|
On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"?
EDIT: Apparently, it was not clear enough that those are not my opinions on the matter, rather, quotes taken from a note-board outside of one of my classes
True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect.
Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you.
|
On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect.
lol
User was warned for this post
|
On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you.
In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation.
However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that.
|
On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that.
Indeed, people can and have been banned before - back when the beta was out and these threads were first getting off the ground (but very abortively, since the game wasn't out yet, and the reason for manhini's cautions against derailing the thread) - for making astoundingly idiotic arguments such as framing SC1 versus SC2 discussion in terms of "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy." It ranks right up there with the Dune RTS argument and the having-AI-build-shit-for-you argument in terms of Stupid Stuff That Got People Banned.
|
On April 16 2011 18:31 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. Indeed, people can and have been banned before - back when the beta was out - for making astoundingly idiotic arguments such as framing SC1 versus SC2 discussion in terms of "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy." It ranks right up there with the Dune RTS argument and the having-AI-build-shit-for-you argument in terms of Stupid Stuff That Got People Banned.
Well, I'm glad I didn't frame the discussion as "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy". It's a hell of a lot more subtle than that -- BW has both, for one, whereas SC2 just has the latter.
You seem pretty upset there, but don't choke, man!
|
infestors can be used to slow down a terran push but I see what you are saying
for terran I think the biggest problem is the marauder and the removal of vultures, the marauder makes the entire terran army so uninteresting to me and I don't know how to fix it
for protoss I think they've had a lot of improvement from BW, stalkers are very micro friendly even though they still suffer from the "1ctrl group ball syndrome", I think the biggest problem for protoss is the mothership.
for zerg,obviously we all know the lurker is missing but other than that I like sc2 zerg, I don't like the recent change of fungal growth from an immobilizing spell to another DPS-spell (essentially psi storm for zerg atm)
|
On April 16 2011 18:02 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 17:59 zawk9 wrote:On April 16 2011 17:36 TheRealPaciFist wrote:
"Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra?"
Could you go more in depth for each of these comparisons, and put it in the OP? (It may have been discussed before but I haven't read the entire thread). It would be nice for those who barely played Broodwar, like me.
I've already read a lot about colossus vs reaver, and I don't think baneling vs lurker is a justified comparison because they're so different (unless banelings were intended to replace the role of lurkers, but either way, lurkers were discussed a lot already), but the rest seem interesting. What made the wraith, golaith, corsair, dragoon, and old versions of muta and hydra so much better? Here's one example. I really can't see the difference between that and the muta micro July had against Nada on Metalopolis in the GSL.
Look at those videos:
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJVait72LOU (from 9:20 onwards) (Mutas vs. Archons from 10:10 onwards)
Mutas in both SC2 and BW decelerate/stop before they attack, and then they have to accelerate, which makes them very vulnerable. The difference between SC2 Mutas and BW Mutas, however, is that in case of the latter, you can overcome that with proper micro - you can use various micro techniques I've mentioned to keep your Mutas from coming to a halt. There are different techniques being employed depending on what units you're fighting against (Scourge, Valkyries, other Mutas/Wraiths, Marines or Turrets/Cannons).
Because of this (and the fact that you can stack Mutas in BW, and thanks to this distribute the damage dealt to them roughly evenly) top BW players try to constantly move their Mutas so that they do not decelerate and become vulnerable, while they're picking off stray units, attacking buildings, all while macroing their bases.
In other words, Muta micro in BW has a much higher skill ceiling and has more depth to it (more techniques, more potential uses/can be way more cost-effective than SC2 Muta micro, but at the same time requires much more skill and attention). SC2 players do not micro their Mutas as meticulously because they are not as effective and do not require as much attention and precision to be fully effective.
|
On April 16 2011 18:29 Falcor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. lol
On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that.
I just want to point out, for the record, that those are not my opinions, rather, the opinions that circulate amongst many people in the US. Which apparently was not clear. Those are quotes taken from a "Treat the Japan issue with respect" billboard that is outside of one of my classes.
Also, I want to say that in my PM I said "Your opinions are not really opinions, they are just sort of.. misinformed.." in respect to your rather ridiculous and stale "It's about hand spasms versus strategic thinking." argument.
I also stated "none of these posts are really ban-worthy" but just to be more careful when you start saying things like
Hahaha. For a banhammer mod, you sure are flippant. I guess that's how this site works.
...
Honestly, how can you claim that wraiths are more interactive than viking/banshee? It's just an odd thing to say. Your true emotional colours come out: you just prefer BW and you're trying to believe that you feelings run deeper than nostalgia.
|
On April 16 2011 18:44 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:29 Falcor wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. lol Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. I just want to point out, for the record, that those are not my opinions, rather, the opinions that circulate amongst many people in the US. Which apparently was not clear. Those are quotes taken from a "Treat the Japan issue with respect" billboard that is outside of one of my classes.
The reason it's absurd is because we are talking about a video game. I hope that this is clear to you.
Also, I want to say that in my PM I said "Your opinions are not really opinions, they are just sort of.. misinformed.." in respect to your rather ridiculous and stale "It's about hand spasms versus strategic thinking." argument.
And they're not misinformed at all, and my argument is not "hand spams versus strategic thinking". It's that hand spasms are what make wraiths "interactive".
|
Didn't we write quite a few articles on this during the beta?
|
I try to avoid threads like these but I'm kind of bored. So here goes nothing.
Briefly, OP posts relate game design to two issues, not one. The first few points (positional advantage, the idea of set-up time) deal with game design being shallow for players, creating a system that is strategically and tactically shallow. The last few points (player-unit interaction) seem much more focused on how game design relates to spectators. I will address the last points first.
Any discussion on spectator preferences cannot be broadened, as the OP has attempted to do, into any sort of meaningful discourse. To put it simply, the OP most likely does not speak for a majority of people and thus, does not have any hard evidence to support the idea that game design is critically faulty in regards to spectator interest and excitement. In other words, this is too opinion-based to warrant any additional discussion.
Case in point is the OP's complete and utter neglect for another type of viewer excitement. While the OP repeatedly mentions how 'difficulty in execution of a given action in BW' translates directly with spectator enjoyment and excitement, the OP fails to consider other areas in which a viewer can divine enjoyment. Timmy, for example, sucks at SC2 but enjoys watching things that players can do not because he perhaps cannot do that, but because he simply finds it cool. The OP's false corollary that enjoyment of any game must directly relate to the viewer's understanding of the game suggest an elitist viewpoint that precludes meaningful discourse.
In other words, people can enjoy SC2 for reasons outside of how the OP would wish to enjoy SC2. It doesn't mean there's a 'problem;' it only means that the OP's preferences aren't met. There is no deeper level than that in this analysis.
I will now address the OP's opinions on game design as it relates to players and the overall idea that SC2's current game design is inherently shallow. Implicit in the OP's logic is the comparison to BW; despite making claims to the contrary (and while I, for the record, believe he is trying very hard not to compare the two but failing pretty plainly at it), and thus I will have to respond by comparing the two.
1) The Idea of Set-up Time not existing is a false statement. Set-up time itself is an inaccurate term because the OP presents it as not simply the actions performed before an engagement, but specifies the additional statement that set-up time must be more than simple min-max of surface area to increase DPS. However, this argument can be addressed one of two ways; 1) there is more than simple min-maxing of surface area in SC2 'set-up time,' and 2) BW set-up time implicitly is only the min-maxing of surface area. I'll go with #2 because it is more aggressive.
The idea that BW set-up time does not min-max surface area is really a fallacy. Positional advantage is solely built on the idea that by controlling territory, I increase my ability to maximize surface area for my units while diminishing m opponent in the same way (implicit in this statement is that surface area = DPS, which no one can argue). To state that there is a greater goal to BW set-up time is akin to saying that a siege tank's ultimate purpose is somehow beyond that of killing things. In other words, SC set-up, whether it is SC, BW, or SC2, is about maximizing and minimizing surface area alone because min-maxing DPS is the only way to win. There is no other win condition in SC. To claim that set-up time is 'beyond' the min-maxing of surface area (the OP attempts to use lurkers and siege tanks as examples) is just blatantly false.
Take for example, the vaulted lurker. Properly set-up lurkers are about ... minimizing opponent surface area to reduce their DPS. Now please explain to me in simple terms how this is anything 'above' min-maxing surface area. Using broad concepts like 'positioning' does not change the fact that positioning a lurker is simply to maximize a lurker's DPS by maximizing attacking surface area and decrease an opponent's units' DPS by minimizing their surface area where they can safely attack. Therefore, the OP's idea of set-up time does not differentiate any strategic depth between BW and SC2, because set-up time serves the same identical role in both games.
2) The idea of game flow not being present in SC2 as implied in the OP's post is false. It simply is. The OP attempts in later posts to clarify it as 'control over game flow,' but this fundamentally has nothing to do with game design. Control over a competitive real time game is not dictated by the rules of the game (which only give restrictions to how players can interact), but ultimately by how players interact with each other in the context of those rules. The OP is injected a personal preference for seeing one particular form of interaction and stating essentially that this is due to game design, and not rules.
To clarify, take the game of tennis. The OP's argument regarding game flow is analogous to the argument that the use of rackets prohibits players from controlling the game as effectively as if there are no rackets and both players used their hands. However, this has everything to do with the OP's preferences, nothing to do with how the players interact with each other, and how that all is perceived by an audience. While I would agree that if both players could use their hands, there would be more interaction, my interest in tennis is seeing what they can do with the rackets.
In a sense, OP's game flow argument is hypocritical compared to the OP's stance later on that mechanics influence the amount of enjoyment a player a gets from viewing the game. In other words, the OP derives enjoyment from the game in a specific way, but this opinion does not necessarily translate to others- nor should it. There is no further discussion here that can be continued beyond 'I like seeing them play with rackets' and 'I like seeing them play without rackets.' In short, the game flow argument does not have logical coherence to it, and fails to demonstrate any real different in strategy/tactics because the OP does not address player-player interactions as the base of controlling game flow. There is no way the OP can claim, somehow, that the interaction between two players in SC2 is more restricted in terms of actions than in SC1, particularly given how the player ceiling in SC2 is not yet defined and/or set.
3) The OP claims, or tries to imply, that map control does not exist in SC2 or is somehow less important. To be blunt, I just don't get it. How is map control any less important? What do you think Xel'Naga watch towers are? -_-;; They are a way to maintain indirect map control by giving you the ability to view your opponent's movements and respond accordingly; you can then control the flow of the game through army movements, drops, etc, etc etc. I'll just admit bluntly that I don't understand what the OP is trying to say about map control here.
tl;dr The OP's viewpoints are based solely on personal preference, and contain no real logical rigor. Central to this fact is that the OP's understanding of what makes a 'good game' (not even what makes BW a good game) is tied to his understanding and evaluation of SC2. The OP fails to consider, among other things, what other factors would make SC2 enjoyable to play and enjoyable to watch among a broad player base and therefore attempts to address game design from a very narrow perspective- namely, his own. This precludes meaningful discussion. It is my conclusion that therefore, the OP does not really have an argument and is simply trying to exposit on his own views in a way that seems logically sound. While that's all fine and dandy, there's simply not reason to frame it the way the OP has done- as though a meaningful discussion can result from such a thread.
Btw, I love lurkers. They look so cool.... >_>
|
i think we can all agree that SC2 was created for the masses, just like wc3. it was polished to make the game more "friendly" to new users. their goal was to sell the game, not please the minority of enthusiasts. see toyota and honda these days, they're both focusing on EV for market share. its just business. we'll have to work with what we got.
as an old bw player, i was literally mind blown as i watch perfect storms and lurker burrows, lockdowns, etc. maybe its because i've been spoiled of great plays but even until now, i've never been impressed like i was with bw micro as with sc2, stuff like storm, FF, etc. because those level of micro is something myself, diamond+, especially master players can do. only thing i've been impressed by is MKP's marine micro, its like watching hydra dodge storms or goons/tanks/hydra killing mines without observer, but more. actually, i'd say i've been impressed by unit micro in sc2 but never for any spell usage, because of its difficulties. compare that to a common zerg unit usage in bw: lurker burrows and defiler usage was one of the hardest thing for me to do and watching someone like jaedong do it perfectly is impressive.
micro is only one aspect of the game i'd like to add, perfect micro by itself does not result in victory.
i think blizzard did the best they can with this game with the limited knowledge they had through testing and bw understanding. some say, give it time and it'll be better. what i think is that as time goes by, we'll realize the unit combinations that were given aren't as good as it can be for the overall quality of the game. i just hope that the game will be revamped through expansion(s) to correct the game's synergy with new knowledge and understanding gained through experience of today's sc2 players.
|
On April 16 2011 18:37 Jameser wrote:
for zerg,obviously we all know the lurker is missing but other than that I like sc2 zerg, I don't like the recent change of fungal growth from an immobilizing spell to another DPS-spell (essentially psi storm for zerg atm)
idk im really torn about zerg atm. I started as terran the first month of beta then moved to zerg. But im really confused about what they were thinking when they designed zerg. Other then making zergs macro mechanic harder while making the other 2 races macro mechanics got made easier(but thast not what this thread is about).
Zerg just feels soo fragile 1 false move and your done because theres no way of delaying the enemy to recover. And everything dies so much faster that macroing at the wrong second can litterally cost you the game(especially zvz with banelings involved)
And some people are saying that banelings work as lurkers use to. But not really no matter what lurkers would delay the enemy from advancing. Either they would run into them and have to pull back. Or they would scan them and you unburrow and move and then repeat the last 2 steps.
Banelings they either kill their whole army that walks over them(pretty much) or they scan them and it delays them a couple seconds and they keep moving.
And the rest of the matchups i really dont watch anymore because i find them less interesting to watch..unless i can actively learn something. Because by looking at the balls you can generally tell whos going to win before the battle happens, unless like the op was saying and someone completely screws up their surface area.
|
On April 16 2011 18:34 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:31 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. Indeed, people can and have been banned before - back when the beta was out - for making astoundingly idiotic arguments such as framing SC1 versus SC2 discussion in terms of "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy." It ranks right up there with the Dune RTS argument and the having-AI-build-shit-for-you argument in terms of Stupid Stuff That Got People Banned. Well, I'm glad I didn't frame the discussion as "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy". It's a hell of a lot more subtle than that -- BW has both, for one, whereas SC2 just has the latter. You seem pretty upset there, but don't choke, man!
Did you not read the OP?
The "intense spam micro" is addressed in the following
Mechanics were more than a skill gap.
+ Show Spoiler +
Having a mechanics requirement was what made things in BW impressive. Saying an RTS player only wins because he's faster is like saying a boxer only wins because he's stronger and not a better fighter. It's just stupid.
The high mechanical requirement enabled extremely skilled players to use their units in ways no one ever could. It made large engagements an event in itself because of how difficult it is to maintain your composure when you are controlling 200/200 armies with a 12 unit limit. Huge army fights were a means to and end, and not and end within themselves. The final battle wasn't a formality to end the game that you knew ended minutes ago, it was a direct contest between players. It was the moment when both players go, "I don't care how big your army is, I have mine and I'm going to kill you with it". Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
The sweet irony is that, if multiple unit selection was implemented in BW, battles would still be more interesting and impressive than SC2 battles simply because of unit dynamics. You can't just 1a BW units and have then attack at full effectiveness.
I believe the fact that sc2 lacks one of two key factors that made BW great is why we, as a community, are annoyed that Blizzard created a more primitive, less competitive sequel.
On April 16 2011 18:47 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:44 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:29 Falcor wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. lol On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. I just want to point out, for the record, that those are not my opinions, rather, the opinions that circulate amongst many people in the US. Which apparently was not clear. Those are quotes taken from a "Treat the Japan issue with respect" billboard that is outside of one of my classes. The reason it's absurd is because we are talking about a video game. I hope that this is clear to you.
It is very clear to me. That's why I noted "True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong."
I only included that so I wouldn't have to deal with the inevitable "Bro it's just my opinion, chill out/People can have different opinions LOL umad/SC2>BWimoimoimo" that I have seen far too many times
|
On April 16 2011 18:34 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:31 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. Indeed, people can and have been banned before - back when the beta was out - for making astoundingly idiotic arguments such as framing SC1 versus SC2 discussion in terms of "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy." It ranks right up there with the Dune RTS argument and the having-AI-build-shit-for-you argument in terms of Stupid Stuff That Got People Banned. U MAD
Nope.
|
More importantly, does the number of people defending the awesomeness of SC2 not say something about how SC2 is a great game to watch and play? That, indeed, nothing in particular is missing at all?
What is the target audience for this thread?
|
On April 16 2011 18:51 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:34 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:31 EmeraldSparks wrote:On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. Indeed, people can and have been banned before - back when the beta was out - for making astoundingly idiotic arguments such as framing SC1 versus SC2 discussion in terms of "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy." It ranks right up there with the Dune RTS argument and the having-AI-build-shit-for-you argument in terms of Stupid Stuff That Got People Banned. Well, I'm glad I didn't frame the discussion as "intense spam micro" versus "deep strategy". It's a hell of a lot more subtle than that -- BW has both, for one, whereas SC2 just has the latter. You seem pretty upset there, but don't choke, man! Did you not read the OP? The "intense spam micro" is addressed in the following Mechanics were more than a skill gap.+ Show Spoiler +
Having a mechanics requirement was what made things in BW impressive. Saying an RTS player only wins because he's faster is like saying a boxer only wins because he's stronger and not a better fighter. It's just stupid.
The high mechanical requirement enabled extremely skilled players to use their units in ways no one ever could. It made large engagements an event in itself because of how difficult it is to maintain your composure when you are controlling 200/200 armies with a 12 unit limit. Huge army fights were a means to and end, and not and end within themselves. The final battle wasn't a formality to end the game that you knew ended minutes ago, it was a direct contest between players. It was the moment when both players go, "I don't care how big your army is, I have mine and I'm going to kill you with it". Have you noticed that during SC2 battle commentators can't say anything other than, "SO MUCH STUFF IS DYING!!", it's because there's nothing for players to do during fights other than pull back damaged units. There's no clutch psi storms, elegant spine dodging, ruthless zealot bombing, flyby reavers, or gross surrounds. It's a variation of 1a vs another variation of 1a.
The sweet irony is that, if multiple unit selection was implemented in BW, battles would still be more interesting and impressive than SC2 battles simply because of unit dynamics. You can't just 1a BW units and have then attack at full effectiveness.
I believe the fact that sc2 lacks one of two key factors that made BW great is why we, as a community, are annoyed that Blizzard created a more primitive, less competitive sequel. Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 18:47 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:44 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:29 Falcor wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. lol On April 16 2011 18:30 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 18:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 16 2011 18:08 suejak wrote:
Well, in response to the guy who was going to respond to my post with "insult-laden rage," I think it's interesting that believing SC2 units and dynamics to be more interesting, in some respects, than BW units and dynamics, is something that would... make you mad. lol.
Is it? If your user location is correct and you're from Japan, aren't you angry when you read about how the recent nuclear issues are "payback for pearl harbor"? How it's ironic that "we nuked the japs in WWII and now they are nuking themselves"? True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong. Your entire argument of "Strategic weight vs hand-spam control" is something that was explained to be incorrect so much, so in depth, so many times, that I'm frustrated at your ignorance and lack of respect. Also, not really relevant, but I want to point out that your "favorite player" Huk probably(read:most likely) disagrees with you. In light of your PM, which told me that I will be banned if I keep sharing my opinions, I will now decide to gracefully exit this conversation. However, I would like to say that your first paragraph there is hilarious in its offensive awfulness. It is really and genuinely astounding that you could be so strange. Good luck with that. I just want to point out, for the record, that those are not my opinions, rather, the opinions that circulate amongst many people in the US. Which apparently was not clear. Those are quotes taken from a "Treat the Japan issue with respect" billboard that is outside of one of my classes. The reason it's absurd is because we are talking about a video game. I hope that this is clear to you. It is very clear to me. That's why I noted "True, it's not a good comparison, but it highlights the fact that opinions can very easily be wrong." I only included that so I wouldn't have to deal with the inevitable "Bro it's just my opinion, chill out/People can have different opinions LOL umad/SC2>BWimoimoimo" that I have seen far too many times
Well, your "offensive" Japan quotes aren't offensive because they're wrong; they're offensive because they're hateful...
|
To the post above, The fact that it was hateful is rather irrelevant, as I was merely pointing out that opinions can be wrong. I should not have used the recent crisis in Japan as an example, rather something to the extent of "Object A has more mass than Object B".
EDIT: er, I have too many tabs open, that was a double post
|
On April 16 2011 18:51 Xenocide_Knight wrote:
I believe the fact that sc2 lacks one of two key factors that made BW great is why we, as a community, are annoyed that Blizzard created a more primitive, less competitive sequel.
How can you say "we as a community" when there's no real agreement on what is good and bad. The community is not in sync and far from a majority are expressing the things you feel. Doesn't do you any good trying to win a argument by trying to convince people that your opinions are shared by the masses.
|
Makes me so sad to read this Hope after some time sc2 will evolve some more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
