|
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!)
lol yes... because broodwar was completely without issues....
|
I agree that people need to stop comparing SC2 to Brood War. They are two completely different games and are both amazing in their own right.
|
On October 26 2011 09:56 opisska wrote:
In the following few paragraphs, I would like to address a subject, that is being discussed on TL for a long time, but from what I hope is a different point of view. I truly hope this will not lead to a SC2 vs. BW discussion, as one of the pivotal points af the argument is that such discussion is nonsensical. I am an avid reader of the SC2 section of TL and I have not seen this kind of reasoning to be shown here, at least in recent past, so I hope this thread is not duplicit.
With new units in HoTS, we again more often see topics discussing game design of SC2. Very often, the units are judged on the basis of their comparison to BW units and there even seems to be increasing content with the feeling that the new units are more BroodWary than most of the units in WoL. This can be obviously understood as people here liked BroodWar (as I did, as a low-level player) and so they want to be SC2 as good as BW arguably was.
But here comes my question: what is the point of recreating something, even if it was good? BW is still a perfectly working piece of software, with servers to play on and a large playerbase. What is the point of having another game very similar to it, when we already do have BW? (One possibility, obviously, would be that we would like to have BW with a modern graphics, flashy and nice, but to this end, we do already have SC2BW and I believe that we all can agree that we do not want the whole SC2 to come down to this, so let us ignore this option). I believe, that for SC2 to be meaningful, it has to be significantly different from BW. Otherwise, its just a cheap marketing with not mouch added value: we could all play BW and be happy with that.
Anyway, let's think about why do people not keep playing BW, even though many people that play (or at least passionately discuss) SC2 are apparently of the opinion that BW is superior? For me, the reason is simple: I suck at BW, because of its mechanical difficulty and playing SC2 is much more fun for me.
OK, but I am a noob, right? So why do we have a whole ESPORTS scene around SC2, if it is inferior to BW? The reason is, again, simple: because the pros (non-korean) suck at BW - at least compared to their korean counterparts.
The general success of SC2 is given by the fact, that it is simpler to play on a reasonable (whatever that means for you) level than BW. Thanks to this fact, more non-koreans can really enjoy playing it and more non-koreans can enjoy watching other non-koreans play it. (Wait, OP, are you really that simple-minded? No, I am not, but I think that it is unnecessary to explain this statement with political correct words. Everyone gets the point, right?). It leads to SC2 lacking some aspects of BW but also filling some that BW never had - namely a vivid, lively western ESPORTS scene.
The think that we have to understand is that we now have something different than what we had in BW and that by making SC2 being more like BW, it will be ruined and essentially another version of BW will be made. Why would we want that? Isn't BW the best "version of BW" we could ever hope for?
This situation has another, for many unwelcome, consequence: we cannot really have even the units feel too much BWy. The reason why BW is balanced with just the units and statistics it has, has much to do with its mechanical difficulty. Putting BW units into SC2 with all the UI improvements is a complete disaster. But removing these improvements would be a disaster as well, a disaster for the existence of SC2 as a separate entitty from "just a shiny BW remake".
The question I would like to see ultimately discussed in this thread is: if you argue that something should be "more like in BW", what is you goal? What do you want to achieve with that? Does any desirable outcome of such a developement even exist? Isn't it better for SC2 to be just as different from BW as possible (while still having ESPORTS potential - Angry Birds are obvously more different from BW than SC2)?
Again, the reason for having SC2 different from BW is not that one or another approach is better than the other, but that we already kinda do have a very nice realisation of the BW one.
1) This point of view isn't exactly fresh.
2) In Broodwar, the game was balanced and almost every unit had a purpose. You can't say that about SC2. What's wrong with wanting a balanced game without useless units?
3) Since it's "Starcraft 2" and not "Koprulu Space Wars", it's more than reasonable to expect that Starcraft 2 would more or less be an extension or addition to the experience of Starcraft world. Why recreate Starcraft? Because IT IS STARCRAFT! Does it have to be exactly the same? No, but the old Broodwar model was a solid and safe model. Also, some of us want Broodwar with some of the easy UI features of SC2 (basically a mechanically simpler BW). And no, SC2BW isn't the same, not even close.
4) Yes, SC2 is mechanically easier. No, this isn't the reason that foreigners are doing reasonably well (compared to BW). The reason is that we jumped on the boat early, and we STAYED ON THE BOAT. In BW, we let them keep widening the gap whereas in SC2 we're fighting to either close it or keep it from growing. We're here early, and we plan to stay. And you could STILL have a western eSports scene with SC2 being a lot more like Broodwar.
5) There are a lot of VERY desirable thing about being more like Broodwar. Chat Channels (eventually got added), LAN support, multiplayer replay viewing, Clan Support? (or was that just WC3?), A BALANCED GAME, and A GOOD GAME DESIGN.
6) What do I want from the game since I want it to be more like Broodwar? I want variety in viable strategies (make mech viable for Terrans and make Hydralisks viable for Zerg), I want a balanced game, I want a good game design (goes towards variety of strategies), or if they can't do that - I want a mechanically easier and shinier (could do without the shinier) version of Broodwar. I don't want to spend years of my life just so I can have mechanics good enough just to macro decently in Broodwar.
|
Dominican Republic39 Posts
I Agree! and think that this is happening because when ppl cant deal with something they say that "something" is broken or something is wrong! manytime i see ppl saying that X race in imbalanced or some $hit like that, But then come another player deal with the problem with ease.
Does that look like Imba for you?, I always say that if I cant deal with some stuff, I try to learn how that stuff is made so i can get it weaknesses. Sadly generally no ones do that, they go to a TL forum to Cry that the game is imba - and tha's the reasin Bkizzard is doing All that.
|
The game is Starcraft non the less and it should be more similar to BW then any other game even if SC2 fans hate it or not . Right now it is a mixture of BW , WC3 and even C&C elements with most of the units and the lore of course coming from BW while the game design feels like 50 % BW 40% warcraft and 10 % C&C or something like that . I as a starcraft fan personaly hope that BW percentage increases in the future with the expansions and patches . If i wanted to play a game that felt similar to WC3 or other RTS i would be playing them not starcraft .So please understand SC2 fans that came from different communities , why it is important that the game SHOULD be getting more like BW .
Though you can rejoice with them new protoss units coming in HOTS at least one race that came out of WC3 will stay that way , with all them spellcasters and minions  . And thats exactly why WC3 players playing protoss are having such a huge success in the foreign scene and why most of the BW pros choose not to play protoss in favour of Terran or Zerg .
|
On October 27 2011 00:31 pyrogenetix wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 10:25 shadowboxer wrote:
BW was a better game than SC2 hands down. The problem is that BW was a lot better for competitive players and not necessarily for building a marketable product. BW was extremely hard, and as such getting into it as a new player was extremely difficult. SC2 is not hard, or at least not in the same way BW was. If you have a desire to become really good at SC2, you can do that as long as you put in the hard work and dedication.
You couldn't do that in BW at all. If you wanted to be a top player you HAD to move to Korea and you had to play 14+ hours a day because the game was pure speed and the ability to combine that speed with good strategy, tactics and unit control. In SC2 the game does almost all of this for you, so players that will never actually be good at the game can still play it at a certain level and feel like they have an understanding of the game and why pros do what they do.
BW is a game competitive gamers appreciate, but SC2 is an e-sport. It's similar to Counter-Strike 1.6 in the sense that for competitive gamers, it was the perfect shooter. Nothing will top it, ever, hands down. 1.6 is not a marketable e-sport though, and something will come along and eventually beat it out in the e-sports market just like SC2 did to BW. I think this is the main misconception people have of BW. What makes BW great is that you never have enough time to do everything. You can either 1) build probes and put them on minerals when they come out, or 2) build more zealots, or 3) micro your dragoons from the zerglings. You don't have time to do all three. Your aim is not to do all three things but to be able to make the ballsy split second decision to build more zealots over making more probes or saving your goons because you realize that that is your top priority at that place and time. That is superior game sense and knowledge, not mechanics. When you get better at playing you may be able to squeeze a second action in, but to try and do everything in BW and play a perfect game is impossible. A lot of BW is about creating havoc for your opponent and forcing him to choose the wrong priority. That's something people again and again do not understand.
From the depth of the thread, I would like to pick up this particular response - paradoxically because it seems to be to most important thing to disagree with.
When both players reach certain level of mechanics, then yes, this is a very profound concept and it should be agreed with. Both below that level, there is always the possiblity that one player will be able to do more of these actions than the other and then it actaully is about the mechanics and nothing else.
And here I thnik the core of the problem is pinpointed, the queston is: am I able to put it in words? The whole BW is balanced around this basic choice of APM alocation. The possibility to balance very powerfull elements, such as consume/dark swarm, storm, mines, but also individual unit micro abilities (kiting, moving shots, deceleration management) is related to the fact that even though you can pull them off to a great effect, you will be loosing on your macro if you give it too much. But this is in stark contrast with the existence of/demand for a simple interface that, most importantly, simplifies the macro.
So still it seems to me that the BW's success lies in its mechanical difficulty, because it is only the difficulty that efficiently for this tradeoff between actions (otherwise there always will be players that manage to do everything). There several are people in this thread who said that they would like to just have BW without having to spend two years learning the mechanics. I would love that too! But considering the above arguement, I think that it just can't work, because when the difficulty to pull it off stops being the deciding factor in choosing your gameplay, then all of the sudden, different strategies will become effective and the whole underlying structure of the game will be lost. Sadly, I have not seen many suggestion as to what could actually be done in order to avoid this trap.
There are also other interesting things that I think merit being noted. Namely that there are two completely oposing views as to what the future of SC2 ESPORTS will look like: one says that now everything will be fine, because we jumped in the wagon soon enough and we are going to stay there, the other says that we should enjoy our fun until koreans figure the whole game out and noone will ever be able to breakthrough again. Well, what an interesting discussion!
|
On October 27 2011 16:40 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2011 00:31 pyrogenetix wrote:On October 26 2011 10:25 shadowboxer wrote:
BW was a better game than SC2 hands down. The problem is that BW was a lot better for competitive players and not necessarily for building a marketable product. BW was extremely hard, and as such getting into it as a new player was extremely difficult. SC2 is not hard, or at least not in the same way BW was. If you have a desire to become really good at SC2, you can do that as long as you put in the hard work and dedication.
You couldn't do that in BW at all. If you wanted to be a top player you HAD to move to Korea and you had to play 14+ hours a day because the game was pure speed and the ability to combine that speed with good strategy, tactics and unit control. In SC2 the game does almost all of this for you, so players that will never actually be good at the game can still play it at a certain level and feel like they have an understanding of the game and why pros do what they do.
BW is a game competitive gamers appreciate, but SC2 is an e-sport. It's similar to Counter-Strike 1.6 in the sense that for competitive gamers, it was the perfect shooter. Nothing will top it, ever, hands down. 1.6 is not a marketable e-sport though, and something will come along and eventually beat it out in the e-sports market just like SC2 did to BW. I think this is the main misconception people have of BW. What makes BW great is that you never have enough time to do everything. You can either 1) build probes and put them on minerals when they come out, or 2) build more zealots, or 3) micro your dragoons from the zerglings. You don't have time to do all three. Your aim is not to do all three things but to be able to make the ballsy split second decision to build more zealots over making more probes or saving your goons because you realize that that is your top priority at that place and time. That is superior game sense and knowledge, not mechanics. When you get better at playing you may be able to squeeze a second action in, but to try and do everything in BW and play a perfect game is impossible. A lot of BW is about creating havoc for your opponent and forcing him to choose the wrong priority. That's something people again and again do not understand. From the depth of the thread, I would like to pick up this particular response - paradoxically because it seems to be to most important thing to disagree with. When both players reach certain level of mechanics, then yes, this is a very profound concept and it should be agreed with. Both below that level, there is always the possiblity that one player will be able to do more of these actions than the other and then it actaully is about the mechanics and nothing else. And here I thnik the core of the problem is pinpointed, the queston is: am I able to put it in words? The whole BW is balanced around this basic choice of APM alocation. The possibility to balance very powerfull elements, such as consume/dark swarm, storm, mines, but also individual unit micro abilities (kiting, moving shots, deceleration management) is related to the fact that even though you can pull them off to a great effect, you will be loosing on your macro if you give it too much. But this is in stark contrast with the existence of/demand for a simple interface that, most importantly, simplifies the macro. So still it seems to me that the BW's success lies in its mechanical difficulty, because it is only the difficulty that efficiently for this tradeoff between actions (otherwise there always will be players that manage to do everything). There several are people in this thread who said that they would like to just have BW without having to spend two years learning the mechanics. I would love that too! But considering the above arguement, I think that it just can't work, because when the difficulty to pull it off stops being the deciding factor in choosing your gameplay, then all of the sudden, different strategies will become effective and the whole underlying structure of the game will be lost. Sadly, I have not seen many suggestion as to what could actually be done in order to avoid this trap. There are also other interesting things that I think merit being noted. Namely that there are two completely oposing views as to what the future of SC2 ESPORTS will look like: one says that now everything will be fine, because we jumped in the wagon soon enough and we are going to stay there, the other says that we should enjoy our fun until koreans figure the whole game out and noone will ever be able to breakthrough again. Well, what an interesting discussion!
You make a good point, creating distractions was one major point of Saviors play, and it might have a lot to do with the mechanically demanding nature of BW.
Then again, there are logically very high level players on ICCUP (if you compare to SC2 top master-league to C- on ICCUP) with only 100 apm in BW. Hell, even Stork and Savior only hovered just above 200 apm, Stork being the considered one of the four pillars (the four kings lets say) of current BW.
Its the same in SC2, Stephano has BW level mechanics, but he is also a great decision maker, his ability lies in the fusion of both. I think in the end mechanics will matter just as much in both games, because the level of strategy and tactics is also higher in BW meaning it makes a much bigger difference also.
I've repeated many times that mechanics is only one way to get to the top (just like SC2), and its one koreans prefer. If you remember IdrA had much better mechanics than Nony, yet Nony won TSL2.
You are on point about the balance of Spells and Units however, we can say for sure that the balance of BW would be very different if it wasn't as mechanically demanding, for example 12 unit selection may-be what balances wraith and muta micro so you can't have 100 of them 1-shotting nexus's (although not considering the strong AA splash options in BW as well).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
