|
On April 20 2011 04:43 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 06:46 infinity2k9 wrote:On April 19 2011 06:11 Euronyme wrote:On April 19 2011 05:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 19 2011 04:56 skipdog172 wrote:
I wonder if some of you complaining about SC2 are having fun. I am having absolutely more fun playing SC2 than I ever did playing brood war. To me, that is what matters.
Games are entertaining to watch. Are we not seeing far more people watching SC2 compared to BW in the foreign scene? I personally can't stop watching SC2 and it is the same with so many friends I know who have never watched any form of esports in their lives, and they LOVE watching SC2. Most of them barely play any SC2.
We've seen the same top players constantly dominating Code S. There is no lack of skill gap at the top.
There is only a lower skill gap between Diamond and Masters and I think this is why so many here feel threatened and nostalgic about BW. Their sick control from all of their BW days, just isn't as valuable, as messing up pre-fight positioning, or not having the correct unit composition is far far more punishing. All of their little micro tricks and in-battle micro does them little good compared to how pure superior unit control could easily win them games by themselves in BW. They see themselves lose to players with less skillful micro skill, and rage about how SC2 isn't as good of a game. SC2 is very punishing in terms of making strategical blunders and you can't micro yourself out of many more situations. If you mess up and lose an engagement, you are probably done. Why is that so horrible? You made a mistake and lost because of it. You can't make mistakes and win because your opponent has worse micro than you. You shouldn't get chance after chance to micro your way out of losing situations.
There is lots of nostalgia going on in this thread and I think much of it is causing some short-sightedness. The direction you want SC2 to go from your post implies that it will be a pure strategy game, where only preparing and unit compisition matters, basically you prepare yourself for a fight, then both A-move yourself in the battle. During the battle you can not do anything to improve your chances of winning(over exegerrating but you get the point). Should Starcraft 2 be a game where only macro and strategy is important?Or should Starcraft 2 be a game where apart from macro and strategy there is also micro. How you control the units you produce should in my opinion just be as important as creating the right units. If you don't understand this, then well I can't help that. What I mean by this is that Starcraft 2 as of now is lacking units which become MUCH more potent if the players controll them well. Some micro tricks in sc2: Marine spread, Phoenix lifting Blink micro Forcefields Burrow micro Two pronged attacks, surrounds and sandwiches Storm dodging Muta micro Early game unit control, especially in PvP There are tonnes of aspects in SC2. It's not chess, and execution is extremely important. Early game unit control is a micro trick? Lol cmon you don't need to exaggerate to make a point. You're actually trying to include 'two pronged attacks' aka flanking as a TRICK? You could flank in every RTS ever. The only good example of dynamic unit micro that a lot of people want to see is banelings vs marines, and it's replaced lurkers vs marines anyway. Sure, but it's still micro. Alot of people are trying to make a point out of sc2 just being a bunch of mindless 1a attacks, which is actually not the case if you want to be successful. (I always automatically assume that these people are trying to get higher in their bronze division). Also compared to the first 6 months of Brood War, I'd say that the game shows alot of promise. It's not like the evolution of the game will stop dead in its tracks a year after release or anything. You can't really make a valid comparison between the two games when it comes to mechanics however, which is pretty much what the OP is trying to do. This isn't an expansion to Starcraft.. it's a whole new game. Like it or not. And yeah if you've watched high level PvP, the stalker zealot micro in the early phase is a pretty easy way to recognise the better player in the matchup.
I doubt you even saw anything from the first 6 month of Brood War. Even so, why is everyone trying to compare it to that? The 10 years of BW experience direct translates to SC2. People didn't even understand concepts like micro/macro back then which are widely understood now. Then you go on and say 'It's a whole new game' even though you are comparing it to BW yourself, make up your mind.
The amount of people in this thread who immediately go on the defensive in favour of SC2 just makes discussion literally pointless. You can make any valid points about missing elements you want but someones just going to come and post 'Yeah but BW wasn't even successful cause of the game!' and a million other side arguments. Starcraft 2 doesn't need you to defend it. If you're not interested in discussing the points don't even bother posting. Until these people stop there's nothing more to be said because it just gets lost among the pointless posts, like LaLush's excellent post.
|
Let me help some of you sc2 defenders:
On April 16 2011 13:59 mahnini wrote:
i have no doubt it's mechanically intensive but again mechanics was never the focal point of my unit relationship argument. you have to click a lot but the relationship is simple and all the micro is mostly damage mitigation. this is completely different from, say, attacking an entrench position in BW PvT.
tbh I don't understand wht the OP just doesn't play BW, it isn't like SC2 has to succeed, blizzard needs to fail once in a while so they don't get up themselves.
|
StarCraft 2 is missing nothing, I would like more units for each race to make the game more dynamic and skill based, but other than that, I'm happy.
|
On April 19 2011 18:44 osten wrote:
Well I agree but.... You don't understand how good Megaman 9 and 10 is. Not at all. You used that analogy quite errenous. If Blizzard did a scbw remake in that same way, we would have an aaaawesome game. Not SC2, but an awesome game nontheless.
I'm a big fan on MM9 and Mega Man in general, don't get me wrong. But the best game of the classic series is 2, and while I don't begrudge anyone who disagrees with that statement (it's an opinion, after all), they're in a VERY SMALL minority.
Starcraft 2 ignored a lot of what what made BW good.
If it didn't, SC2 would just kind of be redundant, even if it was still enjoyable. Like Mega Man 6.
|
hopefully the expansions help somewhat, but very good pot and good work
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:
therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass.
Tell to Blizzard.
They don't wait and see.
That's the whole fucking problem. Maybe SC2 was already "good" when it came out but everything that took skill or had imba potential got nerfed / taken out.
Do not expect Blizzard to stop this behaviour. They will always listen to the crybabies.
There's still HotS and LotV coming up throwing the games balance off even more.
Happy roulette.
Before LotV and the potential addon to the trilogy are out, "wait and see" is just a little too much to hope for because it won't get us anywhere at all.
In two years we can "wait and see" it develop, because then - it might be "final".
Frankly, I don't think it will ever balance out itself before Blizzard doesn't stfu with the patching.
BW got good/balanced after Blizzard stopped the patching...
Leave that shit to the community Blizzard, we are good at it, you're not.
|
SC2 isn't similar enough to BW to be good in the way that BW was good.
SC2 isn't different enough than BW to be good in a new, unique way.
The changes between the games have been honestly been few, but it happens to be the few that made BW really amazing.
I mean how many mechanics are new and spectator-friendly?
- cliff-walking
- blink (which is similar to the above)
- graviton beam
- creep mechanics can be cool
- ...
I don't know, for a game that took a decade to develop, it sure could have been a lot more different than BW. It could *actually* have been a truly different game that really pushed the boundaries, but meh...
|
my thoughts. many years too late
problem is.
starcraft 1 had simply attack move units and interesting very dynamic units
when blizzard were looking at sc1 and wondering what to replace with new units. i feel like they did it wrong. they kept almost all of the simple attack move units but then replaced the very dynamic units with more simple attack move units
the easiest comparison is always the reaver into colossus.
reaver was very dynamic and exciting/interesting to watch. whenever one was in a battle your eyes would be completely focused on it and any scarabs it fired.
whereas the colossus just amoves. instant damage.
i dont wish they'd just kept the reaver. it was fine the way they did it. keeping iconic units like the zergling/hydra/zealot (could you imagine sc without those?) but changing the "power" units as day9 would say. problem is they aren't interesting at all. like someone said before, maybe lalush? air units suffer from this aswell. they do TONS of damage now. but have lost almost all their agility.
|
Good op, but I'm seriously fucking sick of these kinds of threads. This is my official announcement of me not giving a shit about what happens to SC2 in the future... I'm just gonna play the game and hope for the best.
|
This reminds me of how I feel about FPS games... (sorry off topic)
Nothing in the market right now compares to the pure skill and gameplay of Quake 1 Teamfortress & TDM, it just doesn't.
And the arguments why new games aren't as good are similar to the OP's of why BW > SC2.
But as a 27 year old gamer I've learnt let go of the past and embrace the new.... playing modern stuff like Blops etc which some people would consider rubbish.
You can go on and on about the intricate details and mechanics of the new game vs the old.. but the fact is, people who love and have a passion for an old game will always want a new version to capture the same feeling, it just won't.....maybe as time goes by our ability to be amazed by the new just wanes....
|
As a player who joined the scene with the arrival of SC2, I read this OP and really feel like I'm missing out. I can't help but think it would be good for the scene as a whole to make the game harder and increase the skill gap. However, I don't know what an increased game difficulty would have on the potential fan/player base.
|
Wow, it's depressing just reading this thread. Do you people give anything a chance?
I remember being at PAX East, watching the epic showmatch they put on, and I'll be damned if that wasn't exhilarating. Perhaps sitting alone, wearing headphones, the game is not quite so exciting to watch. But even then, with the advent of the GSL and other major leagues (well, the ones that broadcast LIVE games anyways), with the knowledge that not only is it happening LIVE but there's some actual consequence to losing I can't help but feel excited about the match. Yes, micro in this game still has a long way to go, but that will come with time.
The game has been out for less than a year, with two more expansions on the way. For Christ's sakes, give it some time before you start tearing it to shreds. We love to complain about how Blizz sucks, but honestly, I think they know what they're doing on this one (minus the smartcasting - that's bullshit, and I hope they know it). They spend the first release (Wings of Liberty) building a core audience and balancing the game's fundamentals. They spend their expansions adding various high-skill units and spellcasters that build off of the foundation they've created. A lot more complex in practice, but I think that's a pretty damn good way to go about it.
TL;DR - stop whining, have some goddamn patience. SC2: only out for > than one year. 2 expansions coming, people.
|
I hope heart of the swarm does for sc 2 what bw did for sc. I very much like this thread so far. I'd type a more lengthy response but I'm on my phone rather than computer.
|
On April 20 2011 06:27 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:On April 19 2011 00:46 Scribble wrote:On April 19 2011 00:13 Humppis wrote:On April 18 2011 23:38 War Horse wrote:
I think Zerg needs a positional defense unit like the Lurker. Baneling filled the splash role but it doesn't really hold a position like a lurker, and it offers no "skill" really (you just roll banelings at their army, basically) P has forcefields and T has tanks but Z really has no equivalent.
Smartcasting, MBS, automine, etc is never going away so you might as well forget about that.
Also, talking about Sjow "being amazing" with low APM - Sjow wouldn't even make it out of Code A, so don't act like APM isn't meaningful. Once again this mind set of "we have seen everything already." No, you havent seen everything. Players might not have figured out how to properly use units like banelings. Sjow dosent seem to need more raw APM as hes beating hes opponents with that low APM: he has no insentive to improve hes APM. Instead he might want to scout a litle bit better, be more active on the map, etc. These things directly effect APM, even tho they arent doing what they do just so they can brag with their massive APM. Pros dont have these notepads next to their computers reading "Achieve and uphold 400 APM from beginning" or such nonsence. APM gets better once pros get better in their strategies, they will get faster once they haveto start doing more things at same time, and it will gradually increase as people refine their strategies and fit more and more stuff that makes their opponents life miserable. This also improves opponents APM as they have to be doing counter measures against the stuff thats thrown at em. I always find it hilarious when people have HUUUUUGE APM at the start of the game, but once something - anything - hapens on the map their APM drops to 0, still averaging something absurd from the early spamfest. I just wanted to emphasize this, especially the "we haven't seen everything," part. And since we're keen on making the BW comparisons in this thread, do you guys think there were people back when SC1 was a year old saying the same thing? "We've seen it all, this is where skill plateaus!" I encourage you all to check out this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057The things being done in that thread surpass, by a fucking enormous margin, the limits of what is humanly possible. However, if people are executing the micro from those videos as well as humanly possible, don't you think it's highly advantageous to do so? What is being shown in that thread is that the skill ceiling is FAR beyond what is humanly possible. What's more, nobody could have even conceived any of that a year ago, and yet here we are. Are we, as a community, honestly going to be arrogant enough to assume that there isn't more hidden potential just because this game isn't a direct remake of BW? I, for one, am convinced that this game has PLENTY of room to grow, and we are very far from hitting any kind of plateau. If you want to argue against that, I think you have to either prove A) That the kind of micro (or rather, a fraction) of what is exemplified in that thread isn't going to significantly differentiate a high-skill player from a lower skill one, B) That the skill ceiling is below the threshold of what is humanly possible (which I think is a pretty impossible argument to make, but go ahead and try), or C) That we, in all of our wisdom, know for certain that those are only isolated situational examples and thus can't be used to determine that player skill will not plateau based solely upon game mechanics being too easy. Again, folks, watch the game develop instead of insisting that it's flawed, that it's too inherently too easy. Nobody made the "SC1 can never be as good/competitive as WC2 argument because it's just not skill intensive enough" argument when SC1 was in its infancy, they just watched, and focused on getting better. Development came rapidly at first, then slowed dramatically, and then came in significant bursts as people learned how to manipulate hugely important nuances until the end result is what we know now as current day BW. I have a feeling we're going to be looking at SC2 in 2021 saying, "yeah, what a fucking ridiculous debate this was," as we marvel at the next generation of bonjwas separating themselves from the pack. tl;dr: Chill out, and watch the game progress instead of trying to spread the doom-and-gloom "it will always be inferior, easier, and less competitive than brood war unless the game gets changed," nonsense. Absolutely agree with this post. And also, a lot of people here seem to attribute BW's commercial success and supporting infrastructure to the game itself. This is blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding. BW wasn't big solely because the game design; the game design itself matters less for a game's commercial success than the environment it was released into. So for the love of God, please stop utilizing 'BW is so commercially successful and big!' as a validating argument for why BW > SC2 or any sort of similar argument. It's just not true. BW was commercially successful in Korea because it got lucky more than it was 'godly game design.' That being said, it is fallacious to put BW's game design on another pedestal compared to SC2 by utilizing 'commercially successful' as a key differentiating characteristic. More importantly, no one in this thread can really determine whether BW's 'deep strategic landscape' (i.e. strategically and tactical depth) is due solely to game design (ie.g. patches, unit combinations) or because it hit a critical mass in Korea where communities developed and could generate innovations together. So please, enough of this BW is more commercially successful, therefore it has to be a better game. -_-;; tl;dr: BW being big in Korea does not validate its game design implicitly, because BW's success was most likely due to the environment it was released into. Additionally, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. mapmakers, professional players) have been credited multiple times in this thread with increasing strategic depth within the game; therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Finally, because supporting infrastructure has been credited multiple times, this implicitly makes no conclusion on game design, making game design arguments between SC2 and BW fallacious. Logic. It is awesome. Use it. I still love lurkers. I don't think a single person in this thread, or in this community even, thinks that BW got successful purely due to game mechanics and nothing else. EVERYONE know that SC1 success had a lot to do with being in the right place in the right time. Nobody denies that, and Teamliquid is probably more aware of that than any other SC community out there. But at the same time, your argument somewhat implies that BW only got popular due to luck, which is just as "blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding". If BW only got popular due to lucky circumstances, it would have died out already because sooner or later the "bubble" would have popped and people would have realized that the game had no real competitive depth. Obviously that wasn't the case as BW is still immensely popular, and still stands as a triumph of competitive gaming. BW can stand on its own merits, and we have had 10+ years to analyze what those merits are, and how they worked together to make BW great. I fail to see why people are so vehemently against SC2 taking any lesson learned from BW. SC2 and BW may be different, but they are not THAT different. If I were to ask a person what game they consider most similar to BW, I can guarantee you that people are going to say SC2. They certainly aren't going to say Dawn of War, Age of Empires, or any other RTS simply because it's obvious that none of them are ever going to be as close to BW as SC2 is. The two games have differences, but they are both fundamentally Starcraft. And to be honest, most of what made BW great can easily be applied to every RTS out there, or just every competitive game for that matter. People seem to think that what makes BW good only applies to BW and absolutely nothing else, which is silly since anyone who knows anything about competition knows that the elements that create a competitive sport tend to be shared across numerous games, not just one. Most competitive games thrive on similar things: game being mechanically demanding, having strategies that can be executed and countered in multiple ways (i.e. no strict rock-paper-scissors gameplay), having good balance, not having strategies that are easy to use yet hard to counter, having elements that are weak in a newbie's hands while devastating in a pro's hands, and so on. Both SC1 and SC2 have these elements, which is why they are both competitive, but at the same time you can really tell that BW has more of these qualities than SC2, which is basically why we have threads like this so the game can get better. Games don't magically get better over time, otherwise tic-tac-toe would be the deepest game on the planet. A game has to have certain elements conducive to competitive play, and if a game doesn't have them, or they do have them but in lesser quality/quantity, then that's a cause for concern. I don't want to settle for less, nor do I want to just gamble everything on "wait and see". Games thrive on feedback, and that's what we should provide.
I didn't attribute it to just luck. I simply said that luck had a lot to do with it, and that popularity does not implicitly validate game design.
As to your second point, I actually agree with you, but my main contention (which you really ignored, for the record) was that BW's strategic and tactical depth had more to do with getting a community of a critical mass size in a single location (in this case Korea) than it does with the game design. Yes, game design does matter when trying to evaluate how deep a game is from an empirical perspective, but the exploration of that 'depth' so to speak can only be done when enough people are playing.
For example, if BW didn't have the professional player base, would we see as many innovative maps and gameplay tactics as we do now? Arguably, no. BW would just be 'any other RTS,' and it wouldn't have been explored as deeply as it currently has been. Yes, the design in retrospect enables this, but the community actualizes it.
So here's my contention broken up into points tl;dr style:
a) None of us individually has any ability to effective gauge SC2's gameplay design in terms of strategic depth as being 'higher' or 'lower' than BW's.
b) The SC2 community of mapmakers and professional players has not reached a critical mass that would cause a proliferation of strategies and tactics as seen in BW. You can argue reasons (including 'gameplay inhibits/does not inhibits this) but I don't think any of us can really argue this point. Even SC2 diehards have to acknowledge that SC2 communities are not yet as networked geographically (i.e. concentrated in a single area) or in sophistication (i.e. sophisticated mapmakers, etc) as BW is currently.
c) We can make a better assessment once SC2 reaches critical mass and there is a notable 'plateau' or ceiling. Now, of course, we can argue that it has or hasn't been reached, but I believe point b), which is a prerequisite for BW's success, hasn't been fulfilled yet.
d) Until then, we shouldn't be debating design choices and simply concentrate on exploring as much of SC2 as possible, and/or developing the community to hit that critical mass.
Is that more clear? In no way do I imply that 'luck' 100% was the cause of BW's success, and I wholly subscribe to BW's game design as fantastic. I am simply stating that we cannot evaluate SC2 in the same manner because BW's success was due to the critical mass of players in addition to it's game design. If that mass had never happened, BW would just 'be another RTS.'
Note: This doesn't even take into account cultural factors of eSport adoption in South Korea, so I've decided to ignore those. >_> That has to do with building up critical mass and how players approach the game both in terms of spectating and competing.
|
Players WILL get better, and eventually I believe it's going to be like BW. If you look now, nobody has the amazing build orders, timings, micro, macro, etc. BW pros do. This is because they have all played the game for years. SC2 has only been around for a year now, and nobody is even near the "skill cap" yet. We still see tons of mistakes that the amazing BW players don't make (at least very often).
Another thing, Blizzard just needs to lay off the patches and let players figure things out for themselves. There was a thread a couple days ago that made a great point in that Protoss players figured out how to play vs Terran, and how Zerg players learned to deal with the 2 rax. Builds come and go, and I'm sure there will be a ton more "(insert race/build here) is OP" threads and qq in the future, and some of the ones people are complaining about now will be totally forgotten.
|
On April 20 2011 10:26 s3raph wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 06:27 Spawkuring wrote:On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:On April 19 2011 00:46 Scribble wrote:On April 19 2011 00:13 Humppis wrote:On April 18 2011 23:38 War Horse wrote:
I think Zerg needs a positional defense unit like the Lurker. Baneling filled the splash role but it doesn't really hold a position like a lurker, and it offers no "skill" really (you just roll banelings at their army, basically) P has forcefields and T has tanks but Z really has no equivalent.
Smartcasting, MBS, automine, etc is never going away so you might as well forget about that.
Also, talking about Sjow "being amazing" with low APM - Sjow wouldn't even make it out of Code A, so don't act like APM isn't meaningful. Once again this mind set of "we have seen everything already." No, you havent seen everything. Players might not have figured out how to properly use units like banelings. Sjow dosent seem to need more raw APM as hes beating hes opponents with that low APM: he has no insentive to improve hes APM. Instead he might want to scout a litle bit better, be more active on the map, etc. These things directly effect APM, even tho they arent doing what they do just so they can brag with their massive APM. Pros dont have these notepads next to their computers reading "Achieve and uphold 400 APM from beginning" or such nonsence. APM gets better once pros get better in their strategies, they will get faster once they haveto start doing more things at same time, and it will gradually increase as people refine their strategies and fit more and more stuff that makes their opponents life miserable. This also improves opponents APM as they have to be doing counter measures against the stuff thats thrown at em. I always find it hilarious when people have HUUUUUGE APM at the start of the game, but once something - anything - hapens on the map their APM drops to 0, still averaging something absurd from the early spamfest. I just wanted to emphasize this, especially the "we haven't seen everything," part. And since we're keen on making the BW comparisons in this thread, do you guys think there were people back when SC1 was a year old saying the same thing? "We've seen it all, this is where skill plateaus!" I encourage you all to check out this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057The things being done in that thread surpass, by a fucking enormous margin, the limits of what is humanly possible. However, if people are executing the micro from those videos as well as humanly possible, don't you think it's highly advantageous to do so? What is being shown in that thread is that the skill ceiling is FAR beyond what is humanly possible. What's more, nobody could have even conceived any of that a year ago, and yet here we are. Are we, as a community, honestly going to be arrogant enough to assume that there isn't more hidden potential just because this game isn't a direct remake of BW? I, for one, am convinced that this game has PLENTY of room to grow, and we are very far from hitting any kind of plateau. If you want to argue against that, I think you have to either prove A) That the kind of micro (or rather, a fraction) of what is exemplified in that thread isn't going to significantly differentiate a high-skill player from a lower skill one, B) That the skill ceiling is below the threshold of what is humanly possible (which I think is a pretty impossible argument to make, but go ahead and try), or C) That we, in all of our wisdom, know for certain that those are only isolated situational examples and thus can't be used to determine that player skill will not plateau based solely upon game mechanics being too easy. Again, folks, watch the game develop instead of insisting that it's flawed, that it's too inherently too easy. Nobody made the "SC1 can never be as good/competitive as WC2 argument because it's just not skill intensive enough" argument when SC1 was in its infancy, they just watched, and focused on getting better. Development came rapidly at first, then slowed dramatically, and then came in significant bursts as people learned how to manipulate hugely important nuances until the end result is what we know now as current day BW. I have a feeling we're going to be looking at SC2 in 2021 saying, "yeah, what a fucking ridiculous debate this was," as we marvel at the next generation of bonjwas separating themselves from the pack. tl;dr: Chill out, and watch the game progress instead of trying to spread the doom-and-gloom "it will always be inferior, easier, and less competitive than brood war unless the game gets changed," nonsense. Absolutely agree with this post. And also, a lot of people here seem to attribute BW's commercial success and supporting infrastructure to the game itself. This is blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding. BW wasn't big solely because the game design; the game design itself matters less for a game's commercial success than the environment it was released into. So for the love of God, please stop utilizing 'BW is so commercially successful and big!' as a validating argument for why BW > SC2 or any sort of similar argument. It's just not true. BW was commercially successful in Korea because it got lucky more than it was 'godly game design.' That being said, it is fallacious to put BW's game design on another pedestal compared to SC2 by utilizing 'commercially successful' as a key differentiating characteristic. More importantly, no one in this thread can really determine whether BW's 'deep strategic landscape' (i.e. strategically and tactical depth) is due solely to game design (ie.g. patches, unit combinations) or because it hit a critical mass in Korea where communities developed and could generate innovations together. So please, enough of this BW is more commercially successful, therefore it has to be a better game. -_-;; tl;dr: BW being big in Korea does not validate its game design implicitly, because BW's success was most likely due to the environment it was released into. Additionally, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. mapmakers, professional players) have been credited multiple times in this thread with increasing strategic depth within the game; therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Finally, because supporting infrastructure has been credited multiple times, this implicitly makes no conclusion on game design, making game design arguments between SC2 and BW fallacious. Logic. It is awesome. Use it. I still love lurkers. I don't think a single person in this thread, or in this community even, thinks that BW got successful purely due to game mechanics and nothing else. EVERYONE know that SC1 success had a lot to do with being in the right place in the right time. Nobody denies that, and Teamliquid is probably more aware of that than any other SC community out there. But at the same time, your argument somewhat implies that BW only got popular due to luck, which is just as "blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding". If BW only got popular due to lucky circumstances, it would have died out already because sooner or later the "bubble" would have popped and people would have realized that the game had no real competitive depth. Obviously that wasn't the case as BW is still immensely popular, and still stands as a triumph of competitive gaming. BW can stand on its own merits, and we have had 10+ years to analyze what those merits are, and how they worked together to make BW great. I fail to see why people are so vehemently against SC2 taking any lesson learned from BW. SC2 and BW may be different, but they are not THAT different. If I were to ask a person what game they consider most similar to BW, I can guarantee you that people are going to say SC2. They certainly aren't going to say Dawn of War, Age of Empires, or any other RTS simply because it's obvious that none of them are ever going to be as close to BW as SC2 is. The two games have differences, but they are both fundamentally Starcraft. And to be honest, most of what made BW great can easily be applied to every RTS out there, or just every competitive game for that matter. People seem to think that what makes BW good only applies to BW and absolutely nothing else, which is silly since anyone who knows anything about competition knows that the elements that create a competitive sport tend to be shared across numerous games, not just one. Most competitive games thrive on similar things: game being mechanically demanding, having strategies that can be executed and countered in multiple ways (i.e. no strict rock-paper-scissors gameplay), having good balance, not having strategies that are easy to use yet hard to counter, having elements that are weak in a newbie's hands while devastating in a pro's hands, and so on. Both SC1 and SC2 have these elements, which is why they are both competitive, but at the same time you can really tell that BW has more of these qualities than SC2, which is basically why we have threads like this so the game can get better. Games don't magically get better over time, otherwise tic-tac-toe would be the deepest game on the planet. A game has to have certain elements conducive to competitive play, and if a game doesn't have them, or they do have them but in lesser quality/quantity, then that's a cause for concern. I don't want to settle for less, nor do I want to just gamble everything on "wait and see". Games thrive on feedback, and that's what we should provide. I didn't attribute it to just luck. I simply said that luck had a lot to do with it, and that popularity does not implicitly validate game design. As to your second point, I actually agree with you, but my main contention (which you really ignored, for the record) was that BW's strategic and tactical depth had more to do with getting a community of a critical mass size in a single location (in this case Korea) than it does with the game design. Yes, game design does matter when trying to evaluate how deep a game is from an empirical perspective, but the exploration of that 'depth' so to speak can only be done when enough people are playing. For example, if BW didn't have the professional player base, would we see as many innovative maps and gameplay tactics as we do now? Arguably, no. BW would just be 'any other RTS,' and it wouldn't have been explored as deeply as it currently has been. Yes, the design in retrospect enables this, but the community actualizes it. So here's my contention broken up into points tl;dr style: a) None of us individually has any ability to effective gauge SC2's gameplay design in terms of strategic depth as being 'higher' or 'lower' than BW's. b) The SC2 community of mapmakers and professional players has not reached a critical mass that would cause a proliferation of strategies and tactics as seen in BW. You can argue reasons (including 'gameplay inhibits/does not inhibits this) but I don't think any of us can really argue this point. Even SC2 diehards have to acknowledge that SC2 communities are not yet as networked geographically (i.e. concentrated in a single area) or in sophistication (i.e. sophisticated mapmakers, etc) as BW is currently. c) We can make a better assessment once SC2 reaches critical mass and there is a notable 'plateau' or ceiling. Now, of course, we can argue that it has or hasn't been reached, but I believe point b), which is a prerequisite for BW's success, hasn't been fulfilled yet. d) Until then, we shouldn't be debating design choices and simply concentrate on exploring as much of SC2 as possible, and/or developing the community to hit that critical mass. Is that more clear? In no way do I imply that 'luck' 100% was the cause of BW's success, and I wholly subscribe to BW's game design as fantastic. I am simply stating that we cannot evaluate SC2 in the same manner because BW's success was due to the critical mass of players in addition to it's game design. If that mass had never happened, BW would just 'be another RTS.' Note: This doesn't even take into account cultural factors of eSport adoption in South Korea, so I've decided to ignore those. >_> That has to do with building up critical mass and how players approach the game both in terms of spectating and competing.
Your argument relies of the basis that there is a "critical mass" of gamers. What exactly is a critical mass in this case? I'm pretty sure SC2 exploded in popularity worldwide (everywhere but Korea) when it was released. The entire foreign BW scene and pretty much all of the WC3 scene moved to SC2. You're telling me that isn't a large enough player base to criticize SC2?
It's pretty clear that SC2 could be a lot better at this point, as explained in the OP and Lalush's post. SC2 just seems lacking in several departments. Adding on to that, the skill ceiling of the game just seems lower overall (please don't link that 5000 apm micro bot to try to prove otherwise).
|
Personally I feel that a lot of the "issues", or whatever you might call them, with SC2 could be fixed just with increasing collision sizes or changing pathing. As it is, armies clump up. Probably more than in most RTS games. This means that the most efficient way of fighting is almost always with your ball of death, since it's always the best way of maximizing firepower. In BW, units didn't clump up in the same way, and firepower was therefore spread more thin meaning you could efficiently attack on a broader front as well as dedicating more units for harassing since the potential loss of firepower would be smaller than in SC2.
This also relates to how strong AOE and smartcasting is in SC2, compared to in BW were it could change the outcome of a battle, but not to the same extent. If your army actually spread out, smartcasting could actually be made somewhat impressive since you would have to be more selective with how you cast FF's, fungals, or whatever.
Most important, it would make it easier to spectate. In a ball of death vs ball of death battle, it can be extremely hard to keep track of whats going on; lasers flying all over, colossus obscuring most of the units, ghosts blending in with marines...
|
On April 20 2011 11:12 Daozzt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 10:26 s3raph wrote:On April 20 2011 06:27 Spawkuring wrote:On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:On April 19 2011 00:46 Scribble wrote:On April 19 2011 00:13 Humppis wrote:On April 18 2011 23:38 War Horse wrote:
I think Zerg needs a positional defense unit like the Lurker. Baneling filled the splash role but it doesn't really hold a position like a lurker, and it offers no "skill" really (you just roll banelings at their army, basically) P has forcefields and T has tanks but Z really has no equivalent.
Smartcasting, MBS, automine, etc is never going away so you might as well forget about that.
Also, talking about Sjow "being amazing" with low APM - Sjow wouldn't even make it out of Code A, so don't act like APM isn't meaningful. Once again this mind set of "we have seen everything already." No, you havent seen everything. Players might not have figured out how to properly use units like banelings. Sjow dosent seem to need more raw APM as hes beating hes opponents with that low APM: he has no insentive to improve hes APM. Instead he might want to scout a litle bit better, be more active on the map, etc. These things directly effect APM, even tho they arent doing what they do just so they can brag with their massive APM. Pros dont have these notepads next to their computers reading "Achieve and uphold 400 APM from beginning" or such nonsence. APM gets better once pros get better in their strategies, they will get faster once they haveto start doing more things at same time, and it will gradually increase as people refine their strategies and fit more and more stuff that makes their opponents life miserable. This also improves opponents APM as they have to be doing counter measures against the stuff thats thrown at em. I always find it hilarious when people have HUUUUUGE APM at the start of the game, but once something - anything - hapens on the map their APM drops to 0, still averaging something absurd from the early spamfest. I just wanted to emphasize this, especially the "we haven't seen everything," part. And since we're keen on making the BW comparisons in this thread, do you guys think there were people back when SC1 was a year old saying the same thing? "We've seen it all, this is where skill plateaus!" I encourage you all to check out this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=210057The things being done in that thread surpass, by a fucking enormous margin, the limits of what is humanly possible. However, if people are executing the micro from those videos as well as humanly possible, don't you think it's highly advantageous to do so? What is being shown in that thread is that the skill ceiling is FAR beyond what is humanly possible. What's more, nobody could have even conceived any of that a year ago, and yet here we are. Are we, as a community, honestly going to be arrogant enough to assume that there isn't more hidden potential just because this game isn't a direct remake of BW? I, for one, am convinced that this game has PLENTY of room to grow, and we are very far from hitting any kind of plateau. If you want to argue against that, I think you have to either prove A) That the kind of micro (or rather, a fraction) of what is exemplified in that thread isn't going to significantly differentiate a high-skill player from a lower skill one, B) That the skill ceiling is below the threshold of what is humanly possible (which I think is a pretty impossible argument to make, but go ahead and try), or C) That we, in all of our wisdom, know for certain that those are only isolated situational examples and thus can't be used to determine that player skill will not plateau based solely upon game mechanics being too easy. Again, folks, watch the game develop instead of insisting that it's flawed, that it's too inherently too easy. Nobody made the "SC1 can never be as good/competitive as WC2 argument because it's just not skill intensive enough" argument when SC1 was in its infancy, they just watched, and focused on getting better. Development came rapidly at first, then slowed dramatically, and then came in significant bursts as people learned how to manipulate hugely important nuances until the end result is what we know now as current day BW. I have a feeling we're going to be looking at SC2 in 2021 saying, "yeah, what a fucking ridiculous debate this was," as we marvel at the next generation of bonjwas separating themselves from the pack. tl;dr: Chill out, and watch the game progress instead of trying to spread the doom-and-gloom "it will always be inferior, easier, and less competitive than brood war unless the game gets changed," nonsense. Absolutely agree with this post. And also, a lot of people here seem to attribute BW's commercial success and supporting infrastructure to the game itself. This is blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding. BW wasn't big solely because the game design; the game design itself matters less for a game's commercial success than the environment it was released into. So for the love of God, please stop utilizing 'BW is so commercially successful and big!' as a validating argument for why BW > SC2 or any sort of similar argument. It's just not true. BW was commercially successful in Korea because it got lucky more than it was 'godly game design.' That being said, it is fallacious to put BW's game design on another pedestal compared to SC2 by utilizing 'commercially successful' as a key differentiating characteristic. More importantly, no one in this thread can really determine whether BW's 'deep strategic landscape' (i.e. strategically and tactical depth) is due solely to game design (ie.g. patches, unit combinations) or because it hit a critical mass in Korea where communities developed and could generate innovations together. So please, enough of this BW is more commercially successful, therefore it has to be a better game. -_-;; tl;dr: BW being big in Korea does not validate its game design implicitly, because BW's success was most likely due to the environment it was released into. Additionally, the supporting infrastructure (i.e. mapmakers, professional players) have been credited multiple times in this thread with increasing strategic depth within the game; therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Finally, because supporting infrastructure has been credited multiple times, this implicitly makes no conclusion on game design, making game design arguments between SC2 and BW fallacious. Logic. It is awesome. Use it. I still love lurkers. I don't think a single person in this thread, or in this community even, thinks that BW got successful purely due to game mechanics and nothing else. EVERYONE know that SC1 success had a lot to do with being in the right place in the right time. Nobody denies that, and Teamliquid is probably more aware of that than any other SC community out there. But at the same time, your argument somewhat implies that BW only got popular due to luck, which is just as "blatantly wrong, incorrect, short-sighted, and every other adjective you can think of that describes limited insight and understanding". If BW only got popular due to lucky circumstances, it would have died out already because sooner or later the "bubble" would have popped and people would have realized that the game had no real competitive depth. Obviously that wasn't the case as BW is still immensely popular, and still stands as a triumph of competitive gaming. BW can stand on its own merits, and we have had 10+ years to analyze what those merits are, and how they worked together to make BW great. I fail to see why people are so vehemently against SC2 taking any lesson learned from BW. SC2 and BW may be different, but they are not THAT different. If I were to ask a person what game they consider most similar to BW, I can guarantee you that people are going to say SC2. They certainly aren't going to say Dawn of War, Age of Empires, or any other RTS simply because it's obvious that none of them are ever going to be as close to BW as SC2 is. The two games have differences, but they are both fundamentally Starcraft. And to be honest, most of what made BW great can easily be applied to every RTS out there, or just every competitive game for that matter. People seem to think that what makes BW good only applies to BW and absolutely nothing else, which is silly since anyone who knows anything about competition knows that the elements that create a competitive sport tend to be shared across numerous games, not just one. Most competitive games thrive on similar things: game being mechanically demanding, having strategies that can be executed and countered in multiple ways (i.e. no strict rock-paper-scissors gameplay), having good balance, not having strategies that are easy to use yet hard to counter, having elements that are weak in a newbie's hands while devastating in a pro's hands, and so on. Both SC1 and SC2 have these elements, which is why they are both competitive, but at the same time you can really tell that BW has more of these qualities than SC2, which is basically why we have threads like this so the game can get better. Games don't magically get better over time, otherwise tic-tac-toe would be the deepest game on the planet. A game has to have certain elements conducive to competitive play, and if a game doesn't have them, or they do have them but in lesser quality/quantity, then that's a cause for concern. I don't want to settle for less, nor do I want to just gamble everything on "wait and see". Games thrive on feedback, and that's what we should provide. I didn't attribute it to just luck. I simply said that luck had a lot to do with it, and that popularity does not implicitly validate game design. As to your second point, I actually agree with you, but my main contention (which you really ignored, for the record) was that BW's strategic and tactical depth had more to do with getting a community of a critical mass size in a single location (in this case Korea) than it does with the game design. Yes, game design does matter when trying to evaluate how deep a game is from an empirical perspective, but the exploration of that 'depth' so to speak can only be done when enough people are playing. For example, if BW didn't have the professional player base, would we see as many innovative maps and gameplay tactics as we do now? Arguably, no. BW would just be 'any other RTS,' and it wouldn't have been explored as deeply as it currently has been. Yes, the design in retrospect enables this, but the community actualizes it. So here's my contention broken up into points tl;dr style: a) None of us individually has any ability to effective gauge SC2's gameplay design in terms of strategic depth as being 'higher' or 'lower' than BW's. b) The SC2 community of mapmakers and professional players has not reached a critical mass that would cause a proliferation of strategies and tactics as seen in BW. You can argue reasons (including 'gameplay inhibits/does not inhibits this) but I don't think any of us can really argue this point. Even SC2 diehards have to acknowledge that SC2 communities are not yet as networked geographically (i.e. concentrated in a single area) or in sophistication (i.e. sophisticated mapmakers, etc) as BW is currently. c) We can make a better assessment once SC2 reaches critical mass and there is a notable 'plateau' or ceiling. Now, of course, we can argue that it has or hasn't been reached, but I believe point b), which is a prerequisite for BW's success, hasn't been fulfilled yet. d) Until then, we shouldn't be debating design choices and simply concentrate on exploring as much of SC2 as possible, and/or developing the community to hit that critical mass. Is that more clear? In no way do I imply that 'luck' 100% was the cause of BW's success, and I wholly subscribe to BW's game design as fantastic. I am simply stating that we cannot evaluate SC2 in the same manner because BW's success was due to the critical mass of players in addition to it's game design. If that mass had never happened, BW would just 'be another RTS.' Note: This doesn't even take into account cultural factors of eSport adoption in South Korea, so I've decided to ignore those. >_> That has to do with building up critical mass and how players approach the game both in terms of spectating and competing. Your argument relies of the basis that there is a "critical mass" of gamers. What exactly is a critical mass in this case? I'm pretty sure SC2 exploded in popularity worldwide (everywhere but Korea) when it was released. The entire foreign BW scene and pretty much all of the WC3 scene moved to SC2. You're telling me that isn't a large enough player base to criticize SC2? It's pretty clear that SC2 could be a lot better at this point, as explained in the OP and Lalush's post. SC2 just seems lacking in several departments. Adding on to that, the skill ceiling of the game just seems lower overall (please don't link that 5000 apm micro bot to try to prove otherwise).
It's not about whether or not people can criticize. I'm simply stating that when we talk about game design, we shouldn't point to BW and say 'look, the game design here contributes 100% (or majorly) to strategic depth and therefore, we should emulate these aspects in SC2.' I apologize if that's not as clear.
As for critical mass, it has to do with a concentration of players that constantly explore new parts of the game and spread that information around. The best example is a team house. Players train together, and small innovations they make in strategic play (i.e. build a pylon on 9 instead of 8, etc) are spread to other players in the house. Now look at Korea for BW; a bunch of team houses in a relatively small geographic location so that there's ample opportunities for all of this information to spread among all members of the community. Then mapmakers add another layer of complexity on that. I believe all of that contributes a great deal to exploring strategic depth and enriching a metagame.
Now for SC2, you don't (right now) have as much of that concentration. Things like Day9 daily are great for spreading information in a onesided manner, but Joe, random bronze player who has come up with some timing that might be applicable to a progamer, can't spread it back. Team houses outside of Korea too, to my knowledge, are relatively rare, which prevents collaborative feedback, etc. Even in a sense, more tournaments with smaller prize pool prohibits information transfer because the opportunity cost is low (i.e. no big deal if I lose at this small tournament, so no reason to prepare harder/innovate more). This last point is a bit soft, admittedly, but I think the rest is pretty logical.
I attribute the 'missing factor' or the lack of strategic depth not to game design, but to this argument. I'm not saying that we shouldn't criticize, but that we should keep the context of our criticisms clear. It's one thing to say that, for example, units kill things quicker in SC2 than in BW and that results in a faster game pace that might pressure players to be more aggressive; it's an entirely different argument to say that things killing things too fast prevents passive openings completely and lowers strategic depth. The first is a tentative statement about game design independent of player actions, and the second is too dependent on player actions.
I hope this is a bit more clear.
|
On April 20 2011 06:33 infinity2k9 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:43 Euronyme wrote:On April 19 2011 06:46 infinity2k9 wrote:On April 19 2011 06:11 Euronyme wrote:On April 19 2011 05:00 Kipsate wrote:On April 19 2011 04:56 skipdog172 wrote:
I wonder if some of you complaining about SC2 are having fun. I am having absolutely more fun playing SC2 than I ever did playing brood war. To me, that is what matters.
Games are entertaining to watch. Are we not seeing far more people watching SC2 compared to BW in the foreign scene? I personally can't stop watching SC2 and it is the same with so many friends I know who have never watched any form of esports in their lives, and they LOVE watching SC2. Most of them barely play any SC2.
We've seen the same top players constantly dominating Code S. There is no lack of skill gap at the top.
There is only a lower skill gap between Diamond and Masters and I think this is why so many here feel threatened and nostalgic about BW. Their sick control from all of their BW days, just isn't as valuable, as messing up pre-fight positioning, or not having the correct unit composition is far far more punishing. All of their little micro tricks and in-battle micro does them little good compared to how pure superior unit control could easily win them games by themselves in BW. They see themselves lose to players with less skillful micro skill, and rage about how SC2 isn't as good of a game. SC2 is very punishing in terms of making strategical blunders and you can't micro yourself out of many more situations. If you mess up and lose an engagement, you are probably done. Why is that so horrible? You made a mistake and lost because of it. You can't make mistakes and win because your opponent has worse micro than you. You shouldn't get chance after chance to micro your way out of losing situations.
There is lots of nostalgia going on in this thread and I think much of it is causing some short-sightedness. The direction you want SC2 to go from your post implies that it will be a pure strategy game, where only preparing and unit compisition matters, basically you prepare yourself for a fight, then both A-move yourself in the battle. During the battle you can not do anything to improve your chances of winning(over exegerrating but you get the point). Should Starcraft 2 be a game where only macro and strategy is important?Or should Starcraft 2 be a game where apart from macro and strategy there is also micro. How you control the units you produce should in my opinion just be as important as creating the right units. If you don't understand this, then well I can't help that. What I mean by this is that Starcraft 2 as of now is lacking units which become MUCH more potent if the players controll them well. Some micro tricks in sc2: Marine spread, Phoenix lifting Blink micro Forcefields Burrow micro Two pronged attacks, surrounds and sandwiches Storm dodging Muta micro Early game unit control, especially in PvP There are tonnes of aspects in SC2. It's not chess, and execution is extremely important. Early game unit control is a micro trick? Lol cmon you don't need to exaggerate to make a point. You're actually trying to include 'two pronged attacks' aka flanking as a TRICK? You could flank in every RTS ever. The only good example of dynamic unit micro that a lot of people want to see is banelings vs marines, and it's replaced lurkers vs marines anyway. Sure, but it's still micro. Alot of people are trying to make a point out of sc2 just being a bunch of mindless 1a attacks, which is actually not the case if you want to be successful. (I always automatically assume that these people are trying to get higher in their bronze division). Also compared to the first 6 months of Brood War, I'd say that the game shows alot of promise. It's not like the evolution of the game will stop dead in its tracks a year after release or anything. You can't really make a valid comparison between the two games when it comes to mechanics however, which is pretty much what the OP is trying to do. This isn't an expansion to Starcraft.. it's a whole new game. Like it or not. And yeah if you've watched high level PvP, the stalker zealot micro in the early phase is a pretty easy way to recognise the better player in the matchup. I doubt you even saw anything from the first 6 month of Brood War. Even so, why is everyone trying to compare it to that? The 10 years of BW experience direct translates to SC2. People didn't even understand concepts like micro/macro back then which are widely understood now. Then you go on and say 'It's a whole new game' even though you are comparing it to BW yourself, make up your mind. The amount of people in this thread who immediately go on the defensive in favour of SC2 just makes discussion literally pointless. You can make any valid points about missing elements you want but someones just going to come and post 'Yeah but BW wasn't even successful cause of the game!' and a million other side arguments. Starcraft 2 doesn't need you to defend it. If you're not interested in discussing the points don't even bother posting. Until these people stop there's nothing more to be said because it just gets lost among the pointless posts, like LaLush's excellent post.
I'll respond directly. I'm simply stating that it's hard to have a discussion in the context of the OP (i.e. directly comparing game design elements in BW to SC2) when SC2 as a game hasn't been fully explored yet by the community at large, including professional players. Take for example, the idea that units in SC are one dimensional.
So are pieces in chess. Does that mean chess is 'strategically shallower?' Does it make player-player interaction less complex? No.
What matters is the overall game of BW vs SC2, and SC2 hasn't been fully explored yet. Any conjecture, therefore, is in my opinion premature. Of course, it won't prevent people like you from attempting to prove otherwise. =P
|
On April 20 2011 08:36 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 05:55 s3raph wrote:
therefore, this validates the 'wait and see' argument for SC2 because SC2 communities have most likely not yet reached critical mass. Frankly, I don't think it will ever balance out itself before Blizzard doesn't stfu with the patching. BW got good/balanced after Blizzard stopped the patching...Leave that shit to the community Blizzard, we are good at it, you're not.
Yes! YES! YES!
Every time I see about SC2 whine about their game being imbalanced, I blame Blizzard!
Korean BW proscene is what it is now because of the players. PLAYERS BALANCE THE GAMES! MAPS ARE THERE TO ADD MORE BALANCE!
This will be like WOW where they balance their PvP for PvE and STILL want to cater to new players. If BLIZZARD will stop spoon feeding noobs, we can have this SKILL CAP!
Read this so that you, SC2 groupies will know what BW is missing ..
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=213263
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
