|
On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff.
They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth.
Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter.
SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3.
The word "replace" is a loaded term.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
@At wall of text above my post:
ANY unit being relatively difficult to use is good for the game.
Viper DOES not lose it's value as game goes on, in fact it does remain useful all game long if it has anti-anti-caster support with it (SHs... lol).
Seeker missile is not really imba, since it is compensated by being relatively easy to negate.
Fungal is not supposed to smash everything, as it is not WoL, it is supposed to be helpful support. NP is not really OP, it is fine.
Overall this post made me feel like you was a good WoL zerg. And trust me, no game developer is going to bring SC-like RTS that on the BW-elitist scale from non-RTS to BW will be ranked higher than SC2 any time in ~4 years.
|
Points well made. I think there are too many threads like this, but at least this one is well done I suppose O.o.
|
just to addd to my previous post.. in February of 2009
Browder triumphantly announced.."we're in the final stretch".
14 months later....
|
On September 23 2013 06:58 lolfail9001 wrote:
@At wall of text above my post:
ANY unit being relatively difficult to use is good for the game.
Viper DOES not lose it's value as game goes on, in fact it does remain useful all game long if it has anti-anti-caster support with it (SHs... lol).
Seeker missile is not really imba, since it is compensated by being relatively easy to negate.
Fungal is not supposed to smash everything, as it is not WoL, it is supposed to be helpful support. NP is not really OP, it is fine.
Overall this post made me feel like you was a good WoL zerg. And trust me, no game developer is going to bring SC-like RTS that on the BW-elitist scale from non-RTS to BW will be ranked higher than SC2 any time in ~4 years.
to keep the game fun and unstale i play all 3 races. i think random is lame so i do 3games zerg, 3games toss, 3games terran, etc
i pretty much stopped making infestors. fungal provides too little for the cost. infestors are really only strong vs marines but i got banes for that. and enemies dont really make battlecruisers or thors or carriers for the NP
my problem with the swarmhost is not really about it being difficult to use. mostly its just boring and dumb. boring to watch and dumb when a zerg does some 180 army supply thing against protoss with mass swarmhost / corrupter / spore and wins.
game just feels stale with lack of options because the options (infestors / swarmhost) are just stupid and pointless to get
when im terran i always like abusing those insane damage seeker missiles. They are only OP in a 200 vs 200 fight, but thats good enough and being OP is still OP. I wait for a 200 vs 200 fight, caster a few seekers with 2 ravents, basically cast them and it forces the enemy to retreat (taking massive losses, losing the game) or fight and lose pretty bad. most endgame korean terrans are showing whats up with seekers too
even if seekers , swarm hosts, and infestors were fixed, the game would STILL be dull and boring
1% of my problems with the game are the OP or stupid stuff
99% of my problems with the game are the vision of the game itself. it needs a massive rework in almost everything or the next great RTS will overtake it and i definitely will play it too
|
On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term.
From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft.
|
Just an idea but why doesn't the map making community take a stab at making a custom that takes a drastic/risky approach to redesigning the three races. Do not alter any of the game mechanics like unit pathing, just remove/rebuild/create/etc. units and keep the ones that are fine as is. Obviously balance would be hell but it's worth a shot! I'd do it but my map making skills are non existent!
|
Don't think maps are the key, plus they've tried this afaik. Also the mapmaking community is kinda in disarray at the moment, no? Many prominent map makers have left the scene.
|
On September 23 2013 07:15 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term. From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft.
^Statement
vs
Fact: Getting rid of majority of iconic SC units.
+ Show Spoiler +http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9T-g9eL3tS0/UC6zI_QWtdI/AAAAAAAAAK8/3Gc77Y2ys6E/s1600/scumbag_steve_hat_vector_by_abiogenic-d4ton75.png
?
I think so.
|
Bulgaria59 Posts
1000 problems,stated over and over again, proven countless times by everyone(outside of blizz offices) but in the end why would the people actually responsible for fixing it all bother, its not like when the next expand come everyone wont buy it even if it gets worse, and worse :/
|
I don't think HotS is worse than WoL tbh...
It's still a fun game to play for me. Not so much watch, maybe. But I don't care much about eSpurtZ anyway.
|
On September 23 2013 07:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 07:15 StarStruck wrote:On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term. From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft. ^Statement vs Fact: Getting rid of majority of iconic SC units. + Show Spoiler +http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9T-g9eL3tS0/UC6zI_QWtdI/AAAAAAAAAK8/3Gc77Y2ys6E/s1600/scumbag_steve_hat_vector_by_abiogenic-d4ton75.png ? I think so.
What exactly are you trying to argue? I'm not only talking about the interviews with the likes of Mike Morhaime and Dustin Dustin Browder. So we're arguing about their statements let alone what Blizzard actually does when it comes to new releases? Okay then. Let's look at every single new RTS they release. You mean to tell me the original Warcraft plays like Warcraft II? How about Warcraft II to Starcraft? Starcraft to Warcraft III? Warcraft III to SC2? The big one! Compare what they did with SC:BW to SC2. Nah, man. Did they play around with such things as the rebus and defilers? Yep, and they even said it too. Oh wait, we're going back to your statement versus fact thing, right? Okay, let's not concern ourselves with what they said they did in alpha phases then. Even though they paid tribute to some of them in the campaign. For those interested Dustin said the rebus were too strong and they tinkered around with them but considering all the complaints about the engine and making the units clump is it any wonder why Blizzard would think a rebuuuu would be too strong? Doesn't surprise me hue. The funny thing Blizzard did play around with the idea of a lot of the original units, but we know this isn't EA Sports where they regurgitate what they did prior. Blizzard is always looking for new ways to come at the RTS generation. For some people going from SC:BW to WCIII it was jarring. I remember the first time playing WCIII and I went, "What the hell did Blizzard do?" I remember my first game was against Kain-the-Feared (an old school BW guy) where we played mirror NE. I went fast expo and it turned into a 30 minute game of sick micro. I lost and he complimented me for giving him his hardest win to date. Good times!
On September 23 2013 08:28 Excelion wrote:
1000 problems,stated over and over again, proven countless times by everyone(outside of blizz offices) but in the end why would the people actually responsible for fixing it all bother, its not like when the next expand come everyone wont buy it even if it gets worse, and worse :/
Yep, but we know with the type of community we're dealing with here where they like to voice their frustrations.
|
On September 23 2013 06:30 Dingodile wrote:Show nested quote +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). The worst that could happen is you get a new hobby. It's not like we're in the 1970s where people are in danger of suffering from chronic boredom unless they follow a sport. I think it's important that people learn to adapt to new circumstances and move on. Lots of people aged 50 and above are completely bowled over by modern life because they've never learned to adapt (and in fairness to them, they've never needed to).
|
What the scene needs is a powerful NA player to rise up and conquer the Korean monopoly on championships.
|
On September 23 2013 07:15 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term. From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft.
i remember the Devs referring to it with comments like "imagine trying to create Chess 2.0" or maybe it was "imagine trying to create Baseball 2.0".
that sounds like "re-inventing" to me. but, maybe u guys were arguing some other issue related to "re inventing".
any how .. if i derailed that.. i apologize.
i'm not even sure why its important to the topic that we are attempting to assess Activision-Blizzard's motives with SC2.
They wanted to make an RTS game. SC1 is an RTS game and there are only so many customers for this kind of product.
On September 23 2013 07:47 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 07:15 StarStruck wrote:On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term. From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft. ^Statement vs Fact: Getting rid of majority of iconic SC units. + Show Spoiler +http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9T-g9eL3tS0/UC6zI_QWtdI/AAAAAAAAAK8/3Gc77Y2ys6E/s1600/scumbag_steve_hat_vector_by_abiogenic-d4ton75.png ? I think so.
thanks man.. i needed a good laugh.
if u think they are "trying to bury the Vulture" and all its fans... i gotta get me a batch of whatever it is you're smoking.
with all these esports kickstarter campaigns going where no one actually delivers and end product.
maybe we could organize a "save the Firebat" campaign.
Give me $400,000 and i'll create an advertising campaign that those evil doers at Blizzard can not ignore!
|
I watched some of the TLS today, 2 players i have never heard of before but BW is just amazing to watch, i don't know why it is, ill never watch a random Sc2 game, but ill tune in to the snipealot2 stream for an hour before i realize i have been watching for so long.
For me its all about watchable, I don't know what happened but sc2 gets less and less interesting to watch maybe its the same players over and over, no story lines, not sure. I just hope something turns it around because when sc2 came out i couldn't watch enough.
Sc2 needs more moments like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 23 2013 09:34 jax1492 wrote:I watched some of the TLS today, 2 players i have never heard of before but BW is just amazing to watch, i don't know why it is, ill never watch a random Sc2 game, but ill tune in to the snipealot2 stream for an hour before i realize i have been watching for so long. For me its all about watchable, I don't know what happened but sc2 gets less and less interesting to watch maybe its the same players over and over, no story lines, not sure. I just hope something turns it around because when sc2 came out i couldn't watch enough. Sc2 needs more moments like this: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpuv7VPb2rA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLhOXn5rTw
The novelty factor has a lot of weight into enjoyment. You said it yourself...you watched SC2 religiously when it first came out. You enjoy Brood War on the rare occasion it's being shown.
The same is true for anything you start doing for the first time. The small things are more entertaining when you understand less, but as you get more experienced the routine details become routine, so now it's only the "big" moments that are entertaining.
|
Oh well, lets just hope they get it right for Starcraft 3.
|
On September 23 2013 09:32 lamprey1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 07:15 StarStruck wrote:On September 23 2013 06:56 lamprey1 wrote:On September 23 2013 06:36 StarStruck wrote: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. Activision-Blizzard employees say all kinds of stuff. They are being paid to represent Activision-Blizzard and not run around telling the gospel truth. Generally, the Blizzard part of the company is pretty honest, but I would not run around citing what the employees say "chapter and verse" as though we are always getting the 100% complete and full truth with every sentence any of them utter. SC2 is clearly aimed at the same audience as WC2, SC1, and WC3. The word "replace" is a loaded term. From the perspective every frigging new game is supposed to replace something, but we have the devs on record stating they weren't trying to reinvent Starcraft. i remember the Devs referring to it with comments like "imagine trying to create Chess 2.0" or maybe it was "imagine trying to create Baseball 2.0". that sounds like "re-inventing" to me. but, maybe u guys were arguing some other issue related to "re inventing". any how .. if i derailed that.. i apologize. i'm not even sure why its important to the topic that we are attempting to assess Activision-Blizzard's motives with SC2. They wanted to make an RTS game. SC1 is an RTS game and there are only so many customers for this kind of product.
Oh I remember Dustin making that silly comparison but that didn`t have anything to do with going from SC:BW to SC2. He was talking about RTS genre as a whole and it was Chess 2.0.
I tried looking for the article myself and this is all I found and it was from a Forbes Blog:
From an outsider’s perspective, for someone who doesn’t understand what’s going on here, is chess maybe a good analogy?
It’s very much like real-time chess, but with monsters, aliens, and ray guns. These guys are outthinking each other; they’re trying to get in each heads, and trying to understand what the other guy’s strategy is so they can be one step ahead of them. It’s very much like a chess game. The other big difference, of course, is it is real time; it’s something happening live. All these moves are happening simultaneously, so it’s not just your ability to think, it’s your ability to think quickly that makes all the difference in the world.
Some of these guys are doing amazing things. They’re doing 300 to 400 actions per minute. They’re clicking on these mice and keyboards at a ferocious rate. Even if you or I could click that fast, these guys are such experts at the game and so quick at the psychology, they’re literally almost not even playing the game; they’re playing the other guy.
They’re trying to outsmart him, outfox him, and trick him. That’s what makes this such a joy to watch as you are watching from a distance. You can see what both players are doing. You have someone to explain to you what both players are thinking, the shoutcaster, which is like a sports commentator. They explain what they’re thinking and doing, and you get to see the drama unfold. etc.
That wasn't exactly what I was looking for. I should try looking for the notes/comments they made on the actual process they went through with the design. I know they've been posted on this website several times, meh.
On September 23 2013 09:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Oh well, lets just hope they get it right for Starcraft 3.
Well, following their linear production line it looks like their next RTS would be Warcraft or something completely different. Who knows, plus you guys still have LotV to complain about too. o; Anyone else remember all those threads we had discussing the development of the game? You'd think some people would have gotten out of their system after thousands of pages with regards to things like MBS. There will always be something to complain. :V
|
On September 23 2013 09:48 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2013 09:34 jax1492 wrote:I watched some of the TLS today, 2 players i have never heard of before but BW is just amazing to watch, i don't know why it is, ill never watch a random Sc2 game, but ill tune in to the snipealot2 stream for an hour before i realize i have been watching for so long. For me its all about watchable, I don't know what happened but sc2 gets less and less interesting to watch maybe its the same players over and over, no story lines, not sure. I just hope something turns it around because when sc2 came out i couldn't watch enough. Sc2 needs more moments like this: + Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpuv7VPb2rA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYLhOXn5rTw The novelty factor has a lot of weight into enjoyment. You said it yourself...you watched SC2 religiously when it first came out. You enjoy Brood War on the rare occasion it's being shown. The same is true for anything you start doing for the first time. The small things are more entertaining when you understand less, but as you get more experienced the routine details become routine, so now it's only the "big" moments that are entertaining.
Pretty he meant that he watched SC2 religiously when it came out and then he started watching a bit of BW and now that he witness the magic of BW, he doesn't want to go back again.
And to StarStruck, you said yourself that the Devs weren't trying to reinvent the game but obviously they don't practice what they preach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
