EPT[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 42
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
noidonthinkso
Greece9 Posts
| ||
|
Grettin
42381 Posts
| ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
| ||
|
SlipperySnake
248 Posts
I feel the exact same way when I compare counterstrike 1.6 to well anything. Nothing compared but the damn game is 10 years old. It is kind of depressing because it really does feel like nothing will ever be as good. There have been other incredible shooters that are kind of comparable like TF2 but no matter how many of the good things a game tried to replicate from CS it just wouldn't be good as a modern game. Things like bunnyhopping and jump maps will just never be able to be replaced. I am not saying you shouldn't try to improve SC2, I mean it is a hell of a sequel but sadly it will just never be the same. | ||
|
BGrael
Germany229 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:20 SlipperySnake wrote: I think a lot of times the nostalgia for old games doesn't end up matching up to the reality of how great they were. Basically everything needs to be talked about in its time and I think that is the main problem with this discussion. That doesn't however mean that legitimate suggestions to improve the game should be ignored it just means that what makes an old game good isn't the same as what makes a new game good. I feel the exact same way when I compare counterstrike 1.6 to well anything. Nothing compared but the damn game is 10 years old. It is kind of depressing because it really does feel like nothing will ever be as good. There have been other incredible shooters that are kind of comparable like TF2 but no matter how many of the good things a game tried to replicate from CS it just wouldn't be good as a modern game. Things like bunnyhopping and jump maps will just never be able to be replaced. I am not saying you shouldn't try to improve SC2, I mean it is a hell of a sequel but sadly it will just never be the same. I don't want to go back to SC:BW. At least certainly not playing. But there are things SC2 can learn from SC:BW. And those things are true for every RTS. Maybe it will never be the same from a personal point of view for many people. But it certainly can be as good as possbile. | ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
On April 18 2011 04:09 mahnini wrote: i think people need to read beyond the bw comparison and notice that i think certain aspects of bw can be transplanted in sc2 to make it a more entertaining game to play and watch. it's like if i said (i'm pulling this comparison out my ass) halo could be more entertaining if it had the positioning that CS had. then i list CS matches in which position was really important and played a large role in the game, but then everyone gets mad at me for wanting halo to be exactly like CS. i mean if you think adding more positionally important units like the lurker into the game is making it exactly like BW , that's just incorrect. If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself. If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread. | ||
|
Greem
730 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:20 SlipperySnake wrote: I think a lot of times the nostalgia for old games doesn't end up matching up to the reality of how great they were. Basically everything needs to be talked about in its time and I think that is the main problem with this discussion. That doesn't however mean that legitimate suggestions to improve the game should be ignored it just means that what makes an old game good isn't the same as what makes a new game good. I feel the exact same way when I compare counterstrike 1.6 to well anything. Nothing compared but the damn game is 10 years old. It is kind of depressing because it really does feel like nothing will ever be as good. There have been other incredible shooters that are kind of comparable like TF2 but no matter how many of the good things a game tried to replicate from CS it just wouldn't be good as a modern game. Things like bunnyhopping and jump maps will just never be able to be replaced. I am not saying you shouldn't try to improve SC2, I mean it is a hell of a sequel but sadly it will just never be the same. ye , you're right, it won't be the same, but its a sequel and not a completely new game, the feeling and depths should be improved if possible, but last things you do, its remove something, in my opinion. I'd still play SC2 and ill keep playing, its just as i understand we all wanna play more exiting game. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:28 Footler wrote: If you truly believe this you need to massively edit your OP as it is riddled with "sc2 needs the ancient BW mechanics that made it so spectacular to watch" because whether you intended to or not your are giving the impression that you believe things like smartcasting need to be removed to make storms more exciting or that zerglings need to have dumber pathing to be more exciting and essentially suggesting game design changes which you prohibit in the disclaimer yourself. If you believe that all sc2 needs is just more units with setup time and more interesting spellcasters (which I agree with), you failed miserably in making that clear in your OP and by leaving the OP unedited you are allowing this thread to continue to derail into BW vs SC2 thread. i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes. i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples. | ||
|
cereals
United States12 Posts
On April 18 2011 04:26 mahnini wrote: it's a slightly ironic turnaround in which i'm trying to provide suggestions to improve sc2 and everyone just attacks me for being a bw purist and at the same time argues for the sanctity of sc2 to not be like bw. If I were to criticize your OP a little, I think you could evaluate on this a little more: Even staple units were replaced by less interesting, less interactive versions of themselves. Colossus vs reaver? Baneling vs lurker? Viking vs wraith? Thor vs goliath? Phoenix vs corsair? Immortal vs dragoon? Muta vs muta? Hydra vs hydra? There's just no contest. To me, that's the most "BW vs SC2" you got in your OP. And if you're going to evaluate them, also edit it into your OP, it'll help with the "BW vs SC2" image in your OP people are complaining about. I'll actually be really happy if you could provide suggestions as to how to improve existing units instead of comparing them to their closest BW equivalent, because i've never played BW, and BW VODS don't really make any sense to me (yes, I casual, I admit). I hope i'm not asking for too much. edit: typos | ||
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On April 18 2011 04:09 mahnini wrote: i mean if you think adding more positionally important units like the lurker into the game is making it exactly like BW , that's just incorrect. Terrans have the siege tank, and you said that's good. Zerg have the spine/spore crawler, which works exactly like you want (long setup time, can create fortified positions, great at defending expos, especially with a queen that has energy). Now, you can say that the Spine Crawler doesn't serve this role well enough, in which case maybe a buff should be considered. But that's not what you said. You said there's a "fundamental flaw" that they units don't exist. They DO exist, they're just not used enough because a.) Metagame or b.) needs moar HP, or c.) a combination of the two (though Spanishiwa is using them more, and I do expect them to catch on. Zero supply units that have 300 HP, do pretty good DPS, and are mobile?) That's not a "fundamental flaw", though. Protoss is the only race that lacks such a unit, and they shouldn't have one because they have the strongest ball already (they didn't have one in BW, and their static D was weaker). | ||
|
Footler
United States560 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:33 mahnini wrote: i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes. i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples. This maybe? "Psi storm vs psi storm? A psi storm in SC2 is almost meaningless. In BW, the beauty of psi storm was purely because of the mechanics required to cast it." | ||
|
SpectreSOF
United States74 Posts
But maybe we'll have new places to look for player mechanics to shine through. SC2 units propensity to bunch up more could be one such place. Perhaps in the future it will become vitally important for pros to manually control their armies as though there was still a 12 unit selection limit for the purposes of keeping an army spread out to avoid devastating AoE units and abilities. Maybe not. As for map control, I feel its still in the game, just in a different form. Especially for Zerg, the spreading and denying of creep tumors is vital. Where there is creep present a Zerg army can be also present in very short order. Not to mention we really haven't seen much Nydus worm play for some reason, and its something that arguably strongly undermines the idea of ground based map control. Protoss on the other hand almost completely circumvents map control in general. Where there is a pylon there is a Protoss army in the making, add to that toss has blink and cliff walking colossi makes trying to apply map control as we know it from BW very difficult. Terran probably still has the form of map control most familiar from BW, but then again Terran still has the siege tank from BW. But faced with the increased mobility of the other two armies, presence of sensor towers and the fact that tanks now cost 3 supply means there are fewer tanks on the field to effectively cover areas where T wants control and is much better for T to make better use of map awareness to concentrate their defenses. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Protoss I'd say isn't too different in a map presence sense from starcraft 1 in my opinion. Reavers weren't any more of a siege unit than colossus were. They were almost always used with shuttles which made them even more mobile— the main difference with reavers is that they actually took good skill to use well, and could do so much damage with good skill, or none at all with bad skill; colossus is just mostly an a-move unit that even has longer range and faster speed I think it's one of the bigger problems with starcraft 2 with regards to units/gameplay (another is the corruptor, which has a terrible special ability, and is a unit with extremely narrow use). | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:33 mahnini wrote: i'm not going to edit out a valid point just because it makes people feel bad. i never said anything about pathing at all. i never suggest direct game design changes. i don't think i encourage bw vs sc2 discussion in the OP at all, but if you think so please point out some examples. 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. This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP. | ||
|
Cranberries
Wales567 Posts
Ergo, it's missing zerg. By the way, it's an actual fact. The game does miss some degree of diversity. Nearly every single match up is dumbed down to 1 player using 1 strategy. PVZ : Protoss turtles for deathball, or tries to cheese. PVT: Protoss turtles for deathball PVP: 4 gate > blink, 3 gate > robo ZVT: Muta/Ling/Bane > Infestor + Brood mix ZVP: Roach/Infestor/Brood mix ZVZ: high early game aggression or 2/3 base roach/infestor mix TVT: tank/marine~ TVP: Bio w/ late mech TVZ: tank/marine~ | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:59 karpo wrote: This? Seems very much like opinion based "BW vs SC2" to me. There's sick ling counters to pure stalker builds, baneling bombs, forcefielding baneling bombs to keep them from his units, great reinforcement intercepts, multipronged zerg swarms, elegant marine vs baneling micro, Thorzain vs Tyler strike cannons (hope to se more of them), EMP's vs Feedback, Mech terran hellion micro against Protoss deathball, Phoenix sniping ghosts and much more. Saying it's just 1a vs 1a is hyperbole and leads to people getting annoyed by the, to me at least, obvious BW bias of the OP. i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering. | ||
|
AphureA
Australia1 Post
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:35 Ribbon wrote: Spine/spore crawlers are not map control units. They are early game defense units. They have range 7 so they get out-ranged by colossus and siege tanks by the mid game, and because they are armored they also get dominated by marauders and immortals and void rays. They can also only be placed on creep, but because they are only useful early game anyway so that isn't even a big factor.Zerg have the spine/spore crawler, which works exactly like you want (long setup time, can create fortified positions, great at defending expos, especially with a queen that has energy). Now, you can say that the Spine Crawler doesn't serve this role well enough, in which case maybe a buff should be considered. On April 18 2011 05:47 SpectreSOF wrote: we really haven't seen much Nydus worm play for some reason, and its something that arguably strongly undermines the idea of ground based map control it hasn't bee used much because it's not that good. The biggest issue is the combination of time it takes to build along with it's armor/health. If a player spots a nydus worm building when it's already halfway done, they can pull 9 workers and STILL kill it in time. Good players have buildings all around their area to keep an eye out for attacks, it completely denies nydus worms since all you need is a few units fresh out from the production facility — or just workers even — to kill the worm.Nydus networks and worms also cost a lot. Just 1 worm costs more than transport tech for overlords, the only downside with overlords is it takes a bit longer to get. | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On April 18 2011 06:08 mahnini wrote: i will edit out the 1a vs 1a. the rest can be discussed with civility. by bw vs sc2 i dont mean you can't compare and contrast the two games, i mean you can't do stupid crap like call bw an old clickfest and call sc2 a dumbed down super newb game. i like to think that we can discuss the differences without delving into ridiculous bickering. I still think that your list of cool BW stuff is a moot point due to there being loads of cool SC2 stuff happening in games also like some of the stuff i listed. I guess there's alot of games where players just attack eachother, but it seems like we see that less and less as the players improve. That list bugs me cause it more or less reads "Please reply with counter argument in favor of SC2!", it might just be me though.  I agree with the positional play and slowing down game pace and i hope we get more of those kinds of abilities/units in the expansions. Also: 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. Hyperbole and untrue. This also adds to the BW vs SC2 flames cause you more or less just state that BW battles are better than SC2 AND that 1A is great in SC2. Attack-move in SC2 is more or less NEVER the best thing to do. It's never the most effective way to attack even if it's deathball vs deathball. You've been given several points from me and other posters about this, do you still think your OP doesn't encourage BW vs SC2 discussion? | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On April 18 2011 05:38 Footler wrote: This maybe? "Psi storm vs psi storm? A psi storm in SC2 is almost meaningless. In BW, the beauty of psi storm was purely because of the mechanics required to cast it." So you get excited watching people play checkers, that's nice. Great post. | ||
| ||
