|
What are people even arguing anymore? BW is more than about the simple mechanics. SC2 is NOT EASY. Jesus.
I have a serious question to the die hard must have mechanics for every thing or game is shit crowd. What if SC2 was simply a revamped BW. Meaning the units are all the same. However, you can select more in each control group, auto mine and mbs is still added and the units are actually controllable (no dumb goons).
Would this game be a terrible abomination? Or would it simply bring an amazing game into the 21st century. I have a feeling people shit on SC2 and cite reasons like MBS, automine when they really just hate sc2 because the units are shitty compared to BW units. This makes the game less appealing then they cite random reasons the game is terrible when really it just makes it better.
Is the importance in mechanical function to select workers at regular intervals and click each building worth the time and attention over having more mechanical function to control your units, execute drops, setup position etc? I don't see how someone could think that it is.
|
On July 15 2011 09:13 puppykiller wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 08:31 lorkac wrote:
BW: macro was hard but the game forgives you for
making mistakes.
SC2: Macro is easy but the game rewards
perfect play.
I wonder which sounds more appealing? The game isnt what forgives you... your good play after making one mistake is what forgives you.
What good play? If you're not only making mistakes, but playing tactics whose design is to counteract the mistakes you already knew you were going to make, then where is the good play?
"Since I know I'll mess up I'll make some lurkers just in case"
that's you're "good play after making one mistake"
Is it a bad thing that the game design and the map design of BW maps allows you the "Oh Shit!" button? No, of course not. It's called being a DIFFERENT game. BW players like feeling safe. SC2 players enjoy perfecting execution.
|
On July 15 2011 09:57 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:05 Petninja wrote:
I think one of the problems with the idea that we aren't seeing any Flashes or Jaedongs in SC2 is precisely because they don't play SC2. It's not exactly like they were commonplace in BW. While I don't want to sound like I'm devaluing hard work, there is a certain degree of natural talent that can't be denied that makes players like Flash. It shouldn't be a shock that if such rare finds are still playing BW that SC2 just doesn't have that caliber player because there hasn't been time for new talent at that level to surface.
We won't be able to see what the skill ceiling looks like in SC2 vs BW unless we have someone who has legendary status like Flash come to SC2 from BW(while in his prime). It wouldn't surprise me at all if these legendary pokemon made the switch to SC2 the other pro players wouldn't have enough pokeballs to catch any of them.
Basically we need to wait until someone appears that can really bump their head on the skill ceiling before we can claim that it is, in fact, a problem. I don't like this assumption at all, players like moon and grubby switched over to SC2 who were considered similar to what jaedong/flash were considered. The statement like that assumes that only 2/6 billion people can play the way they do, which I believe is a fallacy.
I like how you mention MOON and Grubby even though Moon still practices WC3 and Grubby only just started playing lol
|
On July 15 2011 13:36 Steveling wrote:
It's a strategy game, apm/micro/macro and all that juzz is just side effects.
It is a real-time strategy game. In case you still don't understand, it is a Real-time strategy game.
Lets say we're 500 years into the future. We can now upload our thoughts directly into machines.
This mechanics discussion is obsolete. The best player is the cleverest player, exactly like in chess.
What the FUCK is this?! You are trying to prove that mechanics is unnecessary in an RTS game by using a fucking hypothetical that is 500 years from now. Also, your hypothetical is shit.
Conclusion, mechanics are not what make a Strategy game better, strategy and ability to think is.
You know what would make this discussion better? If you had the ability to think.
|
On July 15 2011 14:32 Deathberry wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 13:36 Steveling wrote:
It's a strategy game, apm/micro/macro and all that juzz is just side effects. It is a real-time strategy game. In case you still don't understand, it is a Real-time strategy game. Show nested quote +Lets say we're 500 years into the future. We can now upload our thoughts directly into machines.
This mechanics discussion is obsolete. The best player is the cleverest player, exactly like in chess. What the FUCK is this?! You are trying to prove that mechanics is unnecessary in an RTS game by using a fucking hypothetical that is 500 years from now. Also, your hypothetical is shit. Show nested quote +Conclusion, mechanics are not what make a Strategy game better, strategy and ability to think is.
You know what would make this discussion better? If you had the ability to think.
Mate, regardless of the dude's point, you need to calm down. This is just a forum, no need to go all Die Hard on us.
|
On July 15 2011 12:47 Royalcommand wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 12:10 Yaotzin wrote:On July 15 2011 12:07 starcraft911 wrote:
I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but I don't expect to see a Flash of SC2 any time soon and even if flash came to sc2 during beta I don't think he would have an easy time being dominant. Nestea, Bomber, MC etc all have very similar win rates to Flash. What is this mythical Flash level dominance that is allegedly impossible in SC2? trying adding 200+ games buddy ----____----
Actually, we're trying. You know, that "Give the game more time!" comment so that the players can reach 200+ games.
But think about this. If SC2 is so luck based, then why are there so many players with such high winrates not only at the top of the foodchain, but always bumping into each other constantly on that chain?
Oh right--because most people who play SC2 aren't that good and can't get that kind of record yet. And this is while the game is still in its infancy.
|
to the OP
thanks for writing this article. valid points.
i guess in the grand scheme of things, a game that truely highlights player ability would allow for a match where game units do not hard counter each other so much (damage, bonus damage + automatic surrounds etc) and took a significant amount of skill to execute certain play, so that the mechanically better player can win even using "inferior units".
this is when gameplay will be really refined and the best get to show off the highest skill level.
its like in any sport, say football/soccer. because the ball cant do anything by itself, we have players like messi who can thrill the rest of the world with his skill. if balls automatically stuck close to your feet, messi wouldn't even be a pro.
sc2 with its easier interface make it easier for normal ppl like me to enjoy the game at a decent level. i appreciate that.
|
Since the mods are clearly fine with this being a SC2 vs BW debate i'll throw something in.
I do think that SC2 has plenty skill ceiling potential to make it a great game for years to come. I don't think that it loses out in strategy in any way, save of the fact that the current metagame has so much 1base/allin play which is just shit to watch.
The real thing SC2 lacks compared to BW isn't strategy or the ability to micro at a high level, it's that it has horrible fucking units. Colossi, mothership, hellion, marauders, stalkers and roaches are fucking atrocious. Blizzard felt every race needed a dragoon so there you go. Then you go and remove every interesting and unique class from BW (lurker, reaver, arb, vessel, DA, defiler, etc). Almost every single interesting and fun unit in all of BW was removed for SC2 and replaced with, imo, categorically worse, less interesting and less dynamic units.
That is the real area where SC2 fails and the one area that has a chance to get majorly fixed with the uncoming expansions. Hopefully they remove multiple units and give us some new ones.
(I enjoy both games thoroughly but I do think many sc2 defenders in this type of debate are at a huge intellectual (can't think of a better word) disadvantage since many seem to have never played BW or never followed BW play for any serious amount of time whereas many BW players watch both)
|
I have asked this twice now, this will be the third time. BW supporters have not responded yet.
If mechanics are so important and easy mode stuff like hotkeys so evil, why even plug in the keyboard?
If the important part of BW is that things are hard and not easy, why even have a keyboard? I'm asking honestly here. Would the BW scene be better without the keyboard? Why and why not?
|
On July 15 2011 14:49 lorkac wrote:
I have asked this twice now, this will be the third time. BW supporters have not responded yet.
If mechanics are so important and easy mode stuff like hotkeys so evil, why even plug in the keyboard?
If the important part of BW is that things are hard and not easy, why even have a keyboard? I'm asking honestly here. Would the BW scene be better without the keyboard? Why and why not?
Think for a second. Would this raise the skill ceiling by making the game harder, or lower it because it's just not possible to execute all the possible actions in the game to the greatest degree without one? I think you can answer it yourself.
|
On July 15 2011 14:49 lorkac wrote:
I have asked this twice now, this will be the third time. BW supporters have not responded yet.
If mechanics are so important and easy mode stuff like hotkeys so evil, why even plug in the keyboard?
If the important part of BW is that things are hard and not easy, why even have a keyboard? I'm asking honestly here. Would the BW scene be better without the keyboard? Why and why not?
Stop talking in absolutes.
bw people absolute = play with zero hotkeys and mouse only
sc2 absolute = just start the game with 200/200 and see who has better strat
There is an obvious middle-ground which people are either too stupid or too stubborn to discuss. BW works. Simple as that. It is how it was made and that is what people play. SC2 seems to work but since it is based off of BW there is some obvious conflict since it isn't the exact same and encourages different type of play.
SC2 clearly has the potential to be great if it is balanced. If not then it's wc3.
|
On July 15 2011 14:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 14:49 lorkac wrote:
I have asked this twice now, this will be the third time. BW supporters have not responded yet.
If mechanics are so important and easy mode stuff like hotkeys so evil, why even plug in the keyboard?
If the important part of BW is that things are hard and not easy, why even have a keyboard? I'm asking honestly here. Would the BW scene be better without the keyboard? Why and why not? Stop talking in absolutes. bw people absolute = play with zero hotkeys and mouse only sc2 absolute = just start the game with 200/200 and see who has better strat There is an obvious middle-ground which people are either too stupid or too stubborn to discuss. BW works. Simple as that. It is how it was made and that is what people play. SC2 seems to work but since it is based off of BW there is some obvious conflict since it isn't the exact same and encourages different type of play. SC2 clearly has the potential to be great if it is balanced. If not then it's wc3.
 Now, now, let's not turn this into a WC3 vs. SC2 vs. BW (vs. WC2) debate, all right? WC3's balance isn't absolute shit, after all, and balancing four races is certainly more difficult than balancing three.
|
On July 15 2011 14:44 On_Slaught wrote:
Since the mods are clearly fine with this being a SC2 vs BW debate i'll throw something in.
I do think that SC2 has plenty skill ceiling potential to make it a great game for years to come. I don't think that it loses out in strategy in any way, save of the fact that the current metagame has so much 1base/allin play which is just shit to watch.
The real thing SC2 lacks compared to BW isn't strategy or the ability to micro at a high level, it's that it has horrible fucking units. Colossi, marauders, stalkers and roaches are fucking atrocious. Blizzard felt every race needed a dragoon so there you go. Then you go and remove every interesting and unique class from BW (lurker, reaver, arb, vessel, DA, defiler, etc). Almost every single interesting and fun unit in all of BW was removed for SC2 and replaced with, imo, categorically worse, less interesting and less dynamic units.
That is the real area where SC2 fails and the one area that has a chance to get majorly fixed with the uncoming expansions. Hopefully they remove multiple units and give us some new ones.
(I enjoy both games thoroughly but I do think many sc2 defenders in this type of debate are at a huge intellectual (can't think of a better word) disadvantage since many seem to have never played BW or never followed BW play for any serious amount of time whereas many BW players watch both)
The bolded portion is something even players who know nothing of BW complain about.
There are many things wrong with SC2, many. A lot of BW supporters think it's that it's easier--and they don't listen to any logic against that statement. But they're wrong.
Difficulty of execution does not make the executed action better.
However, there things wrong with SC2, such as the point you cited. The answer is not to bring back old units like Lurkers and Spidermines because that doesn't solve the actual problem--unit dynamics. What would the lurkers do in SC2? The terran would scan and one shot them with Maruaders. What would Shuttle/Reaver do against 9 range Vikings? Defiler? To do what? Smart casting on Siege tanks actually spreads out the AoE of splash so efficiently SC2 tanks had to have a massive damage nerf to them just to prevent anarchy.
It's not that SC2 is missing BW units, it's that the unit dynamics have not been fully figured out yet. We are still stuck trying to either replicate BW or follow the +damage modifiers to a T. Do you think the game designers thought Banelings would carpet bomb stalkers? That Phoenixes would be used to kill small packs of Hydralisks? Or that the Immortal would mainly be used for DPS and not as a tank?
The further away from the BW unit mentality SC2 gets, the better it will be for the SC2 metagame.
|
On July 15 2011 13:36 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 13:20 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:15 Yaotzin wrote:On July 15 2011 12:11 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:06 Yaotzin wrote:On July 15 2011 12:05 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:01 Yaotzin wrote:
BW trolls are so boring. Saddening that they survive bans for some reason. Not really, seeing as a lot of the criticism is objectively correct If I commented in BW forums that BW has shit graphics/ui etc, it would be objectively true and would also - rightly - get me banned. Stop shitting up forums for a game you apparently don't like. It's stupid. It's fucking retarded that people get dropped during tournaments because B.net 0.2 is so bad and there are no alternatives/LAN. It's not trolling, it's a fact. It's off topic and nobody gives a shit. It's trolling.
Also, the SC2 skill ceiling is lower. That's a fact. It's not trolling, it's providing an explanation to the current proscene scenario
That's opinion, not that I expect you to understand the difference. Does MBS/autoworkerrally/smartcast not reduce the need for apm/multitasking ability? No, it does reduce it, it's not an opinion. If anything is trolling, it's calling me stupid with your last line, unnecessary flame bait It's a strategy game, apm/micro/macro and all that juzz is just side effects. Lets say we're 500 years into the future. We can now upload our thoughts directly into machines. This mechanics discussion is obsolete. The best player is the cleverest player, exactly like in chess. Conclusion, mechanics are not what make a Strategy game better, strategy and ability to think is.
Starcraft is a real time strategy game. The mechanical component, i.e. how fast/efficently you do stuff, will always be a component.
If you want a pure strategy game I'd suggest Chess or Go over any video game... lol
|
There are a lot of BW fans who love the mechanical aspect of the game. They love clicking on buildings really fast, sending workers to mine, its the same sensation as playing a physical sport. You don't actually think a lot, and when you are in crazy rage uber focused mode you will play much much better.
You don't get this feeling in SC2, you could be super focused, but because physical aspect of the game doesn't make anywhere as much difference, it feels really awkward and frustrating. I'm sure IdrA feels this the most, he even said the one thing he would change in SC2 is MBS.
Then there are the BW fans who don't really care about the macro mechanical aspects, but the units/spells/etc. SC2 removed many of the APM intensive tasks, but it doesn't help that there is nothing else to take that up. 4 prong drops with medivacs? Sure, but its nothing like drops in BW where 1 tank and 2 vultures could take out 8 dragoons and an entire main, or 1 darkswarm flipping the game from almost a complete loss and puts Zerg very much back into the game.
|
On July 15 2011 15:01 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 14:44 On_Slaught wrote:
Since the mods are clearly fine with this being a SC2 vs BW debate i'll throw something in.
I do think that SC2 has plenty skill ceiling potential to make it a great game for years to come. I don't think that it loses out in strategy in any way, save of the fact that the current metagame has so much 1base/allin play which is just shit to watch.
The real thing SC2 lacks compared to BW isn't strategy or the ability to micro at a high level, it's that it has horrible fucking units. Colossi, marauders, stalkers and roaches are fucking atrocious. Blizzard felt every race needed a dragoon so there you go. Then you go and remove every interesting and unique class from BW (lurker, reaver, arb, vessel, DA, defiler, etc). Almost every single interesting and fun unit in all of BW was removed for SC2 and replaced with, imo, categorically worse, less interesting and less dynamic units.
That is the real area where SC2 fails and the one area that has a chance to get majorly fixed with the uncoming expansions. Hopefully they remove multiple units and give us some new ones.
(I enjoy both games thoroughly but I do think many sc2 defenders in this type of debate are at a huge intellectual (can't think of a better word) disadvantage since many seem to have never played BW or never followed BW play for any serious amount of time whereas many BW players watch both) The bolded portion is something even players who know nothing of BW complain about. There are many things wrong with SC2, many. A lot of BW supporters think it's that it's easier--and they don't listen to any logic against that statement. But they're wrong. Difficulty of execution does not make the executed action better. However, there things wrong with SC2, such as the point you cited. The answer is not to bring back old units like Lurkers and Spidermines because that doesn't solve the actual problem--unit dynamics. What would the lurkers do in SC2? The terran would scan and one shot them with Maruaders. What would Shuttle/Reaver do against 9 range Vikings? Defiler? To do what? Smart casting on Siege tanks actually spreads out the AoE of splash so efficiently SC2 tanks had to have a massive damage nerf to them just to prevent anarchy. It's not that SC2 is missing BW units, it's that the unit dynamics have not been fully figured out yet. We are still stuck trying to either replicate BW or follow the +damage modifiers to a T. Do you think the game designers thought Banelings would carpet bomb stalkers? That Phoenixes would be used to kill small packs of Hydralisks? Or that the Immortal would mainly be used for DPS and not as a tank? The further away from the BW unit mentality SC2 gets, the better it will be for the SC2 metagame.
Yep, the real problem of SC2 is not mechanics, it is boring units. I watch SC2 more than BW, but I believe Roach, Marauder and Colossus are units that should be removed.
|
There are some points I agree with the article, though saying BW was anything but strategy is wrong. If you had read "God of the Battlefield", an article written about Savior and his brilliant tactical manoeuvres then you may come to realise that BW was anything but just insane mechanics (Savior also had one of the lower APMs among the bonjwas).
But yeah, SC2 can't possibly be better than BW in the same fashion. BW was far too limiting back then, when you could only select a certain group of units and click on buildings individually to build. And let's face it, had SC2 have the same mechanics as BW then it would have flopped in the mainstream market, because it was friggin hard and its aged.
|
On July 15 2011 14:54 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 14:49 lorkac wrote:
I have asked this twice now, this will be the third time. BW supporters have not responded yet.
If mechanics are so important and easy mode stuff like hotkeys so evil, why even plug in the keyboard?
If the important part of BW is that things are hard and not easy, why even have a keyboard? I'm asking honestly here. Would the BW scene be better without the keyboard? Why and why not? Stop talking in absolutes. bw people absolute = play with zero hotkeys and mouse only sc2 absolute = just start the game with 200/200 and see who has better strat There is an obvious middle-ground which people are either too stupid or too stubborn to discuss. BW works. Simple as that. It is how it was made and that is what people play. SC2 seems to work but since it is based off of BW there is some obvious conflict since it isn't the exact same and encourages different type of play. SC2 clearly has the potential to be great if it is balanced. If not then it's wc3.
My point exactly. The aim is a middle ground. Middle grounds are inherently abstract and grey as to its definition. You can't say a game is bad because it doesn't have enough mechanics because doing so leads to the rabbit hole of 1 mouse no keyboard no right click. SC2 players are simply saying it's okay to have easier macro. BW players respond by starting threads that talk about how SC2 is an inferior game because the player who makes mistakes loses.
|
On July 15 2011 15:01 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 13:36 Steveling wrote:On July 15 2011 13:20 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:15 Yaotzin wrote:On July 15 2011 12:11 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:06 Yaotzin wrote:On July 15 2011 12:05 101toss wrote:On July 15 2011 12:01 Yaotzin wrote:
BW trolls are so boring. Saddening that they survive bans for some reason. Not really, seeing as a lot of the criticism is objectively correct If I commented in BW forums that BW has shit graphics/ui etc, it would be objectively true and would also - rightly - get me banned. Stop shitting up forums for a game you apparently don't like. It's stupid. It's fucking retarded that people get dropped during tournaments because B.net 0.2 is so bad and there are no alternatives/LAN. It's not trolling, it's a fact. It's off topic and nobody gives a shit. It's trolling.
Also, the SC2 skill ceiling is lower. That's a fact. It's not trolling, it's providing an explanation to the current proscene scenario
That's opinion, not that I expect you to understand the difference. Does MBS/autoworkerrally/smartcast not reduce the need for apm/multitasking ability? No, it does reduce it, it's not an opinion. If anything is trolling, it's calling me stupid with your last line, unnecessary flame bait It's a strategy game, apm/micro/macro and all that juzz is just side effects. Lets say we're 500 years into the future. We can now upload our thoughts directly into machines. This mechanics discussion is obsolete. The best player is the cleverest player, exactly like in chess. Conclusion, mechanics are not what make a Strategy game better, strategy and ability to think is. Starcraft is a real time strategy game. The mechanical component, i.e. how fast/efficently you do stuff, will always be a component.
He's suggesting that what should matter more is the order you decide to do things and not how hard it is to execute it. At no point does he wish for an instant 200/200 food army in his analogy.
|
On July 15 2011 15:06 Meteora.GB wrote:
There are some points I agree with the article, though saying BW was anything but strategy is wrong. If you had read "God of the Battlefield", an article written about Savior and his brilliant tactical manoeuvres then you may come to realise that BW was anything but just insane mechanics (Savior also had one of the lower APMs among the bonjwas).
But yeah, SC2 can't possibly be better than BW in the same fashion. BW was far too limiting back then, when you could only select a certain group of units and click on buildings individually to build. And let's face it, had SC2 have the same mechanics as BW then it would have flopped in the mainstream market, because it was friggin hard and its aged.
Here's a question.
If BW had the mechanics that are present in SC2 upon release--would Korea have been the only country to support it in the way they did?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
