EPTBW Teams playing Starcraft 2 - Page 43
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Frauk
Norway36 Posts
| ||
|
Jcnorheim
United States51 Posts
The technology involved in making games increases exponentially (according to Moore's Law). It would take a game designed to be upgraded as technology developed to last longer than 30 years. Unfortunately, I think this is a factor in the decay of BW. The technology behind BW has not changed very much at all, which means that newer games will get the younger fans. Unless SC2 is changed significantly, this means that SC2 will eventually decay as well. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On October 29 2011 02:55 Brainling wrote: This is my exact though, and I was going to post it, but you already did. Measuring skill as your ability overcome a completely outdated UI and control scheme is stupid. Yes, BW is mechanically harder to play, but the idea that it's a good thing is completely foreign to me. Also, I think all the people predicting total collapse of the current SC2 scene are completely short sighted and don't understand the factors that went in to Korean dominance of BW. The foreign SC2 scene actually has the infrastructure and funding to compete now; it did not in BW. In fact, most of the money in SC2 is in the foreign scene, it's not in Korea. And lets face it, money is what really makes the best players. Money = best equipment, better salaries, more practice time, ability to pool the best talent in closer proximity. Money is also the reason you see the Pro League teams doing this. They see MLG, they see Blizzconn and the 13+K people that were watching GSL finals live. They see where the money is moving, and it's not in to BW. The real question is: How long can KeSPA keep up their demilitarized zone strategy to competition control? The real money in SC2 is found outside of Korea, which means the top players are going to need to be free to compete both in and outside of the country. KeSPA is gonna be late to the party and not just going to be able to throw their weight around to get what they want. I don't think too many people actually argue that "outdated" UI making the game mechanically harder to play is a good thing in and of itself. That said, it indirectly gave rise to some of the characteristics that make BW great. For instance the clunky pathfinding significantly enhanced the ability to defend tight chokes, ramps, and other terrain features which made the idea of map control crucial and a key element of strategy. In ZvT for instance Z could literally take a third base with no standing army using just a few lurkers above a ramp. All these little elements of map control were indirectly contributed to by the UI and pathfinding and ultimately made for a much more strategically deep game. The pathfinding also helped make the battles significantly longer and more interesting due to the routers units took and way they overlapped actually working to prevent intense balling up. Moreover, the limited group selection also gave rise to more effective and precise army control. By splitting the army up into smaller control groups you were able to better spread vs things like storm/lurkers/tanks/etc., easier to flank, and easier to get the proper units fighting what you wanted them to fight. Actually I'm still extremely surprised that almost all SC2 pro's still use just a few hotkeys for their entire army. It makes no sense to me. Things like great storms in BW were so incredible because each templar had to be individual clicked out of your mass of units and the individually throw down a swarm. Is this neccessarily a good thing overall? No. But did it make for awesome moments in games? Hell Yes! Then you have the interface and macro. Yes, it rewarded players who practiced a ton and refined their mechanics to an insane level. But it also gave you a choice, do you focus more on having incredible macro and perfect production; or do you focus more on your strategy overall, or do you focus more on your micro. It became an inbuilt strategic choice about what you wanted to spend your APM and focus on. Players could choose to win games focusing a little less on macro, and a little more on aggressive, well-micro-ed attacks. Basically, while the "BW" way is somewhat outdated and clunky; the UI plays a key role in making BW such a unique and great game. I'm NOT advocating by any means that going back to a less refined, more limited AI is the way to make SC2 or other games great like BW. That can still be accomplished in many other ways; however it IS undeniable that BW's interface and pathfinding contributed significantly to it become the fantastic game it has become. | ||
|
looknohands119
United States815 Posts
| ||
|
Arkanis
Italy37 Posts
 | ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
i guess the prize money is appealing, when players like mc or nestea, who they are used to roflstomp all day long in bw, win so much, not real passion for the game. bw4ever. :< | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:03 PhoenixDark wrote: I like that aspect of sc2 because it rewards more game sense and knowledge, rather than just pure mechanics. I have this argument with my bw elitist friend all the time. I believe that a bulk of bw mechanical skill just comes from the fact that the bw UI is outdated and cumbersome. Therefore you need to become a practice robot to overcome the poor UI. I think that's the wrong way to judge skill. It's like if someone designed the most awful and unintuitive UI possible on purpose and then told people to practice like crazy to overcome these limitations. Sure some people will be able to overcome that handicap better than others, but that's just due to being a practice robot. I don't like judging skill like that. That's why I like sc2 more than bw because it rewards game sense and knowledge first and mechanics second. Sure people with great mechanics will still be rewarded in sc2, but since the UI is easier and more streamlined in sc2, that won't be the main factor of success because more people can attain that. I just don't like the idea of overcoming a crappy UI better than others as a good sign of skill. It just means you practiced more than others at overcoming that handicap. I hated that wretched interface as much as anybody, but that mechanical skill was an incredibly refined and interesting skill set to have in that particular video game. When Blizzard Entertainment made the decision to strip out those interface restrictions (and it was without-question the correct decision), there was an expectation that the mechanical skill required to manipulate units should be placed back into another skill set. I yelled and screamed that StarCraft required more complexity. No, I'm not saying it needed more "depth". I'm saying that the game should have catered to more maps with more units and a higher food cap and more minerals and more interesting strategic positions on each map, with more shinies like Xel'Naga Watch Towers and High-Yield Mineral Patches. Since everybody was caught up in this half-mythical idea that StarCraft is the best video game ever created (very possible) so there is no reason to tinker with the formula (stupid beyond all reason), you ended up with a game where that decline in mechanical skill wasn't really replaced by anything evident. I don't see that mechanical skill being applied to more interesting tactics (the closest thing being the interaction between Marines and the Zerg army), I don't see that mechanical skill being applied to a more interesting range of micromanagement skills, I don't see that mechanical skill being replaced with a more interesting strategy side of StarCraft. Now, don't confuse me for being one of the people who thinks StarCraft II is a bad game. It's not. Despite all my disagreement about Blizzard's business practice, Dustin Browder and company still put out a very, very good video game. But I'm of the philosophy that the evolution of Warcraft II into Warcraft III was one of the best things that video game players ever received, and that the fantastic increase in complexity was absolutely befitting of a community that has played these real-time strategy games for ten-and-fifteen-plus years. When that cumbersome, unfair, and irritating user interface was removed in the creation of StarCraft II, no new interesting skills were added back. For that reason, it's hard for me to believe that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty is the same caliber of game that StarCraft: Brood War ever was. Now, everybody is getting worked up about the Terran and Zerg units, I actually think the most interesting units in the new expansion pack are the Protoss units, since they add fascinating improvements to the strategy side of the game. One unit can completely remove a tech structure from the game for forty-five seconds and force the opposing player to play accordingly. The other unit can morph into roughly any other unit in the game, essentially tripling the options that Protoss players have for any situation where cost is not a factor. From which point, opposing players can play interesting mindgames to prevent those units from having their intended effect (Zerg players can spend the extra minerals on another Spire and trick their opponent into thinking their ability to produce air has been incapacitated, Replicators can be tricked into assuming units that are bad for the current situation). So, if Blizzard continues in this direction, they may actually end up doing most of what I think should be done to improve the game and push it in the right direction. For now, the "dumbed-down" moniker may be disingenuous, but it's the crudest way of saying "they removed something and didn't add anything else back". | ||
vervejl
United States55 Posts
| ||
|
strength
United States493 Posts
| ||
|
Ashworth
United Kingdom185 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:18 Frauk wrote: feel a bit sorry for the current code s'ers, youve had a good run guys, but im afraid its over. I'm sure anyone at the top of their profession relished competition to make them better... | ||
|
rotegirte
Germany2859 Posts
On October 29 2011 02:45 Canucklehead wrote: I like that aspect of sc2 because it rewards more game sense and knowledge, rather than just pure mechanics. I have this argument with my bw elitist friend all the time. I believe that a bulk of bw mechanical skill just comes from the fact that the bw UI is outdated and cumbersome. Therefore you need to become a practice robot to overcome the poor UI. I think that's the wrong way to judge skill. It's like if someone designed the most awful and unintuitive UI possible on purpose and then told people to practice like crazy to overcome these limitations. Sure some people will be able to overcome that handicap better than others, but that's just due to being a practice robot. I don't like judging skill like that. That's why I like sc2 more than bw because it rewards game sense and knowledge first and mechanics second. Sure people with great mechanics will still be rewarded in sc2, but since the UI is easier and more streamlined in sc2, that won't be the main factor of success because more people can attain that. I just don't like the idea of overcoming a crappy UI better than others as a good sign of skill. It just means you practiced more than others at overcoming that handicap. Both things are not mutually exclusive. I wonder what makes people think that BW is defined by spamming alone. You do realize that APM is nothing but a mere working set that enables you to play on par. The players are not successful because of their APM, because frankly, they are by far not the only ones to achieve that. There is a reason why they are on top. And that reason cannot possibly be APM alone. Two players with equal game understanding but vastly different APM. The player with higher APM can make much more strategies work, which the lower APM player will never be able to by its very nature. And that is why professional gamers should strive to be best, and not mediocre. And a proper game should reward exactly that. | ||
|
SvenZero
United States1 Post
During the course of its evolution, tennis saw some radical changes to its rules and format. Despite this, never was there a "tennis 2." I think that could be a useful midst as we are here in what I would still consider to be the dawn of esports. Brood War and SC2 are just part of the Starcraft esport. Naturally, changes in technology that come with a new version of a game can make a much larger difference than the simple rules changes that affected tennis during its emergence. However, the spirit and goal of the Starcraft games as esports is generally the same - high skill, competitive real time strategy competition. Finding a graceful way to unify and grow that community (of which there are both gaps and overlaps right now) will benefit Starcraft esports, and esports as a whole. Unlike tennis, esports has the benefit of arising in an age when global communication is incredibly easy. Changes to the game and tournament structures can also be easily updated through patches and expansions. Anyways, I guess my point is that while the game titles are different, they are still Starcraft games trying to be the best export they can be. A large population that helped bring esports into existence is still playing the by the originalish rules. Obviously something that big and established and familiar is hard to just drop. Going from playing in one size of court with one kind of ball and net height indoors to outdoors on grass with totally different equipment isn't easy. It will take time, but I think we are learning for the first time how to actually grow and evolve a successful esport through new versions of the game with major differences. I think in the long run, SC2 will really take off as the dominant form of Starcraft. Possibly due to the significance of its adoption internationally. I hope it happens in a way that everyone is happy with. So let's thank BW for making esports and the modern SC2 scene possible and try to be awesome as a community about making the Starcraft esport be the premier esport in the entire world. | ||
|
JoeAWESOME
Sweden1080 Posts
Jaedong vs Nestea? Bisu vs MC? Fantasy vs MVP? | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10352 Posts
I would be really excited to see Flash play sc2 | ||
|
HiSi
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
Vehemus
United States586 Posts
| ||
Xxio
Canada5565 Posts
On October 29 2011 03:25 JoeAWESOME wrote: Showmatch inc? Jaedong vs Nestea? Bisu vs MC? Fantasy vs MVP? Posts like these make me sad inside. Nestea, MC and MVP are simply not on the same level. No point in a show match. | ||
|
bpgbcg
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
KillerSOS
United States4207 Posts
| ||
|
unit
United States2621 Posts
with this however, i do firmly believe that sc2 will be solidified within the next few years and will become insanely harder to play competitively, like bw, and there will actually be protosses around to steal builds from  edit: On October 29 2011 03:28 Xxio wrote: Posts like these make me sad inside. Nestea, MC and MVP are simply not on the same level. No point in a show match. they would be on the same level for about a month (if that long) while JD, bisu, and fantasy (why not flash) get used to the game, after which point it will become no contest...in theory | ||
| ||
