[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 18

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.... >_>