|
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding 
That is not true at all.
Protoss may be "easy" to get into, but the ceiling for strategies, mechanics and control for Protoss is nowhere near reached. I think Protoss is the least explored race when it comes to strategies and general dynamics, and I think it will also be the one that takes the most skill to perfect.
|
On July 15 2010 23:01 Dystisis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding That is not true at all. Protoss may be "easy" to get into, but the ceiling for strategies, mechanics and control for Protoss is nowhere near reached. I think Protoss is the least explored race when it comes to strategies and general dynamics, and I think it will also be the one that takes the most skill to perfect.
I agree with you. I think it's just because the generally accepted truth was that Protoss was the easiest in BW, and people seem to think that carries over, but I don't think it does.
|
On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding
ouch, my butt T_T
also aren't there enough threads like this already? =/
|
I'm glad there are only a few people who still repeat the old "SC2 is so bad because anyone can be good" garbage. I will make a game for these people, it will be identical to starcraft, but in order to make units move you must constantly press the k and l keys. Also after each unit has fired one shot it waits until you hit the attack button again. Will that increase the "skill" enough for these people?
|
I've read in multiple articles that the skill ceiling is lower in SC2 than BW- While i agree that that is true for the mechanics of the game (MBS and automine, duh)- the technichal aspects and strategies of SC2 are actually much more in depth than BW. Im a really- really old player (25). I played bw for a few years, but was never able to be competitive beyond a D+ level, because simply i couldnt keep up with the macro. My strategies were excellent, however, and for casual play I was amazing. Now in SC2- when i'm on my game, i can play with anyone to some degree. I can innovate while I play, and I have a whole bucketful of pre-concieved strategies that I can mix and match in game.
|
[+ Show Spoiler +QUOTE] On July 15 2010 22:47 Nemesis wrote:On July 15 2010 13:50 ketomai wrote:
SC2 just takes out a huge part of the mechanics part of RTS, which was one of those most important factors in differentiating skill between opponents (look at koreans, look at us). In fact, I think between the ranks of C- and B-, it's probably all a mechanical difference (or 90%). It's no wonder I can keep up with B- SCBW players at SC2 when I can instantly level the playing ground on the first thing that separated good from bad players in BW.
SC2 won't plateau, but like idra said, the skill level of the top players is going to be extremely close thanks to the mechanical aspect being thrown out. In a sense I think it's 'too easy' for the top rather than 'too noob friendly'. The features that are making it easier for noobs to get into the game are also limiting the skill ceiling for top gamers.
This. Also, Saracen's article pretty much describes what SC2 is missing that BW had. It just lost that magic touch where a single darkswarm can change the outcome of the game.Yes, things like that are still possible in sc2, but the effect is a lot less compared to BW. And things like a 5 vultures killing 5 dragoons or 20 hydras or doing no damage at all or 11 mutas killing 11 marines and 10 scvs or gets killed without too much damage.
Either way, I'm pretty much done with sc2 until they improve it. I just find it worst than bw in every way except graphics and maybe the amount of customization of the game(So much stuff you can customize now for ums). I only play the beta now with friends for some ums games. Although, some of the classic bw ums like evolves did not transition very well due to different units between the games.
[/QUOTE]
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.
|
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. The more crisp, smooth and intuitive this system is, the better the representation of yourself within the game.
But to talk about interface, is better to agree what the game is really about. For me, Starcraft is a strategy game. A mean of comunication with the other player trough movements on the map, buildorders, responses, reactions, tactics and overall strategy. If we agree that Starcraft is about Strategy and not really, about clicking the right buttons in the right time for the solely skill of remembering to push buttons. Yes, a we spend a lot of time perfecting the way we interact with Brood War. But that is because BW was so counter intuitive, so demanding, so harsh. It required some sort of skill? Yes. But, having limited amount of CRTL+Units in a group, having to constantly split workers, ect, are not strategic skill. Those are mechanics skill sets. Is the RTS equivalent of grind.
Of course, reality imposes a mechanic way of interaction with the game. But the smoother the experience, the better the representation of the mind inside the game. That is the symbolic underline of the game. That's why I like so much Zerg vs Zerg now. Watch the Sen vs Hydra game, and see the way they spread creep. Look at that minimap, and then tell me what you see. Look the back-forth movements prior to the last battle. Admire how organic, how live is the interaction between the armies. Compare it with a stand down in nature (choose your species).
In those moments, neither player where defending expos, or drones. They where fighting for the level of representation of their brains inside the game. They where fighting for identity. They where fighting to make the map, more a place of their mind and less a place of the mind of their opponent. That is why when you throw someone off their game, is so effective. When you deny map control, you are denying existance. When you force your opponent into something, you are forcing him to live a reality that is far appart from what it should be in their mind.
A game that allows such subtle interactions between two beings is something to be praised.
|
You have to realize just because some mechanics of the game might seem "easier" or "noob friendly"
This holds true for everyone playing. Everyone has the same commands to use, tricks to play, etc. The playing field is different, but level, you know?
Ok, so it's easier to play. Then it's easier to play for everyone. If anything, this means it's easier to get better and get to a plateau, where veryone else is, meaning extremely balanced games. Even if there is a cieling where the top players get to, but don't get better, as long as everyone is at the cieling, the game will still be ridiculously competitive! Know what I'm saying? Just because it's easier for "noobs" to jump in and play, top tier players will still ultimately be in the same tier, thus creating even, tense and skill intensive games. I feel like I can't explain myself well enough right now, but basically it boils down tothis: everyone that plays SC2, is playing SC2. The playing field is the same for everyone. It's NOT SC1, but we aren't PLAYING SC1. The competition will still be great, and intense, as everyone is playing with the same deck of cards, but have different hands, or maybe different playstyles and poker faces, know what I'm sayin?
|
It's definately more easier to play, but that's good for getting more people. Broodwar had a steep learning curve before you can actually play it normally on iccup. But like someone already said, easy to learn, hard to master.
|
it's true that the skill gap between players is less but who's to say that a year from now the best strategies doesn't involve micro heavy maneuvers that'll solidify the better player coming out on top. I mean if you look at War 2 to SC at first I thought sc was easy mode because you can queue up units, units run to spots you tell it too (war2 units gets stuck on the path if you don't keep an eye on them) rally points, everything "seemed" easier then war2 at that time therefore war2 was the better rts in my eyes but SC BW turned out to be one of the best rts games of all time.
|
On July 15 2010 12:28 Misrah wrote:
in the words of morrow:
sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement
~Morrow
so ya sc2 sucks. scbw > sc2 no question. anyone with half a brain knows this. sc2 will be dead in 3 years, becuase by then everything will be figured out, and the mechanics will be capped- becuase korean pros are 13241324134 times better than foreigners.
also- when i hear tales of D icup players getting in diamond league i lol
I'd be willing to bet my life savings that SC2 won't be dead in 3 years.. seriously. PM me I'm really willing to bet like thousands of dollars on this lol...
IMO your the one with half a brain for making a statement like that..
|
On July 15 2010 16:24 omninmo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:47 Psychopomp wrote:I don't understand how a PvP (player vs player) game can ever be labeled as "too easy". How difficult the game is depends on your competition.
This. All I can figure out, is that they're whining about the game having a simple, clean, easy to use interface. OP, you have been challenged son. Defend yourself. Is the game too easy to win? Or is it too easy to lose?
lulzy assessment.
|
On July 15 2010 22:40 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:58 arb wrote:On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding Unlike Terran(weakest in sc1/what i palyed) Protoss is the weakest race now The roles have been changed my friend Anyone saying Terran is the weakest race in SC1 is an idiot. (<3 to all you terrans out there who think this) Also, do we REALLY need this thread again? REALLY?
Wasn't aware of an original - apologies.
|
To be honest I still get my ass kicked up and down 500+ diamond rating, so I don't really have a standpoint for saying the game is "too easy." I don't think anyone is until they get a 80%+ win rate, nor should someone yell imbalance unless their opponent has a win rate like that.
|
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.
|
It's definitely "easier" to play than brood war. Does that mean it's easier to win vs other people? Of course not.
|
On July 16 2010 06:29 DannyJ wrote:
It's definitely "easier" to play than brood war. Does that mean it's easier to win vs other people? Of course not.
^^
It's easier to "do stuff" but not easier to win^^
|
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. The more crisp, smooth and intuitive this system is, the better the representation of yourself within the game. But to talk about interface, is better to agree what the game is really about. For me, Starcraft is a strategy game. A mean of comunication with the other player trough movements on the map, buildorders, responses, reactions, tactics and overall strategy. If we agree that Starcraft is about Strategy and not really, about clicking the right buttons in the right time for the solely skill of remembering to push buttons. Yes, a we spend a lot of time perfecting the way we interact with Brood War. But that is because BW was so counter intuitive, so demanding, so harsh. It required some sort of skill? Yes. But, having limited amount of CRTL+Units in a group, having to constantly split workers, ect, are not strategic skill. Those are mechanics skill sets. Is the RTS equivalent of grind. Of course, reality imposes a mechanic way of interaction with the game. But the smoother the experience, the better the representation of the mind inside the game. That is the symbolic underline of the game. That's why I like so much Zerg vs Zerg now. Watch the Sen vs Hydra game, and see the way they spread creep. Look at that minimap, and then tell me what you see. Look the back-forth movements prior to the last battle. Admire how organic, how live is the interaction between the armies. Compare it with a stand down in nature (choose your species). In those moments, neither player where defending expos, or drones. They where fighting for the level of representation of their brains inside the game. They where fighting for identity. They where fighting to make the map, more a place of their mind and less a place of the mind of their opponent. That is why when you throw someone off their game, is so effective. When you deny map control, you are denying existance. When you force your opponent into something, you are forcing him to live a reality that is far appart from what it should be in their mind. A game that allows such subtle interactions between two beings is something to be praised.
Morpheus, is that you?
Jokes aside, let me say: what a nice take on the function of an interface and how making it more accessible provides for greater emphasis on strategy.
|
On July 15 2010 11:53 Sadistx wrote:
These threads have been popping up since before the beta.
If you think the game is too easy, you either need to play better people or just stop playing.
Or like IdrA said, if the game is SOOO easy, how come aren't you winning tournaments?
That last line was very simple almost childish logic. His comment actu!lly answers your question anyway. He does not do as well because his mechanical superiority is not offering as much of a difference as in bw. Making i5 harder for him to win as he cannot distinguish himself well enough.
Tha5 would be the answer to that
|
A chess beginner essentially has the same capabilities that a grandmaster has. They can make the same moves, at all the same times. There's no APM barrier, or mechanics to master, just picking up pieces and putting them back down. Hand/eye skill isn't that important to the longevity or entertainment of a game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
