EPTAs for Starcraft 2 being dead in a few years. This game would've been very long forgotten and seen as a complete failure 6 months from launch if it wasn't for Brood War and it's long standing perception as "The Ultimate E-Sport."
Destiny on where he thinks SC2 is heading. - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Rumpus
United States136 Posts
As for Starcraft 2 being dead in a few years. This game would've been very long forgotten and seen as a complete failure 6 months from launch if it wasn't for Brood War and it's long standing perception as "The Ultimate E-Sport." | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:04 oBlade wrote: BW had a sandbox infrastructure. It did well when Blizzard was playing the role of a game developer. They just aren't suited to doing much else. Antihack was third party software. The competitive ladders were run by third parties because there wasn't a focus on controlling every aspect of the game. And specifically because there were third party servers and third party software, we could play with better latency. The mechanism for hosting games made sense and encouraged people to find the kinds of maps they wanted to play. Thus there is simultaneously competitive play and casual play. Peer to peer map distribution and an easy to use in-game social system meant you could meet people easy. I think emailing sponsors with nice things to say and assurances that we trust their brands is a fair way to curb the damage done by people who email sponsors with vitriol. I disagree with achievements. I think the flow has to come from the gameplay itself, which there is ample room to improve in expansions (although I won't hold my breath). If only because in BW you could quickly find the kind of maps you wanted to play whether you were at the top of a competitive ladder or a UMS player looking for Strip Sakura. I agree with everything you just said. Really good post. | ||
|
JonIrenicus
Italy602 Posts
| ||
|
oBlade
United States5499 Posts
| ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
| ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:03 Probe1 wrote: You're suggesting that all of his comments were pointed solely at battlenet but he makes points about the unforgiving difficulty of certain builds. =/= Your post is a contradiction. Viewers don't care about battle.net. Viewers watch streams. Would there be more if SC2 used the dota client? Probably. But would there suddenly be Dota2/LoL numbers if it were incorporated today? No. What I got from when he discussed those builds was that he implied the ladder system forced people to win, therefore causing people to commonly encounter those builds for a bad experience. And no, the amount viewers most definitely correlates to the amount of people actively playing/enjoying the game. LoL has its viewers predominantly because it has a huge player base. It has a huge player base because it is fun to play. | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
| ||
|
Animzor
Sweden2154 Posts
On October 17 2012 14:49 Kambing wrote: Well, someone has to make the maps. And unlike 5-10 years ago, SC2 needs to compete with the multitudes of other game development platforms out there for the developer's interests. Custom maps are a relic of the brood war era that you can't recreate in this day and age as is. Relatively easy monetary incentive the only big win that Blizzard can make for their system versus the others. The trouble is, it isn't what the map makers want. I bet most map makers just want someone to play their maps. Instead, the maps just sit there at the bottom of the popularity list and rot away. Plus, now that the vast majority of the people that bought SC2 at launch are gone, who the fuck is going to buy those maps? I sure as hell wont. | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:09 JonIrenicus wrote: I won't advise to a friend a bad game, because he is,as I said, a friend. If I gotta advise him a good game I will propose him to get dota. Yeah i don't see anything wrong with sharing your interests with others. Its just an issue when people are trying to preach that its somehow our responsibility when in the long run they are going to benefit from it in a whole different level. "Hey, work for us, grow my brand/business, no i don't wanna do the dirty work myself or pay someone" lol That is my rant. | ||
|
ssi.bal-listic
United States568 Posts
It's more than making the game casual IMO. Popular sports (or games you can say) are not EASY to play. Think of football or baseball or tennis. Just like how Starcraft requires a computer, football requires a field, bunch of equipments, AND a team. Same goes for baseball and tennis more or less. The key is to make the game more accessible but still leave a high skill ceiling. Basketball might be accessible in a lot of areas but it's not EASY. The average player can admire LeBron James but will never be able to become like Lebron 99.99% of the time. And competitive games ARE fun. I'm not saying easy going games are not fun but they both have their merits. But to say that competitive games are not fun is complete bullshit. Sure maybe for pro players (Lebron James for basketball) may not be fun as they have to practice hard. However, for most players competitive games are fun. Look at Street ball. This can be compared to custom games in starcraft. You can play regular full court games (melee games in starcraft) or if you want a change of pace, you can play stuff like HORSE (custom games in starcraft). I don't want to say it but Destiny is too in to LoL for a while that he doesn't find SC2 viable anymore. I can relate to him as I mainly play DoTA now. However, he is being way too pessimistic and one thing SC2 has over other communities is respect and maturity. P.S. Clapping in non close spawn positions is like booing when Naga ult was used for defensive purposes (TI2). It happens. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:09 larse wrote: Actually, people disagreed with Destiny's argument. Most people for the last 2 years have been saying that there are not enough hardcore features and too many casual features. People have been asking for clan, in-game tournament, more stats, more prominent ladder 1v1, and have been criticizing the "dumb-down" of arcade and rearrangement of the order of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 in the ladder screen. Now you are blaming Blizzard of not paying attention to casuals. Of course they don't. People didn't ask for casual features but all they have asked are hardcore features. Now you just changed? Even though I agree that casuals should be the focus rather than the hardcore, SC2's failture is the resulted from people's and the community's own fault that is the constant demand of more hardcore features and the constant blame of SC2's dumb-down features. People did ask for a better custom game and chatting system. Where have you been? Of course it doesn't help that ladder itself sucked, which was what the "hardcore" were complaining about | ||
|
Qwyn
United States2779 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:09 larse wrote: Actually, people disagreed with Destiny's argument. Most people for the last 2 years have been saying that there are not enough hardcore features and too many casual features. People have been asking for clan, in-game tournament, more stats, more prominent ladder 1v1, and have been criticizing the "dumb-down" of arcade and rearrangement of the order of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 in the ladder screen. Now you are blaming Blizzard of not paying attention to casuals. Of course they don't. People didn't ask for casual features but all they have asked are hardcore features. Now you just changed? Even though I agree that casuals should be the focus rather than the hardcore, SC2's failture is the resulted from people's and the community's own fault that is the constant demand of more hardcore features and the constant blame of SC2's dumb-down features. I think you can simultaneously make a game that is open to the casual gamer with all the features that he/she would desire, while also simutaneously creating a melee platform that is challenging and provides a high level of difficulty for even the best players. The issue is that Blizzard's focus has mutated towards this direction where they no longer cater to what the pro-scene really wants, and they are also really fucking up on the casual features that will make sure they retain a playerbase for HOTS and LOTV/beyond. It's in their best interest to do both of these things.... Casual does not mean easy....What Destiny wants is for the game to be accessible to casuals - to give them a REASON to keep playing a game that has, so far, been outclassed by other platforms on the market. Right now, unless you are a high level player, there's no real reason to keep playing SCII. There's no connectivity. There's no sense of community...etc. And I look at the new units and features for HOTS and all I see is Blizzard sidestepping crucial features that any competitive game NEEDS, let alone features that are good for both the casual and competitive playerbase. | ||
|
ander
Canada403 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:04 oBlade wrote: BW had a sandbox infrastructure. It did well when Blizzard was playing the role of a game developer. They just aren't suited to doing much else. Antihack was third party software. The competitive ladders were run by third parties because there wasn't a focus on controlling every aspect of the game. And specifically because there were third party servers and third party software, we could play with better latency. The mechanism for hosting games made sense and encouraged people to find the kinds of maps they wanted to play. Thus there is simultaneously competitive play and casual play. Peer to peer map distribution and an easy to use in-game social system meant you could meet people easy. I think emailing sponsors with nice things to say and assurances that we trust their brands is a fair way to curb the damage done by people who email sponsors with vitriol. I disagree with achievements. I think the flow has to come from the gameplay itself, which there is ample room to improve in expansions (although I won't hold my breath). If only because in BW you could quickly find the kind of maps you wanted to play whether you were at the top of a competitive ladder or a UMS player looking for Strip Sakura. So much this. It's just like anything; game development and e-sports marketing are completely different things, and the fact that Blizzard is trying to pursue both speaks for itself. Of course they're going to do a bad job. They need to focus on making the game itself as good as it can be. Any more than that is poking their ass into business that isn't theirs. | ||
|
Rorra
Australia1066 Posts
| ||
|
Animzor
Sweden2154 Posts
On October 17 2012 14:54 Gator wrote: i've played starcraft since i was 10 years old, put about 3000 games into sc2, and been in the HOTS beta since week 2. But here's the kicker, I don't think I'm going to buy HOTS. Sc2 has stagnated so hard, both from gameplay point of view and as a spectator. HOTS seems like just another WoL patch. Starcraft is not as fun as it was a year ago, and my interest in the scene decreases all the time. Same for me. The days when one could buy a Blizzard game purely on the basis that it was a Blizzard game are over. The Blizzard brand is no longer a mark of quality. | ||
|
peekn
United States1152 Posts
This isn't a console game!!! Don't build it like one!!! | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:09 larse wrote: Actually, people disagreed with Destiny's argument. Most people for the last 2 years have been saying that there are not enough hardcore features and too many casual features. People have been asking for clan, in-game tournament, more stats, more prominent ladder 1v1, and have been criticizing the "dumb-down" of arcade and rearrangement of the order of 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 in the ladder screen. Now you are blaming Blizzard of not paying attention to casuals. Of course they don't. People didn't ask for casual features but all they have asked are hardcore features. Now you just changed? Even though I agree that casuals should be the focus rather than the hardcore, SC2's failture is the resulted from people's and the community's own fault that is the constant demand of more hardcore features and the constant blame of SC2's dumb-down features. I think you missed the part where the "loudest things that we want fixed" doesn't mean there are not "other things we need fixed also". People want many things. Most of the things people have been complaining about for a long time should have been in the game before it was even released. To say we want more isn't greedy, it's honesty from the players if you want to have a successful game. Don't try to rationalize why they have not been paying people to constantly engineer this game further. It was left in the dust and they're saying "oh no, we'll get to that, just give us some time. Right?" How many times do you hear that rhetorical statement ("Right?") in balance talks, or interviews with the blizzard employees we know? It's bad and should be called out. | ||
|
Nightmarjoo
United States3360 Posts
There are so many problems with the game (including bnet) that were present in beta. They spent so much time promoting and ostensibly working on patch 1.5 that was sposed to finally fix some of those problems, and it accomplished nothing. What the fuck is blizzard doing? | ||
|
ChApFoU
France2982 Posts
Or maybe we should just accept once and for all that Broodwar was a "once in a lifetime" game that will hardly be surpassed. Sure LoL is sucessful in terms of players and viewership, but would we be passionate about a 5v5, 60apm required game ? | ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1740 Posts
On October 17 2012 15:19 Nightmarjoo wrote: The game is only fun because of the community/proscene. If that goes elsewhere (to another, more fun game), there will be no reason to keep playing the game. There are so many problems with the game (including bnet) that were present in beta. They spent so much time promoting and ostensibly working on patch 1.5 that was sposed to finally fix some of those problems, and it accomplished nothing. What the fuck is blizzard doing? Researching different types of rocks. | ||
| ||
