EPTOn September 01 2010 02:20 koOma wrote:
.
.
Nice game. The doubters should watch it.
Is SC2 Boring To Watch? - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
tomatriedes
New Zealand5356 Posts
Nice game. The doubters should watch it. | ||
|
Fake)Plants
United States373 Posts
I'm sure if we could go back in time and watch BW games, a month after its release, between "top level players" of the time we'd be bored to tears. Once again though, if the design of the game and the development of play over time doesn't excite your eyes and brain parts it's really not that big of a deal, you'll find something else to enjoy. | ||
|
EliteAzn
United States661 Posts
I enjoy watching the game, and who knows...there are still a bunch of changes that will be made + more potential strategies. | ||
|
Novembermike
United States102 Posts
Protoss needs to get zealots in the front, blink micro stalkers, storm with HTs and turn them into archons, kite with colossi and FF with sentries. Zerg needs to create traps for their banelings to take advantage of, surround with zerglings, micro mutas (magic box and stacking for different situations) as well as a number of other things I don't notice because I don't play zerg. Terran doesn't really have the same variety in how their units need to be used. | ||
|
Dominator:]
36 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On September 01 2010 02:40 Beef Noodles wrote: I guess what it comes down to is "Are voidrays OP?" I personally don't think so, but they are very annoying because they can with the game in seconds if you are not careful (very similar to how siege tanks can win in seconds if a line of them siege up your natural as zerg if you are not careful). But people will start to take more and more precautions to avoid this. Look at BW. Reavers could win the game in seconds with a couple good scarabs. Everyone knew this, so they were constantly on their toes, and eventually reavers stopped doing insane amounts of damage because players were ready for them. thats not the point at all. the point is that very easy stuff hitting a "lucky" timing/situation instnatly ends the game. reavers require amazing control and much commitment. when i see someone killing his enemy with great reaver drop play i go crazy and applaud it . when i see someone winning cause he rushed for a hidden stargate and managed to get it charged i get angry cause a game that couldve been entertaining got a boring skillless end. thats the difference. and that applies to lots of things in sc2. btw voidrays are terribly designed and either destroy games or are completly useless. but not OP. | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On September 01 2010 02:43 awesomoecalypse wrote: But the game is young. There aren't many players who can perform at that level. So you have lots of uninspiring, samey matchups where people just do the expected thing, or curbstomps when one of those supposedly "elite" daimond players goes against a real progamer. I don't think this is a problem with the game. I don't even think its a "problem" with the playerbase, in the sense of there being something that Blizzard or players could have done differently. It is simply an inevitable result of a flood of relatively new players coming into a new game. As time goes on, we will see more truly elite players emegre, and the bar for truly elite will get higher (for instance, right now Idra's mechanics are pretty much unparalleled. But thats just because he has more practice than everyone else. As other players get better, those kind of top notch mechanics will become the norm for the most elite players). That will inevitably result in more competitive, better played, and ultimately, more fun and exciting games for spectators. Quoted for emphasis. I absolutely agree with this point. Yes, SC2 is easier to play mechanically than SC:BW. That doesn't mean people have come anywhere close to reaching the maximum skill potential. When SC1 first came out, 1 base all-ins were the norm, and battles WERE blob vs blob (slightly less so only because poor pathing disallows clumping). As the game developed, players learned how to safely expand and games became much more macro oriented. When it's 5 base vs 5 base, there's so much more opportunity for harassment and action all over the map, which a lot of people complain is missing from most SC2 games. I strongly believe that we will see a similar development in SC2 as players get better, and perhaps just as importantly, the maps get better (there are very few ladder maps that are large enough/designed well enough to encourage heavy macro play). | ||
|
ZerglingSoup
United States346 Posts
For now, like in BW metagame, we'll just have to wait until the other races develop and perfect counters with what they've got. Overall, Blizzard could have done alot worse with the sequel. Somehow they've avoided complete disaster with a sequel to the best game ever created. | ||
|
Beef Noodles
United States937 Posts
| ||
|
Spawkuring
United States755 Posts
My problems: - Poor sound design: Other than perhaps some of the zerg building noises, the soundscape in SC2 is almost universally inferior to BW. Most mech units share the same explosion sounds, unlike in BW where a science vessel or a carrier died in a sound that was instantly recognizable. Most attack sounds are weak, the zealot, hydra, and siege tank being the biggest disappointments. Nothing has the sheer bass or omph that the BW sounds have. I also hate that really annoying high-pitched squeal noise that terran units make when they die. - Not enough impressive micro: There is nothing impressive about focus fire or kiting micro, yet that's all we see in 90% of the games, MMM balls especially. This isn't a balance issue, but a lot of units and spells need to be redesigned to require much more precise micro and positioning. We need more things like shuttle/reaver micro, lurker control, dark swarm use, and muta micro. - Not as visually exciting: I brought this complaint up several times in the past, but I still don't like how units in SC2 cluster up so much into tight balls. Not only does it gimp melee units by making it harder to break ranged balls, but it's just not as fun to watch. I love how in BW, units stay apart and battles are spread out completely across the screen with bullet and explosion fury everywhere. In SC2, it's a tiny little bunched up ball against another tiny little bunched up ball with only the occasional concave or spread. BW also has much more visually impressive AoE spells because they can be made larger without imbalancing the game. In SC2, thanks to the new pathing and smart casting, AoE spells have to be tiny little patches of effects in order to preserve balance. It makes for a balanced, yet less fun game. - Bnet 2.0 Sucks: Already discussed this a million times, no need to repeat it. - Maps are too small: Also a no-brainer Fix all these and we might have a worthy successor to BW yet. | ||
|
bRuTaL!!
Finland588 Posts
On September 01 2010 02:28 HalfAmazing wrote: This is just ridiculous.  Tic Tac Toe is difficult because it's played against another human being? Every game has a skill ceiling and StarCraft II's is low -- at least compared to Brood War. Checkers is played against another human, but the game has already been cracked by computers. It is impossible to beat an algorithm! Chess is more complex and even though there are very sophisticated computer programs out there, the best human players will still beat them more often than not. Games are like puzzles, all of them can be cracked. Some simply take longer than others, and that is a measure of their complexity and relative skill ceiling. StarCraft II is more like checkers than chess, and it is not debatable that it requires considerably less skill to play well. This means it simply doesn't offer players the same framework to apply creativity within, and is therefore boring. The game is simply too small and not demanding enough. Sc2 is way more complicated than chess. In chess, there is no realtime, no 3D space, nothings hidden, no need to multitask, no need for fast fingers. Doesnt make it any lesser of a game. In fact it makes it a lot more reliable to find who is better with a single match. Complicated doesnt equal better. BW is a lot closer to being "solved" than SC2 is thought. And the pros of BW are a lot closer to the skillcap of BW than the ones in Sc2 are to sc2s. So if you want to say that Sc2 is boring with those definitions, thats fine but dont claim bw is exciting at the same time. Im fine if someone says that Sc2 boring, thats theyre opinion and taste, cant argue with that. But it does irritate me that some claim Bw to be sooooo exciting at the same thime. It screams unobjectiveness. You might prefer one over the other but theyre far too similar for one to be boring and other to be exciting. | ||
|
eiswand
Germany44 Posts
I dont know. I really think I quit SC2... ;( | ||
|
imperator-xy
Germany1377 Posts
hurts to see idra loose because of imbalance even if hes far the best foreigner though | ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
We need more things like shuttle/reaver micro, lurker control, dark swarm use, and muta micro. Tricks like these are slowly being discovered, however. For example, Colossi with the range upgrade combined with warp prisms with the speed upgrade can kite nearly any ground force if properly used. Drop the Colossus at full range, get off a few attacks, when enemies move closer pick it up and retreat, then do it all over again. Its not quite the same as reaver dropping, but it is definitely more impressive micro than just a-moving, which is all many people thought the Colossus was capable of. Mutas have a micro trick now, magic boxing. Ironically, it is the exact opposite of their stacking trick in BW. But its damn useful, and is a big part of why you hardly ever see Thors used as the sole muta counter in a T army. Something similar has also been employed with banelings, to spread their splash damage as far as possible and to make them more effective against tanks. People have also figured out ways to use Zealot charge in non-attacking situations, allowing them to charge across long map distances. more of these tricks will come in time. The game is young. Give it time to grow. | ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
Well then you might as well say stalker/zealot is boring too. Also, muta/ling is boring. ...Right? Or not... | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32164 Posts
On August 29 2010 04:34 hadoken5 wrote: Lets compare a TvX to a ZvP: TvX: "Ok what could happen here?Any one of 2 things can happen when Terran goes MM as usual: -Game ends within first push OR -Game does not end in the first push and Terran just expands and gets more MM regardless of what opponent has. And the other player has to counter MM which you already know what that will be like, and Terran seems to stick with MM no matter what. So the opponent will have to stay with MM counter. And then the game just goes on to who has more "stuff" and whether or not Terran knows how to dodge storms." I really wish over the top hyperbole like this would be a banable offense, jesus christ The whole thing is nonsense. If you go straight mmm, you can't just waltz in without scouting. If you don't micro, you will get torn up | ||
|
HalfAmazing
Netherlands402 Posts
On September 01 2010 03:15 bRuTaL!! wrote: Sc2 is way more complicated than chess. In chess, there is no realtime, no 3D space, nothings hidden, no need to multitask, no need for fast fingers. Doesnt make it any lesser of a game. In fact it makes it a lot more reliable to find who is better with a single match. Complicated doesnt equal better. BW is a lot closer to being "solved" than SC2 is thought. And the pros of BW are a lot closer to the skillcap of BW than the ones in Sc2 are to sc2s. So if you want to say that Sc2 is boring with those definitions, thats fine but dont claim bw is exciting at the same time. Im fine if someone says that Sc2 boring, thats theyre opinion and taste, cant argue with that. But it does irritate me that some claim Bw to be sooooo exciting at the same thime. It screams unobjectiveness. You might prefer one over the other but theyre far too similar for one to be boring and other to be exciting. Sigh, you're confusing the issue because you misunderstood my analogy. I never compared BW (or SC II) to chess, I compared the relationship between chess and checkers to the relationship between BW and SC II. Just because checkers and chess are both played on an 8x8 grid, doesn't mean they require the same skill to master. One is simply an easier version of the other. SC II is an easier version of BW, and is therefore less interesting. It may have gotten stale for you, but compared objectively, BW is the much more demanding, interesting and exciting game. | ||
|
ltortoise
633 Posts
On September 01 2010 03:47 HalfAmazing wrote: Sigh, you're confusing the issue because you misunderstood my analogy. I never compared BW (or SC II) to chess, I compared the relationship between chess and checkers to the relationship between BW and SC II. Just because checkers and chess are both played on an 8x8 grid, doesn't mean they require the same skill to master. One is simply an easier version of the other. SC II is an easier version of BW, and is therefore less interesting. It may have gotten stale for you, but compared objectively, BW is the much more demanding, interesting and exciting game. "Easier" That word doesn't even belong in the context. A game is only as easy or hard as who you are playing against. A game is not inherently "easy" or "hard" unless it is a singleplayer game. | ||
|
Redmark
Canada2129 Posts
SC II is an easier version of BW, and is therefore less interesting. It may have gotten stale for you, but compared objectively, BW is the much more demanding, interesting and exciting game. I'm not trying to single you out, but posts like this are similar. 'Objectively'? Really? Really? Really? He says that he doesn't find SC2 boring; OF COURSE that's objectively wrong. He actually finds it much less exciting than BW, he's just deluded himself into believing otherwise. Anyone who doesn't feel the same way is simply wrong, and you're right. I'm tired of this, I really am. I thought that the Starcraft community would be better than this. | ||
|
Cofo
United States1388 Posts
On September 01 2010 03:47 HalfAmazing wrote: Sigh, you're confusing the issue because you misunderstood my analogy. I never compared BW (or SC II) to chess, I compared the relationship between chess and checkers to the relationship between BW and SC II. Just because checkers and chess are both played on an 8x8 grid, doesn't mean they require the same skill to master. One is simply an easier version of the other. SC II is an easier version of BW, and is therefore less interesting. It may have gotten stale for you, but compared objectively, BW is the much more demanding, interesting and exciting game. The problem with your analogy is that Checkers is easier than Chess because it's not as strategically deep. They take the same mechanical skill. The reason SC2 is easier than BW is almost purely mechanical difficulty. | ||
| ||
