On October 04 2013 00:26 Garmer wrote: because it's false, you don't enjoy BW for the same reason everyone else, the UI, this is why everyone who said BW isn't fun after 5 games, cannot be taken seriously
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
On October 04 2013 00:26 Garmer wrote: because it's false, you don't enjoy BW for the same reason everyone else, the UI, this is why everyone who said BW isn't fun after 5 games, cannot be taken seriously
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
My opinion being counter example of 'thinking for all' implication of post i originally replied to, however was relevant as counter example and only as such. Looking deeper in it, is like finding depth in abusing BW bugs and unintentional behaviors (hold lurkers, anyone?)
On October 04 2013 00:26 Garmer wrote: because it's false, you don't enjoy BW for the same reason everyone else, the UI, this is why everyone who said BW isn't fun after 5 games, cannot be taken seriously
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
How does that fit together with the dislike of Taylor Swift, there are probably a few other things you dismiss out of hand no? By your logic maybe you just haven't listened enough.
On October 04 2013 00:26 Garmer wrote: because it's false, you don't enjoy BW for the same reason everyone else, the UI, this is why everyone who said BW isn't fun after 5 games, cannot be taken seriously
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
how do they know, they can't enjoy it, if all what they do, is look at it for two/three times? it's like touching a girl boobs, and say this girl is not for me lmao those people have no patience to appreciate things
On October 04 2013 00:43 Dundron2000 wrote: [quote]
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
how do they know, they can't enjoy it, if all what they do, is look at it for two/three times? it's like touching a girl boobs, and say this girl is not for me lmao those people have no patience to appreciate things
so now male homosexuality doesn't exist. cmooooon man get it together you're sending this thread off its orbit
On October 04 2013 00:43 Dundron2000 wrote: [quote]
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
it's like touching a girl boobs, and say this girl is not for me lmao
Do you wait until you touch the boobs of all the girls you meet before you decide that some aren't for you?
Great article! This basically addresses the problems with the scene. WCS idea is not very good at all. They took the individuality of the leagues with this system.Some of your suggestions may fix that.
Additionally GSTL doesn't have the same magic of Proleague. Hell even SC2 pro league doesnt have the same magic. As far as the game itself goes its stale and boring. I did not follow BW a lot and only started following the SC2 scene and wanted to see SC2 succeed.
But Blizzard refuses to make the changes that make this game a lot more dynamic and fun. Positioning games get old after watching them after the 100th time and having a lot more skill based variability to battles would make it better. Yes BW had a lot of bugs which brought about micro potential and unintentionally made it great. But they are game designers for crying out loud... They are supposed to figure out how to add dimensions to their game which the better engine took out. They had the blueprints from BW and yet they screwed it up.
This game looks like it was designed by programmers and artists and had no direction from game designers. They took on some BW units, WC3 engine and added on some new gimmicky units and sold it as a new game. I don't care if no BW units made it into the game as long as the game was well designed and fun to play. This is the failing of SC2.
Their stubbornness in recognizing they made a mistake in game design is killing the game and no amount of buying the various leagues will fix this game. If the games are not interesting then people won't watch and once all the personalities you mention retired noone will follow the game. LoTV will just be too little too late. IMO to fix this they need to make big changes everywhere immediately after Blizzcon. The clock is ticking and the ball is in their court at the moment...
And there's plenty of skill in actual engagements, and especially in being able to properly macro behind said engagements. Sometimes engagements will go on for literally 5 minutes of non-stop battle and reinforcement, with constant micro and counter-micro.
"Stephano Roaches" was a thing for 6 months specifically because his roaches were so much better than everybody else's because of his engagement skills.
On September 21 2013 03:40 Xeris wrote: As someone who has been involved in this game at every level, from being a competitive player, tournament organizer, writer, administrator, manager, promoter, and professional chair stealer since the game was released in 1998, I am hopeful that Blizzard will eventually get things right.
On October 04 2013 00:43 Dundron2000 wrote: [quote]
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
how do they know, they can't enjoy it, if all what they do, is look at it for two/three times? it's like touching a girl boobs, and say this girl is not for me lmao those people have no patience to appreciate things
And suddenly the problem of sc2 is nothing compared to this post.
Traditional RTS just aren't as competitive (in terms of popularity and time investment) anymore nowadays.
Anyway, as for whether appealing to casuals helps or not.
First, an important thing is, it doesn't matter how casual friendly the game is if it's not as fun or doesn't have as much depth as other games. Second of all, BW is actually more casual friendly in gameplay (I'm not talking about battle.net 1.0 or so, yes those help but the actual game itself is also more casual friendly). In BW, (for example) it's easier to know what you need to improve on than in SC2 (yes, that includes the so called "fighting the interface" we had in BW. Yes it was fighting the interface but doing it successfully was rewarding but yet also very doable by anyone. When someone remembered to put their workers on minerals, they sure felt really good >.>).
Not only that, in terms of pro level play, it's easier to replicate things that pros do (microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers are the #1 examples). In SC2, the higher level things pros do is either mostly just strategy/game knowledge (what BOs to use, what to do when you see x or y unit at x or y time, what it means when opponent takes 2 gas, etc) which isn't exactly exciting or appealing to casuals. The other thing higher level pros do is simply "how fast you can do it" which (unlike in the case of microing Mutalisk, Vultures, and Reavers) aren't as easy replicable or easy to get into since it's simply a "speed thing" compared to BW where it wasn't purely just speed (and I'll get onto what makes microing more deep in BW compared to SC2 a little later).
BW was seen doing #6th in PC bangs. SC2 (this was after HotS release) was seen doing at #11.
Also I said this before but BW was actually more casual friendly.
In BW, there was more depth in everything but yet everything was much easier to learn and practice.
In SC2, the game is hard but how is it hard? Microing in SC2 is hard but it's hard only because most microing is just how fast you micro (splitting up marines against banelings, splitting up zerglings against widow mines, etc).
In BW, microing Mutalisk was not purely about speed but about so many other things.
You had to pay attention to the direction the Mutalisk were facing before attacking (if you were attack moving) or else the Mutalisk will lose acceleration. You had to know which situations to use attack move, attack directly, patrol, hold position, etc and when doing that, you also had to pay attention to the distance between targets.
Also the micro depended on what you wanted your mutalisk to do. If you wanted you only had six Mutalisk (against Marines) it was best to use attack directly (you can take out one marine per attack volley). However, if you had more Mutalisk against a bunch of marines (twelve for example), then using hold position was better.
Against Scourge, when using patrol micro, you had to pay attention to the distance between Mutalisk and the scourge before using patrol micro.
Overall, from the Mutalisk example alone, micro has much more depth than in SC2.
SC2 has the speed thing but it has none of the depth in micro and depth helps makes the game more fun and interesting.
A deep game is probably also a difficulty game to master. However a difficult game is not nessarily a deep game (it may be difficulty simply because of a few things). An example is splitting up marines against banelings. It's difficulty but it's not as deep as Mutalisk micro (for example). I know it's not the same thing but the majority of micro in SC2 is simply just that - how fast you do it.
In BW, this reached greater heights.
Also, those type of things is what helps casual players more interested into the game (and what potentially makes a causal into a more hardcore player).
When you see something like this:
Epic Drone micro video (6 minutes and 7 seconds if the video doesn't take you there automatically): + Show Spoiler +
Another example with Wraiths (3 minutes and 10 seconds if the video doesn't take you there automatically): + Show Spoiler +
Don't you want to try it yourself and replicate it and potentially impress others with it? Then you start copying and trying it.
SC2 doesn't have nearly as much things. Again, most of it just all goes down to "how fast you split marines against banelings" (to be fair - I did link the video with Jaedong splitting Mutalisk "but" the video didn't just showcase splitting, it had Mutalisk micro in general which is beyond simply splitting or speed).
Also it's not just air units in general, even things that weren't exactly the same (Reavers being the prime example) had a ton more depth. Reavers for example - the more things that get in the way of the scarab's pathing (and any ground unit or structure that isn't the target of the scarab can block or mess with the scarab's pathing), the more likely the scarab will be a dud and won't deal damage.
Also Reavers are one of the few units that encourage micro and attention from both sides. The Protoss player has to move and protect their Reaver (with shuttles) and when attacking, they need to pay attention and attack the unit that may be lead to potentially the most AoE damage (as well as the one that's less likely to move away). The opposing player can try to move the targeted unit out of the way of others (this also involves running behind structures or anything so that the scarab gets blocked by the ground unit or structure).
Reavers are deep units. As for how to replicate scarab to be similar to BW? Well, BW had eight directional movement but one way to replicate something similar is to make it so that Scarabs can only turn (towards their target) once every 0.5 seconds or so. Additionally, Scarabs could be made so that they don't home in on the target directly but they could be limited to make only 45 angle turns towards the target (and no more than that) once every 0.5 seconds. (This could potentially mean a stim marine could run directly behind the scarab and the scarab would have to do a curve to hit the marine instead of being able to turn around directly.)
While I'm not sure about the data editor, something like this can easily be done in the trigger editor (and Blizzard can add it in easily to the data editor).
Anyway, that's one example of how to add the Reaver back into SC2 environment (scarabs function similarly by being limited to making a turn once every 0.5 seconds or so, and being limited to making a max of a 45 angle turn once every 0.5 seconds, so that means a stim marine could potentially just run behind a scarab and cause it to make a curve).
It's different compared to BW but what wouldn't be different is how the Reaver would add fun and engaging micro for both sides of the battle.
(In SC2, the only closest example is probably the seeker missile but seeker missiles are too slow compared to Scarabs and don't have that fun "try to get the scarab to get blocked by pathing to dud" element + Ravens are no where near as fun to control as shuttle + Reaver. As for Widow mines - they are way too fast and too volatile, and they can't be microed against or controlled with as easily compared to Reavers.)
As for the accidental things in BW? Well, lots of competitive games (like fighting games and FPS) have a lot of accidental things that were used by players. It became mainstream and supported by the developers.
While a lot of stuff like how units with no attack animation (or for SC2's case, they could pick a unit to have a passive that could function the same way) could attack and move at the same time and how turning also affected it were probably accidentally, that doesn't mean it something else (whether similar or the same) shouldn't be in SC2.
tl;dr - Bring back Reavers. Make Scarabs turn once every 0.5 seconds (this is just an example) or so to try to be similar to the eight directional BW pathing. Also make Scarabs only able to turn 45 degrees (or so) once per 0.5 second turn (so if a marine was targeted, stim and runs directly behind the scarab before it makes a turn, the Scarab would have to make a curve back to hit the marine). Yes it may sound silly but Reavers are awesome and need to find a way back into the game (and those 2 limitations to Scarab would make it so they're not overpowered in SC2's environment).
Again, BW is doing sixth in PC bangs while SC2 (after HotS release) is doing eleventh in PC bangs in South Korea. Why? Reavers. That's why. (But in all seriously, I think I explained my post well. BW is just more of a deep game than in SC2. Both are challenging but one still lacks a bit of depth compared to the other.)
Maybe it's myopic or me stereotyping, but I think general interest in RTS is waning in gamers, particularly NA gamers. I think this is a product of new generation game design more than anything. Games continue to broaden their appeal to more casual users, I think because of pretty graphics, big screen tv's and multi-use consoles. Call of Duty, League of Legends, etc. create rewards systems, have pretty gradual learning curves, and allow for continual customization so that you feel you are getting something back for every hour you put in.
How does a legit RTS increase its appeal to a casual user? That's a tough question to answer. They reward extensive preparation and experience, and if they didn't they'd compromise their "elegance" i suppose. As a band-aid, I'd agree with putting more effort in the community atmosphere from as soon as you log onto battlenet, trying to increase the learning resources available through blizzard and battlenet, and of course...
One major factor that people overlook is that SC2's custom scene is nowhere near as popular as it was in WC3. I think anyone who's played WC3 will tell you that it was the custom games that mostly kept casual people playing for so many years. There are few things that SC2 has that compares to the best customs that WC3 had to offer, even before it was taken over by DotA.
SC2's editor is powerful, but very user-unfriendly, and the game itself lacks all the additional units, spell effects, and RPG mechanics that made WC3 customs so versatile.
i think the best way to improve the views experiences would be to get rid of the production tab and allow the casters to really paint the picture of the game and have that element of surprise "where did these 8 ultras come from i didn't even see him build the cavarn!" type experiences that BW had because we couldn't just watch the production tab.
as far as gameplay being stale? i dont really think thats a problem, BW was so figured out and solved in all matchups that as Tastless has said before u could pretty much know how the game was going to play out just from the first few minutes as far as builds went. we dont need the game to be always evolving to make it exciting we just need to have that ingame suprise factor that cant be with the production tab always up. thats my thoughts anyways
On October 04 2013 00:52 Grumbels wrote: [quote] It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
Do you regularly disqualify your own opinions on the basis that you haven't done something enough to meet your own arbitrary standards of what classifies as experience?
Yes I do. I didn't know ignorance was something to be proud of.
Do you often tell people that they have to keep doing stuff until they agree with you?
edit: I’m just trying to make you realize how your argument is circular. Nobody is going to watch enough starcraft to understand everything if they aren’t enjoying what they’re doing. By stating that you can’t say you don’t like it unless you know what you’re talking about, you’re ensuring that nobody will ever say they didn’t like it ; because anyone who would go this far into the game had to enjoy it in the first place. In other words, the people who are going far enough to enjoy it are the people who were already prone to enjoying it.
it's like touching a girl boobs, and say this girl is not for me lmao
Do you wait until you touch the boobs of all the girls you meet before you decide that some aren't for you?
On October 04 2013 00:26 Garmer wrote: because it's false, you don't enjoy BW for the same reason everyone else, the UI, this is why everyone who said BW isn't fun after 5 games, cannot be taken seriously
Lets break this down. Your argument is: people who don't like BW are not allowed to not like BW because the fact that they stopped playing it (because they didn't like it) disqualifies them from having that opinion.
It's like deciding you don't like a music band because you listened to them for one minute and thought the music was too complicated and difficult to understand. If you don't wish to further subject yourself to this sound, then that's your right, but then others don't have to take you seriously if you start talking about the band.
Why not? What if the music is real simple and you don't like it? Who gets to decide then? Your argument only works in a world where there is an objective reality and by chance it happened to correspond 100% to your own tastes and opinions, even when your opinions and tastes change over time. Doesn't this seem like an improbable scenario?
I can listen to five minutes of Taylor Swift and conclude it has no redeeming value, but I can't listen to something that's very complicated for five minutes because I haven't had enough time to judge it yet. If I would start giving opinions about the latter they are not legitimate because they are based on nothing, regardless of whether it's my opinion or not.
My previous post is still a valid answer because you don't seem to understand what the difference between objective and subjective means.
You can't judge Brood War if you've played five games of it. Your opinion being subjective does not guarantee that it's relevant.
I see plenty people judging games like LoL, CoD, BF after only playing 5 games on it just fine.
I can't help but ignore any e-sports related issues, and instead focus only on the game issues itself. I don't see the successfulness of a game being mostly due to [professional] esports; Supposedly KeSPA had some real problems with it during SC1, but it didn't seem to hinder it's popularity at all.
as mentioned in the post: Chat I think that makes a really big difference. No need to explain, because OP already explained it. Sure they FINALLY introduced chats into SC2, but it's still not quite as good as it was in SC1. If Blizzard is concerned about children or streamers seeing certain things, they could easily have an option to disable the chat and have a parental lockout for it.
Units/balance It's hard to pick out particular problems here, especially because many people have different views on the issue, but nonetheless there are issues with the style of gameplay that arises up due to the current mix of units. I feel like HotS really didn't help the issue much or at all in that many of the units didn't really fill in any new niches except perhaps the oracle and tempest (although tempest might be bad for other reasons); I'd blame much of the problem on the lack of sufficient improvement on the game itself in HotS. For this category, it sort-of boils down to the fact that Brood War was a bit of a lucky fluke which improved Starcraft substantially, and you just can't expect to easily duplicate that sort of thing again.
General mechanics Another, perhaps debatable, issue which certainly has debated solutions to. I don't know if there's anything I can say here that's worth mentioning without getting into a very long post. People have talked about this issue in other topics substantially.
One thing I will say that that between the poor state of professional players early on in SC1 (which just doesn't really apply in SC2), the unit/game balance/diversity, and the game mechanics (micro, pathing, speed, etc.), games were much more low economy and micro oriented, which I think made for much more enjoyable games for both players and spectators. Even with top-notch players late in Brood War history, I think (?) the low-economy micro games were still somewhat common, despite being rarer.
EPT
