|
On July 16 2010 06:26 USn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 23:53 gREIFOCs wrote:
People don't realize what a interface is really supposed to do. The interface is a language, which the player must interiorizate, make his own. Is a system to represent your brain inside the game. That's naive. The interface doesn't represent some mystical confluence between the mind and software. When you are playing a game, you are playing the interface just like you play any other part of the game.
Hahah! Thank you. When I read that comment I was a bit flabbergasted.
|
On July 16 2010 23:40 Tenryu wrote:
No Blizzard is focusing on making the game more appealing and user friendly to attract news users and get more $$
Blizzard has never been about maximizing their revenues as much as Activision is. It's not Blizzard's game anymore. I know they make it and I know they lead in design but when it comes to marketing this game make no mistake about it - Activision is playing the main role in doing that.
|
On July 16 2010 07:13 Nagano wrote:Show nested quote +
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
I'd say this analogy is flawed and was created to illustrate his notion that lowering the mechanical interface of starcraft benefits the lower skilled player. A better analogy to illustrate the leveling of the mechanical aspect of basketball would be to have every player have the same physical fitness and performance potential. That way we would see who the best player was by his strategy, tactics, and teamwork, rather than just his physical prowess. Basketball, however, is a physical and team sport, while starcraft is a strategy game. It would only make perfect sense to reduce the mechanical and physical limitations in order to emphasize just that--the strategical aspect of starcraft.
People seem to keep forgetting that RTS are not just strategy games. Note the "real time" part in RTS means that you need control over your units, etc, and not just good strategy to win games. Sure you like the strategy part better, but not everyone does.
On July 17 2010 02:31 Sueco wrote:
Yes starcraft 2 requires less APM... how many times you said you had beaten White-Ra?
I applaud this change from Blizzard. Instead of manufacturing clicks due to a terrible 1998 interface, player APM can be focused on truly awesome stuff, like multi-control group attacks on perfect timed simultaneous locations while spamming perfectly placed spells.
They lowered the entry barrier by requiring less APM to perform basic macro. This will attract new players, and will foster much more creative and fun unit control at the competitive level. Everybody wins.
Yes, terrible 1998 interface which koreans have turned into a sport, how many modern 2010 RTS games have been as successful as BW? NONE
On July 15 2010 23:36 Juaks wrote:
I think is very naive and unfair to compare those gosu moves and exciting moments of BW to SC2 beta.
I am sure we will see awesome moves and tense moments like those you described, once the pro scene starts digging SC2. Just give it some time. 2 expansions to come. Let the meta evolve.
Although it is beta, I doubt that the game will change in 2 weeks after release. At the moment, the units just does not allow those kinds of moves. If someone were to show us those kinds of magic in SC2 then I might get back into it. But at the moment I just do not see that happening.
|
On July 17 2010 05:39 Darpinion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 23:40 Tenryu wrote:
No Blizzard is focusing on making the game more appealing and user friendly to attract news users and get more $$ Blizzard has never been about maximizing their revenues as much as Activision is. It's not Blizzard's game anymore. I know they make it and I know they lead in design but when it comes to marketing this game make no mistake about it - Activision is playing the main role in doing that.
honestly i think blizzard themselves wants to make the game as mass-marketable as possible. they wont dumb it down as much as activision wants but i dont think theyre necessarily giving up much creative freedom at all. this is very much the game they always wanted to make. it's just too bad (for me at least) that they made a lot of these change that i dont like too much. you cant really blame them for wanting as many people as possible to play this game they spent years making. although that doesnt mean we should just stop complaining at all.
|
I don't get it. Was everyone hoping SC2 would just be SC1 with fancy graphics? And if it was, wouldn't you be just as mad?
|
On July 15 2010 13:39 Thenas wrote:
Yeah I never quite got the "it's to easy" / "noob friendly" arguments.
I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer.
It's what you make of it.
this is about as good a point as anyone can make.
and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules.
but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher.
and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have.
lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting
|
I was a D+ in Brood war
I come to Sc2 I'm a high ranked platinum player. (Rank 9ish) <-- This is because I have to face terran more and more 
I have decent mechanics (200apmish), in both games.
I highly agree, Sc2 is nub friendly.
I still lose to people who have like 40 apm.
|
On July 17 2010 06:21 Schurk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 13:39 Thenas wrote:
Yeah I never quite got the "it's to easy" / "noob friendly" arguments.
I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer.
It's what you make of it. this is about as good a point as anyone can make. and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules. but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher. and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have. lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting
these are terrible analogies
Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer.
here are two much better analogies
caution, reading this may increase your intelligence, do not be alarmed and attempt to flame me.
|
More like:
Starcraft asks you both to bake a cake, only you have to light your own fire to the oven. In BW you had to sit there rubbing sticks together and SCII gives you a match.
|
On July 17 2010 07:29 Jerubaal wrote:
More like:
Starcraft asks you both to bake a cake, only you have to light your own fire to the oven. In BW you had to sit there rubbing sticks together and SCII gives you a match.
In order to properly play this game.....
.... you must first invent the universe...
|
On July 17 2010 05:54 Nemesis wrote:
Yes, terrible 1998 interface which koreans have turned into a sport, how many modern 2010 RTS games have been as successful as BW? NONE
Thats more or less a coincidence that it got that famous in Korea in shouln't be a argument.
|
On July 17 2010 06:31 Twaxter wrote:I was a D+ in Brood war I come to Sc2 I'm a high ranked platinum player. (Rank 9ish) <-- This is because I have to face terran more and more I have decent mechanics (200apmish), in both games. I highly agree, Sc2 is nub friendly. I still lose to people who have like 40 apm.
ITT: People who think they're better than they are call a game nub friendly when they can't even make it into Diamond (top 20%).
-_-
All the pros agree SC2 is a great game, and until you're in their league, I really don't think you have any room to call it a newb-friendly game.
|
Goes to show how little APM matters when you are spamming. I'm Mid-level diamond player that has around 80-100 APM.
|
Well is obvious SC2 is different than BW.
But lets not forget that this is the pre-birth. Wer are playing a fetus right now.
SC took years and years to develop. I know that you can say that not having to send every harvester to the mineral individually is Noob friendly. But I am sure that in a few years you will need every single action that you can get out of those fingers of yours.
As for now lets examine the Marine Marauder Ball. This basically means you put a light unit that can attack both ground and air together with an armored unit that has a bonus versus armor. I cannot imagine that these units wont be separated in different groups to optimize micro.
I am sure that in the future you will need a lot of actions and good micro to constantly have good unit placement. The right unit attacking the right unit. And making sure the units are defending each other properly.
then there is this delusional advantage of the infinity control group. I am sure that in the future the control groups will be made lots smaller to create more control, instead of these 1a attacks.
|
On July 17 2010 07:21 Holcan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 06:21 Schurk wrote:On July 15 2010 13:39 Thenas wrote:
Yeah I never quite got the "it's to easy" / "noob friendly" arguments.
I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer.
It's what you make of it. this is about as good a point as anyone can make. and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules. but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher. and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have. lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting these are terrible analogies Show nested quote +Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer. here are two much better analogies caution, reading this may increase your intelligence, do not be alarmed and attempt to flame me.
You think the better analogy is the one where the two players compete against the program for a higher score instead of against each other?
And the basketball one is weird too. If Kobe Bryant had done all his training on a large rim size, it would be a totally different game in which he would destroy you or me just as badly as the smaller rim because that's the basketball he perfected. You act like it would be his first time playing with a giant rim. People playing SC2 won't be caught by surprise, they will have mastered the game the way it is.
|
On July 15 2010 14:04 rockslave wrote:
Stop thinking about sending scvs to mine, go micro 4 dropships in different places of the map.
I think that this guy nailed it on the head. I believe that the pro SC2 games will be even more dynamic because it will be easier for the top players to execute multiple attacks and such with the new interface.
|
On July 17 2010 07:45 Vei wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 06:31 Twaxter wrote:I was a D+ in Brood war I come to Sc2 I'm a high ranked platinum player. (Rank 9ish) <-- This is because I have to face terran more and more I have decent mechanics (200apmish), in both games. I highly agree, Sc2 is nub friendly. I still lose to people who have like 40 apm. ITT: People who think they're better than they are call a game nub friendly when they can't even make it into Diamond (top 20%). -_- All the pros agree SC2 is a great game, and until you're in their league, I really don't think you have any room to call it a newb-friendly game.
you've spoken to all the pros and asked them what they thought of the game??
|
+ Show Spoiler +On July 17 2010 07:53 Back wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2010 07:21 Holcan wrote:On July 17 2010 06:21 Schurk wrote:On July 15 2010 13:39 Thenas wrote:
Yeah I never quite got the "it's to easy" / "noob friendly" arguments.
I'd say kicking a ball into a square is quite "noob friendly" aswell yet here we just had WGs in football/soccer.
It's what you make of it. this is about as good a point as anyone can make. and basicly any profesional sport out there. grand prix racing for example. a few cars, the one who reaches the finish first wins. that's basicly all the rules. but still, with such simple rules, i don't see everyone becoming the new schumacher. and still, dispite it's simplicity, there's millions and millions of people watching it every sunday. more people than sc2 will ever have. lack of depth doesn't mean it has to be less interesting / exciting these are terrible analogies Example:
If I were playing Kobe Bryant in horse, shooting jump shots, I would get absolutely destroyed. But let's say we played again, on a basketball hoop with the rim size doubled. Would I still lose? Probably. But I wouldn't lose by as much, because Kobe wouldn't really benefit from the larger rim size, since he could already hit his shots with the smaller rim size. I, on the other hand, would benefit greatly from the larger rim size, since I'm not as good at shooting baskets. So, would this change make shooting hoops easier for everyone? Yes, absolutely. That's not disputed. The relevant question is, who would benefit more from the change? Obviously, I (the lower skilled player) would benefit more, and the game would be much closer.
Example 2:
If I were playing DDR (random example, I know, but it's a sound analogy) on "expert" mode against someone who was really good, and who had already mastered all of the songs at that difficulty, I would get destroyed, because I haven't played that much DDR (although I do have some rhythm :p). But what would happen if we switched the difficulty level down to "medium"? Obviously, the competition would be much closer, even though it would be easier for everyone. This is because a player who's already mastered "expert" mode wouldn't really gain that much from moving down difficultly levels. I, on the other hand, who couldn't handle "expert" mode would benefit immensely from moving down to "medium". Again, I might not necessarily win, but it would be much closer. here are two much better analogies caution, reading this may increase your intelligence, do not be alarmed and attempt to flame me. You think the better analogy is the one where the two players compete against the program for a higher score instead of against each other? And the basketball one is weird too. If Kobe Bryant had done all his training on a large rim size, it would be a totally different game in which he would destroy you or me just as badly as the smaller rim because that's the basketball he perfected. You act like it would be his first time playing with a giant rim. People playing SC2 won't be caught by surprise, they will have mastered the game the way it is.
It doesnt matter really what analogy, you just need to look at who benefits when the game is made easier, which is clearly people of lesser skill. Kobe Bryant is going to dominate me on a larger rim yes, but not by as much because i am going to do better. Its much like SC2, which is a "larger rim" compared to SC. Someone of good amount of skill should absolutely demolish me in sc, and they do, however since SC2 is easier, the skill gap is much smaller, and the ability for me to upset is much larger than other games. May this change as the game evolves, only time will tell, however im sure that SC (and warcraft, and other RTS) professionals will be able to transfer over to SC2, however to ask someone who only had success at SC2 to revert back to sc1, it will be impossible for them to make a meaningful impact, simply because the game is that much harder.
|
On July 17 2010 09:00 Holcan wrote:
It doesnt matter really what analogy, you just need to look at who benefits when the game is made easier, which is clearly people of lesser skill. Kobe Bryant is going to dominate me on a larger rim yes, but not by as much because i am going to do better. Its much like SC2, which is a "larger rim" compared to SC. Someone of good amount of skill should absolutely demolish me in sc, and they do, however since SC2 is easier, the skill gap is much smaller, and the ability for me to upset is much larger than other games. May this change as the game evolves, only time will tell, however im sure that SC (and warcraft, and other RTS) professionals will be able to transfer over to SC2, however to ask someone who only had success at SC2 to revert back to sc1, it will be impossible for them to make a meaningful impact, simply because the game is that much harder.
Last post for me on this as I'm sure neither of us will convince the other.
I disagree. Just like Kobe can't just throw the ball from anywhere on the court and automatically score, just like there's a lot more to it than just throwing a ball, making certain aspects of the game "easier" doesn't mean pro players won't capitalize on it as much as anyone else. You're either not giving them enough credit about how much they can do with the spare actions freed by the AI, or you're giving them TOO much credit assuming they are doing every possible simultaneous action in Broodwar currently.
|
It doesnt matter if the pro is able to capitalize on it, im aware that there will be a skill gap, however it wont be AS LARGE, since the game will be easier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
