|
On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way.
You hit the nail on the head. The main problem with this game is how detached the design team is from reality, and they're extremely stubborn on top of that.
For instance, Dustin Browder absolutely refuses to even consider changing the unit clumping, and David Kim's assessment of the problems that players allegedly have are almost always baffling. I love how one of the "problems" being addressed in HotS is "the scenario where Protoss is facing 50-60 mutalisks." They're also "fixing" the fact that Terran infantry units have to "kite like crazy" against chargelots.
I'll go ahead and say it - most of the good things about WoL are the units, unit roles and design principles which carried over from Brood War. There are a few original and good things about WoL, but let's not forget how glaring the flaws are, with units like Corruptors, Colossus, Marauders, and bizarre (and uninteractive as a previous poster has pointed out) things like force fields.
HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
|
I think Blizzard needs to listen to pro players more as in Koreans, not BW has-beens that make big long ragey posts about SC2 when the truth is they're frustrated because they're not as good as they think they "should" be.
This Ex-BW pro attitude is poisonous to the game, a lot of people that play SC2 didn't play BW such as myself so this constant looming shadow of elitism from there is annoying to me.
I used to play WC3, a game that they seem to hate despite never playing it on a pro level (Not saying that I did) but there was so much skill and micro-potential in all of the units such as zeppelin useage to save units, what you see in SC2 today mostly from former WC3 players with warp prisms, animation cancelling and good positioning for spells. See Grubby's use of raiders to "line up" (Sorry Day9, WC3 came first) units and then shockwave them with his hero for maximum effect.
|
On December 07 2011 00:24 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. ... HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
I believe this is the best way to phrase it I have heard yet. Sc2 is most certainly riddled with some pretty glaring design errors, all we can hope is that Blizzard stops being both so ignorant and so stubborn to what is really necessary. They have been pretty bad at this recently, but after re-watching the blizzcon multiplayer panel I am cautiously optimistic that maybe their philosophy has been changed by the reality of the situation and from professional feedback.
|
On December 07 2011 00:24 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 18:18 Velr wrote:
SC2's problem is not it's UI.
It's
1. the crappy unit design (Marauder, Corruptor, Roach, Colossus, Hellion, Banshee... Actually they even "killed" the Hydra).
2. Unitclumping and tons of other stuff with the "movement" of units...
3. Some mechanics (Creep, Mules and Warp-In immediatly come to mind) which just don't seem to be implemented the right way. You hit the nail on the head. The main problem with this game is how detached the design team is from reality, and they're extremely stubborn on top of that. For instance, Dustin Browder absolutely refuses to even consider changing the unit clumping, and David Kim's assessment of the problems that players allegedly have are almost always baffling. I love how one of the "problems" being addressed in HotS is "the scenario where Protoss is facing 50-60 mutalisks." They're also "fixing" the fact that Terran infantry units have to "kite like crazy" against chargelots. I'll go ahead and say it - most of the good things about WoL are the units, unit roles and design principles which carried over from Brood War. There are a few original and good things about WoL, but let's not forget how glaring the flaws are, with units like Corruptors, Colossus, Marauders, and bizarre (and uninteractive as a previous poster has pointed out) things like force fields. HotS seems to be straying even further from the solid foundation that is carrying StarCraft II. I know they can balance it by playing with the numbers until it's statistically fine, but that doesn't change the incorrectness of their designs.
@both posts: exactly 100% my opinion, it's almost creepy :D
even just fixing the cluming aspect would already make it a much much better game and AoE attacks would become more balanceable
|
I have to Agree with Bischu on HOTS
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/
Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
|
On December 07 2011 02:38 PyroN wrote:
I have to Agree with Bischu on HOTS
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/
Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
I think the initial quote is a bit misleading. Yes, the oracle is a harassment-only unit, which a lot of protoss players dont enjoy as they feel they need more actual attacking units, and I completely sympathize with this. However that quote implies that the oracle is meant for any and all harassment options for toss. This is simply not true, we have seen harassment options fluorish for toss with the inclusion of the warp prism and lots of phoenix (particularly against zerg). The oracle would simply be another arsenal the toss would have to harass with.
Also I understand and completely agree that Blizz seems to think units in sc2 should be more specialized and fit certain roles. This is not really the way most people want the game to be, and I agree to some extent. However I'm curious, how far can the game deisgners go with 'role units' before it is too much? For example, think back to the medic in BW. Was it not only useful to negate stim's damage and to keep the units alive longer? Don't medics become immediately useless when all mariens and firebats are dead? They can not really accomplish much else. In the past I have heard examples of players doing things such as using the medic to blind key units ie the observer, but would that not have come around from much experience and time to figure out what exactly each unit is capable of? Another example is the valkyrie. Was it not only used for mutas?
I would also like to state that I am not attempting to set up an argument with strong points about how you all are wrong or whatever. I am merely presenting other sides to the story, so that we get an even discussion here. Please, explain to me why my reasons are wrong, because I had absolutely no intention of being absolutely right 
|
i lol'd at clouds answer. funny how he thinks that anyone can be really good, yet he isn't himself.
|
On December 07 2011 03:07 anastacia wrote:
i lol'd at clouds answer. funny how he thinks that anyone can be really good, yet he isn't himself.
i lol'd at your answer. funny how you think he isnt good, yet he is..
|
On December 07 2011 03:05 Naeroon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 02:38 PyroN wrote:
I have to Agree with Bischu on HOTS
'Hmm, I'm very sceptical towards heart of the swarm. All new units are really boring and it saddens me that they keep implementing units with set roles. Like the oracle "if you're going to harass we want you to build this unit"
I think HOTS will be bad for the e-sports scene ;/
Why are they adding so many units? I like SC2 the way it is now. They should instead add those gimmicky untis in the single player "campaign" where i think they belong.
Removing cool untis(Carrier/mothership) and adding "strange" units ? I dont like the way blizzard is thinking.
I think the initial quote is a bit misleading. Yes, the oracle is a harassment-only unit, which a lot of protoss players dont enjoy as they feel they need more actual attacking units, and I completely sympathize with this. However that quote implies that the oracle is meant for any and all harassment options for toss. This is simply not true, we have seen harassment options fluorish for toss with the inclusion of the warp prism and lots of phoenix (particularly against zerg). The oracle would simply be another arsenal the toss would have to harass with. Also I understand and completely agree that Blizz seems to think units in sc2 should be more specialized and fit certain roles. This is not really the way most people want the game to be, and I agree to some extent. However I'm curious, how far can the game deisgners go with 'role units' before it is too much? For example, think back to the medic in BW. Was it not only useful to negate stim's damage and to keep the units alive longer? Don't medics become immediately useless when all mariens and firebats are dead? They can not really accomplish much else. In the past I have heard examples of players doing things such as using the medic to blind key units ie the observer, but would that not have come around from much experience and time to figure out what exactly each unit is capable of? Another example is the valkyrie. Was it not only used for mutas? I would also like to state that I am not attempting to set up an argument with strong points about how you all are wrong or whatever. I am merely presenting other sides to the story, so that we get an even discussion here. Please, explain to me why my reasons are wrong, because I had absolutely no intention of being absolutely right
The thing about medics is that they had 2 spells that you could always use.
Optical Flare and Restoration. Optical Flare blinded units and Restoration took away any negative effects on your units from other spells like plague and lockdown. They basically always had a use, on another note if you watch pro BW games, Terran will be stimming his marines continuously because of how abundant energy was and because stim increased firerate by 100%, not 50% like in sc2. Basically Medics always had a use.
On December 07 2011 03:16 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 03:07 anastacia wrote:
i lol'd at clouds answer. funny how he thinks that anyone can be really good, yet he isn't himself. i lol'd at your answer. funny how you think he isnt good, yet he is..
I lol'd at how much ignorance is in this thread.
Cloud is very good, if anyone is ever unsure if a pro is any good just check his TLPD page.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/players/1610_ClouD/main
Compare to Incontrol
http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international/players/1139_iNcontroL/main
|
For all the complaints about clumping why don't people use some of their spare time in game (what with all the super easy macro and whatnot...) to execute some finer control over their units and maintain a reasonable spread? Most purport to crave a mechanically-superior experience after all, so if you can babysit units in BW that are just being dumb, how about babysitting units in SC2 that are trying to be too clever and failing just as hard?
|
Personally I care little for what anyone has to say at the moment because we don't even have a beta, and we all know WoL changed drastically through out its alpha/beta stages. Not to say any of the concerns are unwarranted because from our perspective they are all rational.
Furthermore the biggest issue I am having with Blizz is this constant casual catering, they only seem to care about accessibility and sadly, even if that is their true goal, they're doing an upsettingly bad job. These 'uber' and 'cool' units are destroying the game and wasting everyones time. Do you think anyone sat around waiting for BW thinking about how cool their units were going to be? No that was something that came with getting good, balanced, fun gameplay, it was just inherit that if that game was good and enjoyable it was 'cool'. Instead they are only focusing on the 'cool' ergo absurd and dull in terms of game balance and lore. They need to remember the reason anyone even gives a shit about this game in the first place. And I know they have almost impossibly high standards to meet but come on, this is a company that makes games that absolutely require a very close contact with their community members and yet they still think they know best. They aren't sitting around cooking up meta-game ideas like the pro's. In reality they only seem to know whats best for their wallets. They sure as hell don't give a damn about eSports, which is a complete mystery if you ask me. It's practically a blessing for your game to be seen in that regard, also free advertising! They are doing everything they can to force B.net down our throats while still cutting up the continents. No LAN support, poor and stubborn attempts at fixes and rebalancing. Absolutely silly map design and poorly thought out race mechanics as well as their interaction and play style between maps.
They will be the death of their own game...from regional servers, abysmal unit and game design and balance attempts, little regard for their eSports and community members and finally just plain old not caring about their true fan base and roots. HoTS can do a lot for us, but it doesn't require or at least shouldn't require an expansion to fix a lot of the issues they have at the moment.
|
On December 07 2011 00:14 Naeroon wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote:On December 06 2011 14:31 Kharnage wrote:On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote:
The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC.
To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following.
1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact.
2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2.
3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league.
The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Each to their own. Games that are mechanically harder to master are of less interest to me than games were positioning and decision making are king. Just because soemthing is harder doesn't make it better. Playing games without using the keyboard doesn't make the game better to play or spectate (as witnessed by day 9 doing the no keyboard funday monday, which was entertaining but the games were boring as shit) Having to tell each and every worker to mine and only groups of max 12 or crappy pathing AI doesn't make the gamer better. Watching the decisions of the players played out on the battle field is where the excitment is. Like Puma's marauder flank on metalopolis vs Hero at dreamhack. Brilliant! That shit excites me. Huk's consistantly brilliant unit positioning making him win battles he has no right winning is what gives me "nerd chills". I would hate to see strategically or tactically brilliant players unable to compete because they just aren't "fast" enough. They still need to be quick, but honestly APM shouldn't be the bar by which you can judge a good real time strategy player. APM wasn't the bar which defined BW, as was posted earlier in this thread. There were constant games where a player with less APM won because of smarter decision making. Your post is entirely off base by saying that sc2's 'decision making' is better than BW's BW had EVERYTHING you just said you liked and it had it on a far higher level than sc2 does. What is 'good decision making' against a 200/200 A move death ball? Or where is the good decision making with smart casting making the game so dumbed down that a 10 year old could do it properly? If you think BW didn't have tactics and unit positions, then you should go spend the next 24 hours watching brood war pro games. What you'll come to find is BW's unit positioning and decision making effected the outcome of the game far far more than sc2's ever will, because it was actually hard to control your units, position them properly and keep up with the flow of battle, and there wasn't any 200/200 deathball A move bullshit, or smartcasting to carry inferior player along the way. ---- To answer the posts of 'give the game time', you guys are missing the point. First of all let me say that I enjoy watching sc2. I like the game. I play the game. I bought the game and I'll buy the expansions. However, it is a different game than BW. And there-in lies the problem. Sure, BW was not BALANCED for the first year or however long. That is not an argument here (and anyone saying it was balanced right away is also offbase and doesn't know much about BW's history). Obviously, with any game like BW or sc2, balance will take time. The biggest complaint is how the game PLAYS. sc2 very well might reach a balanced point where its competitive. But it will NEVER have the skillcap that BW had because the AI and design is dumbed down and does not allow for it. There is NOTHING skillful about A moving a 200/200 unit group. There is nothing skillful about smart casting. Ah, so you're openly admitting your whole argument is based solely on the fact that 'SC2 is not BW, therefore BW > SC2.' Well yes, you are about as right as you could possibly be about that fact, mister. But... You seem to be omitting your quantified evidence as to how the simple fact of one game not being another game instantly makes the game garbage. And I seriously question if you even keep up to date on sc2 man. 200/200 deathballs take absolutely no skill... No shit sherlock, but when was the last time anybody got fucking anywhere in a professional tournament using those kind of tactics (that didn't play protoss)? Because I've been watching every major tournament since the beginning of summer and I still haven't seen terrible tactics like that used since the end of season 1. You are casting gross hyperboles to further your own argument. Stop saying everything is 'absolute shit' and start making rational, relevant arguments, because it has been known for a good amount of time now that herp derping up to a 200/200 deathball will only get you slaughtered while you're getting there. People's skills and knowledge of the game is evolving, and therefore the relative skill level of the players is too. I understand that making the argument 'the game is only a year old' does sound a bit stupid, but you have to consider it from the perspective of the amount of experience and practice people have. I don't understand how you can think that a game that has only been playable for about 2 years now could come anywhere near close to the depth and professional level that a game of 12 years could ever have. And this will be the case for a good couple of years. But that is not the fault of the game designers nor the game itself, but merely of time and experience.
I'd answer your argument in depth but I don't feel like arguing with someone who is just blindly stating a flawed opinion so I'll answer it like this.
Starcraft is a game and a universe designed by blizzard. Anyone who played or watched BW has an expectation starcraft 2 to still be starcraft. Dustin Browder, the head developer said himself 'we are not trying to make BW over'. That's not the exact quote but it sums it up. That is the problem. When the lead developer is NOT trying to make the sequel to starcraft in the same light as starcraft, it is not starcraft anymore. That is the problem here. They have a lead fucking designer that isn't trying to make starcraft, but is trying to make command and conquer in the starcraft universe. And no im not citing the source because I'm lazy and it's a known fact that he said that.
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. And when I say same game I mean there is a certain design/gameplay style from BW that made it able to be as competitive as it was and made starcraft into the legend that it was. That is not present in sc2. I understand all the fanboys who didn't experience or grow up on broodwar want to religiously defend their game, but the fact is that it's flawed because the design philosophy of the developers is to not make starcraft.
|
On December 07 2011 04:04 gayfius173 wrote:
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol.
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
|
On December 07 2011 04:23 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 04:04 gayfius173 wrote:
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail. Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
I don't think he means that he wants BW remade. I think he means that the design team is trying too hard to not be like BW, and we've ended up in C&C territory in terms of design, rather than a true sequel to BW which builds upon it. Instead, there have been several backwards steps.
|
I hear some complaining about AOE. AOE is probably THE thing that separated BW from the multitude of RTS games out there at that time that weren't great. If not for AOE, then macro and ignoring the main screen is all the game is about which is just silly. I won't disagree that the clumping effect in SC2 is a very different feel from BW and is unfortunate. But as the game is designed, you just need to micro when AOE is on the field. It actually is not that hard to know when to pay attention to the damn fight. If you can't handle micro during a fight, don't be surprised if your not performing as well as you did in post 1999 BW where macro was more heavily favored.
Having said that, I am very worried about what was revealed at Blizzcon. Sure it will all change a lot, but there are a few things that are already worrying with the direction being taken. But Blizzard takes this game seriously, and with so many dedicated serious players it will turn out well in the end.
|
A lot of people saying Cloud is a little butt hurt or bitter but I couldn't agree with him more! I think that last patch only serves as an even better reminder that Blizz is going in the wrong direction with their balance and these new units are certainly going to make that worse. iNcontrol pretty much said the same thing as Cloud, he just said it nicely, lol.
|
On December 07 2011 04:27 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 04:23 Bagi wrote:On December 07 2011 04:04 gayfius173 wrote:
Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail. Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever. I don't think he means that he wants BW remade. I think he means that the design team is trying too hard to not be like BW, and we've ended up in C&C territory in terms of design, rather than a true sequel to BW which builds upon it. Instead, there have been several backwards steps.
Thank you for reading my post in its entirety and getting exactly what I was saying out of it. I also don't get how anyone could read my post and NOT get that out of it but people never cease to amuse.
This is not about having BW 'remade'. This is not about playing the same game as BW. It is about keeping true to the starcraft style and universe though. Dustin browder has said that is NOT what they are doing and that is what the fundamental flaw with sc2 is.
On December 07 2011 04:23 Bagi wrote:
This is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on this forum, ever. Of course they are not making the same game over again, are you kidding? The game still has many qualities that make it "Starcraft", but that doesn't mean they are responsible to mimic the design of BW to every last detail.
Here's an idea: go back to BW. It's the same game that you can keep playing forever.
Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
|
On December 07 2011 04:04 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 00:14 Naeroon wrote:On December 06 2011 14:45 gayfius173 wrote:On December 06 2011 14:31 Kharnage wrote:On December 06 2011 13:44 gayfius173 wrote:
The amount of fan boys drooling over sc2 and unwilling to see its flaws is ridiculous. But I guess its to be expected. The major issue around sc2 is the fact that dustin browder was some moron from the shit game serious Command and conquer (also known as command of trash) and is trying to merge his shit game with SC.
To the people saying there 'isn't a skill difference' between BW and SC2, read the following.
1). The amount of APM required to actually Micro and Macro effectively in BW is at an undeniably higher level than sc2. There is no arguing that fact, peroid. In BW you have to tell every single worker to mine, you can only hotkey 12 units to 1 hotkey max. There is no smart casting. There is no deathball 200/200 A move. Stop trying to argue otherwise, there is no argument over this, it is a fact.
2). There is an obvious skill level difference. Why do you think players like Idra and Nestea were -NO ONE SPECIAL- in there BW history, yet are good in sc2. Did they randomly have this miraculous change where they are a top tier gamer? No. The simple fact is that sc2 is highly easier to play than BW is - thus, average or even shit players who couldn't compete in BW can come over and actually have success in sc2.
3). To comment further on point 2, I use my own experience as something to go by. I was terrible in BW. Even if I was playing at my top level I could never ever hope to beat the worst of any pros even with some cheese he didn't scout. In sc2, I was in the highest league the first week it came out. I can easily maintain a place in masters league.
The simple fact is that sc2 (like many other video games in the current era) is dumbed down and 'easy mode'. This has been a major complaint with pro-gamers in general about games now, not just sc2 players. The simple fact is most people don't want to admit that games are made easy, they'd rather believe they are hard and people are just criticizing/bashing their game for no reason. Because to think any differently would mean they have to face the fact that they really aren't a good gamer. Each to their own. Games that are mechanically harder to master are of less interest to me than games were positioning and decision making are king. Just because soemthing is harder doesn't make it better. Playing games without using the keyboard doesn't make the game better to play or spectate (as witnessed by day 9 doing the no keyboard funday monday, which was entertaining but the games were boring as shit) Having to tell each and every worker to mine and only groups of max 12 or crappy pathing AI doesn't make the gamer better. Watching the decisions of the players played out on the battle field is where the excitment is. Like Puma's marauder flank on metalopolis vs Hero at dreamhack. Brilliant! That shit excites me. Huk's consistantly brilliant unit positioning making him win battles he has no right winning is what gives me "nerd chills". I would hate to see strategically or tactically brilliant players unable to compete because they just aren't "fast" enough. They still need to be quick, but honestly APM shouldn't be the bar by which you can judge a good real time strategy player. APM wasn't the bar which defined BW, as was posted earlier in this thread. There were constant games where a player with less APM won because of smarter decision making. Your post is entirely off base by saying that sc2's 'decision making' is better than BW's BW had EVERYTHING you just said you liked and it had it on a far higher level than sc2 does. What is 'good decision making' against a 200/200 A move death ball? Or where is the good decision making with smart casting making the game so dumbed down that a 10 year old could do it properly? If you think BW didn't have tactics and unit positions, then you should go spend the next 24 hours watching brood war pro games. What you'll come to find is BW's unit positioning and decision making effected the outcome of the game far far more than sc2's ever will, because it was actually hard to control your units, position them properly and keep up with the flow of battle, and there wasn't any 200/200 deathball A move bullshit, or smartcasting to carry inferior player along the way. ---- To answer the posts of 'give the game time', you guys are missing the point. First of all let me say that I enjoy watching sc2. I like the game. I play the game. I bought the game and I'll buy the expansions. However, it is a different game than BW. And there-in lies the problem. Sure, BW was not BALANCED for the first year or however long. That is not an argument here (and anyone saying it was balanced right away is also offbase and doesn't know much about BW's history). Obviously, with any game like BW or sc2, balance will take time. The biggest complaint is how the game PLAYS. sc2 very well might reach a balanced point where its competitive. But it will NEVER have the skillcap that BW had because the AI and design is dumbed down and does not allow for it. There is NOTHING skillful about A moving a 200/200 unit group. There is nothing skillful about smart casting. Ah, so you're openly admitting your whole argument is based solely on the fact that 'SC2 is not BW, therefore BW > SC2.' Well yes, you are about as right as you could possibly be about that fact, mister. But... You seem to be omitting your quantified evidence as to how the simple fact of one game not being another game instantly makes the game garbage. And I seriously question if you even keep up to date on sc2 man. 200/200 deathballs take absolutely no skill... No shit sherlock, but when was the last time anybody got fucking anywhere in a professional tournament using those kind of tactics (that didn't play protoss)? Because I've been watching every major tournament since the beginning of summer and I still haven't seen terrible tactics like that used since the end of season 1. You are casting gross hyperboles to further your own argument. Stop saying everything is 'absolute shit' and start making rational, relevant arguments, because it has been known for a good amount of time now that herp derping up to a 200/200 deathball will only get you slaughtered while you're getting there. People's skills and knowledge of the game is evolving, and therefore the relative skill level of the players is too. I understand that making the argument 'the game is only a year old' does sound a bit stupid, but you have to consider it from the perspective of the amount of experience and practice people have. I don't understand how you can think that a game that has only been playable for about 2 years now could come anywhere near close to the depth and professional level that a game of 12 years could ever have. And this will be the case for a good couple of years. But that is not the fault of the game designers nor the game itself, but merely of time and experience. I'd answer your argument in depth but I don't feel like arguing with someone who is just blindly stating a flawed opinion so I'll answer it like this. Starcraft is a game and a universe designed by blizzard. Anyone who played or watched BW has an expectation starcraft 2 to still be starcraft. Dustin Browder, the head developer said himself 'we are not trying to make BW over'. That's not the exact quote but it sums it up. That is the problem. When the lead developer is NOT trying to make the sequel to starcraft in the same light as starcraft, it is not starcraft anymore. That is the problem here. They have a lead fucking designer that isn't trying to make starcraft, but is trying to make command and conquer in the starcraft universe. And no im not citing the source because I'm lazy and it's a known fact that he said that. Like I don't even know how people can even argue that theres not a fundamental design problem when the lead developer is not trying to make the same game lol. And when I say same game I mean there is a certain design/gameplay style from BW that made it able to be as competitive as it was and made starcraft into the legend that it was. That is not present in sc2. I understand all the fanboys who didn't experience or grow up on broodwar want to religiously defend their game, but the fact is that it's flawed because the design philosophy of the developers is to not make starcraft.
blizzard made bw, and now they are making sc2, so its BY DEFINITION a starcraft game. you can't expect the same dev team to make every starcraft game. thats not possible. and you cant expect the dev team of sc2, or any starcraft game, to mimic a former dev team and their design philosophy, because that would belittle their artistic standards. if i would be a game designer, i wouldn't want to have to remake the same game over and over, after all, game design is a creative process. if a team succeeds or not, is another thing, but don't expect them to copy something, that would be boring for them and for us.
your expectation of sc2 still being starcraft is senseless because you can't base your expectation of a franchise (starcraft) on one game this franchise produced (bw). imagine the makers of wc3 would have sticked to wc1 or even wc2. that would've been horrible. and you don't see anyone saying wc3 is not a warcraft game. the only reason this bw sc2 debate flames up all the time is because bw was a really good game. but people need to understand that this doesn't mean blizzard doesn't have the right to make the game THEY want to make. it's there game. not yours. deal with it, or better, launch a company that makes an RTS with 12 max groups, bad AI and without smart casting. shouldn't be that difficult.
|
On December 07 2011 05:05 gayfius173 wrote:
Put on your reading glasses buddy and read the entirety of that paragraph, not just the part you selectively picked out of context to throw your opinion around.
Doesn't change a thing, you complain when SC2 doesn't follow your arbitrary definition of "Starcraft design". The game is still very, very much Starcraft, and your whines about smartcasting and MBS make me believe your definition of "Starcraft" is something every sane developer would avoid (for good reasons). Just cut the bullshit and go back to playing BW, its obvious you will never be satisfied with this game.
|
well it's kinda clear that blizz doesn't understand every aspect of the game (like removing thor energy and then readding it, or bunker changes); i hope they'll remove some HotS new unit in the beta
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
