|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
On June 20 2011 10:22 Golgotha wrote:
you are right OP. our fate depends on Blizzard. if they screw up the expansions then we are fked.
This. How they do the patching and the fact that its a trilogy might just be the bane for SC2 eventually...
On the other hand, new "expansions" re-heat the hype...
But if the game will ever truely become great and as long term motivating as broodwar?
Personally I still have my doubts, but I am still hoping at the same time...
|
On June 20 2011 19:18 iNfeRnaL wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2011 10:22 Golgotha wrote:
you are right OP. our fate depends on Blizzard. if they screw up the expansions then we are fked. This. How they do the patching and the fact that its a trilogy might just be the bane for SC2 eventually... On the other hand, new "expansions" re-heat the hype... But if the game will ever truely become great and as long te+rm motivating as broodwar? Personally I still have my doubts, but I am still hoping at the same time... I see the long expansion release time as both blessing and curse. The blessing is of course that each expansion will get SC2 back into spotlight. Also Blizzard will probably lower the price for Wings of Liberty, getting some new guys to buy that game. But of course a long-lasting appeal cannot be provided with expansion only. After the seconds expansion and some patches, SC2 needs to be able to stand with no further help. Also to know having to buy two expansion to get the full experience could prevent some guys to buy the game.
But I am still optimistic. So far, any Blizzard RTS expansion since SC1 (Broodwar and The Frozen Throne) did a lot for multiplayer. With two expansions, Blizzard can do a lot for multiplayer twice and has the chance to fine-tune the game with the second expansion to new heights.
I think overall, SC2 did a lot already. Getting so many folks excited for a traditional real-time strategy game is no easy feat. Even if SC2 would fail to be the true successor to BW, it shows that RTS is not doomed to be a genre for a very small playerbase.
|
The bubble player pool is spot on. The game is cannibalistic on new players. In fps games there is deathmatch which guarantees that if they stay in that server they will probably get a kill. In starcraft there is nothing but ladder and a matchmaker that is too close for comfort.
I think maybe if FFA was pushed more as a gametype we would see more of a casual playerbase. At least that way every player has the chance of killing a wounded player or allying themselves to victory.
|
On June 20 2011 19:42 T0fuuu wrote:
I think maybe if FFA was pushed more as a gametype we would see more of a casual playerbase. At least that way every player has the chance of killing a wounded player or allying themselves to victory. I think the Team vs. AI more is suited for casual players. They still have multiplayer, as they play with another human, but don't get overrun if they chose the proper difficulty setting. Of course there is no ladder for this type of game and (beside some achievements) no measure of progress.
|
Does the Bubble Burst or the Wave Crash if South Korea continues to dominate every major SC2 Event outside of Sout Korea?
(MMA - MLG Columbus)
(Top 4 Dreamhack Summer = South Korean based players .. 3 of which are South Korean Nationals)
(Dreamhack Invitational = Won by a South Korean)
(Stars War = Won be a South Korean)
|
On June 20 2011 20:03 Toons wrote:
Does the Bubble Burst or the Wave Crash if South Korea continues to dominate every major SC2 Event outside of Sout Korea?
I believe that the Bubble Bursts if koreans keep dominating and thats exactly what worries me. You cant keep a wester audience interested in the long run if koreans keep winning the major lan events. The casual viewer who tunes in to a stream maybe once a week (and thats the viewership we need) doesnt see a quality difference between a game foreigner vs foreigner and a game korean vs korean anyway, they want a different kind of entertainment and random korean vs random korean doesnt provide that entertainment.
Our view is so often limited because we mainly consider forum postings on TL, but please remember, people posting on TL (besides americans ofc) are mostly already hardcore fans who watch starcraft several hours a week.
On the German forums there are still plenty of people who dont know who MC is, they know Socke, Idra and Ret, they dont care about MC(not to mention MMA, Bomber etc.) If Koreans keep dominating these events they wont tune in anymore!
|
Hmm, for me I think that for COMPETITIVE sc2 to grow, it need to depend on the player pool of sc2 gamers, but rather the player pool for the progamers. Like for example, we need so much more variety in gsl, so I love the mlg-gsl partnership to increase variety in the gsl.
But on the other hand, for blizzard to sustain sc2 and continu patching it and sustaining it, we'll need to give them financial incentive. So buy sc2 people!!!
|
I don't get why the practice league has to be removed after 50 games, why not just add in a Play unranked matchmaking option.. yes we have this option with customs, but if there was a big button that said "Play unranked match" and was match-made the same.. finds opponent, picks map.. etc you'd have a lot of people who don't like the high pressure arena that is ladder, playing this rather than stopping altogether once they start losing.
This doesn't help E-sports grow per se, but it keeps people playing and interested in the game. Not everyone wants to play for "rank" should we really punish these players for that, rather than just simply encouraging more players in general.
|
On June 20 2011 09:57 atombombforpeace wrote:
In regards to the player pool, I don't think it matters how many people actually play and/or get better in SC2. I think the biggest test is how willing people are to watch Starcraft 2, even if they don't play it. Lots of major sports have a large viewer base that has never touched the game. In order of SC2 to grow, it needs to have a certain spectator appeal to get people who don't play the game much, or at all, to watch and follow the scene.
Indeed, I watched MLG, GSL, Dreamhack and definitely the grand finals of the NASL.
However I do not play starcraft.
In fact, I might buy the game just to be able to watch the replays.
|
I stopped reading at TSL is A, GSL is B-
|
On June 20 2011 21:02 gds wrote:
I stopped reading at TSL is A, GSL is B-
Maybe you should read why he has given them ratings.
|
"Lee Jae Dong proved that a focus on mechanics and execution could solve problems in the StarCraft game strategy."
A. Einstein?
|
Great post, really well thought out. I disagree with your opinions on Developer Support, especially
"For the first time, Blizzard has developed an RTS game with a primary focus on developing its E-Sports capability."
In my opinion the focus of Blizzard is to appeal to the mid level player, who watches Husky et al along with big events like the TSL and MLG, but doesn't play the game 'hardcore' (I hate that word).
They want people who will play some team games and custom maps, while being content with Gold and below in 1v1. Of course, the GM league is tailored towards very high level players, but IMO it is superficial addition. The real problems with SC2 as an esport (those that will determine ultimately whether it is a wave or bubble) range from annoyances - no true DND mode - to potentially event ruining - no LAN capability. Putting anti-piracy measures over stability of multi-million dollar operations (MLG/GSL) may be the better business decision, but not the one a developer with a 'primary focus' on E-sports would make.
|
No viewers = no ca$h = no esport/sport/show.
My main concerne is that a game like Starcraft will never be able to gather enough viewers arround the world to become a truly major event. Why? It's way too complicated and not entertaining at all for someone who doesn't actually play the game himself.
Sports like football and events like eurovision (lolz) take place only for one reason - people all over the world, from young to old, absolutely love watching them. Take football for instance, it's simple, understandable, dynamic, excitable and exciting to watch even if you've never touched a ball in your life!
Starcraft, on the other hand, takes quite some background knowledge for the viewer to be entertained.
As for the SC community itself and whether it will be growing or decreasing, imo, none. The game has a certain (quite slim, tbh) player base with an even smaller pro-player base that loses and aquires new pro's from time to time.
Same goes for the casual player. It doesn't take long to grasp the fact that the game is actually hard and it gets harder as you get better at it. Some casuals stay after reaching a certain level in the attempt to push for "pro", others become less active or just leave.
SC isn't anything like WoW. Either you work hard or you lose (or casualy play 50-50 in your mid-diamond/masters league). It's not your average "crush the monster and collect your wins" game.
While the latter is, without doubt, a good thing (from the pov of a very old-school gamer), face it, it's not one of those things that make a game super-popular.
Quite sad to admit but if you put together part 1 and part 2 of my post, the chances we'll see SC as a "major-popular event enjoyed all over the world by people of all religions and ages" are quite slim.
p.s.: look at counterstrike... that game, 6 years ago, actually had potential to become as popular as football. Where is it now?
p.p.s.: In general, the idea of e-sports is a very, very young one and we're still living in the times when videogames come and go. Give it 50 years and we might be watching "sc7" on Eurosport.
|
On June 20 2011 20:58 Gingerninja wrote:
I don't get why the practice league has to be removed after 50 games, why not just add in a Play unranked matchmaking option.. yes we have this option with customs, but if there was a big button that said "Play unranked match" and was match-made the same.. finds opponent, picks map.. etc you'd have a lot of people who don't like the high pressure arena that is ladder, playing this rather than stopping altogether once they start losing. You can play unranked through custom games.
The issue with an option to play unranked automated matches at any time is that too many players with some skill would like to bash a noob and use this to get a noob opponent.
So why don't we get unranked but still automated skill-matched games? Because too many guys would prefer to practice unranked and only get to ladder when they feel ready.
|
Future looks grim if the future of e-sports depends on Blizzard. The cost of expanding the SC2 users base is probably too huge, specially in comparison to free to play games like LoL. With two expansions, you will have to invest 120 dollars just to play SC2 with all the options. On the other hand, a game like LoL is free. Thanks to PC bangs, Broodwar had a really cheap way to appeal to new players. I don't think that one weak deals are be a good alternative.
|
On June 20 2011 21:08 Autotroph wrote:Great post, really well thought out. I disagree with your opinions on Developer Support, especially Show nested quote +"For the first time, Blizzard has developed an RTS game with a primary focus on developing its E-Sports capability." In my opinion the focus of Blizzard is to appeal to the mid level player, who watches Husky et al along with big events like the TSL and MLG, but doesn't play the game 'hardcore' (I hate that word). They want people who will play some team games and custom maps, while being content with Gold and below in 1v1. Of course, the GM league is tailored towards very high level players, but IMO it is superficial addition. The real problems with SC2 as an esport (those that will determine ultimately whether it is a wave or bubble) range from annoyances - no true DND mode - to potentially event ruining - no LAN capability. Putting anti-piracy measures over stability of multi-million dollar operations (MLG/GSL) may be the better business decision, but not the one a developer with a 'primary focus' on E-sports would make. I don't agree, while I admit that your reasoning looks valid.
However I consider SC1/Broodwar a game from another era. At that time, LAN was necessary. Today LAN would just be nice to have.
I think that Blizzard tries to appeal to the most hardcore players, but they still develop the game further. Most old pros would be okay with just updated graphics. SC2 is not made to rely on the old pros only, the game aims at a lot of potential pros yet to be discovered.
|
On June 20 2011 21:14 Nevsky wrote:
Starcraft, on the other hand, takes quite some background knowledge for the viewer to be entertained. I would say that Starcraft (both 1 and 2) games are relatively easy to understand.
If I watch a game of soccer, I understand nothing. I see guys running, one of them has the ball and kicks it elsewhere. And then we have 1-3 goals per game over 90 minutes. I don't understand why everybody runs in the direction he run.
In a Starcraft match, one sees futuristic military / alien / insectoid armies collide. Someone wins the battle, one can consider the player who wins the battle to be ahead (while this is actually not always the case.) I think that Blizzard did a fantastic job to provide both a clear view on the battle field as well as exciting explosions. Also the bigger the unit, the more powerful the unit. One does not need to know the stats of every unit to see if an army is horrifying or just a small expedition force.
Of course the real strategic genius will only be revealed to a small population of the viewerbase. Most will not see how great (or dumb) a particular strategy or move really was. But SC can still provide an entertaining experience for all who don't play on pro level themselves.
On June 20 2011 21:14 Nevsky wrote:
Same goes for the casual player. It doesn't take long to grasp the fact that the game is actually hard and it gets harder as you get better at it. Some casuals stay after reaching a certain level in the attempt to push for "pro", others become less active or just leave.
SC isn't anything like WoW. Either you work hard or you lose (or casualy play 50-50 in your mid-diamond/masters league). It's not your average "crush the monster and collect your wins" game. Exactly, that is why Blizzard should make it attractive for players who don't seek hard competition.
If I look at my friends, some of them would play an RTS if they feel they had leeway to make a lot of mistakes. They don't (yet) like the time pressure when they build their base. Of course I could tell them that their way of playing the game is boring because after 10 minutes they still are on 1 base (with 13 workers on minerals) and everything is sooo slow. But who am I to tell somebody how to play it right? If they want it this way (for the time being) they should get it.
|
Doesn't seem to be big enough(yet) to be either a bubble or a wave.
edit
And I agree that some form of unranked "get game" option might make more casuals play vs other people if that is a concern.
|
I hope Star2 is always in flux, like a tesseract.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
