On September 01 2010 02:08 bRuTaL!! wrote: First of all, nothing is easy when its human vs. human. Look at football (soccer), all you do is kick a ball and run, easy. What makes it hard is that you have to do it better than others.
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.
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.
Fine. Mechanical difficulty is why Brood War was superior to WarCraft III (is this even up for debate?), so why wouldn't BW be better than SC II because of this? SC II hasn't made up for this deficiency by making the game harder in other ways. In fact it is easier on every level. Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
On September 01 2010 04:08 Redmark wrote: You know, the one thing that I really hate is when people tell others what they do and don't like. I'm not talking about this thread, but recent attitudes in general. Someone says that SC2 is boring, someone says that they like it -- "no you don't you actually hate it it's a noob game for noobs". Someones says that watching SC2 is boring, someone says that they like it -- "no you don't there's no skill there's no finesse there's no excitement you actually want to watch BW".
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.
Correct. They're wrong now, but once their understanding improves they will realize the game isn't as interesting as BW, and doesn't have the potential to be, either.
On September 01 2010 02:08 bRuTaL!! wrote: First of all, nothing is easy when its human vs. human. Look at football (soccer), all you do is kick a ball and run, easy. What makes it hard is that you have to do it better than others.
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.
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.
Fine. Mechanical difficulty is why Brood War was superior to WarCraft III (is this even up for debate?), so why wouldn't BW be better than SC II because of this? SC II hasn't made up for this deficiency by making the game harder in other ways. In fact it is easier on every level. Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
How can we say at this point that SC2 is "easier" than BW? Muta stacking wasn't around in BW for years. Who knows what challenging mechanical tricks will come around, given we have at least two expansions and multiple patches?
On September 01 2010 05:07 HalfAmazing wrote: Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
On September 01 2010 05:07 HalfAmazing wrote: Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
strategy in BW revolved around mechanical skill. Your strategies would change, and effectiveness of those strategies would change depending on your mechanical skill. Thus strategic depth was a lot more evident in BW, sorry to say bro.
On September 01 2010 05:07 HalfAmazing wrote: Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
Sir, please... I specifically said RTS. The strategy in an RTS game is a direct results of how capable you are mechanically. They are intertwined. You can be the most brilliant strategist, but if you're physically incapable of executing your brilliant plan, you're not going to win. It is silly to separate strategy from mechanics in an RTS game.
Starcraft 2 is boring because Blizzard nerfed to oblivion the most exciting spells of the game (hunter seeker missile, neural parasite) some cool strats and units (Protoss drop -> look at warp-prism cost, buildtime and stat, same for the nydus canal which now takes forever to be build, same for the motership which was once a really impressive unit) while buffing boring strat (Zerg camping : speed increase on creep)...
Starcraft 2 relative boringness at this point can mostly be blamed on Blizzard incompetence, I've faith in Blizzard though, I think that after several failpatch like the one incoming they will end up asking top diamond players what they think could improve the game.
On September 01 2010 05:29 TeWy wrote: Starcraft 2 is boring because Blizzard nerfed to oblivion the most exciting spells of the game (hunter seeker missile, neural parasite) some cool strats and units (Protoss drop -> look at warp-prism cost, buildtime and stat, same for the nydus canal which now takes forever to be build, same for the motership which was once a really impressive unit) while buffing boring strat (Zerg camping : speed increase on creep)...
Starcraft 2 relative boringness at this point can mostly be blamed on Blizzard incompetence, I've faith in Blizzard though, I think that after several failpatch like the one incoming they will end up asking top diamond players what they think could improve the game.
Yeah I agree, it seems like pretty blatant blizzard fails in sc2. There are some pretty glaring problems that shouldnt have made it past internal testing let alone through beta. Seems to me like blizzard just cares about the bells and whistles of sc2 (cool looking UI, cool explosions, cool deaths, ridiculous units, etc.) rather that sitting down and understanding the gameplay shortfalls, while making the game simple as hell for anyone to play.
Oh well. Once people stop playing sc2 because they start getting bored of the same old, they might start to care a little. Probably when HOTS rolls around they will start to care and make some much needed changes to entice people to buy the expansion. Sadly if its going to take that long ill be moving on to something else way before that.
In the fall/holidays when the new games come out, i can already imagine people ask "sc2? you still play that game?" lol.
Starcraft 2 relative boringness at this point can mostly be blamed on Blizzard incompetence, I've faith in Blizzard though, I think that after several failpatch like the one incoming they will end up asking top diamond players what they think could improve the game.
i really doubt that. most of the new units and changes promote simple " lets face in the middle,aclick and see who wins the rockpaperscissor!" play.
look at the collossus for example. its the most easy to use "aoe dmg" unit (minus airsplash like sairs) in the history of starcraft. its the perfect example of what blizzard did/is doing with sc2. flashy animations, very powerful and so simple to use that evry 7 year old can use it and be happy about burning things down. yeah that stuff is fun for one time ( did you see the mass collosus fight at mlg? sure it was funny to see all the lasers. but it was deadboring and random gameplay wise) but gameplay wise it will never be remotly as entertaining to use,play against or watch as a reaver.
now tanks get nerfed which further turnes the game away from positional play and more into mass mm 1a'ing .
also blizzard doesnt have a exactly great history with balance or listening to the top. broodwar was a very lucky strike. look at wc3 , its imbalanced, boring and "easy". people are playing the same maps for years and years and nothing ever changed much in gameplay.
these comparisons between BW and SC2 are stupid and not just because SC2 is in its infancy.
we're using ladder maps with tiny rush distances and highly abusive terrain in tournaments. of course infantry timing pushes are going to be very effective on steppes of war and blistering sands. of course certain cheese/cliff abuse will make players drop games on kulas ravine and lost temple. tbh i think you could cut those 4 maps (half the damn map pool) and have a more enjoyable spectator game.
hopefully iccup is on to something good by using its custom maps in its league games.
On September 01 2010 04:08 Redmark wrote: You know, the one thing that I really hate is when people tell others what they do and don't like. I'm not talking about this thread, but recent attitudes in general. Someone says that SC2 is boring, someone says that they like it -- "no you don't you actually hate it it's a noob game for noobs". Someones says that watching SC2 is boring, someone says that they like it -- "no you don't there's no skill there's no finesse there's no excitement you actually want to watch BW".
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.
Correct. They're wrong now, but once their understanding improves they will realize the game isn't as interesting as BW, and doesn't have the potential to be, either.
I found Redmark's post to be very relevant to this situation.
On that note, I do prefer BW to SC2 spectatorwise, but playing-wise SC2 is much much much easier. (D- iccup player here)
On September 01 2010 05:43 taintmachine wrote: these comparisons between BW and SC2 are stupid and not just because SC2 is in its infancy.
we're using ladder maps with tiny rush distances and highly abusive terrain in tournaments. of course infantry timing pushes are going to be very effective on steppes of war and blistering sands. of course certain cheese/cliff abuse will make players drop games on kulas ravine and lost temple. tbh i think you could cut those 4 maps (half the damn map pool) and have a more enjoyable spectator game.
hopefully iccup is on to something good by using its custom maps in its league games.
Hopefully the custom maps catch on.
to see large tournaments using custom maps, and having players ask "what map is that" and find out its a custom map because blizzard maps suck would really be a slap in the face to blizzard and might make them think twice, especially with the expansions needing to sell.
Mechanical difficulty is also a flawed argument in that nobody wants to take it to an extreme. Say a Brood War player/watcher/fan, like HalfAmazing, thinks that SC2 is too mechanically simple, and therefore strategically shallow (which is, imo, wrong, as shown by Cofo, but, for the sake of the argument, assume it is true), and Brood War is much more mechanically difficult, which I think everyone agrees on.
Now, what if there were a game, named Brood War 2, that required double the apm of Brood War to control units properly? It's much more mechanically difficult, is it a better game? Is it more strategic? What if it required triple? What if the game needed you to move every unit on each waypoint, so that you had to micro each unit individually per block of terrain? It would be mechanically difficult beyond any RTS game, and it would follow logically that Brood War 2 would be the most strategically deep game. But it doesn't mean it'll be the most fun game.
If, say, Brood War 2 removed defilers from the game. No unit replaces it, it's just Brood War only without pathfinding and control groups and defilers. Zergs would be fucked late game, yet would Brood War 2 be the most strategically deep? Obviously no, so clearly mechanical difficulty is secondary, at best, to strategic depth. The game itself is what determines strategy.
To conclude my long meandering point: mechanical difficulty is not necessarily key to the game. Otherwise, the best game would be the hypothetical, which is preposterous. No one wants to, or could, play a game where you had no aid from the computer. The point at which there is ENOUGH aid is where opinions differ. Brood War has less, SC2 has more, but whether that's a good or bad thing is SUBJECTIVE OPINION. I think Brood War is less fun than SC2 because you have to wrestle the computer the entire way in Brood War. I also think that a game that plays itself is electronic masturbation and not in fact a game. My cutoff point of too much aid is somewhere between SC2 and the self-playing game. Yours might be between BW and SC2. Yours might even be between BW2 and BW, and that BW should be even more mechanically difficult. But these are all opinions, and are all subjective. No one is wrong for wanting aid, or not wanting aid. The argument boils down to, at its core, some people preferring to play BW and some people preferring to play SC2. Saying that SC2 to you is a better game because it's simpler to play is subjective, and can't be proved wrong. Saying that BW is a better game to you because it's harder to play is subjective, and can't be proved wrong either. But saying either game is OBJECTIVELY better is absolutely wrong. Whoever makes that claim is essentially saying that his or her opinion is the right one, which is ridiculous in the extreme.
Now, saying which one is more competitive is much more arguable, in that there are objective facts or comparisons to be made. Assuming competitiveness is determined by skill cap and strategic depth, we can contrast the games. It is easier to control units in SC2. This is a fact. SC2 and BW differ in strategies and strategic depth. This is also a fact. But is it less competitive? No one has reached the skill cap yet, and no one is, imo, even approaching it, due to imperfect use of macro mechanics of every race, as well as in-game decision-making, which is further emphasized by the increased damage of SC2. No one has reached the end of the strategic depth yet, which is why there are new strategies every week and shifts in the trends of strategies used. Until both of those are reached, it's impossible to judge competitiveness since no one knows which is harder and which is deeper. Until that happens, anyone making judgements on the games' competitiveness is at best making an educated guess, and at worst talking out of their ass. Since BW has been out for over 10 years and there are STILL shifts in strategies, I think there will be a long wait before we find out the truth.
On September 01 2010 05:07 HalfAmazing wrote: Mechanical difficulty is an integral part of an RTS game, and inherent to its strategic depth. SC II simply can not ever be as deep as BW, because things are so much easier to do.
Mechanical difficulty may have an impact on how competitive a game can be, but it has absolutely nothing to do with strategic depth. Look at Chess.
strategy in BW revolved around mechanical skill. Your strategies would change, and effectiveness of those strategies would change depending on your mechanical skill. Thus strategic depth was a lot more evident in BW, sorry to say bro.
exactly!
i might be able to think like flash, but there is no way in hell that i will be able to execute any of his strats. i can know all timings and builds/counters and etc. but if i cant execute any of that it all equals squat.
IMO the things that made bw so brilliant was being able to watch pros accomplish/execute plays that i know i could never pull off even though i have the same mouse and keyboard that they have.
like the soccer analogy: essentially, it comes down to a bunch of grown ass men running around a filed kicking a ball. but theres so much depth that goes into scoring that makes soccer such an intense, low scoring game- both mechanically and strategically (ie. looking for openings and being able to pursue them)
this, coupled with the unique depth of bw's strategy and plays (use of darkswarm, positioning, mines, lurker strength in early/midgame, etc) and the unpredictably/spectator factor (mines/reaver scarabs/retarded fucking goon ai) made it so entertaining to watch and an instant hit in all our hearts.
sc2 has the strategy (in a different sense.. i know i only picked things that are bw unique but those are the things i miss most lol) but the intensity of having to push forward/attack an opponent and having to f2 back to your base to pump out 10 more tanks/vultures as your current ones pop out just in time from 10 factories spread across two screens AND having to micro and keep an eye on the minimap at all times AND having to keep money low AND over above all of that out think your opponent is so fucking demanding (mentally and physically) - NOTE: i cant do any of this lol... im just a D+ iccup player.. but i awe at those who can
what sc2 is lacking (maybe not zerg so much cause of queens larva and creep spreading) is that intensity of having to choose between controlling your units and production at all times.. this is negated so easily with multi building select and the 1a trap that we can all fall into. having to carefully utilize each hot key group in bw (units/building/cc decisions) was key to success.. the most organized and well planned out layout would have an advantage. here, i can have all my units in 1 hotkey (if i bother, i can use more for special units/casters/different types) but the average player can easily move a 200/200 army across the map in one click. <- this was, and still is, such a fucking impossible thing to do perfectly in bw with the limits of ten hotkey groups (for me atleast im not gosu haha)
its rare to see a bw pro (or anybody over D) not use all his hotkeys groups (1-0). finding that mechanical balance, in a game that already has the strategic balance (that has been built over the last decade) is rare- only the best pros can do it "perfectly".
can you IMAGINE doing this:
while macroing without mbs? that too its goons vs mines lol.
if i had buis's micro here, i would have been so fucking ecstatic if i pulled that off. but then i would look at the top right and see 1.5k min sitting in my bank and be like "oh fuck.. while i was microing... flash pumped out 15 more tanks and im falling behind.. time to go macro.. oh shit.. he has more vultures.." this isnt as much of a problem in sc2 as while im microing, i can just hit 6 to select all my games (or W or whatever) and warp in 10 more goons without having to take my screen of the action.
the little cute micro tricks and things do exist in sc2.. but the huge mechanical demand and the decisions that are put on the gamer- macro vs micro- is (present, but) far far far less than it is in bw.
I don't think anyone who saw Tester vs. Rainbow in the KotB would call that stuff "boring". The mirrors kind of bad, but that's how it works sometimes. Watch game 2 of NaDa vs. TLO, and even TvT is exciting as hell.
Answering the original question: Yes. T being the dominant race that it is in SC2 the game is boring when in all the matches it simply boils down to MMM vs X and if X can pull a win.
In points: > Battles end too quickly. The countering rock-papers-scissors design choice is too effective. > Units clump up too tightly to one another making them indistinguishable during battle. > Spells/Abilities are either gruesome (Conc. Shells/EMP) or are flat out terrible (Infestor). > The sounds of units in battle are also indistinguishable, especially dead/dying units. > Maps are terrible. > T being too dominant a race in every level of play save for the elite top. Their options, openings and strategies are unmatched. > The exclusion of LAN. This is a big blow to me as an avid Blizzard gamer. > Micro. Save for flanking and kitting, there is much less to do with unit micro then there was in BW. > Macro, non existent. >Absence of moving shot (Oh Micro, Where Art Thou?). > Graphically cluttered. I cannot tell how many units I have standing and where they are exactly during battles.
On September 01 2010 05:29 TeWy wrote: Starcraft 2 is boring because Blizzard nerfed to oblivion the most exciting spells of the game (hunter seeker missile, neural parasite) some cool strats and units (Protoss drop -> look at warp-prism cost, buildtime and stat, same for the nydus canal which now takes forever to be build, same for the motership which was once a really impressive unit) while buffing boring strat (Zerg camping : speed increase on creep)...
Starcraft 2 relative boringness at this point can mostly be blamed on Blizzard incompetence, I've faith in Blizzard though, I think that after several failpatch like the one incoming they will end up asking top diamond players what they think could improve the game.
That would be great but shouldn't Blizzard have already done this while SC2 was still in development? Contact a group of pro gamers and top level ICCUP players to play SC2 and scrutinize every detail and critique everything there is to the game play so that they can be sure that it can, at least, be on an even footing with BW. They knew that BW was a behemoth, a legend in the realm of RTS games, and yet they didn't take all the necessary precautions and steps to insure that the same legacy holds true for the sequel. They just wanted to release the game ASAP to impress shareholders with sales figures. One could argue that the beta was implemented to achieve that very same concept. Keep in mind, the beta, although being a closed beta, had thousands and thousands of people playing of which only a small percentage were great players. The voices of these players couldn't and wouldn't be heard over the roar and banter of scrubs. It was an earnest effort but it didn't quite workout as it was suppose to.
Balance and game mechanics can be adjusted after a game is done and released but there are some subtle traits and attributes in a game that cannot be implemented post-release if they aren't discovered before hand during the game's design and purposely implemented. Blizzard aren't expected to be pros at their own games and they aren't. This knowledge would come from professional players and a select group of the community.
The Mothership was such a letdown .
On September 01 2010 05:38 tacrats wrote: Oh well. Once people stop playing sc2 because they start getting bored of the same old, they might start to care a little. Probably when HOTS rolls around they will start to care and make some much needed changes to entice people to buy the expansion. Sadly if its going to take that long ill be moving on to something else way before that.
In the fall/holidays when the new games come out, i can already imagine people ask "sc2? you still play that game?" lol.
Agreed on both accounts. Blizzard won't care unless their sales begin to drop and since the game is still new they are either in denial of the problems that plague the game or just knowingly ignore them. If they wait long enough before they address the issues it may be too late. ATM I think they are banking everything on the expansions to come, they won't bother to update and patch WoL since HotS is only 18 months away. They would make bigger bucks from their team if they'd just redirect their attention to WoW.
On September 01 2010 05:29 TeWy wrote: Starcraft 2 is boring because Blizzard nerfed to oblivion the most exciting spells of the game (hunter seeker missile, neural parasite) some cool strats and units (Protoss drop -> look at warp-prism cost, buildtime and stat, same for the nydus canal which now takes forever to be build, same for the motership which was once a really impressive unit) while buffing boring strat (Zerg camping : speed increase on creep)...
Spells in general are much weaker then they were in BW. Let's compare the spells of one BW unit to it's SC2 counterpart, the Defiler to the Infestor. Defilers have Dark Swarm, Plague and Consume. Infestors have Fungal Growth, Infested Terran and Neural Parasite.
DS nullified ranged attacks and so T find themselves at a huge disadvantage when the Defiler enters the arena. Plague inflicts 295 damage to any unit or structure caught in it's radius, this thwarts any late game mass of tier three units and can wreck havoc against T buildings. Consume quickly recharges the Defilers energy to keep him chugging along in the battle. Fungal growth is suppose to fill the void left by DS and yet it falls short, the damage is mundane and doesn't turn the tide around in a TvZ confrontation, it's main use is to hold the T blob in place so that Banelings can come crashing into them. This is diffused by the fact that units caught in the FG can still fire at the incoming Banelings requiring the Z to gather a significant Baneling force and wager on the chance of his Banelings outrunning the firepower from the T's blob. This is further aggravated by the map design in SC2, maps are smaller and full of small pathways and obstacles that make flanking for the Z very difficult. This, of course, favors T play. Infested Terran is a waste. The unit is slow, clunky and doesn't impact battles the way that it's suppose to. As T or P, or even Z, would you really care if your opponent throws down a few Infested Terran during a confrontation? I would be indifferent. Neural Parasite, a spell with potential that, for some reason, had to be nerfed to the point that it too is a waste. 12 Seconds doesn't cut it, the spell takes a while to cast and does little to turn the tide of a battle.
On September 01 2010 03:03 Spawkuring wrote: It is absolutely fun to watch, but I also agree that it's not up to BW's level yet.
My problems: - Poor sound design: .. - Not enough impressive micro: .. - Not as visually exciting: .. - Bnet 2.0 Sucks: ..
- Maps are too small: ..
Fix all these and we might have a worthy successor to BW yet.
Good post, all of your points are excellent. I edited the post to save space, for those interested the original post is on page 26.
@All the people saying "wait for the expansions", didn't Blizzard say that the expansions were to be strictly single player and no multiplayer changes would be added that would not be added to the stock game for free through patches? I seem to recall that was their initial statement, but I guess I could have missed an update.
I think almost every single person here who is "Bored" with SC2 has one of a few major issues here:
1) You're comparing a Vanilla Title against a well-fleshed out expansion for a game that was previously a relatively new concept. BroodWar is an expansion, Compare SC1 to SC2, not SC:BW to SC2. Even if you think "SC2 should be better than BW, wtf is this guy smoking?" the fact is that maybe Blizzard didn't share your opinion that SC2 should be a BW Clone with prettier graphics. Maybe they have alternate ideas that your unbelievably god-like psychic powers could't detect.
2) The original Starcraft + Expansion was around for *Twelve Years*. Starcraft 2 has been in retail for *2 Months*. 12 Years is a lot longer for people to learn a game inside and out. Expecting people to be 100% Pro at the game after its just been released is retarded. Nobody was a BW "Pro" two months after the XPac was released, and the progamers made just as many boneheaded mistakes as they do now with a new release.
3) The game isnt finished yet. We're all aware of this. Bugs need fixed, Maps need tweaking, Bnet 2.0 has serious issues, Balance Changes are required, all of these basic mechanical changes need to be looked at and altered over the course of *YEARS* to reach the level of SC:BW. Expecting anything less is just stupid and you're letting yourselves down.
Edit: For anyone saying "SC2 is liek, zomg, so fuckin easy compared to BW" ... Where the hell are your pro-league earnings ? Lets see the Trophies and Checks folks, because honestly you arn't fooling anyone with your bullshit. If you're not winning top level events playing against the best the game has to offer, it ain't "easy".
EPT
im not gosu haha)
. 
