EPTSC2 may not be like BW... But if we want any future for eSports as a whole... then we need a new game. SC2 is as close to BW as it is gunna get, and SC2 is a TON of fun. I am way more than satisfied with SC2.
OSL prelims + Hwanni interview - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
SC2 may not be like BW... But if we want any future for eSports as a whole... then we need a new game. SC2 is as close to BW as it is gunna get, and SC2 is a TON of fun. I am way more than satisfied with SC2. | ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
| ||
|
crimsn
Korea (North)44 Posts
| ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
This would be the PERFECT strategy game. They would be fun to watch because it is ALL about strategy and not about who has the strongest fingers and who has a better mastery of the broken clunky interface. ANYONE could pick it up and play it, and there will be a very strong set of people up at the top. Anyone can work their way to the top with enough practice of STRATEGY. The game will do what you want it to do, rather than what your fingers can do. This would be totally boring and no fun at all even with a lot of strategies. I think you have a misunderstanding about strategy in games in generel. Without mechanics it's just scouting and building the counter. No room for creative play, cute micro tricks while still macroing etc etc | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:05 Zanez.smarty wrote: To continue on my concept of interface struggling: (...) This is the problem that we have with SC2: As the interface struggle goes down, the options and strategy in a game need to go up. If it does not, then the skill ceiling goes down and it becomes boring to watch. In SC2, the interface struggle has gone down significantly, but the strategy has probably not gone up all that much. Again, it is early in the game's life, so we don't know for sure, but I doubt it. Blizz can change it, patch it, add stuff in the expansions, etc etc, so I think it is far too early WAY premature, and completely asinine to preach doom this early in the games life. You make a very, very good point here! Besides the interface struggling theres the bad unit pathing in addition, which has the very same effect. But blizzard managed to implement mechanics and features that add more strategical and tactical depth. namely the new macro mechanics (creep, injection, chrono, mule, supply) and tons of new tactical and micro intensive abilities (FF, concussive shells, banelings, burrow move, the new nydus, blink, grav. beam, snipe etc etc etc) The difference is that the newly added features and abilities promote decision making and creativity while the interface struggling is purely one dimensional, and the pathing struggling has more depth but offers no decision making. I think this is actually the biggest advantage over SCBW. | ||
|
khellian
Korea (South)922 Posts
| ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:34 wiesel wrote: This would be totally boring and no fun at all even with a lot of strategies. I think you have a misunderstanding about strategy in games in generel. Without mechanics it's just scouting and building the counter. No room for creative play, cute micro tricks while still macroing etc etc How do interface limitations and interface in general create creative play, micro and macro tricks...? SC1 and SC2 would work with a MMI (mind-machine-interface) in its current state. The same tricks would exist, the same tactics, strategies, unit capabilities, stats and everything... The differences are that there would be no mouse or keyboard required to play... In order for it to be fun to watch, there would need to be about double the units and triple the macro/mechanics, a ton more upgrades. This would actually make MORE creative play and cute tricks... More units with more abilities and tricks would add more to the game. The game would be about how fast the mind can go, not how fast the fingers can go... | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
 | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:52 wiesel wrote: Lets start with Mouse and keyboard which are no interface limitations. Probably you would like football played in the players mind too? Same conflicts apply. Huh? You are comparing a game about strategy and decision making... to a game about physical strength, speed and agility... Comparing a game on a screen, performed by pixels... to a game IRL, performed by people... What you want is a comparison of SC2 to chess or something. Not football. | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:52 wiesel wrote: Lets start with Mouse and keyboard which are no interface limitations. Probably you would like football played in the players mind too? Same conflicts apply. Would be boring everyone would think hes Messi its because football has less strategic depth than sc2 | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
This would be the PERFECT strategy game. They would be fun to watch because it is ALL about strategy and not about who has the strongest fingers and who has a better mastery of the broken clunky interface. ANYONE could pick it up and play it, and there will be a very strong set of people up at the top. Anyone can work their way to the top with enough practice of STRATEGY. The game will do what you want it to do, rather than what your fingers can do. No it would be a shit game because a strategy only game needs the strategic depth of a game like chess, which SC1 or 2 lacks entirely. | ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
On June 13 2010 06:58 Zanez.smarty wrote: Huh? You are comparing a game about strategy and decision making... to a game about physical strength, speed and agility... Comparing a game on a screen, performed by pixels... to a game IRL, performed by people... so if everyone has the micro and macro perfect in their head, how will you make a mistake? Will you just think oh i'll forget a supply depot now, or im not thinking fast enough and losing my shuttle to a scourge, or well screw it i'll forget adrenaline upgrade this time! How will you make mistakes besides in scouting and building a counter which shouldn't be too hard if you read some forums? Thats what i meant with Messi, it will be boring cause there is noone actually who Messi can outplay. | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On June 13 2010 07:02 wiesel wrote: so if everyone has the micro and macro perfect in their head, how will you make a mistake? Will you just think oh i'll forget a supply depot now, or im not thinking fast enough and losing my shuttle to a scourge, or well screw it i'll forget adrenaline upgrade this time! How will you make mistakes besides in scouting and building a counter which shouldn't be too hard if you read some forums? Thats what i meant with Messi, it will be boring cause there is noone actually who Messi can outplay. Except you are missing the point entirely. In my concept of the MMI I don't sit back and go "Play the game perfectly" and the game plays perfectly. I don't walk into combat and think "Micro" and have the units micro well. I can't just say "Micro and Macro" and have me micro and macro properly. I would need to think about the strategy, micro, the using abilities, the locations I use them, when I do it, the timing, etc etc. What is the perfect Macro now? Well as Protoss, you make the right production buildings at the right time, keep building probes, chronoboost every 25 energy, don't get supply blocked... Wow look, I know it all now. So... why don't I perform it perfectly all the time? Well it is not interface limitations... it is because I forget to do it. I forget to pay attention. I don't check my Nexuses every 15 seconds, I don't keep a close eye on my supply count. If the game was connected to my brain, how would things differ? Would I remember more? Would I suddenly do everything perfectly? No, because it is my BRAIN that is forgetting to do things, and think of things. You cannot argue that a strategy game is about using a mouse or keyboard well. It is about strategy. | ||
|
clickrush
Switzerland3257 Posts
On June 13 2010 07:00 Half wrote: No it would be a shit game because a strategy only game needs the strategic depth of a game like chess, which SC1 or 2 lacks entirely. not so sure about that. | ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On June 13 2010 07:00 Half wrote: No it would be a shit game because a strategy only game needs the strategic depth of a game like chess, which SC1 or 2 lacks entirely. I think you will need to clarify and back up your argument. | ||
|
vOddy
Sweden402 Posts
| ||
|
wiesel
Germany727 Posts
| ||
|
Thrasymachus725
Canada527 Posts
On June 13 2010 07:23 wiesel wrote: Well then your only relying on your memory as a "mechanic skill" which is basically the same as keyboard mouse skills. Just training to be super quick thinking and remembering everything. Not that much of a difference to the way its played now. In opinion I suppose... But I disagree. Really, you are really just imagining SC1 or SC2 with an MMI. The idea would be creating large amounts of things like Chrono Boosts, Spawn Larva, Mules, Scans etc options for each race and a ton more units. Naturally SC2 and SC1 would be incredibly boring to watch with an MMI because both games require interface limitations in order to be interesting to watch. In order for an MMI to work in a spectator sport the game would need to be FAR more complex and deep as far as strategy goes. | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
On June 13 2010 07:00 Half wrote: No it would be a shit game because a strategy only game needs the strategic depth of a game like chess, which SC1 or 2 lacks entirely. SC1 and SC2 are a lot more complex than chess. | ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
man...it makes me sad to see the OSLs for SC1 ending so soon. I definitely know more about SC1 than SC2 so seeing the OSL move to SC2 will make me clueless to what is happening in games. =( | ||
| ||
