|
On April 16 2011 19:35 Angra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:22 suejak wrote:On April 16 2011 19:15 Angra wrote:On April 16 2011 19:09 Tyree wrote:
And yet if SC2 truly is "lacking" how come it has taken eSports by storm? Extreme hype, and a multi-million dollar company pushing it significantly in the direction they want it to go. It's obviously not an awful game, which is why those 2 things have kept it so popular after its initial release. But there's still so much lacking. Hahahahah, wow. Ya, it's all the hype and cash. Good lord, you people. No, it's a great game. I have NEVER been into esports before, and I am definitely not the first to be sucked in by SC2. Here's hoping they make it even better in the years to come. That might be your problem then, since you've never been into esports before SC2 is the only standard you have to go on. The only thing I can compare it to is.. think of any extremely popular movies, tv shows, or musical artists. There's absolutely no way that you can say that 100% of them are so popular because of how good they are.
I've been interested in e-sports for 10 years and i believe that SC2 is by far the most entertaining game to watch. I've watched loads of Quake, CS, WoW, BW and WC3 and i still think SC2 is alot more interesting and has alot more potential for both casual and "hardcore" viewers.
Trying to disregard how a huge amount of people like SC2 for what is it doesn't help the game evolve. Keep a open mind, dude.
|
I have 10 times more fun playing SC2 than BW and 10 times more fun watching BW than SC2
|
On April 16 2011 19:39 qwaykee wrote:
I have 10 times more fun playing SC2 than BW and 10 times more fun watching BW than SC2
haha i have to agree with this. i've been spoiled by sc2, its hard to play back on bw ^_^
|
On April 16 2011 19:22 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:15 Angra wrote:On April 16 2011 19:09 Tyree wrote:
And yet if SC2 truly is "lacking" how come it has taken eSports by storm? Extreme hype, and a multi-million dollar company pushing it significantly in the direction they want it to go. It's obviously not an awful game, which is why those 2 things have kept it so popular after its initial release. But there's still so much lacking. Hahahahah, wow. Ya, it's all the hype and cash. Good lord, you people. No, it's a great game. I have NEVER been into esports before, and I am definitely not the first to be sucked in by SC2. Here's hoping they make it even better in the years to come.
Yeah, that was quite offensive to someone who has been genuinely engrossed since beta, and of course can you imagine practically all the prominent foreign bw players switching over because of hype?
|
On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
When I hear BW fans talking about an "x-factor" that is missing from sc2 which bw had, I cant help but usually think they mean "nostalgia", I never notice anything missing until threads like these show up and im reminded that sc2 and BW are infact, different games. Personally I enjoy sc2 vastly and I find it entertaining to watch, its also clear to me that it is evolving, and people that say its volatile, I dont see where you get this from, show me a bo5 or bo7 MC vs anyone, and im not going to have any reservations picking the winner. I think the OP did raise some interesting points about a couple of issues with sc2 though,
1. is the ability of units to control space (he didnt mention sentrys though !)
and 2. is the tendency of ball vs ball may the better ball win, games, they are somewhat common, at the same time they are becoming less common.
How can you say it's nostalgia when BW games are being broadcasted nearly everyday? If BW was long gone, you might've had a point, but seeing as it's still alive and kicking, your claim is completely baseless.
|
|
|
|
|
On April 16 2011 19:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
When I hear BW fans talking about an "x-factor" that is missing from sc2 which bw had, I cant help but usually think they mean "nostalgia", I never notice anything missing until threads like these show up and im reminded that sc2 and BW are infact, different games. Personally I enjoy sc2 vastly and I find it entertaining to watch, its also clear to me that it is evolving, and people that say its volatile, I dont see where you get this from, show me a bo5 or bo7 MC vs anyone, and im not going to have any reservations picking the winner. I think the OP did raise some interesting points about a couple of issues with sc2 though,
1. is the ability of units to control space (he didnt mention sentrys though !)
and 2. is the tendency of ball vs ball may the better ball win, games, they are somewhat common, at the same time they are becoming less common. How can you say it's nostalgia when BW games are being broadcasted nearly everyday? If BW was long gone, you might've had a point, but seeing as it's still alive and kicking, your claim is completely baseless.
Yet BW came out when most of us were young and impressionable. I for one will always think Zelda A Link to the Past is the best game ever, more or less regardless of how good the N64/GC/Wii versions play. Things that we love as kids stay with us, it's just how we work.
I'm not saying that's the whole story but it IS a factor. You always compare new games to your favorites growing up.
|
Agreed with OP.
Keep in mind though there are two expansions ahead, so I wouldn't be surprised if heavy hitting spells or units will arrive(Lurkers arrived in BW), or powerful unit micro possibilities will arise(It took a while for Reaver+Shuttle micro to catch on)
|
|
|
On April 16 2011 19:43 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
When I hear BW fans talking about an "x-factor" that is missing from sc2 which bw had, I cant help but usually think they mean "nostalgia", I never notice anything missing until threads like these show up and im reminded that sc2 and BW are infact, different games. Personally I enjoy sc2 vastly and I find it entertaining to watch, its also clear to me that it is evolving, and people that say its volatile, I dont see where you get this from, show me a bo5 or bo7 MC vs anyone, and im not going to have any reservations picking the winner. I think the OP did raise some interesting points about a couple of issues with sc2 though,
1. is the ability of units to control space (he didnt mention sentrys though !)
and 2. is the tendency of ball vs ball may the better ball win, games, they are somewhat common, at the same time they are becoming less common. How can you say it's nostalgia when BW games are being broadcasted nearly everyday? If BW was long gone, you might've had a point, but seeing as it's still alive and kicking, your claim is completely baseless.
Because a long time broodwar lover is always going to be biased towards broodwar, maybe not nostalgia then, but bias based around something youve loved for so long, and because of this you just cant accept the new thing (ESPECIALLY given that sc2 is the direct descendant, and possible replacement, of BW).
|
On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
When I hear BW fans talking about an "x-factor" that is missing from sc2 which bw had, I cant help but usually think they mean "nostalgia", I never notice anything missing until threads like these show up and im reminded that sc2 and BW are infact, different games. Personally I enjoy sc2 vastly and I find it entertaining to watch, its also clear to me that it is evolving, and people that say its volatile, I dont see where you get this from, show me a bo5 or bo7 MC vs anyone, and im not going to have any reservations picking the winner. I think the OP did raise some interesting points about a couple of issues with sc2 though,
1. is the ability of units to control space (he didnt mention sentrys though !)
and 2. is the tendency of ball vs ball may the better ball win, games, they are somewhat common, at the same time they are becoming less common.
the definition of "space" is pretty different when you're talking about sentries controlling space with forcefield and controlling space in a map with units in BW. It's not like u have 2 sentries spaced out throughout the map to prevent movement... space control in BW was like a solid invisible wall you don't cross unless you plan to break that wall.
|
On April 16 2011 19:44 3xiLe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
It sounds like you havent played much BW. I know lots of beginners which have seen videos of BW and have implied that BW had that x-factor SC2 didnt.W hen you consider forcefields are space controlling, which you are right, but the purpose is for battle. If you take for example spider mines (or as incontrol would say "burrowed nukes") they controlled space, FOR MAP CONTROL, and not for battle. This is the key difference. forcefields encourage ball vs ball in this sense because of it.
I haven't played BW since about 2000. I watch BW a lot -- I like it a lot. But I don't really feel like SC2 is missing anything. Make of that what you will.
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
On April 16 2011 19:22 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:15 Angra wrote:On April 16 2011 19:09 Tyree wrote:
And yet if SC2 truly is "lacking" how come it has taken eSports by storm? Extreme hype, and a multi-million dollar company pushing it significantly in the direction they want it to go. It's obviously not an awful game, which is why those 2 things have kept it so popular after its initial release. But there's still so much lacking. Hahahahah, wow. Ya, it's all the hype and cash. Good lord, you people. No, it's a great game. I have NEVER been into esports before, and I am definitely not the first to be sucked in by SC2. Here's hoping they make it even better in the years to come.
i'm not quite sure his post warrants such a sarcastic reply. you're the one that said people are just stating their opinions, no? are the things he said not true? he even says the game "obviously [isn't] an awful game", he's more on your "side" than not.
as for my view on all this, i agree with the OP totally. i think sc2 is a good game by any standard - you'd need some pretty damned compelling arguments to disagree. what kills me though is seeing sc2's potential to be an AMAZING game. sc2 is incredibly popular now, and it was based off of brood war. obviously many of elements of the sc franchise have strong appeal to newcomers. brood war players and fans know that there can be more though, stuff that people unfamiliar with a large-scale RTS may not know about but will come to love if it is introduced.
it is improbable that every single one of us is a bitter, biased, and butthurt idiot with no ability to gauge what makes games fun - please do mull over some of the things being said, even if you think they sound ridiculous and sc2 is perfect as it is. i can't wait for the expansions - sc2's problems to me feel like the original starcraft's when compared to its expansion.
edit: the post below mine is really good too. bw players may also be leaping to judgments too quickly. basically everyone should just be more openminded =P
|
At some point someone will start microing his units so they don't clump up in a battle and everyone's mind will be blown.
What's missing from SC2 is skill and the solution to this time time. People are getting this defeatest attitude that making the game easy to play competently makes it impossible to play better than other people.
Hell, look at Brood War. Sure, it's amazing etc. at pro levels. At low levels? It's fucking awful! Who'd want to watch a game between two D- players on ICCUP? It would have all of the same problems OP is complaining about SC2 having, it wouldn't be fun to play, and Protoss would be imba to boot.
People aren't good at the game yet. Not even MC or Jinro. We're seeing improvement, certainly. People no longer get excited just because someone took a third. We're seeing styles of play that are very exciting to watch (Compare San's PvZ versus Anypro's. They both do about as well, but isn't San much more fun to watch? And incidentally less likely to be wrecked by the inbound colo nerf?)
Look at Losira, and how he keeps map control. He doesn't have a big "fuck you" lurker to put on a ramp, he does a ton of ling backstabs and counter-attacls whenever his opponent moves out (and manages to get quite a bit of scouting in the meanwhile). Look at Spanishiwa, whose re-writing all the rules of Zerg and having quite a bit of success. Has he revolutionized Zerg, or is he just a flash-in-the-pan that'll get solved to my eternal sorrow? Doesn't really matter; he's proved that certain assumptions of Zerg, and by extension the game as a whole, need to be re-evaluated.
What if Mass Infestor becomes more viable, and people dump their massive amounts of excess minerals into some zerglings for backstabs and a shit-load of spine crawlers? 20 Spines and some spores can "control space" pretty well, and cost 0 supply. Is that ludicrous? Of course it is! And it'll remain ludicrous until it's brilliant.
Right now, TvT is generally considered the best SC2 matchup, and I've heard people say it's even superior to the BW counterpart because it's easier to break a stalemate. TvZ is considered pretty good. Most of the "bad" matchups involve P (or ZvZ, which is constantly in flux).
The source of people's whining about P is the Colossus. It's also, incidentally, the source of a lot of OP's complaints. It's big, it's slow, and it's too powerful. Luckily, it's going to be nerfed. Blizzard has explicitly said it was OP. The reason it hasn't been nerfed yet was because you were supposed to deal with the deathball by attacking where it wasn't, and where-ever it wasn't, the Protoss could dial-a-storm your harassment and kill you. They wanted to allow people to harass around the deathball before they could determine exactly how OP Colossus was and how to fix it.
So let's break down OP's complaints by matchup.
TvT: Mostly don't comply, as OP himself has said
TvZ: Terran still has the siege tank, and the Thor is great at controlling space against Mutas. Zerg lacks direct ways of controlling the game, but can control space softly with the threat of counter-attacks(and, frankly, that's they way Zerg should work, fluff-wise). Terrans can enter Zerg space, but have to do some extremely slowly and carefully, lest they get caught mid-seige or fungaled or flanked. That Terrans are currently pretty good at this doesn't make it less true. Terrans "break" Zerg contains by setting up enough defense to hopefully withstand the counter-harassment.
TvP: TvP is amazing as long as Colossi don't get involved.
http://www.gomtv.net/2011gstl1/vod/60831
(GSTL Feb, Squirtle vs MVP. Note how it's FE vs FE, and Tastosis are shocked and amazed at what's not really that amazing anymore. The game's been improving!)
Luckily, the Collossi is getting nerfed. Terran's have their seige units. Controlling space is their domain. But DTs are pretty good for getting map control, as can be seen in this game and others.
ZvZ: With the infestor change, I don't think this matchup is really stable right now. Ask me again in a few weeks.
ZvP: This is the matchup the complaints are most accurate towards, and I won't even argue that your arguments are true to the state of the game RIGHT NOW. While I believe Zerg revolutions (and Protoss and Terran revolutions) will come, this matchup will probably remain bad until the Colossus gets nerfed. I will say this, though: Zerg's have needed to improve their ZvP a lot, and they'll still be good at it after it's patched.
PvP: The least popular match-up. 4-gates, ugh! The good news is that defensive 4-gate beats offensive 4-gate. So, among players of equal skill, the proper move is to build 4 warpgates, and have them be shiny while you tech up, and then we can actually start playing the matchup.
|
|
|
Truth be told I blame Dustin Bower for this. Yes, he's a good game designer, but none of the games he made can truly compete with Starcraft 2. The Kirov paled compared to the Carrie, the GI was a stationary unit lacking the flare and excitement of the marine and neither the Apocalypse tank, nor the Prism could hold a candle to the Reaver. We can see this clearly in the Colossus and the Marauder, units that move and shoot.
That being said the new Protoss, Zerg and Terran macro mechanics are great, if he can bring that brilliance to the unit design in the future exp. than I believe we could have the sequel BW deserves.
|
On April 16 2011 19:44 3xiLe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:39 HuHEN wrote:
When I hear BW fans talking about an "x-factor" that is missing from sc2 which bw had, I cant help but usually think they mean "nostalgia", I never notice anything missing until threads like these show up and im reminded that sc2 and BW are infact, different games. Personally I enjoy sc2 vastly and I find it entertaining to watch, its also clear to me that it is evolving, and people that say its volatile, I dont see where you get this from, show me a bo5 or bo7 MC vs anyone, and im not going to have any reservations picking the winner. I think the OP did raise some interesting points about a couple of issues with sc2 though,
1. is the ability of units to control space (he didnt mention sentrys though !)
and 2. is the tendency of ball vs ball may the better ball win, games, they are somewhat common, at the same time they are becoming less common. It sounds like you havent played much BW. I know lots of beginners which have seen videos of BW and have implied that BW had that x-factor SC2 didnt.W hen you consider forcefields are space controlling, which you are right, but the purpose is for battle. If you take for example spider mines (or as incontrol would say "burrowed nukes") they controlled space, FOR MAP CONTROL, and not for battle. This is the key difference. forcefields encourage ball vs ball in this sense because of it.
Really? thats sounds insane and I dont believe you, are you introducing these people to both games and making a side by side comparison? Do they just randomly spew out that BW has an X-factor that sc2 doesn't have?
|
10387 Posts
I don't see how Vikings/Banshees could be more interesting than Wraiths. Wraiths were fragile units that could potentially do huge amounts of damage with proper control, but a single slip-up in micro would mean the end of the Terran, along with the fact that you needed at least 6 Wraiths to be effective in harass.. Basically an extremely microable unit you can harass with and is very risky to use.
Vikings have a huge range and can land, but they're not very microable.. and Banshees don't require much investment to be useful, and can't really be microed very well either.. why do some ppl think the Wraith is less interesting? :s if anything the Banshee should've been designed like the Wraith :<
|
On April 16 2011 19:22 suejak wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 19:15 Angra wrote:On April 16 2011 19:09 Tyree wrote:
And yet if SC2 truly is "lacking" how come it has taken eSports by storm? Extreme hype, and a multi-million dollar company pushing it significantly in the direction they want it to go. It's obviously not an awful game, which is why those 2 things have kept it so popular after its initial release. But there's still so much lacking. Hahahahah, wow. Ya, it's all the hype and cash. Good lord, you people. No, it's a great game. I have NEVER been into esports before, and I am definitely not the first to be sucked in by SC2. Here's hoping they make it even better in the years to come.
I definitely think that's true to some extent. I mean what other game has multiple tournaments running in the second week of the beta? What other game has a 500k tournament announced only a couple of weeks after release? I don't even think it would have been possible to judge whether sc2 was good in its own right or had potential as an e-sport at that time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
