|
On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:54 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 17:43 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 17:22 iky43210 wrote:On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote:
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed? Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there. games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly. There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes. Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene. It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming. games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it. There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it.
Sports will die too at some point, because people change.
They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out.
I mean we already see that. At some point boxing was a mandatory class, now a big portion of society says it is cruel and disgusting.
Sports evolve,
eSport evolves.
However eSport is a VERY YOUNG phenomenon, thus it will evolve very fast for some time now.
I am not sure why we are discussing this though oO
|
On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:54 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 17:43 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 17:22 iky43210 wrote:On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote:
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed? Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there. games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly. There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes. Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene. It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming. games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example Your pc practically doubles its power every few years. The computer you're using now is a super computer not even a generation before. Games will have to follow technology sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it.
Sports evolve too. Competitors develop new techniques/tactics/strategies, new equipment become available, and rules change. Sports improve themselves over time too, and just because we developed firearms, that didn't mean that archery became an obsolete sport.
The takeaway point is that we want games we love to evolve and improve. Catering to casuals is not an improvement.
On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote:
There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it until next installment or something better comes out
Wrong. Casual gamers don't stick to games anywhere near as long as competitive gamers do. The very nature of playing a game competitively (or doing pretty much anything else competitvely) demands far more time invested into the game.
On June 18 2012 18:08 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:54 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 17:43 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 17:22 iky43210 wrote:On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote:
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed? Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there. games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly. There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes. Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene. It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming. Isn't that the definition of a casual gamer though?
Yes, but the point is that catering to casual gamers is a bad idea.
|
On June 18 2012 18:13 Noruxas wrote:
Totally agree with this thread! And funny how the brood war units are needed appearently. Warhound as Goliath, Defiler as Viper, Lurker as Swarm Host, Spider mines as Widow mines. And they even brought back the Firebat, this time as a transformer.
So Blizzard, stop being stingy and give me a science vessel....
and OP speel, like irradiate stasis ecc...
|
On June 18 2012 18:15 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:54 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 17:43 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 17:22 iky43210 wrote:On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote:
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed? Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there. games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly. There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes. Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene. It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming. games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it. There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it. Sports will die too at some point, because people change. They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out. I mean we already see that. At some point boxing was a mandatory class, now a big portion of society says it is cruel and disgusting. Sports evolve, eSport evolves. However eSport is a VERY YOUNG phenomenon, thus it will evolve very fast for some time now. I am not sure why we are discussing this though oO
yea, that's true. But most sports aren't going to die for many decades to come.
Dunno why we're discussing it, i just replied to the guy that said esport can be sport. technology improves way too rapidly for that to be possible while most sports physical sports (that does not revolve around equipment based) like baseball, soccer, football etc are mostly about physical limitation and changes very slowly
|
|
|
On June 18 2012 18:28 Jumperer wrote:
So Realguapo and iky43210. The two people that got destroyed in the previous page, are now debating each other on whether or not ESPORT will live or die. This is like watching two people who can't swim in a swimming contest.
Why are you still posting? It's obvious you two don't know what you are talking about. You have no arguments, you have no credentials, you have nothing, every time someone refuted your argument you just came up with more bullshits. One of you don't even know the different between casual and non-casual gamer. Seriously, do you guys work for blizzard?
why do you seek attention so much? "destroyed" what are you, 13? my biggest mistake was to reply to you in the first place.
Here's a hint, if people aren't replying to you, maybe cause you're not worth replying to.
|
Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
|
On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote:
Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress.
But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place...
When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization.
Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER.
|
On June 18 2012 18:52 bgx wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote:
Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress. But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place... When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization. Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER.
The reaver was never removed because it was never in Starcraft 2, same for spider mines, lurkers, etc. (well, they are in the singleplayer campaign).
The decision wether it's a better or worse game is entirely subjective, YOU think SC2 is worse... ok, great, i've got no problem with that... but why would anyone go into a forum for a game and claim it's objectively worse than another game? There is no objectively better or worse game, it all depends on your perception of it.
I understand some of you guys hate SC2... but then why don't you guys just stay out of the Starcraft 2 forum? Do you see anyone going to the BW forums and claiming BW is bad because it's 2D and has horrible pathfinding?
|
|
|
On June 17 2012 18:46 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 18:32 Guamshin wrote:On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote:
My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff.
Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver. Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy. I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move. Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting. This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's. I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races. Your problem is that you're not paying close enough attention to how much control is actually going on in Starcraft 2 because it's happening so fast you can't follow it. Starcraft 2 is faster paced than Brood War. Armies are built quicker, and can be destroyed even quicker than that. That said, there's a TON of control required at the pro level, and the truth is that people like you are either just missing it because it's happening too fast for you to follow it or you're purposefully neglecting it for the sake of argument. I'll give you some examples. 1. Forcing siege tank volleys with expendable units in order to make charging a tank line more effective. 2. Baneling landmines 3. hold position micro of any sort especially involving the early game with workers. 4. Utilizing the factory in TvP to force charge out of Zealots or to block off the ramp in entombed valley. 5. Medivac/Prism load unload micro. 6. Ghost vs High Templar vs Infestor etc. etc. Some of those examples like the 1 and 4 are subtle, others like 6 are points of interest for every match up and get a lot of coverage but in all cases control is JUST as important in SC2 as it was in Brood War, the difference is that the game itself is so fast paced that oftentimes the best control is hard to see amidst all the graphical violence that goes on during SC2 battles. Posts like yours just tend to focus on ONE thing about SC2 that you don't like and use that for your reasoning for why the game is fundamentally flawed.
All of them except 3 and 6 are highly situational and not used very often, i don't think you understand what i'm talking about. Do you ever control parts/groups/individual units(except not letting your spellcasters die) during a battle? No, again only with terran bio. The best example of Micro in sc2 is in my opinion ZvT: Muta/Ling/Bane vs Terran Marine/Medic/Siege tanks, the zerg spreads out his units the terran does the same and sieges up, zerg a-moves his units and tries to get good baneling hits off, terran spreads
But is controlling a zerg army like that any challenging? Just compare it to what the terran has to do. Even worse with protoss, Zealot/sentry/collosus/ht/archon vs Bio, Protoss a-moves, Ht storm and collosus focus fire, terran has to kite constantly.
Your right that it is as important to control your army as in BW but it's way too easy.
|
On June 18 2012 19:03 Morfildur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:52 bgx wrote:On June 18 2012 18:36 Nuclease wrote:
Why would you make a sequel...
To have the same units?
The ideas are good from the BW units, hence the BW-esque SC2 additions, but it's idiotic to make a separate game with many copies from it's predecessor.
The game can't just be a copy, there needs to be progress. But you already have copies, but because of this "ambition" to not be associated with previous design team is causing half-assed copies like warhound, widow mine, mothership or copy-paste without thinking carrier (which they even said, they did it without thinking or similar line wtf). Just because Browder team can't really think of any good Reaver replacement we are stuck with Collosus, what if really there was no need to remove Reaver in the first place... When i look at both Browder/Wilson (d3) teams im just seeing people who want to put their name into legacy, i still cannot see how macro mechanics/ terrible terrible dmg pace of game is superior to standard stages of the game. Or how in D3 customization is fucked because of putting mainstat system causing failure of both itemization and customization. Its not superior its just new, so in fact i agree with Jumperer most people here are just spouting NEW/DIFFERENT argument which has nothing to do with BETTER. The reaver was never removed because it was never in Starcraft 2, same for spider mines, lurkers, etc. (well, they are in the singleplayer campaign). The decision wether it's a better or worse game is entirely subjective, YOU think SC2 is worse... ok, great, i've got no problem with that... but why would anyone go into a forum for a game and claim it's objectively worse than another game? There is no objectively better or worse game, it all depends on your perception of it. I understand some of you guys hate SC2... but then why don't you guys just stay out of the Starcraft 2 forum? Do you see anyone going to the BW forums and claiming BW is bad because it's 2D and has horrible pathfinding?
I think you're confusing the argument everyone is making. I also can't stand this perception that the slightest criticism of SC2's design means you HATE the game. Or to compare SC2 to the only game that it can even be compared to, it's predecessor, means you're bashing SC2 out of BW bias.
Like, if SC2 can be made better, then why the fuck should we accept anything less? Because they aren't trying to make SC2 the best possible game it can be -- AS MUCH as they're able to cater to casual players for more money, or as much as Dustin wants to sculpt SC2 into his own vision. To the point he will literally reintroduce every BW unit in one form or another so he can call it his.
SC2 is a great game, but it can be better. edit: Don't one up yourself by replying to this with a strawman about remaking a 3d copy of broodwar. edit2: I must emphasize. I loved BW. I really love SC2. I want SC2 to be amazing. I can't stand the arrogance Blizzard displays in designing it.
edit3: Lurkers/Reavers were in the game at one point. Both removed for different reasons.
|
On June 18 2012 19:14 Guamshin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 18:46 Vindicare605 wrote:On June 17 2012 18:32 Guamshin wrote:On June 17 2012 01:04 Shiori wrote:On June 17 2012 01:02 Flightan wrote:
My guess is because, as a game developer, it really isn't fun to do the same things over and over again, you would much rather invent new stuff.
Imagine being the one that came up with the idea of the colossus, you can then be proud because it is being loved by many, it really isn't the same as just re-coding the reaver. Considering everyone hates the Colossus, I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Nobody is asking for units that are identical to BW counterparts; we're asking for units that respect the standard set by BW: high skill-cap, specialized units with clear weaknesses. Instead we have units like the Colossus/Roach/Marauder/Marine/Ling/Infestor/Immortal which are basically good against almost everything and are never a bad idea to build. What's more with the exception of the Marine, none of them are really micro-heavy. I hate it how sc2 is basicly 3rd Bw with half-assed Bw units, Blizzard will most likely never remove bad units like Colossus unless the community is dying out or whatever and they need to pull a desperate move. Marine/marauder needs to be split and you have to kite but even then eventually you can just a-move when your winning, which displays the bad decision of adding unlimited(almost i guess) units in a control group. Your not microing when your fighting. This is one of the reasons i don't like watching competitive sc2 since there is pretty much 0 difference in people controlling their armies and how they use them, with the exception of terrans splitting their marines/marauders of course, but the rest is split-1a-2t, you get my point. It's not like HerO's storms are better then Sage's. I think HoTs is looking better then WoL but with added a-move units(Tempest, Warhound, Battle Hellion) my opinion probably won't change, instead of making sc2 units like BW, they should have made pretty much everything different except remain the UI and the 3 races. Your problem is that you're not paying close enough attention to how much control is actually going on in Starcraft 2 because it's happening so fast you can't follow it. Starcraft 2 is faster paced than Brood War. Armies are built quicker, and can be destroyed even quicker than that. That said, there's a TON of control required at the pro level, and the truth is that people like you are either just missing it because it's happening too fast for you to follow it or you're purposefully neglecting it for the sake of argument. I'll give you some examples. 1. Forcing siege tank volleys with expendable units in order to make charging a tank line more effective. 2. Baneling landmines 3. hold position micro of any sort especially involving the early game with workers. 4. Utilizing the factory in TvP to force charge out of Zealots or to block off the ramp in entombed valley. 5. Medivac/Prism load unload micro. 6. Ghost vs High Templar vs Infestor etc. etc. Some of those examples like the 1 and 4 are subtle, others like 6 are points of interest for every match up and get a lot of coverage but in all cases control is JUST as important in SC2 as it was in Brood War, the difference is that the game itself is so fast paced that oftentimes the best control is hard to see amidst all the graphical violence that goes on during SC2 battles. Posts like yours just tend to focus on ONE thing about SC2 that you don't like and use that for your reasoning for why the game is fundamentally flawed. All of them except 3 and 6 are highly situational and not used very often, i don't think you understand what i'm talking about. Do you ever control parts/groups/individual units(except not letting your spellcasters die) during a battle? No, again only with terran bio. The best example of Micro in sc2 is in my opinion ZvT: Muta/Ling/Bane vs Terran Marine/Medic/Siege tanks, the zerg spreads out his units the terran does the same and sieges up, zerg a-moves his units and tries to get good baneling hits off, terran spreads But is controlling a zerg army like that any challenging? Just compare it to what the terran has to do. Even worse with protoss, Zealot/sentry/collosus/ht/archon vs Bio, Protoss a-moves, Ht storm and collosus focus fire, terran has to kite constantly. Your right that it is as important to control your army as in BW but it's way too easy.
`
Well, 1 is the core of any recent Zerg assault. I think it was popularized by stephano who always started assaults by having infestors throw infested terrans into the range of siege tanks while simultaneously having his units run in. It makes him win many trades that looked impossible. By now almost every Zerg who uses a similar style (i.e. everyone) does the same.
I agree that there are less "micro tricks" like in BW but then again, battles in SC2 are a lot faster which has it's own set of challenges.
|
actually the reaver was in SC2, there is a video with them
|
|
|
For me the 10sec timer on the Widow mine summs up everything thats wrong with their design philosophy.
|
On June 18 2012 18:15 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:06 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:54 sunprince wrote:On June 18 2012 17:43 iky43210 wrote:On June 18 2012 17:28 0neder wrote:On June 18 2012 17:22 iky43210 wrote:On June 17 2012 01:08 GGzerG wrote:
I really wish that SC2 was just a 3D BW, and I also think that SC2 : BW is probably more fun / better game than the actual SC2. I hope that Blizzard makes a complete remake of BW one day in 3D, that would be sick. But for now you just either have to play BW or play SC2, or both like me. :D that's just stupid. If Broodwar didn't kick off 10 years ago, what made you think it would now given that the gaming market is hundred times more competitive and general gamers today have their taste and style changed? Good sports are timeless. Good games are timeless. Good esports games are timeless. It would be even more successful today because there is so much crap out there. games aren't sports. Games revolved around storyline, graphic, game mechanics, style of play, etc. consumers taste changes drastically over time, and our technology improves many times more rapidly. There is a reason why CoD is the stable RTS of this generation than to say another counter strike clone aka cross fire or whatever it was called. Gamers from this generation don't like waiting forever to for a game to watch other people fail at their objectives, nor do gamers like the rather one dimensional maps in CS where there are generally 1 or 2 entrance point per game. Most gamers actually like being rewarded for their action, no matter how good/bad they are. perks, challenges, "achievements", tags, customizatable weapons, fast pace, vehicles are things that let gamers feel that they are progressing instead of doing the same thing over and over aka counter strike. Its one of the few reasons why battlefield 3 and Call of Duty are so popular Nobody is going to buy a rehash of the same game in higher quality, nor would it have any lasting power outside of nostalgia values. Above just a simple example on how gamers have changed in a relatively short period of time. As technology progresses, you have to adapt to the new gamers tastes Cater to the new "gamers" for a while and you'll see how far the loyalty of a casual player goes. Casual players buy a game and play it for a few months at best before moving on to something new. Yes, it can be profitable to release an endless supply of shallow sequels to take their money (see CoD, sports games, etc), but if you try to do that you'll never build a lasting fan base, or a competitive e-sports scene. It's obvious that you can't see this, because you weren't around during the height of esports. The fact that you can't see that games can be sports is a dead giveaway as to how poorly you understand competitive gaming. games will never be sport as long as our technology can improve, that's just part of life. I've followed esport for a very long time, and played competitively in many titles. But thing is game WILL die and new one with different mechanics will replace it. current PC-monitor most popular title in the world? next year virtual reality goggle-based mmo replaces it. Next year? capsule machines. Just some extreme example sports never changes because there are constraints to what people can do physically, but there are limitless path technology and game mechanics can take. No games will ever become a true "sport", it will be very competitive and popular, then something else will come replace it. There isn't a tangible line that cuts casual gamers and hardcore gamers, people buy games that they like, and stick with it. Sports will die too at some point, because people change. They change a lot slower but still they change, Boxing will at some point be considered too cruel and die out.
I don't think you're even 10% right there. If boxing dies out, it's because it's generally seen as a less exciting sport compared to MMA. MMA is at least superficially more "cruel" than boxing - and MMA is gigantic right now and can only get bigger.. Add to that the obvious match fixing in the recent Pacquiao fight, and it makes sense that the sport might lose a lot of popularity, but I very much doubt human nature will ever change so substantially (barring some kind of technological/biomechanical singularity) that two people fighting will not be something people want to see. It's in out DNA.
|
On June 18 2012 09:40 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:36 SarcasmMonster wrote:
To be fair, one of the reasons for it is because the SC2 screen has twice the surface area of a BW screen. Twice is an exaggeration and the asymmetrical viewing window is another sc2 shortcoming, but don't get me started on that. =) Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 09:28 fer wrote:
Damn, I tried reading this thread, but I can see it's become just a place for bitter Brood War fans to come vent about how bad and a joke Starcraft 2 is because it's not Brood War. Apparently no arguments are needed, you can just call it bad, worthless, or whatever, and pretend it's a fact. This is specially amusing because you'd see any Starcraft 2 fan do the same trash talk about Brood War, and they'd meet a nice warning/ban. fer, I never called SC2 bad. Or worthless. Or a joke. I said it had fundamental flaws as a result of bad game design and stubbornness that could be easily remedied. Most top players who played BW would agree, it's just that they don't want to get on blizzard's bad side or negatively impact their career. I'm giving the same specific constructive criticism that the community has been giving for two years. It died down for a while, but now with the expansion we have another chance to positively impact the game. Thus, the discussion rises to the forefront again. I'm not bitter. I loved BW for a few years, but I have a family and a job and important things to do in life. But, I am passionate about Starcraft, I'm a designer, and I along with many others in the community see how it could be improved to be even better than it is currently and be a more long-term esport. I don't want esports to be several-year flings, I want a pseudo-permanent game that will last a decade or more. I don't care about esports if the games are as exciting as BW. Thus, my affection for SC2 is manifested in my passionate critique and specific suggestions as to how it can be more exciting to a broader audience and for us players and more hardcore fans as well. This is not unprecedented. In a matter of 2-3 months, Valve/Hidden Path have dramatically improved Counter-Strike:Global Offensive from where it was before. How did they do this? They listened to the pros, REALLY understood what made CS special to begin with, and began making necessary tweaks IMMEDIATELY. This isn't that hard. Blizzard could do the same, and hopefully Sigaty babysits Browder more in the expansions to make sure he doesn't screw SC2 up more.
I kept reading most of your replies, but quickly lost faith in you. You throw around your opinion on very subjective matters like it's fact, which just goes to further show that you simply want Starcraft 2 to become Starcraft Brood War. I'm sure this will be a surprise to you (though it really shouldn't) but a _ton_ of people love and enjoy Starcraft 2 just as it is today, regardless of Heart of the Swarm or future expansions. Arguably more people than Starcraft Brood War, and certainly exponentially more successful outside of South Korea.
I'm sorry but you keep pretending you're somehow looking out for the good of Starcraft 2 by trying to turn it into Brood War. Just accept it. More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes. Remove your blindfold for a second please.
The rest of this thread is pretty much the same story. I really hope none of the Blizzard developers read this thread and think absolutely anything of it, other than just another bunch of people stuck in the past.
Edit: Just for the record, I was not talking about you specifically on my previous posts, but replied to you directly since it seemed appropriate now.
|
Even though Sc2 is a good game compared to most RTS games, that's only because it's made from BW, sc2 is more fun to play to the less serious gamers but at high levels one would probably want to play BW again(For people that played BW of course. Alot of sc2 fans seem to be in the illusion that they think all the pros are really good and you can't do any better when it comes to micro, but that's all nonsense. Oooh he's attack with roaches, aaaah AMAZING fungal.
Sure MKP bio micro is impressive, but that's about it.
For a sequel of a great game made by a rich developer i really expect more.
Again sc2 is a good game, but not compared to it's prequel.
|
On June 18 2012 20:23 fer wrote:
More people think Starcraft 2 is a better game overall than Brood War, at least as far as wanting to spend the time to spectate it goes.
And how much of those people actually played BW? I get the impression you didnt either. You cant say something is better if you havent tried both things out right? That'd be just plain stupid right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
