|
Im not really opposed to change, and I think that if the people posting stock responses and nonsense (of which Mr. OmegaWeapon's link is only a small sample -- no offense meant, but I will call you out on it) would keep their eyes open and read what people like myself and Mr. Infinity2k9 (among many many others) are saying, they would find that what people want is actually an improvement over broodwar. In many ways, SC2 is an improvement, but in many (I would argue many more) ways, it takes steps backwards from broodwar. I dont especially want to single anyone out, but I do want to spotlight a really foul attitude towards constructive discourse that a lot of TL members display.
While it may be debatable what exactly "a step back" entails, I would argue that things like macro mechanics are actually an artificial way of adding macro back into the game after it was taken out under the same argument: that one building selection and no rally to minerals, etc. were taken out for the same reason of artificiality. One may be more appealing to players, but that doesnt mean that the other one doesn't have its strengths and its place in the game. Both are ultimately included by the developers, hopefully with purpose.
While I don't necessarily recommend bringing these nightmarish things back, people should realize that their presence helped craft the game Broodwar has become over more than a decade of people playing it. Taking out vital skills and replacing them with weak and poorly thought out facsimiles is not an encouraging prospect (see: Chronoboost being rapidly added to the game late in the development process).
Ive been a fan of macro mechanics in theory, but not in their current forms. Actually, I think chronoboost is closest to the mark, but thats another story. My main point is that people criticizing SC2 are genuinely concerned about the game design and its perceived problems. It isnt that critics are necessarily hostile, but rather that they think that SC2 has problems that could be addressed by studying and emulating broodwar, given the huge success and history of the game. That doesnt mean a 1:1 ratio of mechanics/strategy, and it doesnt mean that SC2 has to play the same way at the end of the day. No, most of us don't want BW in 3D (though that would be awesome) instead of SC2. I think that even going to 3D would cause many unforeseen changes. Thats just a nonsense phrase people on these forums throw around like litter.
When SC2 came out, I was excited because Blizzard had a huge competitive scene to study and take examples and advice from. They really had a good shot at improving the numerous flaws of broodwar while simultaneously creating something completely new and, hopefully, better. While they did craft an exceptionally strong game by themselves, they forgot or left out some things that people perceive to be crucial, as you can tell by the repeated threads about X that too many of you complain about. It isnt just random people trying to piss the good citizens of TL off: most of the time its a real concern. Will it always be constructive? No. Is it worth giving a pretty decent OP like this a good response and some real thought? Yes.
Instead of being unconstructive, go experiment in the unit tester or the map editor, go study map design or the history of broodwar mechanics evolution. Dont be a pill. Please either be a responsible and constructive poster or stay silent and let such people get a word in edgewise.
I do have a realistic expectation of how many people will read this, but I will post it for the few who do. Cheers.
|
On January 12 2012 18:54 Laserist wrote:
I used the term 'nowadays' at the beginning of my post. None of the examples hardly fit into this category.
W2 1995 to Starcraft 1998,
Dawn of War 2004 to Company of Heroes 2006 (can't tell the connection)
Civilization 1 1991 to Civ 2 1996
Late 90's and early 2000's draws the border of the golden age of gaming history. What I was trying to say is childern or grandchildren of these games are oversimplified and relatively empty.
For turn-based strategy HoMM3(99) was a great game and ruined at the 5th(06) and 6th(11) of the same series.
Same as Civilization 4 provides better and deeper gameplay experience in compare with Civ 5. Civ 5 is really designed for players who clearly have no idea how to play Civilization.
For RPG genre, Fallout(97-98) and Baldur's gate(98-2000) series was, imho, way more better than current RPG's, i.e Dragon Age(even see the difference between 1 & 2), Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls series.
I am not trying to say newer games necessarily bad. But it is clear that, for some time, newer games tends to be simple and broad. I am not the only one who stated that. Look at the reviews of the games I wrote above. All of them is critised by being simple and dissapointing.
Same is applied to starcraft too. I am not advocating 'return to broodwar' concept. I dislike many limitations of it and know SC2 is better in many aspects. But to reach this point, Blizzard sacrifices many things(storyline depth etc.).
Blizzard even oversimplied the units(one purpose, boring units) and battle mechanics. Zerg should swarm, Terran should all-in or rush, toss should turtle and deathball. Is there any depth in that I am not able to see?
I see your point and don't have enough experience [with new games] to have grounds for agreement.
The only new game that I've played is Starcraft 2. The flaws that I see in the game are not from oversimplification of mechanics, but of errors that designers are bound to make on their first iteration of the game. In my opinion Starcraft 2 is better than Starcraft 1. Brood War is better than Starcraft 2. We'll see where they land with Heart of the Swarm.
Regardless, examples of developers failing to design games that are accessible without the cost of depth is not proof to it's lack of possibility. The reason games have failed to do so may be the one you offer - that developers, by trade, are there to make money, not to create good games. Lack of experience, skill, or budget may [often] force developers to deliver on the former at the cost of the latter, but again, that doesn't necessitate the two being exclusive.
|
Canada11450 Posts
On January 13 2012 00:22 sudzy wrote:
Regarding the "Ball vs. Ball" unit clumping problem:
In Age of Empires series, there were unit formation hot keys. You could arrange your units in spread, box, line, etc. formations.
Is this something that would be received positively by the community? Or is this too noob friendly as well?
Yes it would be. Just like Age of Mythology's "caster" units with auto cast would be too friendly and if you gave a button to make marines and marauders automatically shoot and scoot. Forget about BW, just think about current SC2 opportunities. Banelings vs Marine spread. What was one of the Age 2 unit formations? Auto spread to deal with onagers. So we take a cool micro opportunity and automate it and then we have to nerf the marine because its automation makes it too efficient.
The advantage of BW, is the tools existed to precisely control your units and make your own 'formations' simply by good micro. Sure at the basic level, a lot of units could be a headache. But once you overcome the unit's stupidity, the potential existed for extremely precise control. And you didn't have to fight against group automation to get it. Or rather group automation were dynamic enough that some methods would cluster units, some would allow the units to march spread out in a line and others march in formation. (right clicked zealots, and magic boxing.)
Automatic formations might seem good, but if you want to micro a set of units to move differently from the formation, your actions will keep being reset whenever the auto formation kicks. Thus over-riding your orders and conforming to the default formation. This (I think) is the problem with group clumping and why it will always be a frustrating thing to deal with. No matter how many orders you give the units, your troop formation will always lack preciseness because the automated grouping that cluster units keeps resetting your commands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
