EPT
(*cough*givegoliathreaverlurker*cough*)Blizzard GDC: The Game Design of Starcraft II - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KT s0ng
Korea (South)88 Posts
(*cough*givegoliathreaverlurker*cough*) | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6261 Posts
On August 20 2011 10:07 R3demption wrote: I completely agree with you sir. Also my thoughts have always been this: Balance the game and maps around the pro scene. The lower level casual players will not care if there are macro maps on ladder or about a 5% damage increase to X units. It doesn't matter at their level. I wish Blizzard and Browder could just see what everyone here on the this forum sees. XD. Good interview though, loved the presentation. I don't know if lower leagues don't care but fact is that TL is one community and it's certainly not casual, we just don't know how those people ( if you can even put them in 1 group ) feel. hell some people I know even liked steppes of war or DQ, fact is that everyone likes something different and that's why they don't want as much big maps in the ladder they want to have maps for everyone not just the pro players. | ||
|
wolfe
United States761 Posts
It's easy to point out what was done wrong, but he's done quite a lot right and if you actually listen to him you'll see he's getting better and HotS seems all the more promising. There are quite a few gems in this talk. | ||
|
413X
Sweden203 Posts
![[image loading]](http://data.fuskbugg.se/skalman02/4e50cb4bef7ca_FFskill.png) U mad bro? User was warned for this post | ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
| ||
|
Tegin
United States840 Posts
| ||
|
RiT4LiN
Netherlands131 Posts
| ||
|
Cuiu
Germany410 Posts
On August 21 2011 18:27 hmmm... wrote: i really liked the things dustin browder said but i still feel he doesn't do them enough justice. (for example, when he talks about the need to differentiate skill in an esports game, i still think smart casting and the 1-A syndrome are things that should have been taken out). when you have a 200/200 army vs a 100/200 yeah it works but with equal sply i dont see that the 1a player has any advantage over a the player which makes the effort in spreading out his army, to flank,focus fire,drop,kiting so why do you think 1a is so good? 1a dont takes skill away it allows skill "thx4link" | ||
|
Sighstorm
Netherlands116 Posts
IMHO opinion the four values Dustin Browder describes are translated very well into the game. They are exactly the reasons I state when I explain why I love to watch SC2, and why SC2 is so much better to watch than other games. Blizzard did an excellent job. Sure there are some things that can be improved, but the framework is really strong. | ||
|
bole
Serbia164 Posts
didnt know that :D | ||
|
XiGua
Sweden3085 Posts
It always seems like Browder knows what he is talking about but then you come to wonder when you see these maps, destructible rocks and useless units in the game. But I realize that it is so hard to balance a game and Blizzard is on the right track. HotS and LotV will probably give us a complete game. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On August 21 2011 17:34 Galleon.frigate wrote: I soooooo sad to hear that DB feels that e-sports and a mature story for the singleplayers are mutually exclusive... I'm gald to hear the thuoghts about why the story was so hamfisted - I guess I'm hoping against hope that they re-evaluate their choice... it's a little jarring to imagine that felt that had to go action movie over the top in the plot department to make the characters stand out, and make the player feel for the characters in game... That part didn't make sense to me. BW had smaller units and was harder to play, the levels were always the same, yet its campaign was very very good. Browder is completely missing the point, the game art and character design was not what ruined SC2's story, it was the story that ruined SC2's story. He [mengsk] is not a hero. He did what he felt he had to do to unify humanity against its common enemies. However to get there he was willing to kill countless millions of people. He was a fanatic. Sort of like Stalin, think the end justifies the means. However he did unify humanity so that was a good thing, but only under a dictatorship. But everything is not black and white Thats whats good about SC1 stoyline, its more mature than SC2 | ||
|
Sxcerino
Canada58 Posts
lololol | ||
|
FreudianTrip
Switzerland1983 Posts
On August 19 2011 15:55 surfinbird1 wrote: Hence, why I wrote the following paragraph. But still, I come from a WC3/BW background and in those micro is essential. Was it considered bad in Command&Conquer or Age of Empires or any other RTS game? He's talking from a games designers perspective, not the players. RTS (ESPECIALLY C&C) went through a period of simplification because everyone was claiming no-one wanted to play RTS's because they were too hard (which was bullshit in the first place but no matter). So yeah, he's right. | ||
|
The Touch
United Kingdom667 Posts
I do think he has a point, but I think he's missing a real trick, mostly because the map pool is the same for Bronzies as it is for Grandmasters. If what Browder says is true, and different maps are appropriate to different levels of skill, then shouldn't Blizzard have different map pools for different leagues, rather than forcing higher-level players to use low-quality maps if they want to ladder? Blizzard could easily have, say, three map pools, for Bronze/Silver, Gold/Plat, and Diamond+ (or however you think it should be divided). Obviously you wouldn't want to just give lower-level players nothing but rush maps, and there could be substantial overlap between the different map pools, but I'm sure that there's a way of designing maps that are appropriate to player skill level. If the higher-level map pool was all tournament-standard maps, then pro-level players could use the ladder to practice for tournaments if they want to (something they often complain about not being able to do), but it wouldn't affect the lower-level players (like me) for whom simpler maps might be more appropriate. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
Now add LAN and better custom map support. | ||
|
Zeaket
United States208 Posts
On August 21 2011 17:11 pyaar wrote: was thinking the same thing. you don't throw away units in wc3 like you do in sc(2) in this case they were referring to the single player, not the multiplayer. | ||
|
pyaar
United States423 Posts
On August 22 2011 05:35 Zeaket wrote: in this case they were referring to the single player, not the multiplayer. oh you're right, forgot  | ||
|
Truedot
444 Posts
On August 20 2011 07:45 azarat wrote: The point to take is that the gameplay of WC3 is designed around a specific paradigm, that of small armies with individually more valuable units, and an army management system that signals when you might want to attack. The metagame of WC3 might refine or change those basic principles because of current strategy, but its hard to argue that the game design does not include these elements. SC2, on the other hand, relies on an economic management system that signals when to attack, with larger armies of less individually valuable units. Its no longer the size of the army which is the determining factor, its economics and its relationship with your and your opponent's army. The difference in paradigms are illustrated in the distinct mechanics of WC3 and SC2. The individual Heroes are central to WC3 play and the way in which you engage and use your units. In SC2, its economics. Its no mistake that each race has distinct macro mechanics in SC2, because they allow for economic choices, and by extension, add variability to gameplay. since when is the possibility of being permaforcefielded inside your own base by two sentries not an INCREDIBLY high value unit? Since when is pushing out a colossus at 7 minutes with a handful of zealots to just wtfpwn any early zerg ground army not making the colossus an INCREDIBLY powerful unit? Since when Is NPing a medivac to take heals away from the marines and their stim and giving it to your ultralisk not INCREDIBLY powerful? power of individual unis diminish as more units get fielded, sure. That doesn't mean that at certain stages or with a certain lack of units on the field for either side, many units can be incredibly powerful. | ||
|
Sanguinarius
United States3427 Posts
| ||
| ||
