|
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.
EDIT: after reading many interesting responses, I was able hopefully to refine my thougths a litle in response to them at page 13.
|
I am with you 100%
Good luck with that thread though. 
|
|
|
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
|
i sort of agre, i am so tired of all the ppl asking questions like "Back in BW we had"
go fucking play BW if you love it.
i like SC2 the way it's designed and i like that it is really different from bw.
that's why i feel it's a shame when kennigt asked DB questions that were all Bw centric...
waste of time/questions imho
"in BW we had units stretching out for screens and screens" etc.
jesus, i do not want to see that shit in SC2 personally -.-
i feel all this obsession to have SC2 looking like BW is something not THAT popular.
if you go around TL it may appear that way but thank god there's tons of people who agree SC2 shouldn't be more BW-y
|
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.
|
Great Read. Agree 100%. Having more foreigners playing SC2 is definately helping ESPORTS grow and thrive because foreign players aren't getting smashed by Korean pros. Instead, we have intense rivalries like that of IdrA vs MC.
|
I think you're missing the point of those arguments: It's not the game itself we wish to copy, but rather it's the characteristics that made the game so great that we hope to see more of in SC2.
I don't think the (legitimate) goal for anyone is to mimic Brood War. Instead, I think it's to use a game that we loved a benchmark for comparison. It's not that we want the game to be identical, but rather we would like the sequel to make use of aspects that we found exciting, such as space control, drawn-out, spaced-out large battles, the ability to turn an advantage into a victory outright as opposed to just expanding, etc.
|
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
|
Played SC, SC:BW and now SC2 I love both but prefer SC2. Broodwar got to be too 80% mechanical and 20% strategy I feel like SC2 is closer to 50/50 with yes you can eek out edges here and there but if you can out think your opponent you also can win the game.
I also played WC3 and TFT its been a slow evolution for the game UI design of allowing players to focus more on microing battles provided they can macro back home while watching the battles. This is admittedly harder for zerg larva injects. = \
Edit: The more time that goes by the fonder and more nostalgic you are for said item. Just a thought.
|
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.
That was the mentality of many of us that played Brood War- we were expecting a clone, or something very similar, and it turned out to be the game it is today. Nothing wrong about that. Making comparisons between the two is not something that should be done except in cases of cross-game functionality(siege tank pushes, zealots tanking damage).
|
On October 26 2011 10:05 neSix wrote:
I think you're missing the point of those arguments: It's not the game itself we wish to copy, but rather it's the characteristics that made the game so great that we hope to see more of in SC2.
I don't think the (legitimate) goal for anyone is to mimic Brood War. Instead, I think it's to use a game that we loved a benchmark for comparison. It's not that we want the game to be identical, but rather we would like the sequel to make use of aspects that we found exciting, such as space control, drawn-out, spaced-out large battles, the ability to turn an advantage into a victory outright as opposed to just expanding, etc.
Bingo.
You have to ask why a game like BW is good - because those are the characteristics that would make any RTS good. Not copying good game design because it's a different game is pointless logic.
|
i like this post.
but when making an rts, you look towards the best rts. you take aspects of bw and try to apply it it your game.
im not saying copy units, but do stuff like emulate things that are awesome in rts games like long epic battles, unique and skill intensive units. bw has that.
|
On October 26 2011 10:05 neSix wrote:
I think you're missing the point of those arguments: It's not the game itself we wish to copy, but rather it's the characteristics that made the game so great that we hope to see more of in SC2.
I don't think the (legitimate) goal for anyone is to mimic Brood War. Instead, I think it's to use a game that we loved a benchmark for comparison. It's not that we want the game to be identical, but rather we would like the sequel to make use of aspects that we found exciting, such as space control, drawn-out, spaced-out large battles, the ability to turn an advantage into a victory outright as opposed to just expanding, etc.
This is a valid view point and not one I suspect people have a problem with. The thing is that those concepts are simply dealt with in a different manner. How do you compare the approach to space control between games when the units that provide that control are completely different?
The other side is that perhaps these are things that BW is known for but SC2 will have a different focus. It is really just silly to compare the two because they come from completely different places. I agree that the concepts you mentioned can be used to inform changes in SC2 but whether they should is a decision up to the game designers.
|
I'm more of a fan of BW than SC2, but I play SC2 as well. I don't see any reason for both games not able to co-exist.
BW has some intangibles that I think SC2 more or less have to have eventually. SC2 is different, so in order to do it right, you have to just wait and see if it'll turn out alright. I'm just afraid, considering that I'm a Toss (always have been.) SC2 is going to be turning into another Terran/Zerg war with Toss struggling behind trying to get what they can. SC2 really needs to find the balance. I don't care what Blizzard says, I look at tournament for results. Tournament tells it all and that's all I look for. Blizzard needs to find the results and honestly ask themselves what they can finally do to balance the game.
|
On October 26 2011 10:02 sunman1g wrote:
i sort of agre, i am so tired of all the ppl asking questions like "Back in BW we had"
go fucking play BW if you love it.
i like SC2 the way it's designed and i like that it is really different from bw.
that's why i feel it's a shame when kennigt asked DB questions that were all Bw centric...
waste of time/questions imho
"in BW we had units stretching out for screens and screens" etc.
jesus, i do not want to see that shit in SC2 personally -.-
i feel all this obsession to have SC2 looking like BW is something not THAT popular.
if you go around TL it may appear that way but thank god there's tons of people who agree SC2 shouldn't be more BW-y
I disagree entirely. The army balls in sc2 are not even close to as spectator friendly as the pathing in bw was. It looked much better, it was more clear, and it felt almost infinitely more epic. I actually can't conceive someone thinking that a blob on one screen is more appealing than masses upon masses of units stretched out over the map.
I personally only reference bw units as a benchmark for comparison between units. Take the new Warhound for example, I don't like the AOE AA it has. Terran does not need help against flying light units, it would be more beneficial if its AA was more like the Goliath, long range and solid damage. When I compare units it's because of the purpose that unit fulfills, how it complements that race and what it forces your enemy to do.
|
When people say that something should be like Brood War, it's not because of the fact that it was Brood War. In SC1, there were these really fantastic concepts that helped make for a really strategically in-depth game. And it's those concepts that would actually make SC2 a better game and give it a higher skill cap.
SC2 has its merits, obviously. But there are some things that just seem really off about it and can take away from the game.
|
agree 100%
i like that some things are like in BW we play the same races after all. but with every patch people scream for BW units and compare everything to broodwar
and like you said: soooo many things that were awesome in BW would be totaly broken, shitty,... in sc2 or wouldn't work outright
i like the approach blizzard takes with sc2 design (like dustin browder stated in the blizzcon tl interview) that they don't try to make this game broodwar 2.0 but make it into an awesome STARCRAFT game which stands on his own and has an own identity
and i also agree 100% too with dustin when he said "if u like broodwar go play it. it is awesome!" there is nothing wrong or bad or offensive in that statement
|
I don't see why we can't have similar things from brood war, there are lessons from brood war when it comes to game design and I fail to see why we can't learn from them or apply them.
|
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. With the kind of players we have now, the coverage of a new game, plus the popularity sc2 has, it is no noones inconvenience that Blizzard must seek this aspects of the game. When u see a battle in bw, u see looads of units come into the fight, or last a looong ass time, but in sc2 we see ball vs ball at times, which is no fun, in comparison. I get your point, but really, saying sc2 is ok as it is cuz its a new game and foreigners are actually competing vs koreans is far from what id call a perfect game. WE, the community, have to make ourselves be heard. Being a very avid scbw fan, i YEARN for a lot of things, yet i still play sc2. nostalgia != good games
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
