|
On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
I don't understand this. How exactly has BW been thrown under a bus? It is not like Blizzard was doing much for it before? I would argue that SC2 has done a lot to raise awareness of BW.
By the community: All of the well known western BW community figures have switched over to SC2 and now only talk about BW like a dead uncle. Don't you think it's weird that popular SC2 casters will tell viewers to check out fighting game tournaments, but don't even mention major BW events?
By Blizzard: Granted Blizzard never seemed to care about esports before, but now that they're all about "supporting esports" have you ever heard them say anything good about BW? It's like they've completely disowned the game.
On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
This argument only makes sense if there is little room for improvement in current play. There are so many ways pros could be doing better. The depth of the game has not been explored. Yes the game may end up being WNBA but it is has the potential to be a NBA as well. We simply don't know yet.
The argument that the OP was making was that SC2 is more popular with viewers because it gives exposure to a group that wouldn't normally be skilled enough to compete. By the OP's logic SC2 would become less popular with non-Korean viewers if the skill level increased to a point where only people in Korea were good enough to compete.
|
On October 26 2011 11:55 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:50 AudionovA wrote:
I like how SC2 is a more strategic game and less dependent on mindless mechanics, i love both games and I have grown to love how they are both different. Mindless mechanics.. are you kidding me? Did it ever occur to you that BW could actually have the same depth as SC2, but also requires extreme mechanics as well? Yes, mechanics were very important to judge ones skill by, but what separates the best of the players is their strategic brilliance. If you played BW on a competitive level then you would know that BW is a much more dynamic game than the current version of SC2.
He certainly could have worded his post better. My understanding is that the point where strategy becomes important relative to mechanics is much earlier in SC2 than BW. From a consumer point of view, this is a good thing. It makes the basics easier to learn. From a spectator point of view it only matters if a pro with awesome mechanics gets beaten by a better strategy from a mechanically weak player.
I don't think anyone can argue that BW didn't have incredibly depth when it comes to strategies. There is no way it would have lasted so long if this was the case.
|
The argument that the OP was making was that SC2 is more popular with viewers because it gives exposure to a group that wouldn't normally be skilled enough to compete. By the OP's logic SC2 would become less popular with non-Korean viewers if the skill level increased to a point where only people in Korea were good enough to compete.
It probably would, unfortunately. Like I said earlier though, it's much easier for a worse player to beat a better player in SC2 than BW.
|
On October 26 2011 11:58 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
I don't understand this. How exactly has BW been thrown under a bus? It is not like Blizzard was doing much for it before? I would argue that SC2 has done a lot to raise awareness of BW.
By the community: All of the well known western BW community figures have switched over to SC2 and now only talk about BW like a dead uncle. Don't you think it's weird that popular SC2 casters will tell viewers to check out fighting game tournaments, but don't even mention major BW events?
I take it you never watch state of the game.
|
I think the popularity of sc2 is more about the era we live in than the game itself. Gaming is now a more acceptable and widespread phenomenon, almost everyone, knows something about games, previously it would be limited to very few people, and it would mostly be need for speed or gta.
If you now couple this with streaming and youtube, and people finding Day9,husky and the others, you have a very potent combination. Brood war never had that. It was released at a time when playing games was not a socially acceptable, most people had 56k connections which pretty much rendered any form of video through the internet choppy at best .
Sure the ease of playing casually does help, but that isnt the most important factor for the growth of e-sports, it in fact is a double edged sword. The games that people enjoy the most,from a spectator perspective. are the ones where you see pro's doing things that are nearly impossible for most of us here. Marineking's marine control is a wonder to watch not because it is easier to do, but because it is very tough to do that. In brood war, it is tough to control units properly and make them march properly at times, let alone engage terran siege lines and drag spider mines onto sieges, while spreading dragoons behind to deal damage...and that scene run across 3 screens on the map. Watching stuff like that is just plain amazing, and it's only one example. The ease of sc2 hurts the watchability because control is kinda negated,and things start to feel a little samey(death ball vs death ball etc).
And it's not that brood war was not popular back in the day, it was extremely popular, but within the gaming community, for the reasons stated above.Maybe if it had the same exposure that sc2 got, who knows. Also, keep in mind that sc2 built off the popularity of bw, which gave it a community, a bunch of loyal fans, a lot of charismatic characters. Would've been interesting to see the reaction if it was not branded as an sc game.
|
It's a sequel, it should be BW-y.
Ideas like map control and holding positions using units like lurkers are ideas/concepts that should exist in SC2, because they promote more interesting, drawn out games.
|
What I hate most of all is how people are saying that BW were more mechanics than strategy and SC2 is so balanced when it comes to mechanics and strategy.
I have a question. What is it in SC2 strategy that overcomes the strategy depth in BW?
And one thing that screws up the game so there is this ball vs ball and no smaller battles thru the game is because of how the race mechanics is in sc2. Because of larvae mechanics, warp in mechanic and reactor addons you remax so damn quick.
|
On October 26 2011 12:03 theBizness wrote:Show nested quote +
The argument that the OP was making was that SC2 is more popular with viewers because it gives exposure to a group that wouldn't normally be skilled enough to compete. By the OP's logic SC2 would become less popular with non-Korean viewers if the skill level increased to a point where only people in Korea were good enough to compete.
It probably would, unfortunately. Like I said earlier though, it's much easier for a worse player to beat a better player in SC2 than BW.
This makes for a better spectator sport, mroe upsets make it more exciting. Take soccer versus rugby for example. One soccer goal is worth so much more that a fluke of a goal could win a game, in rugby points are less vaulable, leading to less chance of upset. Upsets piss you off if you support that team that loses, but are nice for neutral and rivals. It dosen't make it endless domination. But this endless domination dosen't occur in BW anyway
|
On October 26 2011 11:58 BrosephBrostar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
I don't understand this. How exactly has BW been thrown under a bus? It is not like Blizzard was doing much for it before? I would argue that SC2 has done a lot to raise awareness of BW.
By the community: All of the well known western BW community figures have switched over to SC2 and now only talk about BW like a dead uncle. Don't you think it's weird that popular SC2 casters will tell viewers to check out fighting game tournaments, but don't even mention major BW events? By Blizzard: Granted Blizzard never seemed to care about esports before, but now that they're all about "supporting esports" have you ever heard them say anything good about BW? It's like they've completely disowned the game. Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
This argument only makes sense if there is little room for improvement in current play. There are so many ways pros could be doing better. The depth of the game has not been explored. Yes the game may end up being WNBA but it is has the potential to be a NBA as well. We simply don't know yet.
The argument that the OP was making was that SC2 is more popular with viewers because it gives exposure to a group that wouldn't normally be skilled enough to compete. By the OP's logic SC2 would become less popular with non-Korean viewers if the skill level increased to a point where only people in Korea were good enough to compete.
Right. Well fair nuff.
People moved to SC2 because that is where the money is. Besides who are we to begrudge someone else choice. I still think BW is strong and has a devoted community. SC2 provides a great place for recruits. I played BW casually for years wihtout knowing about the pro-scene till SC2 was announced. It isn't all bad.
Your second point makes perfect sense.
|
We'll have to disagree, even as a lifelong fan of long-suffering sports teams, I prefer for the better team to win. Upsets also gain more value because they are much more rare, and there's a much more defined hierarchy of player caliber.
|
On October 26 2011 12:12 taldarimAltar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 12:03 theBizness wrote:
The argument that the OP was making was that SC2 is more popular with viewers because it gives exposure to a group that wouldn't normally be skilled enough to compete. By the OP's logic SC2 would become less popular with non-Korean viewers if the skill level increased to a point where only people in Korea were good enough to compete.
It probably would, unfortunately. Like I said earlier though, it's much easier for a worse player to beat a better player in SC2 than BW. This makes for a better spectator sport, mroe upsets make it more exciting. Take soccer versus rugby for example. One soccer goal is worth so much more that a fluke of a goal could win a game, in rugby points are less vaulable, leading to less chance of upset. Upsets piss you off if you support that team that loses, but are nice for neutral and rivals. It dosen't make it endless domination. But this endless domination dosen't occur in BW anyway
lol barcelona is never going to loose to a costa rica
It doesnt make for a better spectator sport imo
|
I agree with everyone who said that watching deathball vs. deathball can get somewhat monotonous.
Really though, the only thing that bothers me in SC2, which I don't often see brought up, is the maps themselves. It's been a while since I played BW, so my memory is hazy, but it seems like a lot of SC2 maps are just smaller and simpler in terms of geography, with an almost 'arena' like feel to them. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, as it leads to a lot of straight forward action, but I think SC2 could benefit from more map diversity. I would love to see the gameplay of SC2 pan out on some really epic, intricate maps. Of course, I am biased, because the most fun BW games I played with my friends were always the hour(s) long, drawn out affairs where it would take ages to move armies into strategic positions/out think one another.
So, I don't think SC2 should move in a BW direction overall (aside from B.Net). I just think that epic SC2 engagements would be a lot of fun/perhaps more interesting if the variable of geography played a more prominent role in strategy and tactics. Does anyone else feel this way..?
|
On October 26 2011 12:03 a176 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2011 11:58 BrosephBrostar wrote:On October 26 2011 11:29 Probulous wrote:
I don't understand this. How exactly has BW been thrown under a bus? It is not like Blizzard was doing much for it before? I would argue that SC2 has done a lot to raise awareness of BW.
By the community: All of the well known western BW community figures have switched over to SC2 and now only talk about BW like a dead uncle. Don't you think it's weird that popular SC2 casters will tell viewers to check out fighting game tournaments, but don't even mention major BW events? I take it you never watch state of the game.
SotG is pretty "unofficial," and even then BW is only mentioned in retrospect. There's a huge difference between Tasteless telling everyone to watch EVO during the GSL finals and Artosis talking about a BW match that already happened during an informal show.
|
Definitely agree with this - I was a long-time BW follower (started watching around the boxer-dropship era, stopped for a while and thus missed nada, iloveoov and savior, but returned around 2008 just before the flash-dominance era).
I started watching a mix of BW and SC2 but have slowly started watching more SC2 until I do it almost exclusively. I now only watch MSL and OSL finals but almost all of GSL. I liked BW alot but I think SC2 is a superior game.
|
Game design is all about building on what works and experimenting with new ideas and concepts. RTS (and every other genre) has evolved over time thanks both to ideas that worked and ideas that didn't.
The original C&C is a good early example. You had a single resource (tiberium fields) and harvesters which were expensive and actually unlocked a fair way down the tech tree. It meant resources couldn't be protected easily (the fields were damaging to bio units and tended to cover a larger area) and it took almost 2 full game minutes for a harvester to pay itself off. It's pretty uncommon for RTS titles nowadays to make resources difficult to secure and defend, because as a general rule that's a bad idea.
Most of the elements of SC2 can be seen in one form or another in various RTS titles, not just Brood War. I think it's helpful to look back at Brood War in the same way it's helpful to look back at all the other RTS games, even games in similar genres. Economic Management Sims teach us that having complex resource dependencies makes economic harassment far too effective, for example.
But I don't think it's helpful to demand features from Brood War just because they were good in Brood War. What's important is looking at the concept, the role, and what new dimensions it brought to the game. SC2 already has so much that is good from other RTS titles, exemplified in the different races in one way or another.
|
On October 26 2011 12:09 Termit wrote:
What I hate most of all is how people are saying that BW were more mechanics than strategy and SC2 is so balanced when it comes to mechanics and strategy.
I have a question. What is it in SC2 strategy that overcomes the strategy depth in BW?
And one thing that screws up the game so there is this ball vs ball and no smaller battles thru the game is because of how the race mechanics is in sc2. Because of larvae mechanics, warp in mechanic and reactor addons you remax so damn quick.
Well people that say that are just ignorant.
I never watched the beginnings of BW as a spectator sport. Did it start with ball verse ball action? I can't help but feel that one of the main reasons we have this ball action is because pros can still win with it. The move towards marine splitting, multiple drops and discarding of the protoss deathball all suggest an evolution towards more action across the map.
|
Yes I agree 100% with OP.
However it doesn't mean we should ignore the good game design aspects of BW. But it seems most people that bring the BW topic on SC2 discussions are always just like "lurkers !! goliath !!" and simply sceaming out what units they want back, which is useless and plain annoying. Browder is right: BW still exist, you can play it out.
|
Its great that you want a game that is easier to play and that looks better than broodwar, that said what does this have to do with abandoning starcraft units and gameplay elements that were iconic to the series?
SC2 at the end of the day is still a sequal to broodwar, but the way things are turning out you can almost say it is a new IP.
I know alot of people are against my way of looking at things but really SC2 IMO shouldve looked more like an expasion to broodwar with new graphics.
|
I was a little afraid when starting the thread that ther will be offended and offensive responses (both in the same post or not) and it happened to some extend, but there are some really well thought responses that have widened my view on why do some people present opinions that I do not fully understand. Anyway, please rest assured, that the point of my rather lenghty OP was not to "bash BW" - what would I ever gain from that? I can bash football for hours, if you want me to, but I spend several years playing BW (albeit absolutely terribly), I have no need to make fun of that (or should I?).
I would like to elaborate a little on the ESPORTS part: I believe that if the day comes that Koreans will completely dominate SC2, as they do in BW, it will stop being intersting for the majority of western fans. Yes, there are many fans of BW and I believe they get a lot of fun and excitement from watching it (as from the limited amount of matches I have seen, it is quite different from SC2 and has a lot of depth beyond my understadnig) - but I think that for the averagy Joe (using mysefl as an example), the competition between people in a small country, devided from me be language and cultural barriers will not be as atractive, as, say, an MLG. I must admit, even now I already hate watching all the ceremonies around GSL, all the glittery stuff.. and don't let me started on KPOP. This is not "xenophoby" or whatever, it's just not fun. It's OK to being picky about what you watch for run, right?
So what I am not sure about is, whether it is actually possible to recreate all the great aspects of BW that you all keep mentioning, without making the game too difficult to master without korean training system, thus destroying its western ESPORTS appeal.
|
On October 26 2011 12:15 crawlingchaos wrote:
I agree with everyone who said that watching deathball vs. deathball can get somewhat monotonous.
Really though, the only thing that bothers me in SC2, which I don't often see brought up, is the maps themselves. It's been a while since I played BW, so my memory is hazy, but it seems like a lot of SC2 maps are just smaller and simpler in terms of geography, with an almost 'arena' like feel to them. There's nothing wrong with this in itself, as it leads to a lot of straight forward action, but I think SC2 could benefit from more map diversity. I would love to see the gameplay of SC2 pan out on some really epic, intricate maps. Of course, I am biased, because the most fun BW games I played with my friends were always the hour(s) long, drawn out affairs where it would take ages to move armies into strategic positions/out think one another.
So, I don't think SC2 should move in a BW direction overall (aside from B.Net). I just think that epic SC2 engagements would be a lot of fun/perhaps more interesting if the variable of geography played a more prominent role in strategy and tactics. Does anyone else feel this way..?
Very true.
If blizzard wasn't so ridiculously profitable I would feel for them :p
How exactly does one balance
- Unit design
- Game mechanics
- Map design
Keeping in mind the game is supposed to be similar but different to BW and there will be thousands of people playing it competitively. How do you know what it causing the problem? How do you know there is a problem? Maybe time is the best solution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
