|
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.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game.
It's more of a good thing that people are criticizing the games current state, because it keeps them honest as developers, and shows our interest as players to keep a game going with our supportive criticisms. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with all the criticisms thrown at blizzard, but I feel the game design in SC2 needs some serious work.
Also, no one can just start an RTS like the way you stated, so that was kind of a pointless statement.
|
On December 07 2011 05:21 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Your posts are very very relevant and useful to the discussion. /end sarcasm.
Go play some broodwar. Go play some command and conquer. Then play starcraft 2. If you've any minor amount of brain activity going on you'll quickly find out that sc2 plays more like command and conquer than it does BW. That is a problem.
|
Why you guys gotta be so angry. What is it about internet arguments that make people sling insults and rage out. No one is ever going to agree with you about anything if you use wild hyperbole and call them idiots. This thread is embarrassing to read.
On topic, I'm not perfectly happy with sc2 but its the best game out right now. And coming from the company that made world of warcraft we should be really happy with what we have, compared to what we could have gotten. HOTS looks pretty disappointing but its no reason to rage out like children throwing a tantrum.
|
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.
Fair enough.
However I just wanted to state I'm not simply a 'newbie sc2 fanboy'. I spent a large part of my earlier years playing BW, and while I never got into it near the amount that I have gotten into sc2, I have owned and played the game since I was 7. Please don't simply make generalizations about me being blinded towards the facts, because in fact I grew up with BW just like you and am only here to get an honest, well-rounded understanding of the perceived issues between Sc2 and BW. If you noticed, I worded my posts in such a way to show that I am not being ignorant to either side, and that I just want to hear all sides of the argument, instead of simply stating what is right and what is wrong in this situation.
I'm willing to have a mature discussion about this situation, but it is hard when you cast aside the things I say as me being 'an ignorant fanboy completely blind to the real facts'.
|
On December 07 2011 05:33 Kingqway wrote:Show nested quote + 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.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game. It's more of a good thing that people are criticizing the games current state, because it keeps them honest as developers, and shows our interest as players to keep a game going with our supportive criticisms. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with all the criticisms thrown at blizzard, but I feel the game design in SC2 needs some serious work. Also, no one can just start an RTS like the way you stated, so that was kind of a pointless statement.
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games.
|
On December 07 2011 05:43 gayfius173 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 05:21 Bagi wrote: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. Your posts are very very relevant and useful to the discussion. /end sarcasm. Go play some broodwar. Go play some command and conquer. Then play starcraft 2. If you've any minor amount of brain activity going on you'll quickly find out that sc2 plays more like command and conquer than it does BW. That is a problem.
Let me guess: You've never played the newer command and conquer games, but you say SC2 reminds you of them because Dustin Browder worked on some old C&C games? How about you explain to me how C&C plays and how that reflects to SC2? That might mean you would have an argument here instead of just rabble. And no, telling people to just "have some brain activity and go play the games" isn't going to cut it.
|
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.
I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
|
sorry Cloud, you are one of those.
|
It's pretty funny that I'm reading this right now. I reinstalled BW a week ago and started playing a bit and I almost fully agree with Cloud. The overwhelming "allinish" aspect of SC2 really takes a lot of the fun away compared to BW and even if you get to a fairly even late game situation you have to deal with those crazy AoE and stacked as fuck armies that decide the game in 5 seconds.
Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying SC2 is a terrible game. I've seen and played a lot of excellet games but I've also seen and played a TON of utterly depressing games. That never happened to me in BW (even when Ps were gaying it up with carriers on cliff-heavy maps :p), both as a spectator and a player. No matter how outdated the mechanics, AI and pathing may be, BW is still by far the superior RTS and it's unlikely that HotS will change anything to that.
|
On December 07 2011 06:09 tztztz wrote:
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games.
Hmm... If I made it sound like Blizzard isn't trying, then I obviously stated my argument wrong. Moreover, I was trying to point out that a game made by developers becomes as much of a game to the people its made for as it is for the developers who made them. e.g. Developers who made Hellgate: London are probably the prime example of a company intending to screw someone over, and I would never relate Blizzard to those guys.
I would like to point out that I also don't intend on calling Blizzard out for being bad developers or anything. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is for them to design and create Starcraft 2, but I think the poster you argued against is more frustrated with how Blizzard had a great template to start a game by (Brood War), and chose to do away with a lot of the great aspects of the game simply for the sake of being different. And that was the point of my argument.
As players, we can only see how much the game differs by the way conventional strategies in normal RTS just don't apply to the game. As an example, force fields take the idea of terrain advantages, and end up softening out too many tactics involving flanking maneuvers and stabbing principals since it literally evolves the terrain _too easily_. The mechanic just involves the click of a button, and it "revolutionizes" strategy that was made in the years of RTS games. Another example a lot of people complain about would be the Warp Gate, and how it takes away the importance of solidifying a reinforcement path to the point of interest.
The reason you see people complain about lurkers would probably be because of the siege importance of having them. With Lurkers it was a lot easier to manage base defenses, but it was also a lot harder to find weak spots for the opposing player. When you take away the lurker, and add an aggressively used attack unit like the baneling to replace it, all you get is strange rewards for being over-aggressive, especially since there's absolutely no solid way for Zerg to defend base pokes like hellions roasting entire lines of workers, which take literally all game to build. I mean, obviously players have adapted to hellion pokes, but having a defensive siege unit like the lurker would help the game become more heavily based on tactics on rooting out said siege units and then attacking, rather than just attacking attacking attacking. Hellions and baneling drops are just some of the things brood war players probably hate because of how much it rewards overly risky play, without being too risky.
SC2, like BW, is a strategy game that revolves heavily around resources, but they just made it too easy to destroy resource lines with these units. Even Dark Templars have become stronger in a cheesy way because overlords have lost the ability to detect for free. Which I would actually rather see Zerg get back in HotS.
Personally, I don't mind the new unit pathing in Starcraft 2. A lot of the things in Starcraft 2 are still great, and it's why I still play and enjoy the game, but there are some things I really want Blizzard to work on to improve, rather than just say they're not going to do it, and I think that goes for a lot of the people who are complaining.
As for listening to and accepting criticisms, I think that can go for both sides, so it's not really a point I'm going to go on.
EDIT: BTW, I'm not a BW player just to clarify.
|
On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote:
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? Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..?
Right.
|
On December 07 2011 07:48 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote:
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? Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..? Right.
I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping.
Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out.
This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros.
We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame.
The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling.
|
On December 07 2011 07:33 Kingqway wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 06:09 tztztz wrote:
that statement was just to lighten up the mood because we all now how heated this debate can be.
what you say implies several things i can't agree with. first, the way you say it makes it sound like blizzard didn't intend to make a good sequel to bw. they didn't try to make a complete new game and lable it starcraft. why would they? its in there own long term interest to make the best sc2 game possible, so why wouldn't they try to do so? if they failed on certain things (which is possible, they are human after all), why wouldn't they try to fix it? they are blessed with such a caring community, why wouldn't they capitalize on that?
for me it just doesn't make sense to assume that blizzard is dump and stubborn, the way i see it they are in a steady discours with the community and the pro players, and they have time and time talked about why they don't go back to bw unit pathing, why they don't want to recycle bw units, etc. but we are still talking about clumping units? why? why are we still talking about lurkers all the time? why isn't there someone coming up with other, maybe new (omg) things, why isn't there someone saying "ok, you don't want to go back to an outdated engine, how about this this this, how about making this engine work by blablabla" all we hear is whining about how bw was such a superior game, but noone seems to care about what it means to have to make sc2, and how hard it can be.
criticisms is a good thing, but if you want to have a fruitful debate, you have to listen too and accept arguments, and to me it seems that still many peolpe don't like to listen to blizzard, which is absurd because they should know a thing or two about making games. Hmm... If I made it sound like Blizzard isn't trying, then I obviously stated my argument wrong. Moreover, I was trying to point out that a game made by developers becomes as much of a game to the people its made for as it is for the developers who made them. e.g. Developers who made Hellgate: London are probably the prime example of a company intending to screw someone over, and I would never relate Blizzard to those guys. I would like to point out that I also don't intend on calling Blizzard out for being bad developers or anything. I can only imagine how much of a pain in the ass it is for them to design and create Starcraft 2, but I think the poster you argued against is more frustrated with how Blizzard had a great template to start a game by (Brood War), and chose to do away with a lot of the great aspects of the game simply for the sake of being different. And that was the point of my argument. As players, we can only see how much the game differs by the way conventional strategies in normal RTS just don't apply to the game. As an example, force fields take the idea of terrain advantages, and end up softening out too many tactics involving flanking maneuvers and stabbing principals since it literally evolves the terrain _too easily_. The mechanic just involves the click of a button, and it "revolutionizes" strategy that was made in the years of RTS games. Another example a lot of people complain about would be the Warp Gate, and how it takes away the importance of solidifying a reinforcement path to the point of interest. The reason you see people complain about lurkers would probably be because of the siege importance of having them. With Lurkers it was a lot easier to manage base defenses, but it was also a lot harder to find weak spots for the opposing player. When you take away the lurker, and add an aggressively used attack unit like the baneling to replace it, all you get is strange rewards for being over-aggressive, especially since there's absolutely no solid way for Zerg to defend base pokes like hellions roasting entire lines of workers, which take literally all game to build. I mean, obviously players have adapted to hellion pokes, but having a defensive siege unit like the lurker would help the game become more heavily based on tactics on rooting out said siege units and then attacking, rather than just attacking attacking attacking. Hellions and baneling drops are just some of the things brood war players probably hate because of how much it rewards overly risky play, without being too risky. SC2, like BW, is a strategy game that revolves heavily around resources, but they just made it too easy to destroy resource lines with these units. Even Dark Templars have become stronger in a cheesy way because overlords have lost the ability to detect for free. Which I would actually rather see Zerg get back in HotS. Personally, I don't mind the new unit pathing in Starcraft 2. A lot of the things in Starcraft 2 are still great, and it's why I still play and enjoy the game, but there are some things I really want Blizzard to work on to improve, rather than just say they're not going to do it, and I think that goes for a lot of the people who are complaining. As for listening to and accepting criticisms, I think that can go for both sides, so it's not really a point I'm going to go on. EDIT: BTW, I'm not a BW player just to clarify.
ok, some questions. do you think the makers of sc2 didn't think about the consequences of implementing force fields and warp gates at all, about how that would change the importance of terrain and the aspect of reinforcement, which are so basic to RTS that one can asume they did know about them? i don't believe they would make such a big mistake when it seems so obvious to every person without any expertise in game design at all (most people here). its obvious that by implementing force fields for example, they thought its worth sacrificing the importance of terrain for what they thought force fields would add to the game. all i'm saying the whole time is, people always talk about what sc2 lacks compared to bw because of force fields and never about what it gains from force fields. my english is not that good but i hope you get what i'm trying to say?
and by the way, i think the biggest problem is, ironically, that blizzard has a monopoly on good RTS games. if there would be another company who can challenge them in terms of competitive RTS games, i think everyone would benefit. but making good RTS is hard i guess.
|
On December 07 2011 08:15 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 07:48 RampancyTW wrote:On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote:
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? Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..? Right. I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping. Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out. This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros. We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame. The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling. Yeah, I agree almost entirely with this.
In addition I see tons of games where if players had faster game speed/better mechanics to handle everything they had the potential to do at once they would absolutely dismantle their opponents. I sincerely believe that even the top players are barely scraping the surface of "good" right now.
I think the main "complaint" is that easier macro makes the skill floor higher (has nothing to do with skill ceiling, just the floor), and the unforgiving nature of the game makes it so that playing poorly in unit engagements is punished hard... which leads to them dropping games to players they feel are worse than them because they make more mistakes than their opponent in that particular game, and are unable to rely on speed-base techniques to dig themselves out of a hole.
Meh. Seems the main argument boils down to "the better player should win every time even if he makes a lot more mistakes because he's better/faster." BW also has a lot of examples of pretty 1-sided micro, where essentially one player's skill determines the outcome of the fight... yet this is bad in SC2 (whereas it's all "perfect" mechanics in BW), I see a lot of contradictory posts in that sense.
For the record, I LOVE the feel of BW. It definitely has the crisp feel that people refer to in a way that SC2 somewhat lacks. At the same time, that has nothing to do with the comparison of the actual difficulty and skill thresholds between the two. Tribes 2 had more depth and probably an equally high skill ceiling in comparison to Starsiege: Tribes, regardless of how infinitely I prefer the feel of of the original.
And for the record (somewhat on-topic since the NASL has apparently picked it up), Tribes: Ascend is an abomination of a Tribes game that isn't fit to have the name in its title.
|
On December 07 2011 06:22 happyness 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. I agree with most everything here. Except for Creep, which I think is awesome.
I like creepspreading but I dislike it a lot that some units cannot be used properly off creep. I think creep should be less focused on speed increase and instead provide some other bonus.
|
cloud sounds mad, i guess he got owned in ladder by alot of cheese
|
On December 07 2011 09:11 RampancyTW wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2011 08:15 Tektos wrote:On December 07 2011 07:48 RampancyTW wrote:On December 07 2011 03:34 Bane_ wrote:
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? Yeah, nobody has really yet to answer any question along these lines. From what I've been able to gather, apparently poor play is the result of the low SC2 skill ceiling..? Right. I've always thought this when people complained about unit clumping. Doesn't unit clumping make the game harder and less newb friendly? AOE obliterates marines/roaches/etc. so at the lowest level AOE is ridiculously strong. If we're talking about as an esport though, i.e. the professional level then players manually spread units out. This adds to the skill of the game, separates the high level amateurs from the pros. We've already seen examples of it - marine splits against banelings/fungals, unit splits against tanks, Protoss death-ball spreads against EMP. This has infinite capacity to grow and may result in huge shifts in the metagame. The unit clumping makes the game less forgiving - it is not a flaw in the game or a problem it is actually a benefit to the competitiveness of the game via raising the skill ceiling. Yeah, I agree almost entirely with this. In addition I see tons of games where if players had faster game speed/better mechanics to handle everything they had the potential to do at once they would absolutely dismantle their opponents. I sincerely believe that even the top players are barely scraping the surface of "good" right now. I think the main "complaint" is that easier macro makes the skill floor higher (has nothing to do with skill ceiling, just the floor), and the unforgiving nature of the game makes it so that playing poorly in unit engagements is punished hard... which leads to them dropping games to players they feel are worse than them because they make more mistakes than their opponent in that particular game, and are unable to rely on speed-base techniques to dig themselves out of a hole. Meh. Seems the main argument boils down to "the better player should win every time even if he makes a lot more mistakes because he's better/faster." BW also has a lot of examples of pretty 1-sided micro, where essentially one player's skill determines the outcome of the fight... yet this is bad in SC2 (whereas it's all "perfect" mechanics in BW), I see a lot of contradictory posts in that sense. For the record, I LOVE the feel of BW. It definitely has the crisp feel that people refer to in a way that SC2 somewhat lacks. At the same time, that has nothing to do with the comparison of the actual difficulty and skill thresholds between the two. Tribes 2 had more depth and probably an equally high skill ceiling in comparison to Starsiege: Tribes, regardless of how infinitely I prefer the feel of of the original. And for the record (somewhat on-topic since the NASL has apparently picked it up), Tribes: Ascend is an abomination of a Tribes game that isn't fit to have the name in its title.
I've played A LOT of SC2, and a lot of Tribes: Ascend (for how long it's been out) And I've already quit playing the former and will quit playing the latter unless they make some massive changes. I consider both to be abominations of their respective originals  I quit video games
|
On December 03 2011 07:29 MasterBlasterCaster wrote:Show nested quote +On December 03 2011 07:12 VanGarde wrote:
No offense to Cloud but it is getting silly how all of the mid tier foreign players are the ones who whine that the game is too random and the skill cap is too low so there is no point in competing. Unless you are beating mvp or nestea in gsl finals arguments like that are completely irrelevant when it comes to actually competing in the game. Seriously stop using how "flawed the game is" to explain away a lack of results. These kinds of comments always only come from the players who play seriously but who are never seen in the top of tournaments. To be fair, I've heard similar comments from multiple tourny winners.
Sources?
|
On December 07 2011 05:33 Kingqway wrote:Show nested quote + 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.
I have to disagree with this statement right here. What makes a great game to a person, for me anyways, is when you can personalize the game and make it something of your own. As a community, when it accepts a game, it is essentially the communities gift at this point. If the developers label something as a sequel, it should stay true to being a sequel, and not simply a different game with the same name. The community is what made the game a success, so in some sense the community has a full right to have some decision in the making of a game.
The relationship between the game developer and the community is mutual. The community has the right to not buy a game, and given that it's in the developers best interests to make a great game so the community continues to support the franchise. However, in no way does the community have "full right to have some decision in the making of a game" and the community accepting a game isn't a "gift", it's simply people playing a game they enjoy.
|
All I know is I couldn't put down SC:BW and I can't even force myself to play Sc2, that says enough to me. I prefer watching Sc2 but DotA 2 is now my game of choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
