EPTOn May 03 2011 14:37 Nazza wrote:
Nice Game, funny how it make the crowd change the player they Cheerfor with the awesome play displayed :p
[D] What SC2 is missing? - Page 70
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Rodiel3
France1158 Posts
Nice Game, funny how it make the crowd change the player they Cheerfor with the awesome play displayed :p | ||
|
Sachar Nabai
Sweden56 Posts
On May 12 2011 09:23 EscPlan9 wrote: Re-read the OP. What elements of RTS games are missing to make SC2 a "magical game" akin to the best possible example (BW)? He shows some of the "magic" from the best example BW and describes how it is missing and its effect on SC2. This is not a thread on "BW is better than SC2 because it's more difficult". OP mentions a lot of specific elements that were a big part of what made BW an amazingly successful game. Notice he doesn't discuss having to babysit your base to individually rally each worker to minerals. Automining is fine. He also doesn't discuss selecting each individual gateway/rax/hatch as something SC2 is missing. Again, he highlights some important interactions that could be included to make SC2 an EVEN BETTER game. Please read the thread and think before making these assumptions. You are completely right sir, but it was a simple misunderstanding due to my lack of forum experience. My post was not directed at the OP at all but at the general attitude I heard from many of the replies but also the general assumptions people often have when comparing two things that are similar on the surface. That tendency was not (what I could sense at least) present in the OP. And thank you for pointing out where I was wrong (though it was only a misunderstanding) instead of getting defensive and thereby hindering me for understanding what had happened, that I had phrased it so poorly. Just to make it as clear as possible: I more or less COMPLETELY agree with the OP. | ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
Protoss can only go gateway, terrans have the option of bio or mech(although i think itd be say to say they always go bio), and zergs just do whatever their opponent doesnt want I'm really starting to get bored of laddering... | ||
|
Sovetsky Soyuz
Russian Federation905 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:01 BushidoSnipr wrote: SC2 is missing variety. Protoss can only go gateway, terrans have the option of bio or mech(although i think itd be say to say they always go bio), and zergs just do whatever their opponent doesnt want I'm really starting to get bored of laddering... I also feels like this. Im not very good at BW but there are many you can do options thats it is always is fun. In SC2 it always the same, me and opponent. Ladder is boring already | ||
|
Sachar Nabai
Sweden56 Posts
On May 12 2011 10:01 BushidoSnipr wrote: SC2 is missing variety. Protoss can only go gateway, terrans have the option of bio or mech(although i think itd be say to say they always go bio), and zergs just do whatever their opponent doesnt want I'm really starting to get bored of laddering... I cant really say I agree with this. Maybe with terran having limited viable options but they, on the other hand, have many different openings for different harassment etc. Protoss have viable builds based at least partly on both Stargates or robos as well as having many different cutesy things to throw at an opponent like for example DTs or a fake fast expansion 4 warp gate all ins. And you actually yourself said that Zerg can do many different things... I would say there is more a lack of depth then a lack of variety. Not very on topic though... a little... but still... | ||
|
NgrySqrrl
Canada36 Posts
| ||
|
[N3O]r3d33m3r
Germany673 Posts
On April 17 2011 08:21 Pokeymans wrote: My problem with SC2 is that it is indeed missing something. Its nothing that I can really put my finger on, but heres an example: When I used to play SC1 I could play all day and have fun. I could play game after game and the time would fly and I would be able to play for hours almost always wanting more. With SC2, even when I have lots of free time I find myself not wanting to play too many games in a row. I will play 3-5, win or lose doesnt matter, and then think to myself "okay that was alright, let me go do something else now". Something about the gameplay doesnt hold me like SC1 did. I actually like the MBS and the improvements to the interface, so thats all good, but something about how the game flows doesnt keep my attention very long. this is it. it just isn't all that fun, it's a good game but i wouldn't call it an A+ game | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Maybe it was wrong to add air units to sc2 :p, but i guess since they get used more and more in bw now... i like playing bw, but i also like playing sc2. The games feel a bit different, but i actually like both, or rather i dislike things on the one thing and other on the other. So i don't really think something is missing in sc2. But for people that just love bw every game will be judged and anything that is different is bad. I like the game speed of bw, sc2 is a bit to fast for lazy me, in bw i can lay mines siege up my tanks one by one. In sc2 i feel in a hurry. while i love air units in sc2, i dislik that i have to always be prepared and have anti air, in bw air was non existent, or you could prepare when it was already bashing you. also like the new units and skills and the damage/target system, that forces alot of micro and with it your army is way way better. i hate the you are macroing while half of your army dies to a spellcaster suicide, really annyoing. Thats why i like the you can stay a long time with your army and micro it from sc2. Even though you don't get thos disaster lucky shots that you get in bw ^^. | ||
|
Akta
447 Posts
And I don't think that is ideal from a viewers perspective as players get better, because the micro will probably become impossible for viewers keep up with eventually for the same reason the micro advantage potential is basically infinite - that everything happens so quickly. More strategical game play or whatever might be easier to keep up with for viewers but the key is probably just that viewers need to understand what is going on and there are probably thousands of factors that effect that. Which leads to an advantage with for example sc2's graphics compared to bw's that I don't see being brought up often, that graphics can make it easier for casual viewers to understand what is going on by just looking at what is happening on the screen. | ||
|
0mgVitaminE
United States1278 Posts
Saying "just give it time" isn't going to work, and although it will get better (much better), elements like those raised in the op aren't going to figure themselves out over time. | ||
|
GenoPsydE
Canada88 Posts
On April 16 2011 09:53 Excalibur_Z wrote: There was another thread that discussed "anti-micro" abilities like Force Field and Fungal Growth, and there were some valid points there. As a player, you hate being on the receiving end of those abilities, but you love the satisfaction of successfully using those abilities. They're basically game-changing, in a similar way to BW's Psi Storm or Plague. In both situations, you have to approach the opposing army with the thought of "I'll be okay as long as his spellcasting micro is suboptimal." That feeling is still preserved in SC2, it's just more pronounced because units pack together more easily and battles tend to end more quickly. In SC2, because your units are more effective in a "ball" and you're not fighting pathing, it's almost always better to bring as many units together as possible. I think if the pathfinding in BW were better we would see the same thing. Any unit that you are not actively bringing with you is wasted potential damage that could help turn the tide of a battle. There is still some pretty cool stuff in SC2 like Blink micro that doesn't really have a BW equivalent, though. Absolutely this! And, never mind the OMG that was so OP! There is always something that cries our for more in-depth study to counter. That is why I love this game... | ||
|
haaduken
United States41 Posts
There are still plenty of micro opportunities that have only recently begun to show themselves like proper marine splitting vs baneling attack, and effective creep use, high ground advantage. Yes these are used today, but I think these and plenty more examples can be perfected. Give it time and less compare less. Although the two games share the same name, were made by the same company, they are entirely different. | ||
|
TaShadan
Germany1977 Posts
also the lack of high ground advantage takes away alot of depth it makes positioning less important | ||
|
NoobSkills
United States1600 Posts
On May 12 2011 17:07 haaduken wrote: I don't know if this has already been said as there are 70 pages of responses, but I really agree that what makes BW is it's brokenness and people's ability to work around it's limitations. Blizzard simply fixed a lot of those issues, where everything is programmed to work as intended. I disagree that this dumbs down the game, it just changes the way it is played. There are still plenty of micro opportunities that have only recently begun to show themselves like proper marine splitting vs baneling attack, and effective creep use, high ground advantage. Yes these are used today, but I think these and plenty more examples can be perfected. Give it time and less compare less. Although the two games share the same name, were made by the same company, they are entirely different. Won't ever be the same as BW. They make macro easier (because nobody likes to watch macro really), but micro was dumbed down way too far. People will get better and micro will be better to watch, but it will NEVER hit BW level. I still will watch every tournament I can for SC2, but there just aren't the opportunities in this game (yet) because we don't know what HOTS will bring. | ||
| ||
