|
On June 17 2012 05:07 AsymptoticClimax wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 03:27 Poplicola wrote:On June 17 2012 03:23 AsymptoticClimax wrote:
They've learned their mistake with the carrier. people need to stop reminiscing about BW realise that SC2 is a different game. with the current game I dont see many BW units making it through being viable anymore. as much as I liked the units or whatever i won't work. Yes, the carrier taught them a valuable lesson indeed: give up instantly without even trying. I never played bw for the record and alas do not have a nostalgic attachment to the bw carrier. I thought someone might say something like that. Originally the carrier was going to be cut out but because so many people requested it to stay and blizzard kept it in WoL even though it's role doesn't fit directly in WoL. I'd rather see blizzard try something original and take what the fans want with a pinch of minerals because those who speak out are usually the minority although we're seeing the tempest which seems a little funky and I love it. im zerg so we will see how long that statement holds true XD but for now it's cool.. It's different. and what we're seeing is Blizzard going 50/50 on the units and compromising with the fans to blizzards needs like the viper/swarmhost/oracle etc which im okay with. as long as they are designed for sc2 thats fine. unlike the carrier you see.
The Carrier is a bit of an interesting case.
On the one hand I do in fact understand where Browder is coming from with his comments about it in recent interviews, and I do have somewhat of a nostalgic attachment to it because of Brood War much more so than I do with units like the Vulture, Wraith, Scout, Corsair or Devourer that are also not in SC2 simply because it IS such an iconic unit.
But my opinion of why it isnt utilized more in SC2 has more to do with the fact that Stargate tech in GENERAL is underutilized for Protoss, and I think with the introduction of the Oracle and Tempest if the developers decided to leave the Carrier in, I feel it would mesh very well with the new stargate units as a sort of tanky air unit that has interceptors to draw fire away from the other units.
You could tweak it to even better fit that role as sort of an aerial tank.
I really feel with the Carrier that there is hope for the unit and I think one of the main reasons it's so underutilized is just a lack of options in the Stargate as it exists in WoL. Solving that problem like they already have in HOTS I feel is great progress towards making the Carrier relevant again.
|
On June 17 2012 04:46 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 04:44 fabiano wrote:On June 17 2012 04:32 mrtomjones 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. The devourer wasnt almost always a good idea to have in ZvT BW!? what the.... Do you even know what a devourer is? I think you mean some other unit. it's a troll, he is making fun of the BW elitists who think every unit has a use when in fact, the devourer had virtually no use, ever.
Devourer had it's use . It was one of the counters to the Corsairs/Carriers and BCs . Also in ZvZ it is was useful if the other player sticks to mutas for to long it was good at tanking damage and slowing the atack speed of the enemy flying units and it did decent damage . Devourers were used in the July vs Reach Gillete OSL finals and it is a valid counter to sair/reaver in to mass air protoss strategy . The only useless unit in BW was the scout which is only good againsts Carrier and BCs , but players almost never used them vs P . But depending on the map and circumstance they were still used as a tool to gain victory . Kal stoped ForGG's 2 factory push with scouts , also Bisu used scouts against Much 1 base carrier on Plasma .
Even Carrier has it's use in SC2 , but pros are still too inexperienced at using them . Carriers could still be good in late games vs zerg with combination with other units , also vs Terrans who goes mech . Mech is also one of the example of being underused but viable in all MUs . Just , because the pros don't use them now doesn't mean they are not viable .
In BW it took decades for a certain unit to find it's use . Like the queen - Ensnare is good against Bio just like fungal growth and spawn broodling is like the only efficient counter to late game terran mech .
SC2 players are so spoiled it's not even funny . Something is hard to use , they don't use it and stick to what it's easy and then when even that what it's easy becomes figured out they cry imbalance . When you cry imbalance Blizzard nerfs . Sometimes they are right sometimes they are wrong . When they are wrong the gameplay suffers from it . Dustin Browder will remove the carrier , but in HOTS when mech will become the standart vs P army i would rather have the carrier then the Tempest or voidray to counter it lategame .
|
The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
|
Zerg should get a burrowed reaver that would be sick
|
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
|
On June 17 2012 05:04 Mauldo wrote:
I swear. If they gave you BW elitists your units you wouldn't say "Now THIS is a great game!" you'd say "Lolol, lazy Blizzard just giving us BW with better graphics. Can't fool me." They can't fool you, and you can't fool us.
It'd certainly stop people from saying "I can't watch BW, the graphics are too ugly." at the least. That'd be something.
|
On June 17 2012 01:04 jalstar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 01:03 SimDawg wrote:On June 17 2012 01:00 jalstar wrote:
It's lose-lose for Blizzard. If they bring back exact copies they get flamed for lacking creativity. If they add new units they get flamed because there was nothing wrong with BW units, so why change them? Also Dustin Browder doesn't want to be compared to what might very well end up being a better game. He's worried about his job and his success as a developer. But yeah I think anyone who follows SC closely realizes more BW units is only good. I would love exact copies of BW units, but their review scores would tank. Even WoL was criticized by the mainstream for being too much like BW.
I was confused the first time I saw someone play Starcraft 2 and the game still started off with a single command center and a handful of workers that you had to set mining before any buildings could be built. I expected that they would have changed up the BW/W3 paradigm by now and made the first couple minutes of the game more interesting... but they didn't.
The problem isn't that they need to be copying BW units and they're not. The problem is they're designing units that aren't as good in design as the BW units were... but I've got enough confidence in Blizz for them to get to that point after two expansions
|
On June 17 2012 05:15 Noobity wrote:
The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
That locusts from the swarm host can hit AIR, that right there makes it different than the lurker imo completely. It can serve somewhat the role the lurker served in BW but hitting AIR is totally another dynamic that the lurker can't speak to.
|
@HeroMystic
I think the banshee could somewhat be in that category of high potential and game long usefulness unit with no specific counter. and with HoTS coming out The viper, swarm host and oracle seem to be the biggest units that are more general purpose. so I do think blizzard heading the right direction with units but then one could argue about the tempest and warhound :/
|
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote:
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
You'd fall flat on your face trying to get any old school players because you're making an entirely different game from SC at that point. Might as well stay away from the SC IP if you don't want to add onto it instead of reinventing it into something completely new. Browder might as well put in the better broodwar units and just do what's best for the game and not himself. In the end the units like the lurker added more to the game and made it play better, which is what matters most.
|
On June 17 2012 05:12 HeroMystic wrote:
I apologize for referencing Day9, but I think what a lot of posters are saying here is similar to what he said.
He made a comparison from SC2 to BW with throwing a Ball to throwing a Frisbee. With throwing a ball, you can throw underhand, overhand, curveball, fastball, etc, but in the end it's always going to go in one direction. However, there's a lot more you can do with a Frisbee.
SC2 as a whole feels like a game where it's more about a combination of units compared to BW, where it's about getting the most out of one or a small patch of units. The potential of the SC2 units are far less than the potential of the BW units. I'd say the only units that are exempt from this are the Marine, Stalker, and Infestor. Every other unit is "What you see, is what you get".
This is why I harped on the counter system that SC2 has, because SC2 has to rely on that. The Marauder and Colossus are the biggest culprits of this, while the Roach is to a lesser extent. It's also why Terrans are extremely annoyed with the Warhound, because it's seemingly a very specific unit with little potential.
I actually think most Terrans are upset because the Warhound is just another Marauder that can be built from the Factory. It's all around just too powerful and doesn't fulfill an individual niche at all.
As far as the BW vs. SC2 units go, just remember that the Battle-hellion is just another Firebat that can be built from the Factory, and the Widow Mine is just another Spider Mine that can be built from the Factory (without building Vultures first). The Arbiter is seen as one-half Mothership and one-half Oracle, the Lurker is seen in the Swarm Host and the Defiler is seen in the Viper, which makes the whole thing just feels like BW 2 with a few different abilities and animations thrown in.
|
I'm sorry, but if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I love this game, and it's great. <3
|
On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote:
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!).
Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
|
On June 17 2012 05:29 toiletCAT wrote:
I'm sorry, but if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I love this game, and it's great. <3
What if you like the game, but loved BW and want to love this game, but it's not quite good enough. Then what do you do?
BTW I'm talking about spectating. SC2 is great for me to play, but spectating is not the same as BW, not as exciting.
|
On June 17 2012 05:36 0neder wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 05:29 toiletCAT wrote:
I'm sorry, but if you don't like the game, then don't play it. I love this game, and it's great. <3 What if you like the game, but loved BW and want to love this game, but it's not quite good enough. Then what do you do? BTW I'm talking about spectating. SC2 is great for me to play, but spectating is not the same as BW, not as exciting.
You can't have everything, I'm afraid. If Blizzard won't approve of your idea of "a better StarCraft 2", then that's not how it's going to be.
StarCraft: "uhhh, yea, let's make an RTS that takes place in space, we have, uhh, three races, and, uhh, some units.. and, uh.. Yeah, it'll be cool." ===> "Okay, so, uhh, the game turned out pretty popular... so, uhh, I guess we have to balance it." ===> Brood War.
StarCraft 2: Dustin B.: "ALRIGHT U GUISE, WE GOTTA MAKE THE SEQUAL. ALRIGHT, WE'LL WRITE E-SPORTS ALL OVER IT. BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE A NEW ENGINE, CUZ IT'S 2010 GUYS. ALSO, MAYBE SOME NEW UNITS, YEAH? WE'LL SWAP OUT SOME OLD ONES AND MAYBE ADD THEM IN SOME EXPANSION SO WE CAN MAKE SOME EXTRA DOSH!!!!!!."
Oh, and MORE DOSH.
That's how I see it.
|
On June 17 2012 05:32 Spawkuring wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote:
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!). Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated.
true, but guaranteed that ice frog and valve add in new heroes that weren't in dota on WC3, GUARANTEED. Why? Because why not? They want people to buy the game, adding in new characters would give a better reason to buy the game. If I wanted a WC3 dota experience, I could just go play WC3 dota, or Hon, or LoL. What seperates Dota2 from the rest? you NEED to separate yourself and sometimes that means taking risks like adding in new characters or adding in new mechanics that people might not like. Valve might have the advantage for not having to change anything because... they are valve... and steam is the best platform by FAR, but I won't buy Dota2 if I can play LoL for free unless there is something really special about it.
The same thing can be applied to SC2, no one wants to play the same game twice, because that game already exists, people have been playing it for 10+ years. HotS is going to offer enough things that will make BW players happy but at the same time will be a completely different game and will make it worth buying.
Maybe new shiny things don't attract you to buy a game but for developers? Adding in new things is like the holy bible for creating video games, it's inevitable, unavoidable and frankly, a good thing.
|
It seems like the HotS preview has brought renewed vigor to those who enjoy bitching about SC2.
SC2 is a completely different game. I don't know where people have gotten the notion that a game's sequel must be in all respects like its predecessor.
|
On June 17 2012 05:15 Noobity wrote:
The units do similar functions but in different ways. For instance with the lurker/swarm host, the lurker does line aoe damage, kinda sieging in place, while the swarm host simply creates a new unit. This new unit can take hits and deal damage, increasing the overall survivability of the swarm host compared to the lurker, but also changing which situations it's useful for.
The lurker itself would be useful, sure, but is that line aoe something that zerg need? With the sheer number of units in the game at a time in big battles, would it be overpowered? Would it make fungal growth and banelings obsolete, or more niche than they already are?
BW units worked for BW because they were developed for that game around what was either already in place or what was intended to be put in place. In order to supplant them into the current SC2 model, changes to nearly everything else would need to be made in order to make them effective the same way they were in BW. SC2 is built around "terrible terrible damage" for instance, more units, faster play, more punishing for mistakes (in theory of course, I'm not going to respond to any "you're wrong, bw was more punishing, faster, blah blah"), would the lurker for instance make sense in a game where they could/would be focused down instantly by 50% more units at once than they were in BW?
I'm a Blizzard fanboy, and I have a degree for certain aspects of video game creation. With that in mind, I don't feel like it's a reluctance to add the units into the game, so much as not finding a spot for them in their game that wouldn't be a humongous hassle to balance. There is a reason they've created some of the best selling PC games of all time, and a reason that SC2 is played at such high levels with huge prize pools. Some of the posts in this thread insinuating that they don't know what they're doing or are lazy are incredibly far off the mark. If they were lazy they would have updated the visuals and game play aspects of BW and just gave it back to us as SC2. You'd have a niche of people who loved that, and you'd have people like me, in a niche who would be disappointed. Things need to grow to continue to be successful, and if that means removing the carrier and giving us the tempest, as long as the unit is relatively balanced then that's a completely fine change.
As an aside, I want to point out what a lot of people aren't getting; the Lurker didn't just do AoE damage/rip apart Marines. The Lurker gave very valuable map control by doing AoE damage while burrowed. I fear that the Swarm Host won't be able to do this. Their "attack" merely spawns a fairly slow, visible unit that can be insta-gibbed by a group of Marines, whereas three Lurkers could hold a ramp against a small group of Marines that were trying to come in and snipe a Hatchery.
It seems like the HotS preview has brought renewed vigor to those who enjoy bitching about SC2.
SC2 is a completely different game. I don't know where people have gotten the notion that a game's sequel must be in all respects like its predecessor.
We don't, and if you would read the thread, you might understand that.
|
On June 17 2012 05:43 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2012 05:32 Spawkuring wrote:On June 17 2012 05:19 HowardRoark wrote:
But Dustin did bring back lots of units; Marines, BCs, Zealots, Lings, Hydras, Ultras etc in WoL. If I were the head of development for HotS I would never bring back the old units. I would try to bring the game to a new level. And, I am glad Dustin et al. try to create something new. Even if they fail at it and it turns out the units are just bleak redesigned BW units, I would prefer they tried.
I personally disagree. There are plenty of other games, including other RTSs, I could play if I wanted something new. I came to Starcraft for Starcraft gameplay because BW has PROVEN itself to be the pinnacle of competitive e-sports gameplay for 10+ years. Just look at DotA2 for example. It's literally the same game as DotA1, only with more online features, yet it's rapidly becoming the most played game on Steam and is enjoying more and more eSports success (and it's still in beta!). Sometimes new isn't always the answer, especially since SC's gameplay was never outdated in the first place. There's a big difference between old and outdated. true, but guaranteed that ice frog and valve add in new heroes that weren't in dota on WC3, GUARANTEED. Why? Because why not? They want people to buy the game, adding in new characters would give a better reason to buy the game. If I wanted a WC3 dota experience, I could just go play WC3 dota, or Hon, or LoL. What seperates Dota2 from the rest? you NEED to separate yourself and sometimes that means taking risks like adding in new characters or adding in new mechanics that people might not like. The same thing can be applied to SC2, no one wants to play the same game twice, because that game already exists, people have been playing it for 10+ years. HotS is going to offer enough things that will make BW players happy but at the same time will be a completely different game and will make it worth buying. Maybe new shiny things don't attract you to buy a game but for developers? Adding in new things is like the holy bible for creating video games, it's inevitable, unavoidable and frankly, a good thing.
The problem is that you assume that 100% of the people buying the sequal are people who have all played the original and are tired of it. Those are two major, and both faulty, assumptions to make for a variety of reasons.
For one, 10 years is enough for there to be another whole new generation of gamers, most of whom have probably never played or even heard of Starcraft. Mario games have changed very little, yet are still very successful because the formula works, and it manages to attract enough new blood who have never tried the game before. Yes, people will get bored of the formula, but the incredibly high sales show that these people are in the minority, and companies shouldn't retool a successful franchise to cater to people who probably won't buy the game anyway since they're sick of the IP.
Dota2 for example never had a problem with lack of new content. Look at any Dota community, and they'll tell you that the problems with the game were due to engine limitations, not due to the gameplay being outdated. The game is still immensely popular in both western and eastern countries, especially China. Dota2 will be popular not due to adding new heroes, but because it will add the online features that players have always wished for, in addition to the game being free-to-play. It won't fail due to keeping the gameplay the same because I can guarantee you that the vast majority of people have never played a Dota game before, so it will be 100% new to them.
And besides, both the gaming and movie industries have proven a thousand times over that people are perfectly fine with sequels changing little from the original. There's a reason why most movies today are sequels/reimaginings, and why the most successful games are CoD sequels.
|
I think as a competitive player or a player of Brood War, you'll want BW back. As a player who just wants to "enjoy" SC2, you'll want new units.
That's how I see it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
