|
On October 27 2011 07:46 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 23:10 JayJay_90 wrote:
Am I the only one that thinks SC2 being less challenging when it comes to pure mechanics is actually a great thing? I've never played BW and never followed it as an esports, so I might be lacking some understanding. But I think it's awesome that SC2 is harder than most (casual) games but less hard than BW in terms of mechanics for 2 reasons.
1) It's challenging enough to be a competitive esports game, but easy enough for beginners to get started. That means that more people are gonna play it and the bigger the community, the more money sponsors will want to invest into the growth of esports, be it in price money, teamhouses or whatever.
2) Although at the highest level of BW, where everyone has sick mechanics, strategy is gonna be what decides the game, in BW usually the player with slightly better mechanics will win. I think it is really cool that, although mechanics are obviously super important, in SC2 you can actually win by having a sick gamesense and better tactical decision making, even if your mechanics are worse than your opponent's. To me, this deep understanding of the game is much more impressive than just high apm. Surely you need a lot of practise for that aswell, but it seems like that actually requires a bit of intelligence and talent, while i'd think that everyone who got the willpower to just play > 8 hours a day will get good mechanics pretty soon. Um yeah, Flash wins the most games because of his sick game-sense and strategic decision making. Jaedong on the other hand has amazing instantaneous tactical decision making, he will strike if you leave the slightest weakness anywhere. He also has great defiler and muta control meaning he can get bases earlier. Bisu is a sick multitasking macro/micro god, and has builds that no other protoss' can do. Three of the best players, great in completely different ways. What you've essentially said, is that its great that now only players like Flash can be good at the game. Well let me tell you, that there are a lot of people who don't enjoy Flash's games. Also tactics barely exist in SC2, they make a much bigger difference in BW due to larger variation in effectiveness of units, depending on positioning and micro. Even the dynamic between zerglings and marines, if you catch a bunch of marines off guard in BW it makes a MASSIVE difference. In SC2 they move clumped all the time, so how can you be tactical? Read this if you wanna learn about tactics  http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
I've learned that it's pointless to try to educate people on the intricacies of BW when they have no idea. They usually turn around and blame your opinion on nostalgia because they don't understand that maybe BW is actually genuinely a vastly superior game. Tactics are almost non-existent in SC2 and the ones that do exist are also a part of the BW metagame. I always hear people saying that "BW is only mechanics," and "theres no strategy, the player with the best mechanics wins." For some reason they can't understand that mechanics and strategy can coincide. But somehow mechanics and strategy coincide in SC2 which is more than a decade younger. Yes, mechanics are very important in BW but all the players play 14 hours a day, they all have amazing mechanics, its the strategy that sets the best apart from the rest. Well biased SC2-only players, if BW is so shallow then i'm sure that you can learn all there is to BW no problem right?
I find it strange that people with experience in area X feel like they have superior knowledge in area Y over someone who has experience in area X and Y. It's like having two people test if they like the dark chocolate or the milk chocolate better. One person tries both and gives his opinion, the other person tries only one and insists that one is the best. Which person do you think I would be more inclined to listen to?
+ Show Spoiler +Correct! The person with more credentials!
|
I've learned that it's pointless to try to educate people on the intricacies of BW when they have no idea. They usually turn around and blame your opinion on nostalgia because they don't understand that maybe BW is actually genuinely a vastly superior game. Tactics are almost non-existent in SC2 and the ones that do exist are also a part of the BW metagame. I always hear people saying that "BW is only mechanics," and "theres no strategy, the player with the best mechanics wins." For some reason they can't understand that mechanics and strategy can coincide. But somehow mechanics and strategy coincide in SC2 which is more than a decade younger. Yes, mechanics are very important in BW but all the players play 14 hours a day, they all have amazing mechanics, its the strategy that sets the best apart from the rest. Well biased SC2-only players, if BW is so shallow then i'm sure that you can learn all there is to BW no problem right? I find it strange that people with experience in area X feel like they have superior knowledge in area Y over someone who has experience in area X and Y. It's like having two people test if they like the dark chocolate or the milk chocolate better. One person tries both and gives his opinion, the other person tries only one and insists that one is the best. Which person do you think I would be more inclined to listen to? + Show Spoiler +Correct! The person with more credentials!
I love how everything you quote as being "amazing" about brood war was late in the game's life. SCII has been out for less than a year, and brood war was a hundred times worse in that time frame.
Face it: the game hasn't had time to mature, and you're expecting it to be perfect instantly. Grow up and stop waxing nostalgic (yeah, you are putting nostalgia ahead of logical thought) and start contributing to making SCII as good as brood war, or stop talking about SCII and go play BW.
|
On October 26 2011 10:02 iky43210 wrote:
There are units similarities, but they really are very different compare to BW
They just wants make a unit slightly similar to BW to sell you that nostalgia. But as long as the unit pathing for sc2 is so advance, it won't go toward the way of BW. I do agree with Blizzard moves to try to spread out the deathball though
back and forth game is always the best to look at. Introducing powerful casters and siege units will achieve them
Rename the deathball to deathwave when HoTS comes out.
|
If sc2 was to be entirely different than BW... then it wouldn't be sc2. It'd be a new franchise possibly...
sc2 has the BW concept. The races have the same base mechanics and then some in sc2.
To improve sc2, we need to look at what BW did right. Because when we criticize games, we often associate the most similar game to it to find faults and goods...
albeit, i'd like it if criticism was more open and not so BW exclusive. It would bring out more innovative ideas IMO...
sc2 does have some innovative concepts and layers of mechanics despite it being 'simplified.' Most stupid BW mechanics that took away gameplay was simplified.. like mass selection... mining... etc...
By mechanics, I meant the AI... Units move better and don't retard like BW. Even though deathballs do form, balls are only seen while moving and not confronting splash damage. I think what people see when they say 'deathball' they see units moving across the field and say, ball vs ball... but when the battle comes, pros split their balls up to deal with baneling, sieg tanks, storms, and what have you. And then its micro wars... I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit about how units walk from A to B in the form of a ball.
I just wanted to say that... but anyways, sc2 is BW-y cuz its starcraft. it's okay to compare sometimes. it can give better solutions. sometimes though, I don't agree with BW elitist being elitist...
|
On October 27 2011 12:27 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +I've learned that it's pointless to try to educate people on the intricacies of BW when they have no idea. They usually turn around and blame your opinion on nostalgia because they don't understand that maybe BW is actually genuinely a vastly superior game. Tactics are almost non-existent in SC2 and the ones that do exist are also a part of the BW metagame. I always hear people saying that "BW is only mechanics," and "theres no strategy, the player with the best mechanics wins." For some reason they can't understand that mechanics and strategy can coincide. But somehow mechanics and strategy coincide in SC2 which is more than a decade younger. Yes, mechanics are very important in BW but all the players play 14 hours a day, they all have amazing mechanics, its the strategy that sets the best apart from the rest. Well biased SC2-only players, if BW is so shallow then i'm sure that you can learn all there is to BW no problem right? I find it strange that people with experience in area X feel like they have superior knowledge in area Y over someone who has experience in area X and Y. It's like having two people test if they like the dark chocolate or the milk chocolate better. One person tries both and gives his opinion, the other person tries only one and insists that one is the best. Which person do you think I would be more inclined to listen to? + Show Spoiler +Correct! The person with more credentials! I love how everything you quote as being "amazing" about brood war was late in the game's life. SCII has been out for less than a year, and brood war was a hundred times worse in that time frame. Face it: the game hasn't had time to mature, and you're expecting it to be perfect instantly. Grow up and stop waxing nostalgic (yeah, you are putting nostalgia ahead of logical thought) and start contributing to making SCII as good as brood war, or stop talking about SCII and go play BW.
If SC2 was to stay WoL forever, all the time in the world would not allow the game to evolve into a better game than BW. SC2 is missing some fundamentals or is designed in a way to prevent that Just watch the Dustin B. interview with teamliquid video where they talk about these issues that they are trying to solve with HoTs, and even admits that it won't be solved in HoTs . I'm just glad there are 2 more expansions to hopefully make SC2 as good as BW. SC2 isn't that fun to watch, I even left during the GSL finals at Blizzcon for the Hilton party because the matches weren't that interesting (watching marauders destroy everything boo!)
|
Most of you don't get it. It's not about SC2 becoming like BW. It's about SC2 overcoming BW...BW fans don't want just another game...maybe you new guys do...we want a better game.
SC2 just doesn't improve on what BW started, it tries to do it's own thing and fails again and again with fault. It makes a relatively short journey to success a long one. So it's frustrating for us, because BW taught us so much and SC2 isn't taking advantage of those lessons.
|
I would like to play BW with GRID hotkeys, multiple building select, automining queue and unlimited unit selections.
Don't even mind if there is no queen, mules, or chronoboosts.
|
On October 26 2011 10:23 iPAndi wrote:
We definitely dont want BW, thats why we all migrated from it. We, however, want sc2 to have the great characteristics bw had. Positional advantage (read minefields, tank spreading, observers spreading, lurkers), back and forth motion in games (scourge+lurk vs observers+goons, lurker+defiler vs mnm) and more are available on BW and made the game as epic as it was.
This is my biggest disappointment with SC2. In BW there was such a huge focus on have many expansions all over the map and having just the right amount of units positioned perfectly all over the map to defend everything. In SC2, half the games end up with just two big balls of units smashing into the other and someone wins. Sure, sometimes you get epic macro games with drops going on all over the place and counter attacks, but those epic SC2 games would just be standard BW games.
This thread and the title of it is poison. The OP's argument is fundamentally flawed. SC2 shouldn't be "as different as possible" from SC1 because SC2 carries the "StarCraft" name in its title. If you want something as different as possible from SC1, then there are a ton of other games out there for you. But we want SC2, that is, Starcraft 2. It's supposed to be a new version of Starcraft 1, which means, it should keep the awesome characteristics from the first game.
I also agree with this. If I buy street fighter 5 in the future, I am expecting it to be like the previous street fighters. Going from BW to SC2 is like going from street fighter to tekken. They are the same genre sure, but they are just so completely different.
|
This thread and the title of it is poison. The OP's argument is fundamentally flawed. SC2 shouldn't be "as different as possible" from SC1 because SC2 carries the "StarCraft" name in its title. If you want something as different as possible from SC1, then there are a ton of other games out there for you. But we want SC2, that is, Starcraft 2. It's supposed to be a new version of Starcraft 1, which means, it should keep the awesome characteristics from the first game.
Aside from all that, SC2 should strive to be more realistic. Ball vs Ball and stutter step micro isn't realistic, it's stupid looking and boring to watch. A 13 year old game actually simulated how real war would look; long siege lines, armies that extend multiple screens, etc. I know, it's Starcraft, it's not supposed to be a real war simulator right? But it's also not supposed to be 200/200 armies fitting in a small ball all in 1 screen. That just doesn't look right, and it's not fun and it's boring to watch.
|
On October 27 2011 13:51 KingAce wrote:
Most of you don't get it. It's not about SC2 becoming like BW. It's about SC2 overcoming BW...BW fans don't want just another game...maybe you new guys do...we want a better game.
SC2 just doesn't improve on what BW started, it tries to do it's own thing and fails again and again with fault. It makes a relatively short journey to success a long one. So it's frustrating for us, because BW taught us so much and SC2 isn't taking advantage of those lessons.
I <3 You.
On October 27 2011 13:10 Hokay wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 12:27 Honeybadger wrote:I've learned that it's pointless to try to educate people on the intricacies of BW when they have no idea. They usually turn around and blame your opinion on nostalgia because they don't understand that maybe BW is actually genuinely a vastly superior game. Tactics are almost non-existent in SC2 and the ones that do exist are also a part of the BW metagame. I always hear people saying that "BW is only mechanics," and "theres no strategy, the player with the best mechanics wins." For some reason they can't understand that mechanics and strategy can coincide. But somehow mechanics and strategy coincide in SC2 which is more than a decade younger. Yes, mechanics are very important in BW but all the players play 14 hours a day, they all have amazing mechanics, its the strategy that sets the best apart from the rest. Well biased SC2-only players, if BW is so shallow then i'm sure that you can learn all there is to BW no problem right? I find it strange that people with experience in area X feel like they have superior knowledge in area Y over someone who has experience in area X and Y. It's like having two people test if they like the dark chocolate or the milk chocolate better. One person tries both and gives his opinion, the other person tries only one and insists that one is the best. Which person do you think I would be more inclined to listen to? + Show Spoiler +Correct! The person with more credentials! I love how everything you quote as being "amazing" about brood war was late in the game's life. SCII has been out for less than a year, and brood war was a hundred times worse in that time frame. Face it: the game hasn't had time to mature, and you're expecting it to be perfect instantly. Grow up and stop waxing nostalgic (yeah, you are putting nostalgia ahead of logical thought) and start contributing to making SCII as good as brood war, or stop talking about SCII and go play BW. If SC2 was to stay WoL forever, all the time in the world would not allow the game to evolve into a better game than BW. SC2 is missing some fundamentals or is designed in a way to prevent that Just watch the Dustin B. interview with teamliquid video where they talk about these issues that they are trying to solve with HoTs, and even admits that it won't be solved in HoTs . I'm just glad there are 2 more expansions to hopefully make SC2 as good as BW. SC2 isn't that fun to watch, I even left during the GSL finals at Blizzcon for the Hilton party because the matches weren't that interesting (watching marauders destroy everything boo!)
You sound smart with that logical wisdom of yours.
|
@OP
You're mostly correct, but you're largely overlooking and ultimately ignoring the fact that SC2 piggybacked on the success and longevity of BW to get its jump start.
Don't get me wrong, you are right in attributing SC2's widespread and broad success to its relatively low mechanical requirement, but you have to admit there are a number of problems with this simplicity as well. Kennigit's questions in his Dustin Browder interview are all great examples of aspects of BW that I personally really think would benefit SC2.
SC2 being different from BW is fine, it being an entirely different game is fine, and it already is. SC2 emulating parts of BW that made BW the amazing game it is should also be considered, however.
Unfortunately, a lot of what made BW great are things that no modern RTS would even think to have included, and Blizz is no exception.
|
I agree and disagree Opisska. Many reasons why SC2 is successful is because of how successful BroodWar is, among other reasons (Like being released in 2010 after BW and other games made e-sports). In order to legitimize esports though and make sure it's not just a fad, there needs to be the skill to back it up. Broodwar has that, and the perfect balance; SC2 thrives to attain that high pedestal while being a different game. Hard shoes to be the predecessor to BroodWar, one of the greatest games ever made.
|
On October 27 2011 12:27 Honeybadger wrote:Show nested quote +I've learned that it's pointless to try to educate people on the intricacies of BW when they have no idea. They usually turn around and blame your opinion on nostalgia because they don't understand that maybe BW is actually genuinely a vastly superior game. Tactics are almost non-existent in SC2 and the ones that do exist are also a part of the BW metagame. I always hear people saying that "BW is only mechanics," and "theres no strategy, the player with the best mechanics wins." For some reason they can't understand that mechanics and strategy can coincide. But somehow mechanics and strategy coincide in SC2 which is more than a decade younger. Yes, mechanics are very important in BW but all the players play 14 hours a day, they all have amazing mechanics, its the strategy that sets the best apart from the rest. Well biased SC2-only players, if BW is so shallow then i'm sure that you can learn all there is to BW no problem right? I find it strange that people with experience in area X feel like they have superior knowledge in area Y over someone who has experience in area X and Y. It's like having two people test if they like the dark chocolate or the milk chocolate better. One person tries both and gives his opinion, the other person tries only one and insists that one is the best. Which person do you think I would be more inclined to listen to? + Show Spoiler +Correct! The person with more credentials! I love how everything you quote as being "amazing" about brood war was late in the game's life. SCII has been out for less than a year, and brood war was a hundred times worse in that time frame. Face it: the game hasn't had time to mature, and you're expecting it to be perfect instantly. Grow up and stop waxing nostalgic (yeah, you are putting nostalgia ahead of logical thought) and start contributing to making SCII as good as brood war, or stop talking about SCII and go play BW.
SC2 is the sequel to BW. Like it or not, it has an enormous legacy and name to live up to. It clearly doesn't. There isn't a single person who actually played BW who can honestly say SC2 has lived up to BW.
Vanilla Starcraft was terrible when it first came out. BW wasn't nearly as broken. More importantly, however, the fundamental aspects of BW that let it mature into the great game it is were always there.
We don't have ten years to wait for SC2 to become a great game. It needs to be a game worthy of succeeding BW now, not in ten years.
|
well thats the most useless thread ive seen in a while
|
I also want SC2 to be a "separate game" than SC/BW. But the problem is SC2 still has and will always have some basic principles of each race that will always keep it from being a completely unique game from BW.
Until they do a complete overhaul on how the races play, each race in SC2 will eventually (either through meta game, blizzard's unit designs, or some combo of both) play very similar roles to their SC1 counterparts. So the game will always be compared to brood war in some way.
While i give blizzard a lot of crap for the success that WoW has put into their heads, I give them a small amount of props for at least trying to change up certain aspects of the races to differ SC2 z/t/p from BW. But the problem is it really isnt working. And now these HotS units have some similarities to the BW units tbh.
|
On October 27 2011 14:19 DEN1ED wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 10:23 iPAndi wrote:
We definitely dont want BW, thats why we all migrated from it. We, however, want sc2 to have the great characteristics bw had. Positional advantage (read minefields, tank spreading, observers spreading, lurkers), back and forth motion in games (scourge+lurk vs observers+goons, lurker+defiler vs mnm) and more are available on BW and made the game as epic as it was. This is my biggest disappointment with SC2. In BW there was such a huge focus on have many expansions all over the map and having just the right amount of units positioned perfectly all over the map to defend everything. In SC2, half the games end up with just two big balls of units smashing into the other and someone wins. Sure, sometimes you get epic macro games with drops going on all over the place and counter attacks, but those epic SC2 games would just be standard BW games.
I was thinking along these lines recently. You can see games go long right now where everything falls apart for players on both sides. Keeping up macro on 4+ bases while dealing with or performing drops & fighting that positional war on the front line seems to be where even high level pros hit their limit. You start to see poor decisions being made, from bad engagements to just going all in and letting their econ or tech get wiped when they could have cleaned up. I don't mean that in a harsh way, though. It's just the game and the skill level evolving.
A year ago 1 base all ins were the norm, 6 months ago it was 2 base timings. Now it's common to see an early push that isn't an all in, but keeps players honest, and another timing a little later, but again, those pushes really only kill off a player who is behind, either through harassment, poor engagements, a poor build order choice, or macro screw ups. Successful players are more active in the early stages and able to multitask better in the late game. And as knowledge of the early and mid game continues to get ingrained into pros,it seems more likely that someone who can control multiple engagements will always have the advantage over someone who tries to barrel through the map with a giant army.
|
It doesn't make sense to make SC2 more broodwar-y anyway. Back then we had a completely different pathing and absolutely stupid units. The reaver and spidermine were units that were balanced around the fact that small bacteria can coordinate movement better than those units. Sure you could shove the stupid person in the right direction, but it kind of was like giving a spasmic retarded person a bazooka and cross your fingers that he hit your enemies.
The pathing is much smarter now. And right now the units aren't designed for that much smarter AI aside from perhaps the hellion. We shouldn't go back to making broodwar, that would be a cop-out to blizzard on the biggest scale possible. They should design truely smart units that are designed around the current pathing, not go back to making everything retarded and introduce BW units. And yes I do enjoy watching BW more than SC2 right now.
|
It's not specifically about emulating starcraft:brood war that will supposedly make sc2 a better game, but instead a rehaul of the fundamentals of gameplay that exist in sc2 that will make it into a superior product. Ex. blob of stuff vs blob of stuff in sc2. SC1 maybe had "ball" formations as well but that took micro and had advantages and disadvantages. Units in sc2 have a tendency to squish together as hard as possible, but they avoid each other in sc1. Honestly, how fun is it to see MMMVG vs a colossus deathball and then see one army just evaporate? How fun is it to play that?
Then there's also the fact that it is a sequel and thus should stay true to the series. It already keeps some of the old units like the marine, zealot and zergling, but I think success relies also on teh way the game plays out. Take Street Fighter for example: Street Fighter 2 was a huge success but SF3 was not quite because the system was so different. SF3 introduced parries, which let skilled players completely nullify projectiles as space control, thus making rushdown the optimal playstyle. Then there was also the issue of only keeping 4 characters from the original street fighter 2. Now more people know about SF4 because they brought back every old character+some alpha+SF3 as well as not having parries (focus attacks are very different).
It's not essential that sc2 has lurkers and reavers and valkyries, but a gameplay system more reminiscent of BW than it does now will probably attract more SCBW pros into transferring and likely making better games (who knows, maybe it's the opposite and making it bw-y will ruin everything).
If I got anything wrong with my SF/BW analogies I apologize. I don't have pro 1st hand experience. It's the underlying idea that's important.
|
On October 27 2011 15:02 Fugue wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 27 2011 14:19 DEN1ED wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 10:23 iPAndi wrote:
We definitely dont want BW, thats why we all migrated from it. We, however, want sc2 to have the great characteristics bw had. Positional advantage (read minefields, tank spreading, observers spreading, lurkers), back and forth motion in games (scourge+lurk vs observers+goons, lurker+defiler vs mnm) and more are available on BW and made the game as epic as it was. This is my biggest disappointment with SC2. In BW there was such a huge focus on have many expansions all over the map and having just the right amount of units positioned perfectly all over the map to defend everything. In SC2, half the games end up with just two big balls of units smashing into the other and someone wins. Sure, sometimes you get epic macro games with drops going on all over the place and counter attacks, but those epic SC2 games would just be standard BW games. I was thinking along these lines recently. You can see games go long right now where everything falls apart for players on both sides. Keeping up macro on 4+ bases while dealing with or performing drops & fighting that positional war on the front line seems to be where even high level pros hit their limit. You start to see poor decisions being made, from bad engagements to just going all in and letting their econ or tech get wiped when they could have cleaned up. I don't mean that in a harsh way, though. It's just the game and the skill level evolving. A year ago 1 base all ins were the norm, 6 months ago it was 2 base timings. Now it's common to see an early push that isn't an all in, but keeps players honest, and another timing a little later, but again, those pushes really only kill off a player who is behind, either through harassment, poor engagements, a poor build order choice, or macro screw ups. Successful players are more active in the early stages and able to multitask better in the late game. And as knowledge of the early and mid game continues to get ingrained into pros,it seems more likely that someone who can control multiple engagements will always have the advantage over someone who tries to barrel through the map with a giant army.
Ya, I guess it could just be a skill thing at the moment. It always makes me a little sad when there are bonjwa discussions about nestea when he was a below average BW player. It's not like you suddenly become godly at such a relatively old age. I don't want the BW scene to fall apart but part of me wants to see the top BW players in SC2 and see the game get pushed to the limits much faster.
|
This comes up time and time again in all games. I've been active on gaming forums since WoW, and I see this same shit over and over. WoW players want the game more like Everquest, and when the expansion comes out they want the game more like vanilla. The MLG forums want all Halo games to be more like Halo CE or Halo 2 (depending, not at all coincidentally, on which of those two games the poster played competitively first), the League of Legends forums want everything more like DoTA, and the SC2 forums want everything more like Brood War.
It's all a matter of expectations. People play one game of a series or genre, and that game becomes the template for what that kind of game is supposed to be. If anything is not like that template, it is seen as wrong and inherently inferior, because it is different from what the player has come to expect. Every time I see Brood War called a perfect game it just reeks of this effect.
Understanding the designers' intent I think is key to discussing the success and failure of any game as it is and proposing changes. Your expectations do not match the exact design intentions of the developer, especially when your expectation is to have something close to the same game again. Lots of times people assume the developers are trying to recreate the supposed magic of the original, but this is a flawed assumption. Blizzard, Bungie, Riot, and just about all other game developers are completely capable of closely remaking their past games. They aren't failing to emulate previous success, they were never trying to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
