On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
Nah the whole notion is that the generations are getting lazier and lazier and dumber so gamer companies cut out all the work for them. All these years later, people still praised CS but many say that the CoD series is an abomination to the FPS genre.
They are not really outdated, it just takes less skills to maneuver games.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
Now here is just a few reason why lurkers won't work in sc2. bio clumping, current zerg designs, speedlings. If you don't control zerg's economy, then they will explode and you will lose as terran. If lurker is implemented, they slap that on their ramp and you're done.
sc2 playing against zerg is playing against time. This is the main reason why zerg will not get too powerful aoe defending siege units
They have already tested lurkers back in beta. Few lucky ones have been invited and tried them out. Unless they plan to redo zerg race, lurkers just isn't going to work.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
Reading this thread has made me fundamentaly curious in a couple of aspects, where some simple experiments could shed some light not only on Heart of the Swarm design but also how well designed Brood War units actually are:
1. Lets play Brood War, with Starcraft 2 mechanics. Yes, lets ruin the old game by giving it unlimted unit and building select, perfect pathing, and smart workers. Now what happens? The point is no one knows!! Who wants to bet that suddenly the famous game of Brood War suddenly falls apart? (All of us)
2. Lets play Starcraft 2, with Broodwar Restrictions. My god, Bio balls suck, banelings are stupid, and Blink Stalkers are OP. Oh wait, I have no idea.
The point I'm trying to make here, is each of the units in each game, work because of the enviorment that they are placed in. Trying to argue wether the Lurker or the Swarm Host will be better in a game neither of us have played is pointless.
Its no diffrent then arguing how much Starcraft 2 would change with Brood-War restrictions, or vica versa.
However, tweaking units that exist in the game already, that does have merit. Ask this question, which units in Starcraft 2 stand out as deisgned poorly? (Roach/Collosus for sure) How can we fix these key units? (Now look at BW for inspiration) How could the current Swarm Host be tweaked to work, even from this theorycraft distance? How would the Roach have to be changed to be 1 supply without making it a Hydra? Could we give the Collossus an Attack the Ground option?
On July 15 2012 14:30 Kajarn wrote: Reading this thread has made me fundamentaly curious in a couple of aspects, where some simple experiments could shed some light not only on Heart of the Swarm design but also how well designed Brood War units actually are:
1. Lets play Brood War, with Starcraft 2 mechanics. Yes, lets ruin the old game by giving it unlimted unit and building select, perfect pathing, and smart workers. Now what happens? The point is no one knows!! Who wants to bet that suddenly the famous game of Brood War suddenly falls apart? (All of us)
2. Lets play Starcraft 2, with Broodwar Restrictions. My god, Bio balls suck, banelings are stupid, and Blink Stalkers are OP. Oh wait, I have no idea.
The point I'm trying to make here, is each of the units in each game, work because of the enviorment that they are placed in. Trying to argue wether the Lurker or the Swarm Host will be better in a game neither of us have played is pointless.
Its no diffrent then arguing how much Starcraft 2 would change with Brood-War restrictions, or vica versa.
However, tweaking units that exist in the game already, that does have merit. Ask this question, which units in Starcraft 2 stand out as deisgned poorly? (Roach/Collosus for sure) How can we fix these key units? (Now look at BW for inspiration) How could the current Swarm Host be tweaked to work, even from this theorycraft distance? How would the Roach have to be changed to be 1 supply without making it a Hydra? Could we give the Collossus an Attack the Ground option?
It has already been tested out in maverick starcraft 2 broodwar mod . Results are not really interesting at all since the game isn't the same any more when you put unlimited selectable units and mbs in broodwar . I like the feeling that I won because of my macro and strategy that was superior than my other opponent rather than knowing that macro wasn't a factor and deathball is the safest way to win every game .
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
*cough cough* piracy *cough cough*
Also copies sold != value of gameplay. League of Legends was recently declared the most played PC game in the world, yet there are compelling arguments that DotA has better mechanics and gameplay, at least as far as the competitive scene is concerned. + Show Spoiler [disclaimer for fanboys] +
they're different games. Which one is better is a matter of personal preference
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
*cough cough* piracy *cough cough*
Also copies sold != value of gameplay. League of Legends was recently declared the most played PC game in the world, yet there are compelling arguments that DotA has better mechanics and gameplay, at least as far as the competitive scene is concerned. + Show Spoiler [disclaimer for fanboys] +
they're different games. Which one is better is a matter of personal preference
I'm not saying which is better, just stating how perception of games and designs have changed. generally speaking, you need to have alot of userbase in the first place in order to have a big competitive scene. Counterstrike back then had both: big scene and playerbase. Now it has neither
It could easily change, perhaps as ppl gets better and invest more time into gaming, there'll be a shift toward more competitive playstyle and smaller teams, though said games will most likely deviate greatly from counter strike itself
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
*cough cough* piracy *cough cough*
Also copies sold != value of gameplay. League of Legends was recently declared the most played PC game in the world, yet there are compelling arguments that DotA has better mechanics and gameplay, at least as far as the competitive scene is concerned. + Show Spoiler [disclaimer for fanboys] +
they're different games. Which one is better is a matter of personal preference
I'm not saying which is better, just stating how perception of games and designs have changed. generally speaking, you need to have alot of userbase in the first place in order to have a big competitive scene. Counterstrike back then had both: big scene and playerbase. Now it has neither
It could easily change, perhaps as ppl gets better and invest more time into gaming, there'll be a shift toward more competitive playstyle and smaller teams, though said games will most likely deviate greatly from counter strike itself
Halo and a bunch of other crap had MLG for a few years and died. That's where casual crap gets you in the esport world.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
*cough cough* piracy *cough cough*
Also copies sold != value of gameplay. League of Legends was recently declared the most played PC game in the world, yet there are compelling arguments that DotA has better mechanics and gameplay, at least as far as the competitive scene is concerned. + Show Spoiler [disclaimer for fanboys] +
they're different games. Which one is better is a matter of personal preference
I'm not saying which is better, just stating how perception of games and designs have changed. generally speaking, you need to have alot of userbase in the first place in order to have a big competitive scene. Counterstrike back then had both: big scene and playerbase. Now it has neither
It could easily change, perhaps as ppl gets better and invest more time into gaming, there'll be a shift toward more competitive playstyle and smaller teams, though said games will most likely deviate greatly from counter strike itself
Halo and a bunch of other crap had MLG for a few years and died. That's where casual crap gets you in the esport world.
Halo help raised MLG to what it is today. And it certainly isn't "casualcrap" (if it even fits that standard) until Halo 3 releases. Its playerbase had also extremely diminished for many years past.
LoL is casualcrap, look at how it is doing right now. In general, you won't have a big competitive scene without a big base, nothing will change this. One of the main reason broodwar died is because lack of new players over the last 4 or 5 years, a diminishing playerbase simply won't stand in the esport scene
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged.
The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2.
The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout. Scout: 150/100 Phoenix: 120/60
All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice.
lolololololololol SCOUTS? seriously scouts?
I'm not arguing in favor of either side, but has it seriously got to the point where people are so blindly biased towards BW over SC2 that they're arguing that scouts are a good unit and are better than what's in SC2 right now?
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
money speaks louder than words
Valve may not have earned as much as the CoD devs but I will assure you that there are FAR more people having a copy of CS laying around than CoD. Think sneaky.
that's just technically not possible. 70+ milllions copies sold > 27 million copies. If you want to talk about amount earned, CoD way surpassed that given they charge a $60 pricing + annoying DLC releases
*cough cough* piracy *cough cough*
Also copies sold != value of gameplay. League of Legends was recently declared the most played PC game in the world, yet there are compelling arguments that DotA has better mechanics and gameplay, at least as far as the competitive scene is concerned. + Show Spoiler [disclaimer for fanboys] +
they're different games. Which one is better is a matter of personal preference
I'm not saying which is better, just stating how perception of games and designs have changed. generally speaking, you need to have alot of userbase in the first place in order to have a big competitive scene. Counterstrike back then had both: big scene and playerbase. Now it has neither
It could easily change, perhaps as ppl gets better and invest more time into gaming, there'll be a shift toward more competitive playstyle and smaller teams, though said games will most likely deviate greatly from counter strike itself
Halo and a bunch of other crap had MLG for a few years and died. That's where casual crap gets you in the esport world.
pretty much this. the result of big companies like actiblizz designing games purely for the casual crowd is they have no longevity. this may be bad for the customers it is good for the company because they can continue to release new casual games with no long term appeal without worrying about people still being stuck on their older games.
sc2 is a big victim of this and its why it doesnt have the same longterm appeal as bw. really barrin in his breadth of gameplay post really hit the bullseye when he discussed terrible terrible damage:
"What I dislike is how the way they used it fundamentally reduces the complexity of SC in a profound way. To me and many others (whether they're aware of it or not), it is less intellectually satisfying. The replayability/longevity of SC2 is severely hampered by it for us. I really don't want to offend anyone here, but quite literally Blizzard is catering to casual players at the expense of competitive/intellectual/hardcore players; essentially for the sake of making money and not for love of the game. Personally, I am really not cool with this."
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged.
The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2.
The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout. Scout: 150/100 Phoenix: 120/60
All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice.
lolololololololol SCOUTS? seriously scouts?
I'm not arguing in favor of either side, but has it seriously got to the point where people are so blindly biased towards BW over SC2 that they're arguing that scouts are a good unit and are better than what's in SC2 right now?
WHAT. SCOUTS? RUSRS? Goddamnit I like BW better than SC2 but the only way Scouts will be viable is if it has its speed upgrade already in it right from the start and has a range and sight range upgrade instead.
On July 15 2012 04:55 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: if the swarm host were a BW unit, i would imagine most of the people in this thread would prefer the swarm host.
Your assumption is that people prefer BW units just for the sake of nostalgia? Then why isn't anyone clamoring for the return of the scout, devourer, or science vessel?
Science Vessels are just a different version of the Raven with one better (Irradiate) and one worse spell (Defensive Matrix), so effectively nothing changed. Especially Irradiate is much better than Seeker Missile, because it will damage one target to the full extent and others around it at least a little, whereas Seeker Missile can be fully dodged.
The Devourer is an awesome unit and much more stylish than the Corruptor, but since the Corruptor works well enough no one is asking for this one. It is morphed from a Mutalisk and thus the "end part of the chain" instead of the start, which forces you to decide between anti-air or anti-ground with your morph. That would be a better system than the current "I have Broodlords and some automatic anti-air in the form of spare Corruptors" way of SC2.
The Scout is better than Void Ray and Phoenix after you upgrade speed and - even though it is considered weak - has its uses as a harrassing unit and as a ... scout. Scout: 150/100 Phoenix: 120/60
All three of these BW units are much better in their design than their SC2 counterparts IMO and its the same for the Lurker and the current implementation of the Swarm Host. Why Blizzard "had to" do something so radically different for almost every unit is beyond me and just a few new units in addition to most of the old ones would have been a wiser choice.
lolololololololol SCOUTS? seriously scouts?
I'm not arguing in favor of either side, but has it seriously got to the point where people are so blindly biased towards BW over SC2 that they're arguing that scouts are a good unit and are better than what's in SC2 right now?
The Void Ray takes ages to charge up until it finally deals damage and due to this concept it had to be nerfed down because it was dealing too much damage once upon a time. The Phoenix is an interesting concept, but its physical weakness and reliance on energy - in a game which has very very few useable air units (except the armored late-game Zerg units) - really makes it terrible. Thus I would much prefer a durable air unit which can deal its max damage from the start against air and ground. I am not saying the Scout is more powerful, just that the "wonky SC2 design concepts" cause problems for those units which the predecessor unit didnt have.
The damage output in SC2 has increased due to the simple fact that ground units move in a much tighter formation and thus the reduced hit points and shields of the Phoenix are doubly bad for its survivability. This again is a weakness of design coming from the SC2-not-unit-specific-design and is not pure BW-fanboyism supported by zero fact. The ground tight formations are one reason why you dont see large numbers of air units; they simply die too easily and arent fast enough to micro against those ground units anyways.
On July 15 2012 13:49 iky43210 wrote: 2) 10 years ago only the nerdiest of nerds have access to computers, let alone computer games. 2 million sold for PC games would've put the title as one of the most selling titles. Now? that's just dime in a dozen with multiple titles reaching in the 20s million department. Influex of more "casual" and wider PC accessibility have changed what people want from games. For instance, nobody wants to play a game with incredibly high level of entry. Sc2 is already cutting this part too deep, while a rehash broodwar release would've just not stand up to today's standard with weak UI, no MBS, units limitation and so on.
Its also the main reason RTS went from the go-to genre to a niche. "Casual" playerbase prefers low entry level with decent/high potential games, and somewhat sociable games. This is why MMO/fps/ARTS are the popular genre to go today
I'm talking about game design. This thread is about game/unit design. What about the fundamental game design of BW is dated? The answer is nothing. Therefore a great unit from the predecessor is in no way 'outdated,' as it could be inserted into the new game with new graphics, new animations, etc.
I already answered you. I could go into details, but I see no reason to. No game designs are perfect, especially one from 10 years ago.
Many people tout CS as the perfect FPS game. Simple, elegant, and have incredible high skill cap. Yet it simply don't stand up to games like CoD or battlefield 3. The wait time, zero progression, and linear pathing is out of date for FPS games just like no MBS, units limitation, weak engine pathing, and no rally are out of date for RTS.
And in relation, unit interaction for BW is built upon those limitations/designs. Hence they won't work in sc2
But you're wrong in both regards. CS is still far more competitive and far more watched than any of the games you listed, even with those games' designers pouring money into trying to make them competitive. The reason it doesn't stand up to current games are technical limitations (graphics, glitchiness, etc.) that could easily be smoothed out while keeping the core game-play. It has nothing to do with the game-play not keeping up.
You still haven't provided a decent argument for what limitations would prevent the lurker from working in sc2, and even less on how the swarm host would be better.
competitive CS had been dead for a long time. Lets put it into perspective, entire CS franchise sold a total of 27 million copies after 10 years or so history, while ANY cod title hits that amount with preorders.
This is so untrue it made me upset.
Call of Duty MW3 Preorders for Xbox360, PC, and all other consoles: NEW WORLD RECORD: 3,454,020
Half-Life/CSS Franchise: "33 million games sold in stores"
On July 15 2012 02:28 iky43210 wrote: ah yes the sc2 is a bubble argument. Weren't people touting this 2 years ago?
Bubbles don't certainly last this long, especially for video games where new shiny things come out every other month. If there is a bubble, it would have bursted already
You don't get it. Blizzard have monopolized the RTS market. They are allowed to do anything until someone else makes a great one. Until then, you can enjoy your 'good' game. Oh learn your history, people WEREN'T saying this 2 years ago. They are only starting to say it at recent time.
On July 14 2012 17:41 Xiphos wrote: Honestly, I strongly doubt that Blizzard actually listens to their SC2 customers.
Even if they do, we would have to wait couple of years to see any drastic changes from their part.
Lol y`know what`s the funniest? The game isn't even completed yet. So this whole esport fiasco is really based on their elongation of their product expansions.
Do you really call SC2 an e-sports fiasco??
Blizzard does listen to customers, by the way, but they (of course) have to weight opinions.
Correction: Blizzard does listen to their WoW customers because that their source of income.
See when HotS or LotV comes out, the playing field have been reset. players start all the way at square one therefore every expansions is really a bubble that Blizzard can burst at anytime.
"Oh yeah you were the best player in (insert name here), too bad man."
I don't really get what you are trying to say, nor do I think that WoW factors into SC2 as an e-sports.
Posting a Youtube video which suggests the other one doesn't really look isn't a good reply I guess. If you have a clear argument how WoW ruins SC2 esports, you should be able to bring it forward.
On July 15 2012 02:28 iky43210 wrote: ah yes the sc2 is a bubble argument. Weren't people touting this 2 years ago?
Bubbles don't certainly last this long, especially for video games where new shiny things come out every other month. If there is a bubble, it would have bursted already
You don't get it. Blizzard have monopolized the RTS market. They are allowed to do anything until someone else makes a great one. Until then, you can enjoy your 'good' game. Oh learn your history, people WEREN'T saying this 2 years ago. They are only starting to say it at recent time.
On July 15 2012 02:24 [F_]aths wrote:
On July 15 2012 02:22 Xiphos wrote:
On July 15 2012 02:11 [F_]aths wrote:
On July 14 2012 17:41 Xiphos wrote: Honestly, I strongly doubt that Blizzard actually listens to their SC2 customers.
Even if they do, we would have to wait couple of years to see any drastic changes from their part.
Lol y`know what`s the funniest? The game isn't even completed yet. So this whole esport fiasco is really based on their elongation of their product expansions.
Do you really call SC2 an e-sports fiasco??
Blizzard does listen to customers, by the way, but they (of course) have to weight opinions.
Correction: Blizzard does listen to their WoW customers because that their source of income.
See when HotS or LotV comes out, the playing field have been reset. players start all the way at square one therefore every expansions is really a bubble that Blizzard can burst at anytime.
"Oh yeah you were the best player in (insert name here), too bad man."
I don't really get what you are trying to say, nor do I think that WoW factors into SC2 as an e-sports.
Posting a Youtube video which suggests the other one doesn't really look isn't a good reply I guess. If you have a clear argument how WoW ruins SC2 esports, you should be able to bring it forward.
Lol, connects the dot yourself. Especially when its so very much close to each other.
EPT
