On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote: I just dont buy the whole "SC2 some time" arguments either. If it was a completely new game, it might makes sense but it was built upon a foundation called SC:BW. Sequels normally take what was great with the original and add something more to deliver an even greater enjoyable experience.
Sadly, some of the things that made BW so epic and last this long compared to say War3 and any other RTS games combined together is missing completely in SC2. If such formulae worked for the first game, why not use it as the basis of the second?
Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Good post, you put it better than I could, but I've always thought the same things.
The units in SC2 don't create interesting dynamics the way the BW units did and the prime example is of course the Colossus. It's one of the most high DPS units in the game and it still manages to be the most boring unit to watch. The lack of positional play is also a true, maybe that's why TvT is fun to watch, because it's the only matchup where there's real positional play and aircontrol matters.
I prefer BW. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (16)
42%
I prefer BW. I don't play either game much. (11)
29%
I prefer SC2. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (6)
16%
I prefer SC2. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (2)
5%
I prefer SC2. I don't play either game much. (2)
5%
I prefer BW. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (1)
3%
38 total votes
Your vote: Which is a better spectator game?
(Vote): I prefer BW. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (Vote): I prefer BW. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (Vote): I prefer BW. I don't play either game much. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I don't play either game much.
I'm sorry, is it surprising to anyone that people who love BW still love BW?
Is it surprising that people who played and disliked BW but love SC2 prefer SC2?
People act like having ICCup experience makes them some kind of authority, when actually what it means is that you enjoyed BW. I bought BW in 1998 and I liked it a lot, but I did not play it after 2000. It's not that much fun to play, in my opinion. I love SC2.
You people always imply that the only group with valid opinions are people who loved BW -- and then you act like it's significant that many of those people prefer BW to SC2. It's absurd.
On April 16 2011 20:43 nitdkim wrote: editing with correct poll...
You're asking for people's opinion with a poll, and what will you, or the community, will get out of that?
The answer is nothing.
How about this for a poll?
"Are you stupid enough to think your little opinion in an ocean of random meaningless and stubborn nerds is enough to prove a point that is based on personal preferences?"
On April 16 2011 20:12 dkby wrote: Frankly OP is so subjective from the very beginning it's almost a caricature. How can you compare a new fresh game with another one which has years of balancing and one expansion ?
Your "Can you name 6 things going on during this battle?" comparisons are meaningless because there's only t1 units on the sc2 picture (except for the medivacs). Your BW picture would have only shown marines firebats and medics against zealots and dragoons, all right, but yea there would be less things going on...
I totally disagree with your critics about the easier gameplay. Playing BW effectively required to have a ridiculous high apm just to do BORING things : to select each building to make a unit is boring, to select casters one by one to cast a spell is a pita, unit selection limited to 12 units was a huge pita, and path finding was very frustrating. To make the game easier is a good thing, it's just stupid when you select 2 HT and they both cast storm when you press the T button just once. If I buy a game it's to have fun playing it, not to be amazed by gosus whose 400 apm are use mainly to compensate the terrible interface.
I agree with some points though, about maps controls and spellcasters abilty mainly. But again, you talk a lot about lurkers, which appeared in the expansion. Kinda biased point of view.
Give SC2 some time.
EDIT: this was dumb
However, I do very much agree with the OP, theres just so much clutter compared to Broodwar that you cant really tell whats going on, things like Adelscott vs MVP where he was forcefield walling stuck out as amazing, however most blob vs blob fights are just pretty boring. Things that SC2 are missing imo are easily distinguishable units, I mean can you pick out a zergling in a giant ass group of zerg units? not likely.
Compared to BW where everything was much easier to see and distinguish.
On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote: Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
And great reaper micro is fucking AMAZING to watch. So much fun, and so cool.
Wait, what's your point?
And look what happened to reapers after morrow came and went as Terran. They're useless now in SC2, infact, it almost encourages our side of the argument, presuming we're discussing the deathball dislike of sc2 (which is why most of us that claim sc2 is bland dislike it, don't think nostalgia). Reapers acted as something that was up and down, harassment as apposed to 1a. What you'd see often in BW years after the game released was things that werent 1a and were viable harassment techniques without the 1a incorporated as much.
examples:
Also, props to YyapSsap, i like how he used foundation and we seem on the same page (and the same country )
Anyway, im gonna head off to sleep after my next post or two, goodnight
Exaggerations, exaggerations everywhere. Reapers are useless now it seems, yet i see them quite often. And after QXZ used them against protoss well probably see more pros using them.
Sure, you may see them quite often as scouts but as key base role units, not a lot. but this is not the main thing we're discussing in this thread and don't get us side tracked. Reapers may be useful, but i'd feel they'd be vultures that costed money... and time (lol, joking about both parts.)
and holy shit, i just realized how far this thread has derailed into a baseless sc2 vs bw argument.
goodnight.
Reapers role was never as a core fighting unit. They are harass units that you said were useless. They are in fact not as i've explained. We will probably see more of them due to the way they exploit the protoss "deathball" sitting outside the 2nd/3rd with minimal units in base. I'm getting us sidetracked when you're the one posting BW videos while incorrectly exaggerating and calling SC2 units useless. GG.
On April 16 2011 20:43 nitdkim wrote: editing with correct poll...
You're asking for people's opinion with a poll, and what will you, or the community, will get out of that?
The answer is nothing.
How about this for a poll?
"Are you stupid enough to think your little opinion in an ocean of random meaningless and stubborn nerds is enough to prove a point that is based on personal preferences?"
"Yes" "No" "Herp Derp"
The answer is the community's opinion? Poll is a means to visually represent the community's views... what's wrong with it?
Let's say SC/BW and SC2 never existed. Now bam, they're both released the same day. Which one would you play?
BW without a doubt, the only reason I don't now is because I'm terrible and so far behind I'd never be above C+.
@OP; Great post, and I'v had similar feelings for a long time, especially reavers and I think they're one of the best examples of why I think BW is amazing. When you see a shuttle coming with reavers and the workers get pulled, reavers fire and the scarabs are retarded and stuck between mineralpatches, the suspense during that moment is amazing. And I remember one game where two players both had a reaver and a shuttle and it was just a really really long micro-battle because neither of them had any income or other army. (can't remember who it was right now) Which units in SC2 has the potential of doing that? And vulture mines being killed without detection, mine-dragging, etc, so many units and spells had so much depth to them.
(And this isn't a flame against SC2 or anything, I think SC2 is great but I also think it could be much better.)
On April 16 2011 20:19 jinorazi wrote: you say those extra micro are pain in the ass, is it just pain in the ass or is it difficult? thats what made spectating worthwhile because it was impressive to see pros do what they do. i'm not saying what you're saying is wrong, i actually agree with what you say in a way that it is the mentality of the majority of consumers, hence why sc2 is more like sc2 and not bw.
the 11 years of knowledge should have been implemented in sc2, which has but not all of it. high ground advantage is actually something i'm still bummed about(hopefully in expansions with abilities like disruption web and darkswarm) ^_^
all are speculations but its good to have discussions about this because it gets the word out, it educates the people so right moves can be made to make it better.
Yes it was difficult because macro consumed too much time and it was hard to micro correctly. Now macro is easier and it's a good point imo because we can focus more on micro. I don't think it's less interesting to watch as there are new amazing games all the time.
But like you say, we don't feel that much years of knowledge from blizz when playing SC2 :/ Actually i was (and i'm still) very disappointed by blizz strategy to have 2 expansions, with a few new units each time. Right now I feel like Blizz has deceived us. They made us think that SC2 would be as good as BW was, and that its expansions would made it even greater. Right now it just seems SC2 is equivalent to SC1, and we have to wait for too many years for the game to be balanced and really challenging.
Really really good opening post, I agree on a lot. I just feel like blizzard gave a lot of the map control mechanics to terran, like the siege tanks for instant. They even gave terran their version of dark swarm; PDD. Maybe too much focus was given terran in the WOL-realease since it's the first game in a serie and it features terran as the main playable race in the campaign.
Hopefully the stuff you take up get some attention and we can make this game somewhat more exciting to watch.
I am not of a sufficient caliber to explain why battles of over in seconds instead of minutes, but I think it's probably fair to say the metagame in SC vanilla was still developing at one year. Criticism of this kind will hopefully be resolved come the inevitable expansion packs. In the mean time, banshees, mutalisks, hellion drop, and phoenixes / DT warp do a pretty effective job of controlling game pace.
If you are killing his mineral line perpetually, you put the other player in a really nasty position. It's not map control of the kind you're talking about, but it certainly counts for something.
On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote: I just dont buy the whole "SC2 some time" arguments either. If it was a completely new game, it might makes sense but it was built upon a foundation called SC:BW. Sequels normally take what was great with the original and add something more to deliver an even greater enjoyable experience.
Sadly, some of the things that made BW so epic and last this long compared to say War3 and any other RTS games combined together is missing completely in SC2. If such formulae worked for the first game, why not use it as the basis of the second?
Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Alright, i'll answer one more before bed >.>
Once you've battled and beaten the UI, the game branches off in many directions afterwords, which uses the shitty UI as a foundation for great strategies and abuses the fact, making it very interesting. I mean, these our how strategies developed, sure they werent created to soley abuse the fact, but i think that sure would have had an inspiration for some of the strategies, and for some of the game style (passive, agressive) etc people have
and BW Z production was fine once you got used to it. it actually became easier in some circumstances.
I understand your point. But I'm sure you're aware that in the video game industry nowaday, if the player has to struggle with the UI or the controls, it's considered a very, very important flaw. It became a flaw after the years because people realized that it's generally more fun to play the game than to be challenged by the UI. BW got thru it mainly because there was no competition.
To be perfectly honest, SC and BW wasn't so good when it came out, but every other RTS were worse, so SC went on top and stayed on top, long enough for players to get used to it and learn to love it. I don't think any of the BW fanboys here gave SC2 the same amount of chances they gave SC1.
Imagine what SC2 pros will do in 10 years, they don't even have to fight their own interface, that simply leaves room for improvement where the actual game is played.
I prefer BW. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (16)
42%
I prefer BW. I don't play either game much. (11)
29%
I prefer SC2. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (6)
16%
I prefer SC2. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (2)
5%
I prefer SC2. I don't play either game much. (2)
5%
I prefer BW. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (1)
3%
38 total votes
Your vote: Which is a better spectator game?
(Vote): I prefer BW. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (Vote): I prefer BW. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I play(ed) BW on iccup and I also play(ed) SC2. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I only play(ed) BW on iccup. I don't play SC2. (Vote): I prefer BW. I don't play either game much. (Vote): I prefer SC2. I don't play either game much.
I'm sorry, is it surprising to anyone that people who love BW still love BW?
Is it surprising that people who played and disliked BW but love SC2 prefer SC2?
People act like having ICCup experience makes them some kind of authority, when actually what it means is that you enjoyed BW. I bought BW in 1998 and I liked it a lot, but I did not play it after 2000. It's not that much fun to play, in my opinion. I love SC2.
You people always imply that the only group with valid opinions are people who loved BW -- and then you act like it's significant that many of those people prefer BW to SC2. It's absurd.
BW is the tits, no arguments. But using this poll as conclusive evidence is bullshit, and you should know better than to refer to it as such. It's got 17 respondents, and appears second last on the 18th page where only the people who happened to check the topic at that exact moment appeared. Hell, it's practically anecdotal.
On April 16 2011 20:43 Faze. wrote: I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Let me put it this way. A game of SC:BW was like an epic struggle. A story being told. Drama being unfolded as the game progressed. Winning not just one battle but multiple battles and yet there were times where the opponent were able to comeback. So there were many games where people had no idea who were winning or losing til the end. Sure there were times where one battle decided the outcome of the game, but that too was pretty climatic compared to what we see in SC2.
In BW, units like the lurker, siege tanks, defilers, arbiters along with setup times/positioning all contributed to the tug of war style. I always see BW game having a series of "stages". For instance, ling vs marine to muta/ling vs MM, followed by muta/ling/lurker vs MM+tank, then lurker/ling vs MM+tank+SV, followed by defiler/lurker/lings vs MM+tank+SV and then finally into defiler/crackling/ultras vs MM+tanks+mininukes+SV (or Mech/SV etc). In each various stage, players would try to tap each other out til the next transitioning stage came along. Units that were countered in their roles were replaced with different units to fill in that role. As soon as the defiler was out, it would become a completely different ball game. There was hardly any deathball syndrome cept maybe a PvP matchup.
Along with such tug of war style games, the over coming of the UI added a nice icying on the cake for the spectactors to watch. But this doesn't mean we should go back to the BW style UI. Well like many have said, things like positioning, unit changes (does that require setup time) are probably much more preferable instead of having to 1Aing everything in its path.
@IamTheWhiteGuy: Well they normally GG straight away if that happens
On April 16 2011 20:29 YyapSsap wrote: I just dont buy the whole "SC2 some time" arguments either. If it was a completely new game, it might makes sense but it was built upon a foundation called SC:BW. Sequels normally take what was great with the original and add something more to deliver an even greater enjoyable experience.
Sadly, some of the things that made BW so epic and last this long compared to say War3 and any other RTS games combined together is missing completely in SC2. If such formulae worked for the first game, why not use it as the basis of the second?
Its quite laughable at how they were so fixated on so many gimmicky things (remember those preview clips of their units before the game was released?) "Yay our reapers can jump up and down cliffs!?!" to "Look at our colossus micro, going back and forth high ground to low ground while dealing damaghe to the mass zerglings..."
I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Alright, i'll answer one more before bed >.>
Once you've battled and beaten the UI, the game branches off in many directions afterwords, which uses the shitty UI as a foundation for great strategies and abuses the fact, making it very interesting. I mean, these our how strategies developed, sure they werent created to soley abuse the fact, but i think that sure would have had an inspiration for some of the strategies, and for some of the game style (passive, agressive) etc people have
and BW Z production was fine once you got used to it. it actually became easier in some circumstances.
I understand your point. But I'm sure you're aware that in the video game industry nowaday, if the player has to struggle with the UI or the controls, it's considered a very, very important flaw. It became a flaw after the years because people realized that it's generally more fun to play the game than to be challenged by the UI. BW got thru it mainly because there was no competition.
To be perfectly honest, SC and BW wasn't so good when it came out, but every other RTS were worse, so SC went on top and stayed on top, long enough for players to get used to it and learn to love it. I don't think any of the BW fanboys here gave SC2 the same amount of chances they gave SC1.
Imagine what SC2 pros will do in 10 years, they don't even have to fight their own interface, that simply leaves room for improvement where the actual game is played.
but there is a fine line between improving the UI and dumbing down the game. I think there is a lot of controversy between if the game is dumbed down or if the game is letting players focus on other things than mechanics. Also, making somethings easier to execute takes away from the "awe" factor when a pro manages to do something because just about anyone who is decent at the game could replicate it.
My analogy would be having the basketball rims widened and the height of the rim shortened. Nobody is going to be impressed with 5 consecutive 3pt shots at that point. And dunks will look pretty unamazing. There is a point where having something easily done makes it unamazing and bland because anybody can do it.
On April 16 2011 20:43 Faze. wrote: I was disapointed when I realized you didn't give any examples of what was so great in BW that should have been the basis of SC2. Cuz it can't be what the OP was talking about, cuz most of that is just players compensating for the extremely poor unit control and interface they were stuck with. As mentioned before, selecting casters and buildings 1 by 1 to do what should logically be doable while selecting everything is just plain wrong and bad. And lol at BW zerg production, 1 press of 1 button to morph every selected larva at once. Seriously, what the fuck was that. Seems like some people are confused with the words "higher skill ceiling" and "shit".
Let me put it this way. A game of SC:BW was like an epic struggle. A story being told. Drama being unfolded as the game progressed. Winning not just one battle but multiple battles and yet there were times where the opponent were able to comeback. So there were many games where people had no idea who were winning or losing til the end. Sure there were times where one battle decided the outcome of the game, but that too was pretty climatic compared to what we see in SC2.
In BW, units like the lurker, siege tanks, defilers, arbiters along with setup times/positioning all contributed to the tug of war style. I always see BW game having a series of "stages". For instance, ling vs marine to muta/ling vs MM, followed by muta/ling/lurker vs MM+tank, then lurker/ling vs MM+tank+SV, followed by defiler/lurker/lings vs MM+tank+SV and then finally into defiler/crackling/ultras vs MM+tanks+mininukes+SV (or Mech/SV etc). In each various stage, players would try to tap each other out til the next transitioning stage came along. Units that were countered in their roles were replaced with different units to fill in that role. As soon as the defiler was out, it would become a completely different ball game. There was hardly any deathball syndrome cept maybe a PvP matchup.
Along with such tug of war style games, the over coming of the UI added a nice icying on the cake for the spectactors to watch. But this doesn't mean we should go back to the BW style UI. Well like many have said, things like positioning, unit changes (does that require setup time) are probably much more preferable instead of having to 1Aing everything in its path.
@IamTheWhiteGuy: Well they normally GG straight away if that happens
Squirtle vs MVP or Dimaga vs MVP games in the GSL are more or less exactly like how you describe. Sure every game isn't like that but SC2 shows promise to me. The way you describe BW like a story being told/drama unfolding isn't very objective and not a tangible thing to me at least.
EPT
)
