|
On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 00:37 ArrozConLeche wrote:
Only masters and grand masters should be allow to talk about balance, anything lower is just retarded.... I agree, but blizzard doesnt. They have made (and openly said) they make changes for all levels of play. Which means this game will never achieve the balance everyone wants so bad.
Blizzard also balances stuff for team game (including 3v3)...
=> That was the reason given for the huge HSM and reaper nerfs
The finality of all that is not only utopist, it is stupid as well, because claiming to know after 5 months of Beta that you know for sure that HSM and reaper will dominate team-games is beyond stupid.
|
collosus is uninteresting? I hate them but tney're pretty unique and cool looking
|
On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". Love your post!
i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction
lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO)
Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise.
Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story)
i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion .
i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
|
they are not uninteresting per-se. they are just broken. the game would be better off without them.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 00:27 cive wrote:On June 12 2011 23:58 shockaslim wrote:On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". This is the biggest DUH post I have ever seen in my life. Of course people bought the game because of Brood War/has similar gameplay mechanics...its the next freaking game. Also, I don't think this game is way worse than BW. Is it easier for new players to get into? Of course, most series that are big always tone it down so that new players can get into it. But to say that it is worse or the "little sister" is pretty silly.
+ Show Spoiler +If it's such a "duh" argument, than no one should be stating that SC2 and BW are different games and should not be compared. We just read in OP that Blizzard thinks they shouldn't be compared and many on this thread agrees.
Blizzard told us many times, over and over again, that this game was going to be focused for competitive play. There are not much about this game that spells competitive, let alone a replacement of BW.
BW didn't need to be easy to be highly successful. Your points are just speculations based on "DUH" - non-factual, your idea of "common sense". What about creating a good game? Making SC2 easier didn't stop a bronze from being a bronze and a master from being a master. If the game was more difficult (and good), bronze players will still have fun among themselves in their own way while pro's are more interesting to watch because the bronze players cannot do what pros are doing.
I really didn't seen an argument, but ok. They can be compared, but they are STILL different games. They can be compared only in the right that they are in the same game series. If I picked up SC2 and it was exactly the same as BW, I would be PISSED, and so would many other people.
Also, where did Blizzard say that the game is going to be focused on competitive play? Even then, what makes you feel like the game doesn't feel competitive? Because its too easy? Even though prize pools for tournaments are huge, there are tons of tournaments, and entire world is involved in SC rather than just Korea. Just because a game is easy, doesn't mean it isn't competitive.
You say that my points are just speculations, while yours are just merely opinions. Also, no game has to be easy to be successful...but they don't have to be hard either. Tetris is as basic as they come and it is simply putting blocks in a line. The game is good, and while there are some balance issues, it isn't prohibiting ME from liking the game.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
lol its not like everyone is hating on SC2, its a good game, but it could be so much better, and since expansions are a staple in making games better(Frozen throne made Warcraft III insanely good, with alot of freaking tweaks).
People are simply worried because they care about SC2.
SC2 is a good game, but it could be so much more, and expansions is where the major changes can occur which will make it from good to excellent.
|
People talk in this thread as if Blizz actually knows how things will turn out, or rather SHOULD know how the game should turn out, disregarding if a change is done or not to the game.
It's just sad. I mean they will do changes that they feel are needed to be done based on feedback and internal testing, but that doesnt mean that it will actually turn out the way they planned and that's the most normal thing in the world for any company in any business... People are so ignorant it's sad. T_T
Balance and design is a process that takes time, and that should be obvious, but since people always act like kids that kick, scream and point at what they want with no patience it's no wonder that there are so much hate and bs flying around...
|
I really wonder what happens when HotS will be released. New units and balance changes and so the whole Race XYZ is imba will begin again.
Remember BW took YEARS to be as it is nowadays. SC2 is out for just a small period of time!
I think Blizz takes SC2 very serious (although it doesn't always seem so).
|
I will say that I regularly facepalm at what Dustin Browder says in interviews, and am not particularly optimistic about HotS. Hopefully, he's either doing PR, or he's just a figurehead for a team of designers who actually have a clue about how their game works at a competitive level (David Kim appears to understand it).
Still, I do believe SC2 is, at the moment, a badly designed game at its core. That doesn't necessarily stop it from being balanced, but the balance team will have to keep sacrificing gameplay for balance like they have up till now, most likely. Which probably won't end well.
|
On June 13 2011 01:01 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". Love your post! i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO) Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise. Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story) i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion . i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
Your story is just that, a "story". The one Im quoting is fact. BW is the big sister to SC2. Ultimately blizzard wants SC2 to be a better game than BW, but there's one problem: money. If they were to take esports more seriously than they might lose part of their fanbase, and what company would make that decision? I dont want SC2 to be BW in 3d, but the game does have ciritical flaws. But these flaws could be easily fixed, but time and time again bliz either turns a blind eye, or so many people are pulling out the torches and pitchforks which then bliz will act. If blizzard is this all knowing insanely rich company, why is the SC2 team so small? Would it be really that hard to hire a few people to help with all the work they are doing?
Please dont take this as a BW vs SC2 (we've had enough of those). The OP and my posts are purely focus on SC2, and not "this needs to be like it was in BW".
|
I love SC2, but I seriously wished it was better. Some of it can probably be attributed to Blizzard being out of touch, while other might just be a competence issue. The competitive community is awesome, and this just further emphasis how Blizzard does not deserve the success it achieved. The passionate competitors, sponsors, and fans deserves LAN mode. They deserve better than one-dimensional art-driven units that make matchups boring. They deserve better than all these units that clump and can't be micro'd.
I am frustrated at all this potential that will never be met cause they don't get it.
|
Dominican Republic913 Posts
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote:
The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
This is a very good post, listen to this guy pls.
|
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote:
The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
excellent post, I agree completely. People need to stop with their IdrA syndrome whining about every little thing there is no immediate solution to.
|
On June 13 2011 01:01 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". Love your post! i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO) Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise. Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story) i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion . i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
What the fuck is "nostalgia Brood War crowd"? If you scroll down, there's actually a BW section, in case you didn't know. Yesterday there was an MSL final. That is nostalgia? Do you even know what that word means? Or are you just repeating it mindlessly like most sc2 fanboys?
Your argument basically is "if there were no chess, we'd be satisfied with checkers". Incredibly stupid, no offence. ;/
|
they definately are out of touch
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nziBk.png)
|
On June 13 2011 01:01 jinixxx123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". Love your post! i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO) Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise. Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story) i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion . i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic
Sc2 is a great game on it's own merits but when it's predecessor is pretty much the perfect RTS and spawned competitive RTS gaming....of course people are going to have higher standards. We're not just looking at a game like Age of Empires played for fun. We want a game that will spearhead the growth of e-sports and remain as challenging, entertaining, and competitive in the highest levels of competition for years to come. Different standards apply. There's a distinction between people who want Sc2 to be a carbon copy of Brood War with better graphics, and people who want Sc2 to better incorporate all the elements that made Brood War the fantastic game it is.
I don't think Sc2 sucks, it's an amazing game, but right now it's still lacking if it wants to remain a competitive "esport" game in the future.
|
On June 12 2011 23:52 Heavenly wrote:
The whole colossus argument is ridiculous. I don't even see MC use colossi anymore unless hydras are on the field or in certain PvP 2+ base scenarios, he mostly goes gateway. He must feel at the highest level that control of his units is superior to any a-move AOE. They aren't overpowered, they just allow for lesser protoss to be able to hold off roach/hydra 1a and marine/marauder t1a with their equivalent 1a. A lot of Korea seems to be moving away from colossi in general because it's not exactly fun babysitting your glass cannon and praying to god that it does enough damage before corruptors and vikings snipe them, because your zealots and stalkers units suck against marauders and roaches.
The entire reason the colossus is so "OP" is because of the difficulty of doing anything BESIDES colossi unless you are extremely skilled and cost-efficient with your other units. What else would you do besides go colossi against things like hydras and MMM? Sink so much gas into HT and hope that they don't know how to move their units, and you have no khydarian amulet if you get EMP'd/sniped/they just move away?
People say colossi is OP because it prevents them from being able to just win games easily with 1a. They complain about 1a but what are you doing? Are you consistently dropping? Dropping with banelings? Flanking? Forcing forcefields? No, chances are you are just a-moving then you whine like IdrA that you just can't win despite being CLEARLY the superior player.
If you are going to remove or change the colossi for the benefit of casual/mediocre players unable to deal with it, change MMM and roach/hydra.
I don't think collosus are overpowered, I just think they lead to very boring and uneventful games. I really wouldn't mind collosus being removed or nerfed and gateway units being buffed or templar tech being a little faster to attain.
|
On June 13 2011 01:48 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2011 01:01 jinixxx123 wrote:On June 13 2011 00:43 DyEnasTy wrote:On June 12 2011 23:47 cive wrote: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. Ah.... Looking at people like you, maybe it's better that Blizz don't listen to us. SC2 is as popular as it is now because BW existed. Look back on the day of your purchase... What were you thinking as you coughed up your hard earned money for a copy of SC2? Probably a thought of its highly successful, entertaining and extremely well balanced brother, SC:BW, right? Did you know most of the units and concepts in SC2 are from BW? We still mine from minerals and gas using workers with saturation limits, have to increase the food cap mechanically until it reaches 200, and pretty much everything we can do in the game is exactly like BW. The problem is, that they do worse. Hell, if they could make SC2 better than BW, that would be awesome. It doesn't have to be the same game but you can't call yourself unique just because you are uglier and stupider. My point is, all the success SC2 achieved thus far would not have been achieved if the title didn't have StarCraft in it. IMO, SC2 is like a little sister that got a nice job for being a sister of somebody highly successful. She dresses sluttier and sluttier each time, appealing to more and more people but she can never get out the title "________'s little sis". Love your post! i disagree with this one, if you want to make up something that is not fact, ill do the same right now in another direction lets say blizzard didnt make starcraft 1, but they still made warcraft 1 /2 /reign of chaos and frozen throne(im referring to the RTS warcraft games not the MMO) Blizzard would still be a big name in the RTS industry so any RTS that does come out by them will be played with a lot of interest since , after all they did make diablo too........... Starcraft 1 is not the only success blizzard has had to make its name. So with that said, lets say there was no starcraft francise. Now lets pretend starcraft 1 didnt exist and they slapped starcraft 2 as the first of the starcraft franchise. I bet ppl will be in AWE of amazement rather than heavily criticizing . The game will not have the nostalgia Broodwar crowd to live up to " thus more ppl will enjoy the game for what it is" rather than judge it on what it didnt do from its past ( of which is non existent in pretend story) i have not heard a single complaint that didnt stem from "well this is how it was in broodwar". ppl will be alot more open minded towards this game and will gladly ride threw the waves this game goes threw as it gets better and better with each patch/expansion . i can make up stories too, though this one is more realistic What the fuck is "nostalgia Brood War crowd"? If you scroll down, there's actually a BW section, in case you didn't know. Yesterday there was an MSL final. That is nostalgia? Do you even know what that word means? Or are you just repeating it mindlessly like most sc2 fanboys? Your argument basically is "if there were no chess, we'd be satisfied with checkers". Incredibly stupid, no offence. ;/
Actually, I think he meant it for the people that play SC2 and say, I wish it was like Brood War. That type of reminiscent behavior that is kind of popular in this thread.
|
So many issues with battle.net and the maps.... blizz could do a better job thats for sure.
|
I think Blizzard has gone the wrong (easy) way with balancing the game (nerfing things, taking things out). My biggest concern at this point is the fact that the ladder maps SUCK. Of all the GSL maps, I'd have to say Tal'darim is probably the worst -- yet, that's the only one Blizzard decided to incorporate into the map pool. The maps haven't changed for months even when there are hundreds of great community maps and dozens of ICCup and GSL maps that have been tested in tournaments just waiting to be used.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
