|
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
Take DotA 2. If someone thinks that playing and watching DotA 2 is boring, they won't play and they won't watch. No big deal there. Valve might worry if lots of people are saying the game is boring, because it's their game. Other individuals who, for business reasons or because they want to see the esports scene develop, might worry for similar reasons. And then people who already enjoy the game might be sad because they enjoy the game and don't like seeing people speak negatively about it.
But SC2 is different. SC2 came in explicitly to replace BW (it's in the name, after all). And this bizarre dynamic has created a sort of bond between the two games that still holds a lot of sway over interested parties. Specifically, it makes it harder for people who don't enjoy SC2 to go back to BW---it feels like the old game isn't really there anymore. And in some ways, this is true---the Korean BW scene is much smaller now, the numbers for non-Korean players are low too, the exposure to viewers is minimal. But in other ways, it is not true. The game is still accessible; there is still a community that follows and supports it; and there is still a desire for the kind of competition that the game offers.
As far as I know, there are, believe it or not, people who do love playing SC2. Maybe they love it for reasons that are not the same as why BW players love BW. Maybe more people would love them both if we stopped trying to frame the one in terms of the other and just let them flourish in their own right. But ultimately, complaining that SC2 is boring doesn't seem to work. Going back to BW is extremely difficult, but for some maybe it's actually the best choice. For others, it may make sense to stop trying to enjoy SC2 in the ways people enjoy BW and start trying to emphasize what really makes the game interesting in its own right.
|
On September 23 2013 01:38 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 22:24 SnuggleZhenya wrote:
I think some people also overestimate just how popular RTS is to begin with. Although SC2 stormed out of the gate, in a large part because its release coincided with the rise of streaming, the genre in general has never been extraordinarily popular. Custom maps have always been more popular than the actual games in Brood War, Warcraft 3, etc. It is no surprise that games based on one of those custom maps are more popular.
If I had to guess, even if SC2 solved all the problems with game diversity (which I myself even brought up, so I acknowledge a bit of hypocrisy here), balance, interesting games, etc, then it still would not jump up drastically in popularity. Granted, it is a problem when even the hardcore fans are starting to grow tired of watching, but I don't think any RTS is going to be able to challenge some of the other more popular eSports just because the genre has always been the most niche of the major genres. I don't believe SC2 is having problems because RTS genre is in crisis, this is theory doesn't have ground to stand on. There are several examples a good game can sustain itself no matter what: 1. Dota 2 is in a harsh competition with LoL. But they don't try to be LoL, they do everything in own way and satisfy own player base. Eventhough they have less viewers/players, they're always growing and look very solid. Heroes of newerth is basically dead, eventhough its MOBA game. My assumption, HoN is just inferior game. 2. WC3 had a very solid scene, not a big one, but it had own fans and delivered epic games. It died because all players and sponsors straight up moved to SC2 believing thats gonna be the biggest esport fish in the world. So much money is being poured into SC2 and it barely manages to get minimum viewership. And epic games happen in 1 out of 100 games. Others being completely similar to each other. All in all SC2 needs to improve its gameplay, and by improving I don't mean balance. Units, buildings, ecomomics.... all need major overhaul. Edit: And also, no personal offense, but I think DK needs to step down from the role of senior multiplayer designer and give it to someone fresh, who has better shot.
HoN is really not the "inferior" game, not in terms of game itself anyway. Out of the three major ARTS games, HoN is by far the best. LoL is very casual and a lot of more "serious" players don't like the graphics or the champions or what have you. Dota 2 is pretty much an exact replica of Dota 1 with better graphics. They even included the limitations that were brought on by the WC3 engine.
HoN however started out as a Dota clone and went on to do their own thing, they made many decisions that modified the game play and most of all they brought a game with an amazing engine and very reduced RNG. HoN and LoL were both made by indie companies, but LoL prevailed because it was f2p from the get-go and knew exactly what it wanted to be, whereas HoN has had an awkward time and just took too long to find its identity. Too many mistakes were made by S2 and even though the game itself is amazing, it wasn't enough. Besides, S2 was never going to match up to Valve, it was just never going to happen.
Truth be told, if you take Dota 2 and remove the Valve stamp along with Steam, you probably have a game that won't attract that many people. At least nowhere near as many as now.
ARTS games are the proof that RTS games can be successful today, even though they are only a derived product of the main genre. I truly believe that making a RTS game that would include more mechanics similar to Dota and WC3 (heroes and what have you) would be a very successful endeavor (O mythical WC4, I'm looking at you).
|
On September 23 2013 01:46 Smackzilla wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 01:17 DemigodcelpH wrote:On September 23 2013 01:09 Smackzilla wrote:
What's the problem: Broodwar fans who think that the answer can be found by looking backwards
Look, SC2 needs success in the west with western casuals. BW-era chat or bad pathing making for demanding mechanics isn't what SC2 needs. How hard it is going up a ramp didn't have mass appeal in the west then and it won't now. I'm even skeptical that if a pretty BW was released for the first time in Korea today or even 2010 that it would have had its earlier success given the current competition - especially if people actually had to pay for it.
Whatever grows SC2 will have little to do with what appealed to hardcore BW fans. And this speculation is based on what? On the contrary, though what you're saying is speculation, the reverse of it (SC2 fans who know nothing about history) is equally as bad for the series if how SC2 turned out (terrible terrible damage, less diversity, the state of the protoss in SC2, steroided super economics that are redundant beyond 3 mining bases) in the hands of people without a BW history (Browder and a brand new team) is anything to go by. Speculation? First, its clear that BW was never a big esport in the west. SC2 was orders of magnitude more successful than BW as a western esport. The west went with shooters and even War3. Second, its just common sense that a casual player can't appreciate the skill it takes to overcome the glitches and bad UI of BW. If those skills aren't immediately obvious to casuals, then how would that improve SC2's mass appeal? Do you really mean to tell me that SC2 has been surpassed by LoL (and probably DoTA2) because it has easier mechanics than BW? You *add* to the conversation: high damage, diversity, powerful econ, etc. I'll ask you the same question to those: Are they the reason why SC2 has fallen off since late 2011/early 2012? Diversity is the only one that holds water in my opinion, but #1 that wasn't in the OP and #2 its not like BW *owns* diversity and we need BW to tell us "hey, seeing more builds makes things more entertaining.
Neither would SC2 be big in the west if Blizzard didn't inject a shitload of money into the western scene. BW scene was build from the ground up. Granted, in comparison to SC2, BW didn't gain that high level of attraction in the west, however, there are only a few title that sold more than SC1 beside Korea, which still make the game very much popular, albeit not the apex predator that it was in S.Korea. Beside there are many people interested in CoD series but does that make CoD to be more competitive than BW? No, it does not.
I do believe that the comparison of SC2 and BW can be summed up with the argument of Marijuana vs Crack. Yes pot is great and all for recreational purposes and while a tons of people tries it but it can't simply compare to its harder, more intense cousin. BW is simply a higher-octane version of SC2, you have to be more psychological prepared for it. Only a few can handle it.
On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
Take DotA 2. If someone thinks that playing and watching DotA 2 is boring, they won't play and they won't watch. No big deal there. Valve might worry if lots of people are saying the game is boring, because it's their game. Other individuals who, for business reasons or because they want to see the esports scene develop, might worry for similar reasons. And then people who already enjoy the game might be sad because they enjoy the game and don't like seeing people speak negatively about it.
But SC2 is different. SC2 came in explicitly to replace BW (it's in the name, after all). And this bizarre dynamic has created a sort of bond between the two games that still holds a lot of sway over interested parties. Specifically, it makes it harder for people who don't enjoy SC2 to go back to BW---it feels like the old game isn't really there anymore. And in some ways, this is true---the Korean BW scene is much smaller now, the numbers for non-Korean players are low too, the exposure to viewers is minimal. But in other ways, it is not true. The game is still accessible; there is still a community that follows and supports it; and there is still a desire for the kind of competition that the game offers.
As far as I know, there are, believe it or not, people who do love playing SC2. Maybe they love it for reasons that are not the same as why BW players love BW. Maybe more people would love them both if we stopped trying to frame the one in terms of the other and just let them flourish in their own right. But ultimately, complaining that SC2 is boring doesn't seem to work. Going back to BW is extremely difficult, but for some maybe it's actually the best choice. For others, it may make sense to stop trying to enjoy SC2 in the ways people enjoy BW and start trying to emphasize what really makes the game interesting in its own right.
Problem being that Blizzard's demand in the lawsuit vs Kespa is for them to "successfully switch to SC2" and with the whole TVing OSL fiasco with Blizz employee explicitly stating that "Yeah thanks Kespa for introducing esport but now its time to switch M'kay?" Thus leaving BW fans with no where to go. With everything being said, BW was still stronger than SC2 in term of popularity so there was no reason to even commence the switch in the first. Then if you look at the context and circumstance, you would comprehend the antipathy toward the game. W/o SC2, the scene would still have persisted instead of being force fed. And there are many aspect of BW that fans loved in which SC2 simply do not possess, therefore furthering the rage. Fans would understand that if you were to replace the game with a superior product, however I do not believe that this is the case at hand.
|
On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
That is a misconception, because there are things in the general game design which are the cause of many limitations and problems for the unit design in SC2. If you are just a blind "BW hater" or simply dont see the flaws of SC2 is your choice, but there are several things which are seriously rotten at the core of SC2 ...
At the core is the unit density and the super easy unit control which people usually see as an improvement over BW, but which actually has increased the "army dps" to insane amounts which then gives a super decisive victory to the player who has a better start to the engagement with no chance of the "initial loser" to come back most of the time. In BW no battle is over as quickly as it is in SC2 - due to the much lower army dps because of the MUCH lower unit density - which limits the chances for microing and thus direct control over the outcome.
I guess its time to bring up the usual "Stalker vs Marine(s)" example again for your benefit to explain why there needs to be a limit to unit density compared to the automatically maximized density in SC2:
+ Show Spoiler +- Stalker and Marine have roughly the same dps.
- You get roughly three Marines for each Stalker (resourcewise).
- You can stack Marines MUCH tighter than Stalkers due to the model size.
- One Stalker against three Marines is balanced quite well, because the Stalker can run away and recharge some shields and then take a shot again. Moving is the key and the only way for the Marines to win is to outmaneuver the Stalker and get him into a corner.
- Soooo ... the big question is: What happens when you put 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines? The clump of Marines has a higher "dps per area" and thus should be able to kill Stalkers far easier, because the "clump dps" gets so high that there is no more chance to run away and recharge shields. The army dps is simply too high and this is the fault of the "improvements" made in SC2 ... a clear flaw of the core game design.
The incredibly high army density can be achieved because every race got economic speed boosts AND production speed boosts and this is yet another bad thing, because it adds timings when certain races have clear advantages. For instance Terrans get a significant boost with each MULE they drop and can build almost two Barracks for each of them which increases their production by a lot. Protoss have their heavy Warp Gate timings and Zerg try to "outlive" those early timings and then have the biggest potential advantage for the rest of the game. Adding those asymmetric production boosts on top of already asymmetric production styles was a huge mistake, because those are hard to balance out and they didnt really try to do it for the late game ... only early timings got adjusted a bit.
So its not the "big expectations" which drag down SC2; its the crappy core game design which had to be "improved" over that of BW without thinking about the consequences. In fact Blizzard displayed a singularly fgigantic lack of understanding when they answered the "dynamic unit movement" thread and didnt understand the purpose behind it.
---
Just watch some TLS qualifier games now ... although these arent super korean pros the games are excellent with constant engagements, so no one should scoff at BW game design.
|
It may be true that the meta-game has stagnated and it's not as good as Brood War.
In all probability, though, even BW wouldn't have been able to stave off competition from games like LoL and DotA2.
I think team games are inherently more fun to watch than mano-a-mano. The ONLY time mano-a-mano can compete is when you make it like professional wrestling so the storylines trump the game.
|
Blizzard deliberately kept a lot of units from BW, they could easily have replaced way more of them. The game was always meant to replace Brood War, that's why there is a lack of innovation and new gameplay features. There are only a few deviations in terms of basic design elements and for each one of them you can see that Blizzard had a very good reason to change it that way. The engine and interface changes are to update the game for a modern audience, the macro mechanics are a direct response to complaints by BW players that the game would lack mechanical difficulty and they have a double function to reduce downtime in building up economy, there are only just enough unit changes to show that this is a sequel and not a remake etc.
|
On September 23 2013 02:57 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard deliberately kept a lot of units from BW, they could easily have replaced way more of them. The game was always meant to replace Brood War, that's why there is a lack of innovation and new gameplay features. There are only a few deviations in terms of basic design elements and for each one of them you can see that Blizzard had a very good reason to change it that way. The engine and interface changes are to update the game for a modern audience, the macro mechanics are a direct response to complaints by BW players that the game would lack mechanical difficulty and they have a double function to reduce downtime in building up economy, there are only just enough unit changes to show that this is a sequel and not a remake etc.
Removing such iconic/epic units like Science vessel, ariter, vulture, defiler and lurker, and giving us raven, mothership, helion, voidray, infestor and banelings. I'm not sure it was the best of their decision's.
|
On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
Take DotA 2. If someone thinks that playing and watching DotA 2 is boring, they won't play and they won't watch. No big deal there. Valve might worry if lots of people are saying the game is boring, because it's their game. Other individuals who, for business reasons or because they want to see the esports scene develop, might worry for similar reasons. And then people who already enjoy the game might be sad because they enjoy the game and don't like seeing people speak negatively about it.
But SC2 is different. SC2 came in explicitly to replace BW (it's in the name, after all). And this bizarre dynamic has created a sort of bond between the two games that still holds a lot of sway over interested parties. Specifically, it makes it harder for people who don't enjoy SC2 to go back to BW---it feels like the old game isn't really there anymore. And in some ways, this is true---the Korean BW scene is much smaller now, the numbers for non-Korean players are low too, the exposure to viewers is minimal. But in other ways, it is not true. The game is still accessible; there is still a community that follows and supports it; and there is still a desire for the kind of competition that the game offers.
As far as I know, there are, believe it or not, people who do love playing SC2. Maybe they love it for reasons that are not the same as why BW players love BW. Maybe more people would love them both if we stopped trying to frame the one in terms of the other and just let them flourish in their own right. But ultimately, complaining that SC2 is boring doesn't seem to work. Going back to BW is extremely difficult, but for some maybe it's actually the best choice. For others, it may make sense to stop trying to enjoy SC2 in the ways people enjoy BW and start trying to emphasize what really makes the game interesting in its own right.
The only problem directly related to BW is the difference in game design between BW and SC2, in which BW's game design made battle inherently more interesting and exciting than in SC2. I argue that this is an integral point for spectators and is one reason SC2 isn't doing as well.
Otherwise - BW only was important in 2010 and maybe a little through 2011 as the old community transferred. A vast majority of SC2 fans and even players these days never watched or followed BW and have only a cursory knowledge of it. A majority of the top non Korean SC2 players are either new to gaming or former WC3 players.
Looking at the TLPD:
- Vortix ; WC3
- HeroMarine ; no prior game
- Jim ; no prior game (afaik)
- Happy ; WC3
- Naniwa ; WC3
- Nerchio ; no game
- Scarlett ; no game
- HasuObs ; WC3
- SHowtime ; no game
- Elfi ; WC3 (i think)
- MacSed ; BW I think
- Bly ; WCS
- HappyZerg ; BW
- HuK ; BW
- Sen ; BW
- the rest of the 2nd page: only BRAT_OK was a BW player, the rest are either new to esports or were WC3 players
Nobody but the oldest players (think TT1) are really interested in switching back to BW. Most players never really played it. Most fans never really played it or followed it.
The BW relationship to SC2 is basically nonexistent and only really served to fuel the initial growth of SC2.
|
On September 23 2013 02:26 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW. That is a misconception, because there are things in the general game design which are the cause of many limitations and problems for the unit design in SC2. If you are just a blind "BW hater" or simply dont see the flaws of SC2 is your choice, but there are several things which are seriously rotten at the core of SC2 ... At the core is the unit density and the super easy unit control which people usually see as an improvement over BW, but which actually has increased the "army dps" to insane amounts which then gives a super decisive victory to the player who has a better start to the engagement with no chance of the "initial loser" to come back most of the time. In BW no battle is over as quickly as it is in SC2 - due to the much lower army dps because of the MUCH lower unit density - which limits the chances for microing and thus direct control over the outcome. I guess its time to bring up the usual "Stalker vs Marine(s)" example again for your benefit to explain why there needs to be a limit to unit density compared to the automatically maximized density in SC2: + Show Spoiler +- Stalker and Marine have roughly the same dps.
- You get roughly three Marines for each Stalker (resourcewise).
- You can stack Marines MUCH tighter than Stalkers due to the model size.
- One Stalker against three Marines is balanced quite well, because the Stalker can run away and recharge some shields and then take a shot again. Moving is the key and the only way for the Marines to win is to outmaneuver the Stalker and get him into a corner.
- Soooo ... the big question is: What happens when you put 10 Stalkers against 30 Marines? The clump of Marines has a higher "dps per area" and thus should be able to kill Stalkers far easier, because the "clump dps" gets so high that there is no more chance to run away and recharge shields. The army dps is simply too high and this is the fault of the "improvements" made in SC2 ... a clear flaw of the core game design. The incredibly high army density can be achieved because every race got economic speed boosts AND production speed boosts and this is yet another bad thing, because it adds timings when certain races have clear advantages. For instance Terrans get a significant boost with each MULE they drop and can build almost two Barracks for each of them which increases their production by a lot. Protoss have their heavy Warp Gate timings and Zerg try to "outlive" those early timings and then have the biggest potential advantage for the rest of the game. Adding those asymmetric production boosts on top of already asymmetric production styles was a huge mistake, because those are hard to balance out and they didnt really try to do it for the late game ... only early timings got adjusted a bit. So its not the "big expectations" which drag down SC2; its the crappy core game design which had to be "improved" over that of BW without thinking about the consequences. In fact Blizzard displayed a singularly fgigantic lack of understanding when they answered the "dynamic unit movement" thread and didnt understand the purpose behind it.
But everything you just mentioned draws on this symbolic relationship between SC2 and BW. Going back to the other point I made---if you don't like SC2, then don't play it. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't particularly like LoL and CoD, and I don't play them. You're still thinking about SC2 in terms of BW---the complaint, for example, that battles are over too quickly. I'm suggesting that maybe thinking about SC2 in terms of BW---which is a completely reasonable and understandable thing to do---is not helpful. Maybe we need to start treating SC2 and BW as totally unrelated games---as unrelated as SC2 and LoL. Each has its complexities, challenges, draws and drawbacks; maybe in some sense they compete for air time, but both can be appreciated in their own way.
|
On September 23 2013 05:09 Xeris wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
Take DotA 2. If someone thinks that playing and watching DotA 2 is boring, they won't play and they won't watch. No big deal there. Valve might worry if lots of people are saying the game is boring, because it's their game. Other individuals who, for business reasons or because they want to see the esports scene develop, might worry for similar reasons. And then people who already enjoy the game might be sad because they enjoy the game and don't like seeing people speak negatively about it.
But SC2 is different. SC2 came in explicitly to replace BW (it's in the name, after all). And this bizarre dynamic has created a sort of bond between the two games that still holds a lot of sway over interested parties. Specifically, it makes it harder for people who don't enjoy SC2 to go back to BW---it feels like the old game isn't really there anymore. And in some ways, this is true---the Korean BW scene is much smaller now, the numbers for non-Korean players are low too, the exposure to viewers is minimal. But in other ways, it is not true. The game is still accessible; there is still a community that follows and supports it; and there is still a desire for the kind of competition that the game offers.
As far as I know, there are, believe it or not, people who do love playing SC2. Maybe they love it for reasons that are not the same as why BW players love BW. Maybe more people would love them both if we stopped trying to frame the one in terms of the other and just let them flourish in their own right. But ultimately, complaining that SC2 is boring doesn't seem to work. Going back to BW is extremely difficult, but for some maybe it's actually the best choice. For others, it may make sense to stop trying to enjoy SC2 in the ways people enjoy BW and start trying to emphasize what really makes the game interesting in its own right. The only problem directly related to BW is the difference in game design between BW and SC2, in which BW's game design made battle inherently more interesting and exciting than in SC2. I argue that this is an integral point for spectators and is one reason SC2 isn't doing as well. Otherwise - BW only was important in 2010 and maybe a little through 2011 as the old community transferred. A vast majority of SC2 fans and even players these days never watched or followed BW and have only a cursory knowledge of it. A majority of the top non Korean SC2 players are either new to gaming or former WC3 players. Looking at the TLPD: - Vortix ; WC3 - HeroMarine ; no prior game - Jim ; no prior game (afaik) - Happy ; WC3 - Naniwa ; WC3 - Nerchio ; no game - Scarlett ; no game - HasuObs ; WC3 - SHowtime ; no game - Elfi ; WC3 ( i think) - MacSed ; BW I think - Bly ; WCS - HappyZerg ; BW - HuK ; BW - Sen ; BW - the rest of the 2nd page: only BRAT_OK was a BW player, the rest are either new to esports or were WC3 players Nobody but the oldest players (think TT1) are really interested in switching back to BW. Most players never really played it. Most fans never really played it or followed it. The BW relationship to SC2 is basically nonexistent and only really served to fuel the initial growth of SC2.
MacSed was from WC3 as well. There was an American player named ShowTime in WC3 too, but I couldn't tell you if it's the same one.
|
Showtime is German. I think he's new, or from WC3. Anyway most good non Koreans are WC3 players :D The BW players were super short lived and stopped being relevant in 2011 for the most part, aside from HuK who is still really good!
|
I agree with your point though. One other thing to remember is that the best foreigner to date, Stephano, was also from WC3. As is ThorzaiN, ToD, and many others.
|
Let's be honest... WC4 will save the RTS genre *hi5* !
|
When it comes out ten years from now, perhaps. 
|
On September 22 2013 10:39 unigolyn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2013 08:55 SpeghettiJoe wrote:Wtf, I'm not trolling, I'm serious. Faster is better, more fun. Those slow Terran tier 3 units are like watching two grandmas fighting while drunk. They might be really strong (the strong grandma strength), but it's so boring.
Zerglings, reapers, mutas, helions, all good. Good Blizzard! But thors, BCs, 2 movement speed, god Blizzard wtf.
Fast moving thor is overpowered marauder with anti-air, who would ever like this? Fine, take away some of their HP or damage, but make them FASTER. Would you rather watch 2 Bruce Lees fight, or 2 Bob Sapps??? The Warhound was removed in Beta for good reason. Mech is not supposed to be mobile.
Mech will never work when it's immobile because it makes for boring games and predictable playstyle.
Moreover warhound was just filling the role left by lack of vultures and mech TvP will never work without something similar.
|
It's a good thing that competitive games die. Gives them a sense of closure. I think it's more depressing that many people watch the same sport every week for 75 years than it is that SC2 is dying after a few good years.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 23 2013 01:46 RuiBarbO wrote:
As I think more about the issues the OP brought up, I keep feeling like the problem isn't actually with SC2, but with the context in which we try to frame it---that is, as the successor to BW.
Take DotA 2. If someone thinks that playing and watching DotA 2 is boring, they won't play and they won't watch. No big deal there. Valve might worry if lots of people are saying the game is boring, because it's their game. Other individuals who, for business reasons or because they want to see the esports scene develop, might worry for similar reasons. And then people who already enjoy the game might be sad because they enjoy the game and don't like seeing people speak negatively about it.
But SC2 is different. SC2 came in explicitly to replace BW (it's in the name, after all). And this bizarre dynamic has created a sort of bond between the two games that still holds a lot of sway over interested parties. Specifically, it makes it harder for people who don't enjoy SC2 to go back to BW---it feels like the old game isn't really there anymore. And in some ways, this is true---the Korean BW scene is much smaller now, the numbers for non-Korean players are low too, the exposure to viewers is minimal. But in other ways, it is not true. The game is still accessible; there is still a community that follows and supports it; and there is still a desire for the kind of competition that the game offers.
As far as I know, there are, believe it or not, people who do love playing SC2. Maybe they love it for reasons that are not the same as why BW players love BW. Maybe more people would love them both if we stopped trying to frame the one in terms of the other and just let them flourish in their own right. But ultimately, complaining that SC2 is boring doesn't seem to work. Going back to BW is extremely difficult, but for some maybe it's actually the best choice. For others, it may make sense to stop trying to enjoy SC2 in the ways people enjoy BW and start trying to emphasize what really makes the game interesting in its own right.
The fundamental design flaws of SC2 are not contingent on the BW legacy, even as a stand alone game with no preconceptions about what it should look like, a stale meta, 1A deathballs and assorted other issues would have stuck out like a sore thumb.
People are not complaining about SC2 because it is not exactly like BW(well, almost no one), they are complaining because 12 years later we got a product that is simply inferior. It's like if Diablo 3 would have had a worse story than Diablo 2...wait what?
I don't want a game that is a carbon copy of BW with better graphics, and I don't want a reskin. I want a better game, and so far SC2 has not delivered.
|
On September 23 2013 06:15 GhastlyUprising wrote:
It's a good thing that competitive games die. Gives them a sense of closure. I think it's more depressing that many people watch the same sport every week for 75 years than it is that SC2 is dying after a few good years.
?
I like to hear/know the successor of football/basketball. Do we have football 2.0?
Makes no sense to closure if the succesor isnt better. sc2 killed scbw and wc3...
I heard a very similar story in CS1.6 & CS:S (predecessor) and CS:GO (successor), looks like nobody like it (including progamers).
edit:
On September 23 2013 06:23 Squat wrote:
I don't want a game that is a carbon copy of BW with better graphics, and I don't want a reskin. I want a better game, and so far SC2 has not delivered.
I dont think we want a copy. What we want that the successor has the same (or better) level at passion & longtime-fun like its predecessor. Either sc nor diablo offer this.
|
On September 23 2013 02:57 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard deliberately kept a lot of units from BW, they could easily have replaced way more of them. The game was always meant to replace Brood War, that's why there is a lack of innovation and new gameplay features. There are only a few deviations in terms of basic design elements and for each one of them you can see that Blizzard had a very good reason to change it that way. The engine and interface changes are to update the game for a modern audience, the macro mechanics are a direct response to complaints by BW players that the game would lack mechanical difficulty and they have a double function to reduce downtime in building up economy, there are only just enough unit changes to show that this is a sequel and not a remake etc.
It was never meant to be a replacement. Blizzard employees have even said that: SC2 was meant to be a completely different game and I'm not going to touch the other hodge-podge you came up with because these so-called complaints are drivel.
|
i strongly believe the problems with SC2 are in the game itself. many things are just badly tuned, badly thought out or implemented
the swarmhost is such a terrible clunky unit that is like difficult to use, boring to watch in its current implementation, and pretty fricken weak as well unless zerg does a super boring playstyle against protoss where he has 30 drones, 170 army supply (or maybe even 180 army supply by using EVO tricks past 200) of swarmhosts + corrupters + spores
the viper is a unit that is losing its purpose/point more and more as the game goes on.
i feel infestors are also kind of gutted as a unit and very unfun. I feel NP is sort of OP against big targets, and because NP highly counters big targets to keep the unit balanced they had to nerf the crap out of fungal growth / infested terrans to stop the infestor from countering small units too. so now you just have a dumb unit / spells
i feel seeker missile is also clearly extremely OP and most lategame terran games are showing this. the game still has many OP factors that have not been found yet.
mech is still not viable. a lack of playstyles is hurting entertainment. i dont think the solution is buffing the tank.
the game has many more problems i dont have time to touch on too.
i think HUGE MASSIVE changes to this game would be FOR THE BETTER and blizzard should do it do try to revive their dying game
changes to all the races, trying to bring out new playstyles.
for starters I think fungal simply does too LITTLE damage to justify its cost (unit + energy) and seeker does too MUCH damage. bringing these more in line help. and also I think infestors should be changed to counter only small units (instead of having them spells that counter big AND small units). to do that i would make NP no longer require an upgrade, cost 50 energy, but unable to targetmassive, and it would still be a good spell to use. But0 thats just 2 changes of 100 that this game needs to bring in more playstyles that are also balanced. i feel swarmhosts need a total rework, vipers too.
also i think the maps are very stale in the simple overall map design philosophy. I believe maybe there could be some kind of huge rebirth of game balance and then the maps could be changed along with that.
basically i think a whole new vision of the game needs to be created........... RTS can be fun/amazing to watch as an esport the game is just showing that its a bad game........ it will be overtaken by the next great RTS if blizzard doesnt bring rebirth by destrying the foundation and visioning something new and better
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
