|
On June 12 2011 22:18 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2011 22:12 karpo wrote:On June 12 2011 22:04 Zapdos_Smithh wrote:On June 12 2011 21:48 monkh wrote:
Sen & Interviewers:
a lots of pros chinese dont think the game is closed to balanced. Comparing rush in BW and sc2, rushing in sc2 are much powerful and have follow up to them, unlike BW they are heavily punished. (dustin troll the chinese trans at this part, i skip) is it intentionally in design?
Dustin Browder:
no, we just make the game and the pros decided how they will play the game. i dont believe rush are that strong, i dont really agree with the question so i will talk to the balance designed team about that problem (he answered this like trying to dodge the question, press skill lol)
Sen & Interviewers:
but the rush are stronger than BW
Dustin Browder:
we dont make the game based on BW: new engine, new system, 2 games are not the same.
Never understood that first question, i just presumed it was a miss translation presume they meant timing pushes. Rushes aren't very strong (6pool terrible never wins, 2gate moderately strong but not to hard to deal with, 2rax + bunkers moderately hard but defend able only one there which may be a slight problem is 2rax but only because zergs don't want to get the early lings. Not sure about fast marauder vs P but I'd imagine zealot sentry kills it fairly easy) On June 12 2011 14:37 Daiki wrote:
i gave up on dustin when he stated that sc2 is more micro intensive than bw. Imo, he also ruined command and conquer generals. I think it was day9 who said game has potential to be more micro intensive than broodwar just players need to develop better skills. On June 12 2011 14:58 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 12 2011 14:51 Halcyondaze wrote:
Blizzard interacts with its customers more than any gaming company bar none. It is not even close. Well 1. That's not true 2. Communication does not have a lot to do with how many interviews you do and how much interaction you have. When someone has good communication skills, it doesn't mean they talk to a lot of people. It means they have the ability to understand, comprehend and respond in a way that is relevant. Unfortunately the latter is not really happening. Although Blizzard is listening, there seems to be many inherent problems in the way they listen and respond. For example the Phoenix change when it came to moving shot, and the way Dustin Browder responds to a lot of questions, and slag pits. Which similar sized company communicates to their fan base more or as much as blizzard? I hate arguing on these threads but I just want to say that you are completely wrong about all of your points. Rushing isn't punished as severely as it was in BW. Comparing 6 pool and 2 gate as the rush standards are ridiculous because those are extremes and nobody even does them anyway. If you did a 3 gate all-in like you did in BW you could not expand off of that, you would simply lose if you didn't do enough damage. Just because Day[9] says it might be potential to have more micro than BW, that means hardly anything I'm sorry. With smartcasting and the current units SC2 has they will never come close to BW micro. Smartcasting makes micro 10X easier. Compare the use of storm in SC1 vs SC2...that's as simple as it gets. In SC1 manually select each templar and cast storm...in SC2 press 1 hotkey and spam TTTT. Having all your units on 1-3 hotkeys max as opposed to having them on 5-6 hotkeys is also 10X easier. Have you ever controlled lurker/ling/defiler/scourge? What about marine/medic/tank/vessel? Corsair/shuttle/reaver? They are so difficult to control it's hard to even describe. Try it out yourself and get good with it to see what I mean. Edit: For reference I love SC2...I just hate misinformed/ignorant opinions like yours, sorry to say. So we should take your word for micro and disregard Day9's why? It's kinda weird that you just disregard what he says then list a bunch of stuff from BW as some kind of proof. We don't know what kind of micro can be achieved in SC2 yet. There's a shitload more micro in games now than 6 months ago, that's for sure. #1. Find the source for me where Day[9] says that SC2 micro > BW micro, or will be some day. #2. It's basic facts. SC2 is user-friendly, Browder even said it himself. BW is not user-friendly. With the current units available...I can't see any micro being at a HIGHER level than BW. I can see it being high for sure....not higher though. I like hearing about positive statements for SC2's future...I absolutely cannot bear reading statements by people who obviously have never played BW at a competitive level trying to bring down BW. SC2 will be better for sure...but why bring BW into the picture? BW deserves a little more respect on these forums. Btw if you would like to continue to refute my points, please provide your BW history. Basically if you played PGT/iccup and what was the highest rank you achieved. For me I was a C- zerg on the brink of C at my peak in about 2008/9 or so. The reason I say this is because it's useless to argue with somebody who is comparing the 2 games when he/she clearly hasn't even played it at a competitive level.
I really don't care about BW. I don't see anyone so far that's anywhere close to reaching the cieling of SC2 micro/multitasking. That's all i'm saying. You can post you ICCUP stats and talk about how hard BW is. It does nothing to change the fact that we might see higher apm and more micro in SC2 in a year or two than we ever saw in BW. I'm saying i don't know, you're saying you know cause you played BW.
I have no interest in "bringing BW down". I'm just saying that there's potential for micro in SC2 and stating some micro intesive BW tasks don't prove or disprove anything.
|
I think the roach is a fine unit as it... But the Corruptor and Colossus are definatly in need of some change.
|
On June 12 2011 22:23 youngminii wrote:
lol
he literally said "if you don't like sc2 go play bw"
what the fuck kind of argument is that
he is right, I'm tired of this BW bullshit in the SC2 area...
I don't give a shit for why BW was good, SC2 is not BW, get over it...
and yes, I played BW before SC2
|
What I got from this is that since it's Dustin Browder who's sort of the head honcho designing SC2, the whole "we dont want to take from Brood War" argument isn't going to budge because he wants to make this his own thing. I can understand that.
However... Brood War was a lot better then Command and Conquer.
Im just saying.
There's clearly something that the original designers got right that he keeps missing out on, even today as he's working on SC2.
|
People who say they don't care about SC BW are just playing SC2 because it is new and have no feel or understanding about why SC BW was such a good RTS.
Blizzard being out of touch with TL is the same as TL being out of touch with most of the rest of the game industry. It is true.
I expect SC3 will be played with Kinetic. You vote with your wallet, people. If you don't like a game or a trend, don't pay for it. If you do, you tell Blizzard "We want more of this."
Browder said he wants mothers of WoW players to play SC2. That's why the game is designed as it is. And now we have mothers of WoW players on TL telling us they don't care about esports or SC BW.
How often have you seen people on TL say: "Lol why do you care so much about esports?" since Sc2 was released?
We have to realize we are out of touch with the younger generation. Blizzard is too big to make a worthy successor to SC BW because it's too much of a fringe market. We will have to wait for a small studio to attempt it. Maybe S2 games can do it. They seem a lot and a lot more keen on understanding what this fringe market wants. Not sure about their RTS expertize.
But first SC2 must be out of the way. No company is going to try to compete with Blizzard on a successor of SC BW. Blizzard is just too big of a name and has too much money.
We the fringe group lost our successor to SC BW when Pillars left the dev team. People could have known what would happen. We got many clues and stories about how discussions went inside the dev team and how hard a time David Kim had. Somehow he was able to not get frustrated like Pillars and quit. But he must have run into a brick wall on a daily basis.
Cowsgomoo gave us some insights about this. I remember how he talked about maps when it was still early internal beta.
So let's hope SC2 goes out of the way quickly and Blizzard moves on and see who dares to jump in the gap Blizzard has left. Most people that cared about SC BW gave up on SC2 a long time ago. You see all the famous people moved on to SC2 but they just do it because of the money and popularity. A lot of the top players deeply dislike SC2. I remember all the criticism from these people. But when they decided internally they wanted SC2 to succeed and SC2 wasn't going to change anymore, they stopped talking about it. Nony, Artosis, Tasteless, Idra, etc. Ret at first wasn't going to play SC2. We know he dislikes the game. But he plays anyway.
Day9 is a special case. He has always been a Blizzard apologist. He is just a bit nutty, let me put it like this. People who know him better and played many games with him know what I mean. His position to refuse imbalance can exist is just an example of this because actually a game ca never be perfectly balanced unless there is perfect symmetry. So was his argument against extended series he once made on SotG.
|
As much as colossus are boring units, it doesn't make them the most uninteresting to me. They do have a neat ability to move up and down cliffs and their AoE is somewhat interesting too as it isn't in a radius, so much.
I'd say it annoys me that there are a ton of early tank-like units, like the roach that serve no other real big purpose. It's not to say progamers cannot make it work, but I cannot help but think roach and marauder weren't looked at very well.
I don't want them to take every aspect of Brood War, but obviously some should have been taken into some inspiration.
I suppose the other thing that kills me is how general purpose truly defines the marine in SC2, compared to Brood War. But that's more of a personal thing.
I'd just say that Dustin Browder should really just consider what other players are saying rather than saying it's supposed to be different. Especially if he's asking for insight from others, and then later on saying that things weren't working as intended as time passed by.
|
On June 12 2011 22:31 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2011 22:23 youngminii wrote:
lol
he literally said "if you don't like sc2 go play bw"
what the fuck kind of argument is that he is right, I'm tired of this BW bullshit in the SC2 area... I don't give a shit for why BW was good, SC2 is not BW, get over it... and yes, I played BW before SC2
Maybe that would be a valid argument if the name of the game wasn't STARCRAFT 2
You're pretty delusional if you think that people won't judge a sequel by using the games that came before it in the same series as a metric... much less anticipate general game concepts carrying over.
|
On June 12 2011 22:36 Hekisui wrote:
People who say they don't care about SC BW are just playing SC2 because it is new and have no feel or understanding about why SC BW was such a good RTS.
Blizzard being out of touch with TL is the same as TL being out of touch with most of the rest of the game industry. It is true.
I expect SC3 will be played with Kinetic. You vote with your wallet, people. If you don't like a game or a trend, don't pay for it. If you do, you tell Blizzard "We want more of this."
Browder said he wants mothers of WoW players to play SC2. That's why the game is designed as it is. And now we have mothers of WoW players on TL telling us they don't care about esports or SC BW.
How often have you seed people on TL say: "Lol why do you care so much about esports?" since Sc2 was released?
Man, those are some great generalizations. I was 14 when SC1 was released. I played it alot over 56k modem and LAN. I still prefer playing and watching SC2 over BW.
Equating having a game with a bit less demand on mechanics to playing brainless party games on the "Kinetic" is just stupid.
|
*pops into an interesting thread ready to give his personal take on this complex issue*
*notices this is just another SC2 vs BW flamewar*
*ducks out*
|
Many games are getting Kinetic now, including Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect actually comes from a tradition that started with a hardcore PC game. These are the trends of mainstream games. We are talking about a newer generation now. But there will be a new generation after that.
I don't care how old you are. The argument goes two ways. If Blizzard wasn't in touch with those that are going to buy most of their games, they will go broke. They need to be out of touch with TL. If they don't, they go broke.
Blizzard is actually in a scary position. Shareholders demand the stock rises all the time. Blizzard had WoW which will now be on the decline and I can't imagine how they will ever make a game more successful than WoW. But this is what is expected.
They will risk a lot to try to increase their stock. And that may actually be their downfall. People at Blizzard realize this, but they have no choice.
|
Whenever I read a post by any of the die hard SC2 apologists I get an impression that if one were to poll them, asking a question:
#1 Do you want SC2 to be more like BW?
They'd be like "HELL NO!"
And if you asked them:
#2 Do you want SC2 to have more unit relationships like Marines vs. Banelings (where micro is the deciding factor), no deathballs, no ball vs. ball gameplay, units that allow for positional battles?
They'd be like "HELL YES!"
Those two are synonymous. Nobody is asking for BW with newer graphics. Being more like BW does not mean copying everything from BW. Marines vs. Banelings is very BW-esque. Do you want to get rid of it and make Banelings rape Marines because it's similar to how BW worked? Armies of Exigo was very different from BW in terms of the actual abilities, units, etc., but was still VERY BW-like. Nothing stops SC2 from following that route.
|
On June 12 2011 22:49 Hekisui wrote:
Many games are getting Kinetic now, including Mass Effect 3.
Mass Effect actually comes from a tradition that started with a hardcore PC game. These are the trends of mainstream games. We are talking about a newer generation now. But there will be a new generation after that.
I don't care how old you are. The argument goes two ways. If Blizzard wasn't in touch with those that are going to buy most of their games, they will go broke. They need to be out of touch with TL. If they don't, they go broke.
Blizzard is actually in a scary position. Shareholders demand the stock rises all the time. Blizzard had WoW which will now be on the decline and I can't imagine how they will ever make a game more successful than WoW. But this is what is expected.
They will risk a lot to try to increase their stock. And that may actually be their downfall. People at Blizzard realize this, but they have no choice.
SC2 is doing quite well in sales. WoW is losing customers but Blizzard already has another MMO in the works. To me your posts sound like alot of loose speculation.
|
|
|
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote:
I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
Do you want Marine vs. Baneling micro removed because it's similar to BW, too?
|
On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote:
I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away.
We want the GOOD aspects of BW. Why can't you SC2 noobies not understand this? Like a post above this...don't you LIKE marine/baneling relationships? How one unit is supposed to counter another which with good micro can beat another which with good micro on the other end can beat them? Don't you like this stuff? BW mechanics will bring this stuff! We want SC2 to be great as well!
Sometimes I feel like I am getting trolled here....
On June 12 2011 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2011 22:56 starmeat_ wrote:
I wish all these whiners comparing SC2 to BW would STFU and just go play BW.
You guys could create some kind of a haven for yourselves and organize in little groups complaining about how bad micro in SC2 is and how at least 15 units in the game are imbalanced.
Correct me if I'm wrong, Browder even posited the idea within the same interview that people are welcome to go back playing BW if they didn't like SC2.
So please go, go away. Do you want Marine vs. Baneling micro removed because it's similar to BW, too?
Lol I love how some people are like "FUCK BW! I HATE BW!!!!!"...yet they want zerglings, zealots, marines, tanks. If you don't like SC1...well...you are pretty well playing it with a couple new units and graphics. It's it also ironic how the SC1 strict units are the least complained about
|
I edited the OP to try and give a clearer understanding of what I meant by communication and out of touch.
I think people are getting angry that I am quoting when Blizzard says something silly and then somehow trying to deny it, even though it was Blizzard that said it. I would like it if someone could explain why quoting Blizzard = insulting them.
It wasn't hard to find these answers honestly. If you read the interviews, when they hit the part about a topic which points at a particular problem, 9 times out of 10 it is either dodged, refuted with a silly example, or flat out denied ("Do you really want chat channels?"). When the best way would be to acknowledge the problem and provide a proper response. If every time this happens they give a response which doesn't make any sense (ling vs templar as an example), then it shows that they are out of touch, and there needs improvement in understanding the game.
There are many times when Blizzard "caving in" to significant pressure has improved the game.
Early game reapers
Many other balance changes
Chat Channels
Better Maps
(Hopefully after the recent poll) Less destructible rocks
Quite a few more
Unfortunately this is the only way Blizzard will change things. While they do interviews with GSL map makers, pro-gamers, and so on and so forth. They won't listen to their advice and not a lot comes out of them.
That said feel free to give your opinion on why I am wrong. I still believe this is an area Blizzard has significant room to improve.
And sigh I really wasn't arguing about SC2 vs BW. If anything the BW reference has to do with how Browder dismissed Sen's questions. (T_T)
On June 12 2011 22:48 Archerofaiur wrote:
*pops into an interesting thread ready to give his personal take on this complex issue*
*notices this is just another SC2 vs BW flamewar*
*ducks out*
This
|
On June 12 2011 22:54 karpo wrote:
SC2 is doing quite well in sales. WoW is losing customers but Blizzard already has another MMO in the works. To me your posts sound like alot of loose speculation.
Maybe you should count better. SC2 cost a lot more to make than SC and sold a lot less.
Not going broke doesn't mean their stock rises. Their stock needs to rise somehow. They have to aim to get more subscribers from their new MMO than they had at the peak of WoW.
But instead SC2 declined after SC and the new MMO will likely be a decline compared to WoW. With D3 Blizzard has to move the game to console or else it will also sell less while costing more than D2.
WoW was a bit of a fluke. We had EQ and UO and those MMOs got old and were never mainstream. There was a gap for a modern new solid MMO. WoW was that. And based on market research they decided to make a very casual MMO compared to the others and this was jackpot. Blizzard has learned this lesson very well and with SC2 they aimed to do the same.
It's hard to see how their new MMO will get so many subscribers when there is now a lot of competition. Blizzard knows this is difficult. So they are worried about coming up with something new that can do the same as WoW in another way.
An esports RTS isn't that. Likely, they will be looking at a console oriented game aiming for Call to Duty and Halo people. They still have their frozen Starcraft Ghost. Ideally they want to get unto that market.
PC gaming is not where the money is unless it's MMO of facebook games. Hardcore gaming on PC is basically dead. Games like Civ5 and SC2 are proof of that.
|
Zapdos if you go back a few pages and read what the people you're arguing with are saying you'll realize the main sentiment here is I WANT TO WIN EASIER LOL. Theres a lot of pretty crap posting going on this morning and I'm not excluded from that.
On June 12 2011 23:05 Hekisui wrote:
Maybe you should count better. SC2 cost a lot more to make than SC and sold a lot less.
Here's a great example. A comparison between a 11 year old game and a less than 1 year old game in terms of sales.
|
Rofl. You think SC2 will sell more in the future like SC BW did?
Your own post is an example of stupid posts. The game industry changed a lot. People aren't going to buy old games.
|
On June 12 2011 23:11 Hekisui wrote:
Rofl. You think SC2 will sell more in the future like SC BW did?
Your own post is an example of stupid posts. The game industry changed a lot. People aren't going to buy old games.
Someones mad they couldn't get outa bronze league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
