EPTWhy SC2 should not be getting more BW-y - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sickoota
Canada918 Posts
| ||
|
theBizness
United States696 Posts
On October 26 2011 12:31 sickoota wrote: BW wasn't unpopular in the west because it was too hard, it was unpopular because it was 12 years old. If they had released shiny updated BW instead of sc2 everything that is happening now would still be happening. So the fact that a handful of foreigners are somewhat relevant has nothing to do with it? Look at all those polls/threads where all people care about is rooting for players from their own country etc. | ||
|
mlspmatt
Canada404 Posts
Hopefully one day it will. But its not yet. | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
| ||
|
TheTurk
United States732 Posts
Thanks!  | ||
|
lyAsakura
United States1414 Posts
On October 26 2011 12:18 Probulous wrote: 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. No, brood war was never ball on ball. It went from microing the few units you had to having more units by macro. I don't see the ignorance in his post. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
People are under the assumption that you would have to dumb down the AI to achieve a BW game style, and while that would certainly get the game to that point, it doesn't mean that's the only way. If the mechanics stay the same, and casual players aren't overwhelmed, why not move more towards the BW style? | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
-Muta stacking... good muta control was just an art, and beautiful to watch in the hands of a pro (will never happen due to engine) -Reaver, 10x more exciting than the colossus (will probably never happen) -Less ball vs ball in general (hopefully we'll get there in the future) | ||
|
WarSame
Canada1950 Posts
| ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
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. Your title jumps to that fairly quickly; not only that, but your major points teeter on it as well. Something I will address later on. Your reasoning is no different from the countless threads we've have over the last 2 years in all honesty. I've seen this topic discussed to no end and yet here it is again. 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. The reason we see so many comparisons is because a lot of the player base played Brood War and let's face it. Brood War is the most balanced RTS of all-time. You would see very few people debate this. As it stands, the Zerg lack a heavy-siege unit and we knew a spell like dark swarm would re-appear soon as it helps maintain a stranglehold and it can be used defensively as well. This is just one point. It comes down to utility. The more utility your units have the more interesting and dynamic the game will get. 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. Once again, it comes down to dynamics. You need units that serve more than one purpose (vaibility/soft counters) and some of the new units touch on these points to a certain extent. Some of the units are very similar to Brood War units; however, they are still different. I see what your saying. Spinoffs are always going to get the short-end of the stick because they will always be compared to their counterparts. It's not a win-win situation. 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. The pro's and amateurs don't continue to play BW because financially it isn't feasible for them. They have to market the game they play. When it is all said and done they have to make a living. 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. Only viable if you make it on a pro gaming team in Korea. SC2 is the new thing. It was nearly impossible to break into the Korean scene. Lots of players tried and either failed or couldn't handle the working conditions and being far from home. It isn't so simple as you make it out to be. 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. Thank the friendlier U.I. for that. I'm of the belief that you don't necessarily have to keep making U.I.'s more user friendly with each game. It's part of the rulebook. That doesn't mean I don't think BW's U.I. is outdated because I believe it is. I would definitely make a number of changes. 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. No. Just watch instead of jumping the gun like everyone else does. The game won't be ruined; give it time. You are overgeneralizing just like the rest. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
| ||
|
hmmm...
632 Posts
On October 26 2011 12:40 hitpoint wrote: I strongly disagree. BW is unpopular now because it's old. Simple as that. It was an amazing game and we should strive to be as close to it as possible and as far from WC3 as possible. Sometimes I think people want it the other way around though.. no, like the op said, BW is unpopular now bc it's too hard for many people and western pros' lack of skill in the game caused the western audience to lose any interest they may have had left in the game. according to ur logic, bw should not be popular in korea but that is a contradiction. for the regular noob, a game is infinitely more fun if you can actually do a lot of stuff the first time you play a game (flatter learning curve) than a game like BW where you're just going to get owned all the time in the beginning. there is a reason why people always bring up bw in sc2 design and that is because bw is the standard to look up to. BW, and the characteristics of BW are what made people become interested in RTS in the first place, BW is the game that made Day9, Artosis, Tasteless, incontrol, idra, etc. passionate about professional gaming and is what has led to an esports scene in the first place. it's because BW was such a high standard game that SC2 is even popular in the first place. the value of the starcraft name is tied to the characteristics of BW which made the game such a great rts game. if SC2 is going to continue mooching off its "starcraft" brand name, then it at least has a duty to go back to the drawing board and think about what is starcraft and what made it so great in the first place. | ||
|
nimbus99
Canada194 Posts
| ||
|
SpiritAshura
United States1271 Posts
On October 26 2011 10:05 No_eL wrote: sorry but im so BW nostalgic right now... i really recommend to all sc2 players watch some bw games and play some for better understanding the sorrow of many You're comparing a game that is how many years old vs 1 year old SC2? Really? One of these days this BW eliteism will disappear... | ||
|
theBizness
United States696 Posts
On October 26 2011 13:04 Peterblue wrote: The reason I don't think it should be more like BW - SCII was designed to be an esport. It is designed for the west. What does the west like? Not the strategy aspect of RTS, but the RT aspect of it. BW was a slow, strategic/macro game. SCII is a fast, micro/tactics game. That is why it will suceed in the West, at least for a while, like BW never did. It's the same reason that chess is not a popular sport - people find it boring. Blizzard got that, and that's why SCII is like it is. Unfortunately, this kind of gimped the Zerg race(SCII has a very sped up timeline, with players maxing in under 10 minutes frequently, which could take 20-30 minutes in BW, and Zerg is extremely time dependent, meaning with this sped up rate it's either OP(too many drones with little pressure opportunity) or UP(not enough drones, too much enemy pressure) meaning there is a very very thin line for their balance). The bold part... micro? Really? | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On October 26 2011 12:44 lyAsakura wrote: No, brood war was never ball on ball. It went from microing the few units you had to having more units by macro. I don't see the ignorance in his post. Yup, the Terran death ball didn't appear until much later in BW and even then players still had methods of dealing with stuff like that. There are several eras well documented in BW history. On October 26 2011 13:16 SpiritAshura wrote: You're comparing a game that is how many years old vs 1 year old SC2? Really? One of these days this BW eliteism will disappear... ... and you guys need to stop jumping on everyone who talks about BW as if it were all elitism. I think we need to turn it in another light. Instead of comparing the two how about we look at the entire progress of RTS games in general? The goal is to aim for perfect balance while breathing more fresh air into a franchise. Not just once; but twice. | ||
|
Teim
Australia373 Posts
| ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On October 26 2011 10:04 XsebT wrote: SC2 generated a huge influx of new players to the foreign community - something I was looking forward to. But I was disappoint it wasn't the game I loved anymore. Now I know it will never be, so I've stopped complaining and with this mindset I agree with the OP. I still complain to myself, but otherwise I'm with you T_T | ||
Falling
Canada11369 Posts
However, I feel the OP misses the point of all the BW comparisons. I don't think anyone wants a BW clone. However, all the comparisons about roles that SC2 is missing, about unit dynamics and a decreased emphasis on possible moments of brilliance. So generally we're just looking at what interactions, strategic possibilities, and fun moments SC2 is missing and often the best set of examples are in BW. But no, we definitely want a direct port. But something like it, something that fills the missing roles. In the end though this thread skirts pretty close to the BW vs SC2 debates. | ||
| ||
