|
On April 19 2011 00:11 PJA wrote:
Even ignoring all of those, I would bet that MC and other top protoss players scout a lot better, by knowing how to hide their probe, micro it against zerglings, etc.
By this you pretty much prove my point and I don't need to add much more. If these are the only things were huge skill can give you an advantage, then there's something fundamentally wrong.
And by saying that "everyone can fucking follow a build-order" you are spot-on correct, yet still strangely incapable of understanding how your own points pretty much perfectly correlate which what I have written.
When was the last time you saw a zealot/stalker harass that had a huge impact on the game? Yeah right. Now compare it with the amount of games where the toss simply goes zealot/sentry/sentry/sentry or zealot/stalker/sentry/sentry and does nothing. Exactly.
When was the last time you saw a successful early ling harassment (that wasn't semi-all-in-ish)? Exactly.
Again - I know I'm repeating myself - this is my whole, 100% frickin point. Everyone can follow a build-order. Nevertheless THIS is (at least for PvZ) what's currently yielding the best results. A playstyle with no multitasking-requirements whatsoever. All the skill, APM, gamesense, probe-vs-ling-micro (??) etc. don't matter, if after all a single BO that "everyone can follow" (using your words) is pretty much always the best way to play.
EDIT: just to be 100% clear: A competitive RTS game must have dominant strategies that NOT everyone can execute while half-asleep. The strongest strategies MUST be those that are the hardest to execute. The strongest strategies should require the most multitasking and should have the highest skill-cap. So that newbs and mediocre players like me would probably stick even with inferior strats if we are incapable of executing them properly. But strategies that can be inspiring, strategies that give an incentive to further and further improve to be - maybe - at some point able to execute them good enough to also be able to profit.
|
On April 19 2011 02:03 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
What this adds up to is that it gives the person with proper positioning a significant defender's advantage so, even if you come out somewhat behind in an engagement, your opponent can't immediately attack into your remaining army without severe repercussion. This also introduced a way to delay your opponent by slowly giving up ground rather than doing what most SC2 player have to do, which is run back to their nat and turtle until they have a unit advantage. It also meant it required some finesse to get the most out of your attack. If your opponent was low on unit count, you couldn't just 1a into his army, micro a little, and still come out on top. What it really comes down to is that unit relationships were far more complex and, as a result, proper engagements required a higher level of control. I personally feel like this is the biggest piece that the game is missing. Unit control, positioning, all that stuff is POSSIBLE in SC2, people just aren't doing it very much at this point in time. But when a Terran decides its time to push out, he can literally walk his way across 2/3 of the map and I can't do shit about it. There is no cost-effective way to slow down his push without actively engaging. I either have to kill the push, or it will kill me. The lurker did SOOO much for the flow of the game in BW, and now I have nothing in SC2. And its not just ZvT that has this issue. The lack of mines for TvP and the way the HT was used in PvZ had the same effect. You didn't actually need any army to hold the guy back, just a couple key units. The lack of ability to slow the other guy down when you can't kill him is what makes death balls so powerful IMO.
I don't think you can make an argument that ZvT is a problem in SC2. Muta/ling/bane has a ton of tension against marine/tank/thor and the average pro-level ZvT is a pretty damn good game to watch and compares well to the best of BW. In my opinion the 'lacking' MUs are the ones involving Protoss. I think it's because colossus is such an uninteresting unit (least interesting in SC2 other than marauder IMO) and because P is forced into it. There were some epic PvTs with mass gate before the KA nerf and the loss of those games is my main frustration with KA's removal. It was a tension-removing patch.
I also think we need to be more honest about what 'typical' pro level BW play looks like. If we're comparing SC2 to BW games played by the top pros, it's obvious that SC2 hasn't achieved what BW has. But look at what happens when BW-bot scrubs play eachother. These are players whose skill arguably equals the skill of the top current SC2 players. There are tons of boring mass up into win games that get played all the time in BW. If anything, I'd wager that the average Korean pro BW game is as boring or perhaps more boring to watch than the average SC2 game. It's just that the highs of BW are higher. I think if we had even more ultra top-tier talent in SC2 we'd be seeing more amazing things in it.
|
On April 19 2011 01:56 War Horse wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 19 2011 01:42 Kazang wrote:On April 19 2011 01:31 Shiladie wrote:
absolutely agree with this post and think blizzard needs to very carefully examine their game before jumping into changes with HotS. I really think the game is missing some very vital aspects that it requires to go nearly as far as BW did as an eSport, but I am confident that those aspects can be added in one of the 2 remaining expansions. Outside of Korea it's already gone further than BW has in 12 years, and it shows no sign of slowing down. And yet SC2 is still laughable in terms of the overall industry when compared with Korea's scene - there aren't any SC2 players making huge salaries like BW pro's, there aren't leagues with not only a massive following but a huge infrastructure for intricate seasonal play that resemble the leagues of physical sports. SC2 may be more popular globally, but in terms of overall success it still has a very long way to go and the OP analyzes some of the things that may cause some problems if SC2 ever wants to reach that level of success. When was the first SPL team leagues? Like, 2003-04? 6 years after SC1 came out? That requires corporate sponsors and a lot of money, and you have to prove to them that it will be successful via the individual leagues. The GSTLs are a good start.
...So? That has no bearing on my point. In fact, it would need to be shown that SC2 can have the longevity of a game like BW in order for that level of infrastructure to be built - and that's what the OP is analyzing. People who just say, "give it more time" are making a bold assumption that there definitely is that something with units, timings, builds, etc. that we haven't figured out and that will make the game more complex and more enjoyable to watch. Analysis like the OP's actually tries to look at the game and see if that assumption has merit. We can do that kind of analysis because we are much more educated in terms of competitive play and what it takes to make a good e-sport when compared to when BW was first launched.
Which is a good thing as it keeps the playable races different. Zerg relies on other game mechanics.
T had Tanks and Z had Lurkers in BW but these two units affected the game in a very different way.
|
On April 19 2011 02:31 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 02:03 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
What this adds up to is that it gives the person with proper positioning a significant defender's advantage so, even if you come out somewhat behind in an engagement, your opponent can't immediately attack into your remaining army without severe repercussion. This also introduced a way to delay your opponent by slowly giving up ground rather than doing what most SC2 player have to do, which is run back to their nat and turtle until they have a unit advantage. It also meant it required some finesse to get the most out of your attack. If your opponent was low on unit count, you couldn't just 1a into his army, micro a little, and still come out on top. What it really comes down to is that unit relationships were far more complex and, as a result, proper engagements required a higher level of control. I personally feel like this is the biggest piece that the game is missing. Unit control, positioning, all that stuff is POSSIBLE in SC2, people just aren't doing it very much at this point in time. But when a Terran decides its time to push out, he can literally walk his way across 2/3 of the map and I can't do shit about it. There is no cost-effective way to slow down his push without actively engaging. I either have to kill the push, or it will kill me. The lurker did SOOO much for the flow of the game in BW, and now I have nothing in SC2. And its not just ZvT that has this issue. The lack of mines for TvP and the way the HT was used in PvZ had the same effect. You didn't actually need any army to hold the guy back, just a couple key units. The lack of ability to slow the other guy down when you can't kill him is what makes death balls so powerful IMO. I don't think you can make an argument that ZvT is a problem in SC2. Muta/ling/bane has a ton of tension against marine/tank/thor and the average pro-level ZvT is a pretty damn good game to watch and compares well to the best of BW. In my opinion the 'lacking' MUs are the ones involving Protoss. I think it's because colossus is such an uninteresting unit (least interesting in SC2 other than marauder IMO) and because P is forced into it. There were some epic PvTs with mass gate before the KA nerf and the loss of those games is my main frustration with KA's removal. It was a tension-removing patch. I also think we need to be more honest about what 'typical' pro level BW play looks like. If we're comparing SC2 to BW games played by the top pros, it's obvious that SC2 hasn't achieved what BW has. But look at what happens when BW-bot scrubs play eachother. These are players whose skill arguably equals the skill of the top current SC2 players. There are tons of boring mass up into win games that get played all the time in BW. If anything, I'd wager that the average Korean pro BW game is as boring or perhaps more boring to watch than the average SC2 game. It's just that the highs of BW are higher. I think if we had even more ultra top-tier talent in SC2 we'd be seeing more amazing things in it.
You're misunderstanding me. It's not that the marine/tank push is OP or that the Zerg can't properly handle it. That is a discussion for another thread. The complaint is in the way that you deal with the push.
ling/bling/muta doesn't discourage or slow down a marine tank push. It finds a good timing/angle and obliterates it.
lurkers didn't do shit to stop a tank push in BW. Much like the OP posted, you would have lurkers all over the map, and the tanks would slowly creep forward with the science vessel there to spot. scourge and marines would be playing tug-o-war and the lurkers would be waiting until the last second to unburrow and back up.
Neither player had risk of losing the game in the next 3 minutes in this scenario. It is a given that Terran will be pushing forward and Zerg can't stop the push. But the entire tension of the moment comes in Zergs rushing to get defilers out before that push is at his front door. "How long can he delay the inevitable, and will he be ready for the real fight when he can't delay any further?"
There is no delay option in current SC2.
I either have to crush the push completely, or it will crush me.
edit: I think I'm not getting across the reason why this is a bad thing.
ZvT was nuts in BW. Drops going off on both sides, damn near every single unit in use for both sides, mass expand for Zerg, slightly slower expand for T. The whole MU was nuts and that all came from the fact that you couldn't JUST KILL THE GUY, you HAD to break him down slowly.
Crushing a single push and knowing T can never recover is boring.
Not having the perfect amount of units and leaving 5 marines and a tank to win the game immediately is annoying.
It's not that either side is imba, its that all the tension of the entire TvZ MU from BW is missing in SC2 because T can just push marine/tank right down Zs throat, and that finishes the game one way or another.
|
lurkers didn't do shit to stop a tank push in BW. Much like the OP posted, you would have lurkers all over the map, and the tanks would slowly creep forward with the science vessel there to spot. scourge and marines would be playing tug-o-war and the lurkers would be waiting until the last second to unburrow and back up.
This explanation of BW TvZ is more interesting than most SC2 games to me. =(
|
On April 19 2011 02:55 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 02:31 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:On April 19 2011 02:03 Jermstuddog wrote:On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
What this adds up to is that it gives the person with proper positioning a significant defender's advantage so, even if you come out somewhat behind in an engagement, your opponent can't immediately attack into your remaining army without severe repercussion. This also introduced a way to delay your opponent by slowly giving up ground rather than doing what most SC2 player have to do, which is run back to their nat and turtle until they have a unit advantage. It also meant it required some finesse to get the most out of your attack. If your opponent was low on unit count, you couldn't just 1a into his army, micro a little, and still come out on top. What it really comes down to is that unit relationships were far more complex and, as a result, proper engagements required a higher level of control. I personally feel like this is the biggest piece that the game is missing. Unit control, positioning, all that stuff is POSSIBLE in SC2, people just aren't doing it very much at this point in time. But when a Terran decides its time to push out, he can literally walk his way across 2/3 of the map and I can't do shit about it. There is no cost-effective way to slow down his push without actively engaging. I either have to kill the push, or it will kill me. The lurker did SOOO much for the flow of the game in BW, and now I have nothing in SC2. And its not just ZvT that has this issue. The lack of mines for TvP and the way the HT was used in PvZ had the same effect. You didn't actually need any army to hold the guy back, just a couple key units. The lack of ability to slow the other guy down when you can't kill him is what makes death balls so powerful IMO. I don't think you can make an argument that ZvT is a problem in SC2. Muta/ling/bane has a ton of tension against marine/tank/thor and the average pro-level ZvT is a pretty damn good game to watch and compares well to the best of BW. In my opinion the 'lacking' MUs are the ones involving Protoss. I think it's because colossus is such an uninteresting unit (least interesting in SC2 other than marauder IMO) and because P is forced into it. There were some epic PvTs with mass gate before the KA nerf and the loss of those games is my main frustration with KA's removal. It was a tension-removing patch. I also think we need to be more honest about what 'typical' pro level BW play looks like. If we're comparing SC2 to BW games played by the top pros, it's obvious that SC2 hasn't achieved what BW has. But look at what happens when BW-bot scrubs play eachother. These are players whose skill arguably equals the skill of the top current SC2 players. There are tons of boring mass up into win games that get played all the time in BW. If anything, I'd wager that the average Korean pro BW game is as boring or perhaps more boring to watch than the average SC2 game. It's just that the highs of BW are higher. I think if we had even more ultra top-tier talent in SC2 we'd be seeing more amazing things in it. You're misunderstanding me. It's not that the marine/tank push is OP or that the Zerg can't properly handle it. That is a discussion for another thread. The complaint is in the way that you deal with the push. ling/bling/muta doesn't discourage or slow down a marine tank push. It finds a good timing/angle and obliterates it. lurkers didn't do shit to stop a tank push in BW. Much like the OP posted, you would have lurkers all over the map, and the tanks would slowly creep forward with the science vessel there to spot. scourge and marines would be playing tug-o-war and the lurkers would be waiting until the last second to unburrow and back up. Neither player had risk of losing the game in the next 3 minutes in this scenario. It is a given that Terran will be pushing forward and Zerg can't stop the push. But the entire tension of the moment comes in Zergs rushing to get defilers out before that push is at his front door. "How long can he delay the inevitable, and will he be ready for the real fight when he can't delay any further?" There is no delay option in current SC2. I either have to crush the push completely, or it will crush me.
I agree with everything but your conclusion. Look at Boxer vs Sen in the TSL. Numerous times both players lost their entire armies a la BW, but because both players were macroing well and because of the defensive advantages of tank/PF and creep, both players were able to stay in the games for a long time. I'd say this scenario is the rule rather than the exception at least in pro-level TvZ.
|
I think dustin browder addressed this issue at a past blizzcon. He said something along the lines of "We want the action to happen right away" and thus they gave the agressive players an advantage. Xel'naga towers, warpgates, nydus worms, medivacs all are in the game in order to make attacking each other something you want to do, it's also why terran is significantly more mobile with marauders, hellions, reapers, vikings, etc. Tanks and burrowed banes actually are the only unit to break this mold. The reason I think that this is done is because tanks are actually boring units to watch. Some say that tvt is exciting, but tvt games last forever and you can tell when people are casting it, they start to get bored.
I think the key is to finding a good balance of agression vs defenders advantage and I think the biggest problem is protoss. Terran have bunkers for defending (which are almost free), zerg have spine crawlers and queens, but protoss literally only have sentries. In response, protoss get warpgates, which completely alters the flow of the game early game.
Another thing that is different is the hard-counter system. No one really knows the correct unit composition to build in every matchup just yet, but as the game matures, people will figure out the correct compositions and as a result, battles will be much closer (instead of 1 sided) and it will make games last a lot longer and be more exciting.
|
On April 19 2011 02:25 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 00:11 PJA wrote:
Even ignoring all of those, I would bet that MC and other top protoss players scout a lot better, by knowing how to hide their probe, micro it against zerglings, etc. By this you pretty much prove my point and I don't need to add much more. If these are the only things were huge skill can give you an advantage, then there's something fundamentally wrong. And by saying that "everyone can fucking follow a build-order" you are spot-on correct, yet still strangely incapable of understanding how your own points pretty much perfectly correlate which what I have written.
If huge skill don't give you an advantage, why are we already seeing top players winning decisively and staying at the top in the GSL. If it was as easy as you make it out to be we'd have totally random code S players every season, yet we don't.
When was the last time you saw a zealot/stalker harass that had a huge impact on the game?
I've seen Jinro and a couple of other pros straight up lose to zealot+stalker early harass. I've seen MC win due to weakening marines in the early game.
Yeah right. Now compare it with the amount of games where the toss simply goes zealot/sentry/sentry/sentry or zealot/stalker/sentry/sentry and does nothing. Exactly.
When was the last time you saw a successful early ling harassment (that wasn't semi-all-in-ish)? Exactly.
Julyzerg did some amazing early ling pressure against HuK's early expand on Xel'naga Cavens in Korea vs World.
Again - I know I'm repeating myself - this is my whole, 100% frickin point. Everyone can follow a build-order. Nevertheless THIS is (at least for PvZ) what's currently yielding the best results. A playstyle with no multitasking-requirements whatsoever. All the skill, APM, gamesense, probe-vs-ling-micro (??) etc. don't matter, if after all a single BO that "everyone can follow" (using your words) is pretty much always the best way to play.
It's the best way to play, just like it was the best way for a terran to just go early marine+marauder and straight up kill protoss for two whole seasons of the GSL and just like the best way to play was 2-rax all in for TvZ. Stuff gets figured out and solved eventually and if it doesn't we get some kind of fix.
BTW didn't protoss have it bad against zerg for like a year or more in BW until someone figured that machup out?
EDIT: just to be 100% clear: A competitive RTS game must have dominant strategies that NOT everyone can execute while half-asleep. The strongest strategies MUST be those that are the hardest to execute. The strongest strategies should require the most multitasking and should have the highest skill-cap. So that newbs and mediocre players like me would probably stick even with inferior strats if we are incapable of executing them properly. But strategies that can be inspiring, strategies that give an incentive to further and further improve to be - maybe - at some point able to execute them good enough to also be able to profit.
I think we've already seen some very impressive micro/macro games in SC2. Games you would never, ever come close to in execution.
I don't really like using the expression but "give it time" seems to be the perfect response to your post.
|
The whole APM discussion just makes me sad a bit, for me a strategie game is about planing, decision making and positioning, and getting a good unit mix.
But clicking fast, microing like crazy is not strategy, its more like an fps or shooter game. The one with the faster reflex kills his opponent.
You can win with an inferior army if you have good micro and your oponent has not. But is this strategy ? I say no, its clicking arround fast not strategy and not some thought process.
Stop and shoot micro, stimmed marine micro and what not has nothing todo with any sort of strategy its just like an fps game.
Sorry but I'd really like to see more interresting units added to the game that give the game a more strategical value to think about.
|
On April 19 2011 03:03 darmousseh wrote:
I think dustin browder addressed this issue at a past blizzcon. He said something along the lines of "We want the action to happen right away" and thus they gave the agressive players an advantage. Xel'naga towers, warpgates, nydus worms, medivacs all are in the game in order to make attacking each other something you want to do, it's also why terran is significantly more mobile with marauders, hellions, reapers, vikings, etc. Tanks and burrowed banes actually are the only unit to break this mold. The reason I think that this is done is because tanks are actually boring units to watch. Some say that tvt is exciting, but tvt games last forever and you can tell when people are casting it, they start to get bored.
I think the key is to finding a good balance of agression vs defenders advantage and I think the biggest problem is protoss. Terran have bunkers for defending (which are almost free), zerg have spine crawlers and queens, but protoss literally only have sentries. In response, protoss get warpgates, which completely alters the flow of the game early game.
Another thing that is different is the hard-counter system. No one really knows the correct unit composition to build in every matchup just yet, but as the game matures, people will figure out the correct compositions and as a result, battles will be much closer (instead of 1 sided) and it will make games last a lot longer and be more exciting.
Dustin Browder reminds me of my mother-in-law. He decides that things should be a particular way, and he forces it to be the way he wants even if it means ignoring other people's opinions or evidence to the contrary.
The complex, high-tension unit interactions in BW never caused a problem, and the things he seems to think make for boring games do the opposite.
|
On April 19 2011 03:07 Holy_AT wrote:
The whole APM discussion just makes me sad a bit, for me a strategie game is about planing, decision making and positioning, and getting a good unit mix.
But clicking fast, microing like crazy is not strategy, its more like an fps or shooter game. The one with the faster reflex kills his opponent.
You can win with an inferior army if you have good micro and your oponent has not. But is this strategy ? I say no, its clicking arround fast not strategy and not some thought process.
Stop and shoot micro, stimmed marine micro and what not has nothing todo with any sort of strategy its just like an fps game.
Sorry but I'd really like to see more interresting units added to the game that give the game a more strategical value to think about.
you play the wrong game. simple as that. "if you want pure strategy go play chess" another true IdrA quote!
|
We have been bouncing about this issue for over 50 pages now and its clear that there wont be conclusion anytime soon... how about, just for the sake of argument, say that there is really big issue in starcraft2 that needs to be adressed NOW and not in next expansion, or that the next expansions WONT have solution or makes things even worse.
What would/could you do about it?
|
On April 16 2011 09:35 mahnini wrote:
Phoenix vs corsair?
I agree with most of things except this. In my opinion corsair is ironically typical SC2 because there's not many things you can do with this unit. You basicly use it for scouting, then you're escaping from scourges and mutas, then you mass them and try kill Z air/hunt ovies/abandon them. Either way once you get into battle there's not much room for you to significantly change the outcome with great micro. Phoenix on other hand is much more fun and with good micro you can kill as many mutalisks as you want.
|
I think an underlying sentiment that alot of brood war players have that doesn't really get expressed is that starcraft 2, in a lot of ways, is nothing like starcraft. If you told someone who really liked brood war that starcraft 2 was going to have giant mechs, helicopters, dune buggys, war of the worlds robots, space marines with rocket launchers and a huge ship that you can only have one of, i can fucking guarantee you that they would say "that doesn't sound like starcraft". Beause the game is not like starcraft.
One of the biggest things wrong with starcraft 2, is that it doesn't feel like starcraft. The magic is gone, if you will.
|
On April 19 2011 01:53 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 01:42 Kazang wrote:On April 19 2011 01:31 Shiladie wrote:
absolutely agree with this post and think blizzard needs to very carefully examine their game before jumping into changes with HotS. I really think the game is missing some very vital aspects that it requires to go nearly as far as BW did as an eSport, but I am confident that those aspects can be added in one of the 2 remaining expansions. Outside of Korea it's already gone further than BW has in 12 years, and it shows no sign of slowing down. And yet SC2 is still laughable in terms of the overall industry when compared with Korea's scene - there aren't any SC2 players making huge salaries like BW pro's, there aren't leagues with not only a massive following but a huge infrastructure for intricate seasonal play that resemble the leagues of physical sports. SC2 may be more popular globally, but in terms of overall success it still has a very long way to go and the OP analyzes some of the things that may cause some problems if SC2 ever wants to reach that level of success.
Do you know how much players on top western teams make?
EG.Idra for instance.
Seems like you are making a big sweeping statement with no evidence or facts to back it up.
|
On April 19 2011 03:34 heligebob wrote:
I think an underlying sentiment that alot of brood war players have that doesn't really get expressed is that starcraft 2, in a lot of ways, is nothing like starcraft. If you told someone who really liked brood war that starcraft 2 was going to have giant mechs, helicopters, dune buggys, war of the worlds robots, space marines with rocket launchers and a huge ship that you can only have one of, i can fucking guarantee you that they would say "that doesn't sound like starcraft". Cause its not like starcraft.
One of the biggest things wrong with starcraft 2, is that it doesn't feel like starcraft. The magic is gone, if you will.
Giant mech instead of medium size mech.
A helicopter instead of regular jets.
Dune buggys instead of motorcycles.
space marines with rocket launchers instead of space marines with flame thrower.
War of the world huge robots vs snail like robot.
The only one i'll give you is the Reaver, it was more fun. As a side not SC and BW never were very original, alot of the stuff is inspired/taken from Warhammer 40k/Alien/Predator/Starship Troopers etc.(Not saying they didn't make a fucking epic job, but the actual inspiration is plain to see...)
I played and loved SC and BW, not much online but campaign and vs AI and i still enjoy and like SC2. They are different but you can easily see the origins.
|
I think the point is that wherever they got their inspiration, the way starcraft brood war became is the precedent for how that particular universe "works". You can't just change everything in the sequel cause you already set the tone. It's like how everyone hated the prequels to Star Wars, cause lucas changed how things work, which had already been established in the first films. I would also argue that the designs made the units less stereotypical, i never thought of the vulture as some sort of motor bike until it was pointed out, while the hellion looks like dune buggy model nr 4. This is true for alot of other units to. I mean seriously a helicopter in starcraft that looks exactly like an orca from c&c? If that isnt blasphemy i dont know what is. 
I shouldnt have put those examples in probably put the point is solid in its own right. It just doesn't feel like starcraft.
|
On April 19 2011 03:25 ondik wrote:I agree with most of things except this. In my opinion corsair is ironically typical SC2 because there's not many things you can do with this unit. You basicly use it for scouting, then you're escaping from scourges and mutas, then you mass them and try kill Z air/hunt ovies/abandon them. Either way once you get into battle there's not much room for you to significantly change the outcome with great micro. Phoenix on other hand is much more fun and with good micro you can kill as many mutalisks as you want.
don't forget the corsair web
|
On April 19 2011 03:59 heligebob wrote:
I think the point is that wherever they got their inspiration, the way starcraft brood war became is the precedent for how that particular universe "works". You can't just change everything in the sequel cause you already set the tone. It's like how everyone hated the prequels to Star Wars, cause lucas changed how things work, which had already been established in the first films. I would also argue that the designs made the units less stereotypical, i never thought of the vulture as some sort of motor bike until it was pointed out, while the hellion looks like dune buggy model nr 4. This is true for alot of outher units to. I mean seriously a helicopter in starcraft?
I shouldnt have put those examples in probably put the point is solid in its own right. It just doesn't feel like starcraft.
The point really can't be solid when it's opinion based. My opinion differs greatly, so how can we ever decide who's right or wrong?
|
Does it really feel like starcraft to you? Not 'you can see it cause of this and this', do you feel like its starcraft in the way starcraft brood war did? If you do, fine, we disagree.
I think the feeling that its starcraft, of course slightly different cause its a new game, is a really important thing for a sequel. I don't think i'm the only one with that feeling btw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
