shot. And possibly magic boxes for spells".
Starcraft 2: Blizzard implements auto-mining, because they can, then try to compensate with gimmicky abilities like MULE. Blizzard gives us Multiple Building Selection (MBS), because they can, try to compensate with add-ons and more unit abilities. Blizzard removes some essential units from the game because they think they can intentionally re-create the intricate unit-duels of Starcraft, and pays more attention to unit design than function. Failing once again.
All of these decisions, and tons of others, proves beyond a doubt that developers (especially ones that previously worked for EA) don't know the first thing about making games that we here at TL enjoy. The bottom line is, I don't feel like playing the Starcraft 2 beta, I'd rather play a game from 1997, that's a major problem to someone who's been looking forward to it for many years.
On May 11 2010 11:30 Perfect Balance wrote: The point is that unintended mechanics in Starcraft raised the glass ceiling above human ability.
What unintended mechanics? Muta-stack? Vulture and Muta patrol-micro? Notice, those aren't Protoss mechanics and, in fact, Protoss doesn't have such mechanics at all - the only glitches Protoss have can't be controlled and player can only suffer from them (like occasional goon path-finding issues). Does that mean that top Protoss players could never be as skilled as top zerg and terran players? Does that mean that Protoss is worser race than Zerg and Terran? =)
Toss have plenty. For example, goon hold position micro and corsair moving shot. And possibly magic boxes for spells.
These are unintended mechanics that "raised the glass ceiling above human ability"? I mean, seriously? =)
On May 11 2010 12:03 Perfect Balance wrote: Starcraft 2: Blizzard implements auto-mining, because they can, then try to compensate with gimmicky abilities like MULE. Blizzard gives us Multiple Building Selection (MBS), because they can, try to compensate with add-ons and more unit abilities. Blizzard removes some essential units from the game because they think they can intentionally re-create the intricate unit-duels of Starcraft, and pays more attention to unit design than function. Failing once again.
I don't wanna touch your third example cause it's way too vague, but how exactly are first two can be called failures?
On May 11 2010 12:03 Perfect Balance wrote: Blizzard implements auto-mining, because they can, then try to compensate with gimmicky abilities like MULE. Blizzard gives us Multiple Building Selection (MBS), because they can, try to compensate with add-ons and more unit abilities.
You do realize that for the most part, the competitive community has deemed these as suitable replacements, right? For the most part, very few people complain that macro is not mechanically demanding enough.
Honestly, if you don't like SC2 that's fine. But you can't really try to pretend that the competitive community is 100% on-board with you because that's pretty much not true. Many top players have issues with certain aspects of the game, but are satisfied enough with it to keep playing.
On May 11 2010 12:03 Perfect Balance wrote: Blizzard implements auto-mining, because they can, then try to compensate with gimmicky abilities like MULE. Blizzard gives us Multiple Building Selection (MBS), because they can, try to compensate with add-ons and more unit abilities.
You do realize that for the most part, the competitive community has deemed these as suitable replacements, right? For the most part, very few people complain that macro is not mechanically demanding enough.
Honestly, if you don't like SC2 that's fine. But you can't really try to pretend that the competitive community is 100% on-board with you because that's pretty much not true. Many top players have issues with certain aspects of the game, but are satisfied enough with it to keep playing.
These are also aspects of many other successful rts franchises, there's more sales to be gained by including these features than will be pushed away by their addition. They also improve the gameplay for people not at the highest levels of play as even A level players would still have idle workers every once in awhile in sc1. So I don't get why all these C/D level players think auto mining is a ruinous feature. It's inclusion increases their potential for improvement, you guys are just putting the pussy on a pedestal :\. The best players will still find ways to pull ahead. Thinking the features that enable their skills to shine need to be par for the course with the ones that existed in BW is fallacy.
EPT
