On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
On October 09 2013 23:03 TheWorldToCome wrote: It's missing exciting units that BW had: Reaver, Lurker, Spider Mine (although I guess widow mine kinda replaces)
Seeing a reaver shoot a scarab into a line of probes and holding your breath waiting to see if it would explode or be a dud was exciting as hell.
Lurkers were just great units in many ways, as well as the hold position trick where you could lure a pack of MM into a trap and just rape them was great.
I agree with this guy. Sc2 units, minus the baneling and the units ported from BW (Siege tank, mines) are all really boring.
The units are only boring because "everything is special" and as a consequence special becomes normal. If there was no smartcast any Fungal Growth would be exciting, because there would be far fewer of them, but to combat the massive numbers of units clumped up you have to have smartcast activated. The same holds true for Forcefield and EMP and Psi Storm. Just look at EMP in BW for example and you see that it simply couldnt be used to "blanket a Protoss army" because it was part of the Science Vessel spells and thus there werent as many casters. The same is true for Feedback, which the Dark Archon - which no one got - had.
So to make units exciting they need to become "more special" and thus less frequently used, much harder to use AND more powerful. The Lurker has been added to the campaign and you can compare those SC2 stats to the BW stats to see how it would "have to be treated" to make it acceptable for SC2. It would become weak and boring and the same has happened to the other units that have already been "converted to SC2" ... and the reason is simply the stupid perfect unit pathing and unlimited unit selection, which the devs thought necessary for the game. Get rid of those two and you have a more exciting game where you can allow "locally overpowered units" to exist.
I kinda agree with this post, but it shows greatly that this is not that easy then a lot of people argue.
You say that it would be better if SC2 would be harder to play with cutting smartcast unlimited unit selection and pathing. You say it would be a higher skill cap and we could really appreciate the "amazing fungals" in pro games and you are kind of right.
The point were the rat bites his tail is that a lot of people claim the success on LoL and Dota that they have a huge player base. But the thing is this player base are mostly casuals that play the MOBA games because they are team games and relatively easy to understand and execute.
You just cannot sell a game no matter if it is ftp or 50 bucks with things like limited unit selection, no waypoints and weird unit movement in 2013. Testing magazines or websides would destory that game and saying "well its kinda cool but it has controles from times were our main audience was 3 feet tall."
The solution is quite simple. Only GM players and progamers should play on harder settings.
and do you think people would prefer to watch a more difficult to play game in which it looks the same except you know it is more difficult but the overall gameplay would look worse than a high master game?
The overall gameplay would look better not worse.
that's very confident of you. because landing a storm is suddenly more exciting as landing a storm? I highly doubt a pro can play as good as any KR high master with all those limitations on. people especially casuals won't care if the pros are able to land a storm because he is able to click on one HTs and cast them or just smart casting. they want to watch the storm killing everything or dodging storms.
There isn't any moment in sc2 that comes close to this level of excitment.
A level of excitement that 98% of the viewers will not recognize.
98% of viewers don't understand the game what? We talk about people who play or played the game so yes they understand. In Korea almost everyone played BW in their life, so i believe they can relate to someone doing shit like JangBi because no one ever did that in history of progaming.
On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
You really cant compare competetive multiplayergames with singleplayergames though. If u wanna compare Dark Souls, u have to compare it with skyrim/diablo 3 or gta5. its just not even close and way more enjoyable than any multiplayergame cause you only "lose" to an ai, not a real person who can mock you. Yes they play whats fun to them and most of the time fun equals = no effort, easy as fk and pls PLS not too hard to get into. And no you cant compare games to real sports either, people do real sports cause they see it on tv, they wanna be like messi, nadal, etc (sry i dont know the us sports :D).
On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
You really cant compare competetive multiplayergames with singleplayergames though. If u wanna compare Dark Souls, u have to compare it with skyrim/diablo 3 or gta5. its just not even close and way more enjoyable than any multiplayergame cause you only "lose" to an ai, not a real person who can mock you. Yes they play whats fun to them and most of the time fun equals = no effort, easy as fk and pls PLS not too hard to get into. And no you cant compare games to real sports either, people do real sports cause they see it on tv, they wanna be like messi, nadal, etc (sry i dont know the us sports :D).
Ofc you can compare BW in Korea to sport(minus the athlecism). Because both of your arguments apply. People watched SC on TV and wanted to be like Boxer,Nada or Bisu.
And just like Sport, playing BW was extremely popular activity among young demographic.
The dichotomy of BW (casual and super not casual friendly) is exatcly like Sports, you can do something casually, but when you turn on TV you see someone being immensely better at it than you and your friends.
Look up on how many top BW progamers of 2nd, 3rd or 4th era mentioned "Boxer", "Nada" or their counterparts for different races as the reason to go Pro.
On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
You really cant compare competetive multiplayergames with singleplayergames though. If u wanna compare Dark Souls, u have to compare it with skyrim/diablo 3 or gta5. its just not even close and way more enjoyable than any multiplayergame cause you only "lose" to an ai, not a real person who can mock you. Yes they play whats fun to them and most of the time fun equals = no effort, easy as fk and pls PLS not too hard to get into. And no you cant compare games to real sports either, people do real sports cause they see it on tv, they wanna be like messi, nadal, etc (sry i dont know the us sports :D).
Ofc you can compare BW in Korea to sport. Because both of your arguments apply. People watched SC on TV and wanted to be like Boxer,Nada or Bisu.
And just like Sport, playing BW was extremely popular activity among young demographic.
The dichotomy of BW (casual and super not casual friendly) is exatcly like Sports, you can do something casually, but when you turn on TV you see someone being immensely better at it than you and your friends.
Look up on how many top BW progamers of 2nd, 3rd or 4th era mentioned "Boxer", "Nada" or their counterparts for different races as the reason to go Pro.
Well yeah maybe in korea, but sc2`s low playerbase isnt exactly as it is cause of korea. Korea doesnt play sc2 cause it wasnt free to play and there are other games now who fullfill that (lol, dota2, etc) Sc2 wasnt on tv for a long tome either, so its pretty unfair to compare that.
On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
You really cant compare competetive multiplayergames with singleplayergames though. If u wanna compare Dark Souls, u have to compare it with skyrim/diablo 3 or gta5. its just not even close and way more enjoyable than any multiplayergame cause you only "lose" to an ai, not a real person who can mock you. Yes they play whats fun to them and most of the time fun equals = no effort, easy as fk and pls PLS not too hard to get into. And no you cant compare games to real sports either, people do real sports cause they see it on tv, they wanna be like messi, nadal, etc (sry i dont know the us sports :D).
Ofc you can compare BW in Korea to sport. Because both of your arguments apply. People watched SC on TV and wanted to be like Boxer,Nada or Bisu.
And just like Sport, playing BW was extremely popular activity among young demographic.
The dichotomy of BW (casual and super not casual friendly) is exatcly like Sports, you can do something casually, but when you turn on TV you see someone being immensely better at it than you and your friends.
Look up on how many top BW progamers of 2nd, 3rd or 4th era mentioned "Boxer", "Nada" or their counterparts for different races as the reason to go Pro.
Well yeah maybe in korea, but sc2`s low playerbase isnt exactly as it is cause of korea. Korea doesnt play sc2 cause it wasnt free to play and there are other games now who fullfill that (lol, dota2, etc) Sc2 wasnt on tv for a long tome either, so its pretty unfair to compare that.
edit: Well i agree its unfair to say that now, because its post-mortem for SC2 in Korea. Blizzard released the extremely raw, ladder oriented product and even with all the might of proper marketing i doubt that would succed. Trying to remember how custom game scene looked back then in 2010. When in Korea do what Koreans do, play UMS and team games. SC2 was not known for that, it was not strictly made for Korean demographic, it was too raw and heavy with low sociable features. The devs even had doubts over such a matter as "possibility of chat".
The hindsight in making the game is undeniable and we can't simply say it was only the bad deal with avoiding Kespa/TV.
On October 10 2013 19:04 Xenocide_Knight wrote: Also, if sc2 was fun, it wouldn't be dying so fast in korea where people don't give a damn about esports, only about fun.
Yeah I'm sure stuff like Kespa was formed out of their lack of care for e-sports.
Kespa was formed to organize a game people enjoyed. When a shittier game tried to muscle in and steal the infrastructure, look what happened, everyone started to abandon ship to a different game that's more enjoyable. Can't live off the momentum of your predecessor forever.
You know why it was more enjoyed? Cause there are UMS games and it was free to play in pc bangs. If sc2 had no accountsystem i think it would be much much bigger in korea aswell. LOL isnt more enjoyable than sc2 per se. I would argue with the community as tocix as it is, its even less enjoyable a lot of times. People just dont like challenge, they like easy games without having too much stress. You can see that in every game that is released today, its all way more casual, hell even some browsergames have like 40 million players, cause they are easy to play (here: enjoyable -.-). Sc2 was just badly released (bad custom games settings, accountsystem, etc) But pls stop with that general statement of lol being more enjoyable, cause it isnt per se, its just way easier for people without any gaming experiance to get into..
There were allways more casual games with huge playerbases and more hardcore ones with less players... But plentoy of the "hardcore" were and are doing good, atm there is: Dark/Demon Souls (part 2 in the making), EU 4, Eve Online still seems to run and run and run...
People play whats fun to them, "effort" doesn't really matter because as long as it's FUN it doesn't feel like effort. I mean, by your logic no one would do "real" sports.. because you probably need to buy special gear, have to meet up with someone and then you actually have run and stuff, which is way to much effort for a casual... Oh and the MMS is also really awefull, it just matches you with the next best guy you can find...
You really cant compare competetive multiplayergames with singleplayergames though. If u wanna compare Dark Souls, u have to compare it with skyrim/diablo 3 or gta5. its just not even close and way more enjoyable than any multiplayergame cause you only "lose" to an ai, not a real person who can mock you. Yes they play whats fun to them and most of the time fun equals = no effort, easy as fk and pls PLS not too hard to get into. And no you cant compare games to real sports either, people do real sports cause they see it on tv, they wanna be like messi, nadal, etc (sry i dont know the us sports :D).
Ofc you can compare BW in Korea to sport. Because both of your arguments apply. People watched SC on TV and wanted to be like Boxer,Nada or Bisu.
And just like Sport, playing BW was extremely popular activity among young demographic.
The dichotomy of BW (casual and super not casual friendly) is exatcly like Sports, you can do something casually, but when you turn on TV you see someone being immensely better at it than you and your friends.
Look up on how many top BW progamers of 2nd, 3rd or 4th era mentioned "Boxer", "Nada" or their counterparts for different races as the reason to go Pro.
Well yeah maybe in korea, but sc2`s low playerbase isnt exactly as it is cause of korea. Korea doesnt play sc2 cause it wasnt free to play and there are other games now who fullfill that (lol, dota2, etc) Sc2 wasnt on tv for a long tome either, so its pretty unfair to compare that.
edit: Well i agree its unfair to say that now, because its post-mortem for SC2 in Korea.
It was unfair from the start. There was still BW, cause Kespa didnt support sc2 => sc2 wasnt on tv (and i heard it isnt right now either?). Pc Bangs didnt help cause of the stupid accountsystem. Sc2 was never in the spot to get that big in korea, it never had a chance. For your post edit: Lol on the other hand is completely different, it is free to play, the normal modes are pretty casual so u dont even need ums and riot did everything to get it big in korea (all champs available in pc bangs, free skins for live audience and probably paid ogn to get it on tv). so yeah not that hard to get big with that..
On October 10 2013 16:46 USvBleakill wrote: [quote]
I kinda agree with this post, but it shows greatly that this is not that easy then a lot of people argue.
You say that it would be better if SC2 would be harder to play with cutting smartcast unlimited unit selection and pathing. You say it would be a higher skill cap and we could really appreciate the "amazing fungals" in pro games and you are kind of right.
The point were the rat bites his tail is that a lot of people claim the success on LoL and Dota that they have a huge player base. But the thing is this player base are mostly casuals that play the MOBA games because they are team games and relatively easy to understand and execute.
You just cannot sell a game no matter if it is ftp or 50 bucks with things like limited unit selection, no waypoints and weird unit movement in 2013. Testing magazines or websides would destory that game and saying "well its kinda cool but it has controles from times were our main audience was 3 feet tall."
The solution is quite simple. Only GM players and progamers should play on harder settings.
and do you think people would prefer to watch a more difficult to play game in which it looks the same except you know it is more difficult but the overall gameplay would look worse than a high master game?
The overall gameplay would look better not worse.
that's very confident of you. because landing a storm is suddenly more exciting as landing a storm? I highly doubt a pro can play as good as any KR high master with all those limitations on. people especially casuals won't care if the pros are able to land a storm because he is able to click on one HTs and cast them or just smart casting. they want to watch the storm killing everything or dodging storms.
Storms in BW are more exciting than in SC2 mainly because of limitations.
for people who follow BW, not for casual. I didn't watch and follow BW and won't understand why it was impressive even when you are telling me you need to select one to use a storm. If a casual see a 5 storms covering all terran movement, do you think it is more interesting for them to watch a pro landing a storm just because it is hard to do? (be it they know it is hard to do or not) I for one certainly won't Hell, let's go beyond storm, guess Toss are F-ed now that they have to click on individual sentries to land forcefields.
6300 posts on TL and still so close minded... Your like a unicorn
Let me explain why I like watching pro basketball. I can't ever dream of doing the shit nba players do. I can train all day but I won't ever play like kobe. Similarly, I can play bw all day but I won't be able to consistently blanket storms like Jangbi. As a viewer watching that is effing awesome!
If you still don't get what were saying here is an SC2 analogy: watching bomber play tvz is fun cause he literally has millions of streaming units across the map. I can't do that. Its fun to watch someone else do that. That's where the enjoyment in watching any kind of sport is. Watching people doing what you can't do. Seeing perfection and execution. If anybody could run fast we wouldn't have the 100 yard dash.
BW just has a lot more instances of this kind of stuff than SC2.
Also on a second read of the convo, if you are just arguing that a GM version and a casual version is stupid - I agree haha.
He gets what you're saying. Thing is, he believes that basketball with a ring 10x greater in diameter will provide the same excitement when someone scores.
hahhahahhaha
Oh come on. Now youre just being unfair to the guy, putting words in his mouth.
What he was saying is more in line with: an average person not familiar with the basketball scene will not be able to appreciate a basketball player scoring points if that player had an illness or something that makes it extremely hard for him to play, but then he still goes and holds his ground. It would be hard to appreciate that for the sole reason of the illness not being apparent on the outside.
Likewise, it is not obvious in BW exactly how hard it is to land those perfect storms (and all kinds of different micro for that matter). Thats all he was saying and he is right about that.
Extremely stupid example of that basketball handicap but hey, you get my point.
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Honestly my points being are: It is pointless to implement things like limited control group etc.
you are going to kick out the majority of the players. don't forget the game has a tonnes of bronze silver and gold. If they find it mechanically challenging now, you are basically going to kick them out from the ladder system. If you can't even retain these bronze silver and gold, imagine what it will do to the new comers.
What MikeMM suggested is stupid because: the game won't be balanced. Like I said, sentries with forcefields will be incredibly hard. The game will then require blizzard to put out two patches, one for tournament play, one for average ladder play. for casual viewers who don't play the game, they have to watch a game where suddenly there is less storms, more mistakes and scattered units etc. for ladder players who wants to be a pro, they will find it harder to transition into Pro if they wanted to because suddenly the game is different for average ladder players, they can't relate their games to the pro's game as much.
Why we shouldn't copy BW like Rabiator keep saying, remove clumping etcetc?
SC2 is not BW. SC2 didn't get a big audience who knows how the game works, how pros did what etc All these subtly things like even BW pathing micro, leash range etc are nicely explained by some posters, but hardly any casual would notice them unless you point it out. It's just like Rabiator who gets the basic of SC2, but completely misunderstanding of the game. Clumping for one, is often punished and this is what differentiate a good from a bad player. The whole game is currently balanced with what the system that we have. Reworking it will simply destroy the pro scene and might even push out a tonnes of players with no guarantee that we will have a more successful SC2 scene.
How to really improve SC2: We should build upon what we have. We had a lot of great games with what we have and no reason at all we can't make them better or happen more often. A lot of the problems people complained were there since the beta but they were in the minority because the game was popular and growing.
Unlike real sport, you can clearly tell how skilled a person is because you can see how the person execute that action. SC2/BW on the other hand, you can't because you are merely watching some units attacking and dying. You can at the most say the person play fast and accurate which isn't all that impressive if you compare it to piano player. (from a newbie view) This means the game need to be even more newbie spectator friendly, so that people would enjoy the action, then they can educate themselves about the game, then they will know more about the more advanced skills that the pros have shown.
And yes, opinions like BW has more exciting moments must be taken in consideration. But was bw only successful because of the units or the difficult mechanics? nope. It was the units interaction and bugs and all these make up the entertainment enjoyment as well as spectator friendly micro like storm. but how did the audience appreciate all those? because they tried BW or at least have a rough knowledge about it or for a newbie, seeing a storm at least look cool when things die.
SC2 is arguably harder to understand than BW. We often watch a player just lose to a counter push like Maru vs Dear game 1 despite dropping and sniping tech buildings etc and then people would say deathball is too strong. you can bring a newbie to watch a moba tournament and he can get something even without knowing how the game is played and what is going on, what roles are what champion, what items etc.
this is what SC2 is lacking, exposure on new audience and failure to retain fans who want the game to be more BW like. and this is where it gets complicated when new audiences are joining slower, BW fans are leaving and SC2 fans are watching/playing less. which direction should SC2 go? It can go in all directions, give units that have more depth; more spectator friendly micro, WCS needs a look at etc. Surely you will still have some people complaining like oh deathball, economy system, smart casting etc, but you will have lots more people enjoying the game because game has depth, more people are watching and no more doomday talk.
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
On October 10 2013 22:35 ETisME wrote: Honestly my points being are:
What MikeMM suggested is stupid because: the game won't be balanced. Like I said, sentries with forcefields will be incredibly hard. The game will then require blizzard to put out two patches, one for tournament play, one for average ladder play. for casual viewers who don't play the game, they have to watch a game where suddenly there is less storms, more mistakes and scattered units etc. for ladder players who wants to be a pro, they will find it harder to transition into Pro if they wanted to because suddenly the game is different for average ladder players, they can't relate their games to the pro's game as much.
[b]
Wait a minute, are you telling me that single player with several options of difficulty is not balanced and Blizzard still released this highly unbalanced game? I want my money back!
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
BW isnt more fun to play for the typical "casual" either. I mean why would it be? Its harder and not as "fluent" as sc2. I agree that it is more fun for people who are decent but thats not the point here i guess. If BW HD would have been released, with only updated graphics, nobody would play it, except MAYBE koreans. I srsly think its so stupid to generalize the "fun" aspect so hard like u guys do. WC3 for example was the most unfun rts game i have ever played (for me ofc..). Sc2 wasnt created for only esports either, thats so unbelievable stupid to say, if that would be true it wouldnt have unlimited unit selection, smartcast, automine, etcpp. It was created with the hindsight that there was an esportscene for BW.
Today's casual gamer simply is not really into Starcraft 2, the way they are into MOBA's like LoL or Dota.
It's just not a good MATCH: the average gamer, on the one hand, and a well-made RTS game like SC2 on the other.
Stop blaming Blizzard, the tournaments, the casters, the broadcasters, the gamer, the scene... Stop looking in the wrong places for answers.
Every 'problem' that people keep discussing in these threads would dissolve if SC2 had a huge casual player base. But SC2 does not have a huge casual player base. Why? Because of the things mentioned above. End. of. story.
On October 10 2013 22:35 ETisME wrote: Honestly my points being are:
What MikeMM suggested is stupid because: the game won't be balanced. Like I said, sentries with forcefields will be incredibly hard. The game will then require blizzard to put out two patches, one for tournament play, one for average ladder play. for casual viewers who don't play the game, they have to watch a game where suddenly there is less storms, more mistakes and scattered units etc. for ladder players who wants to be a pro, they will find it harder to transition into Pro if they wanted to because suddenly the game is different for average ladder players, they can't relate their games to the pro's game as much.
[b]
Wait a minute, are you telling me that single player with several options of difficulty is not balanced and Blizzard still released this highly unbalanced game? I want my money back!
what are you even talking about lol difficulty in single player didn't come in form of mechanics limitation, it came in form of more units, shorter timer etc
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
BW isnt more fun to play for the typical "casual" either. I mean why would it be? Its harder and not as "fluent" as sc2. I agree that it is more fun for people who are decent but thats not the point here i guess. If BW HD would have been released, with only updated graphics, nobody would play it, except MAYBE koreans. I srsly think its so stupid to generalize the "fun" aspect so hard like u guys do. WC3 for example was the most unfun rts game i have ever played (for me ofc..). Sc2 wasnt created for only esports either, thats so unbelievable stupid to say, if that would be true it wouldnt have unlimited unit selection, smartcast, automine, etcpp. It was created with the hindsight that there was an esportscene for BW.
Why on earth is Brood War still doing so well in PC bangs in Korea?
Let's ask anyone on these forums who played Brood War whether or not it was a very fun game.
Maybe you tried Brood War and got turned off by the graphics and how hard the game is to play or something. That doesn't apply to everyone, far from it.
Brood War was very fun to play and represented hours upon hours of in-depth game play (which is what most gamers look for in a game). Pretty the entirety of what makes SC2 a subtle game is having very precise knowledge of very precise timings.
SC2 itself is a pretty average RTS, if even. Brood War was WAY better and AoC as well. Both games are still played todaY.
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW[1] as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design[2], mules, injects, chrono boosts[3], warpgates[4], swarmy zerg[5], different pathing[6] and different controls[7]). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
[1] No. They could have made a completely different game. They didn't, because they wanted the game to be similar to BW. [2] Was already in BW. [3] Those were purely for the sake of making macro harder with MBS. [4] Warpgates are taken from the Protoss lore/SC1 campaign. [5] Was already in BW. One of the main complaints of SC2 haters when it comes to zerg is that it isn't swarmy enough with 2supply roaches instead of 1supply hydras. [6] That's not a "feature" of BW. Patrick Wyatt basically said they wanted to go for the best pathing possible. Which at this time simply was not to be made better. [7] Don't know what you are talking about. Apart from the selection limit the core control hasn't changed. You box units and issue orders to them through hotkeys/UI.
[7] is imo the core problem of RTS games these days. This kind of control hasn't been improved in itself since CnC1. It's hard as fuck for a beginner to keep up with just moving the units that he wants to use, meanwhile the core of the unit design is still the same as in 1992. Most units are basically limited to running and shooting. You don't get anything cool out of them that real soldiers, or characters in RPGs or something like that can do. "Micro" currently is nothing but where a unit runs and what it shoots - which is intersting for some time, but in itself only becomes interesting once you are in a "balanced situation".
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
BW isnt more fun to play for the typical "casual" either. I mean why would it be? Its harder and not as "fluent" as sc2. I agree that it is more fun for people who are decent but thats not the point here i guess. If BW HD would have been released, with only updated graphics, nobody would play it, except MAYBE koreans. I srsly think its so stupid to generalize the "fun" aspect so hard like u guys do. WC3 for example was the most unfun rts game i have ever played (for me ofc..). Sc2 wasnt created for only esports either, thats so unbelievable stupid to say, if that would be true it wouldnt have unlimited unit selection, smartcast, automine, etcpp. It was created with the hindsight that there was an esportscene for BW.
Why on earth is Brood War still doing so well in PC bangs in Korea?
Because it's free and people played it a lot. So those people who played it can always just play it again, while for SC2 they (after purchasing) would have to learn it and they have no emotional connection to it since they never played it.
Same as me playing MtG from time to time. I already know the rules and know how to play and invested time/money into it. Going back to it and playing it from time to time costs me no effort/money. Learning/buying YugiOh would. Or risk/settlers of cataon, even though they are quite mediocre strategically compared to boardgames like Dune/Rex or SC:Boardgame. Much easier to find players to play with you without teaching/training them for multiple sessions.
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
BW isnt more fun to play for the typical "casual" either. I mean why would it be? Its harder and not as "fluent" as sc2. I agree that it is more fun for people who are decent but thats not the point here i guess. If BW HD would have been released, with only updated graphics, nobody would play it, except MAYBE koreans. I srsly think its so stupid to generalize the "fun" aspect so hard like u guys do. WC3 for example was the most unfun rts game i have ever played (for me ofc..). Sc2 wasnt created for only esports either, thats so unbelievable stupid to say, if that would be true it wouldnt have unlimited unit selection, smartcast, automine, etcpp. It was created with the hindsight that there was an esportscene for BW.
In the context of competitive 1v1, you'd be right. Everywhere else, BW wins hands down, it was much more casual friendly with its numerous mods and custom games, social interface and the massively superior Bnet 1.0.
Very few people actually played 1v1 to any great extent, just like very few people actually play "real" football(that would be kind with a ball that you kick with your foot, for purposes of clarity), most of the times when we played we just went down to the local field and shot some penalty shots or other homebrew games. When we watched though, we always watched proper, 11 vs 11, big field football. Same with 1v1 in BW.
BW was like a fun, after school activity where you could just relax and dick around, play whatever, with lots of smacktalk and social gameplay. In SC2 it feels like you are told to play 1v1 ladder or go fuck yourself, more or less. It's very off-putting. This idea that BW was hostile to casual players because of a more demanding interface is not quite accurate.
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote: Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
In retrospect, BW blew everyone out the water. But that is a view of knowing the future and interpreting backwards.
From Patrick Wyatt's blog (lead developer of Starcraft)
With everyone looking critically at StarCraft, it was clear that the project needed to be vastly more ambitious than our previous ground-breaking efforts in defining the future of the real-time strategy (RTS) genre with the first two Warcraft games.
At the time of the StarCraft reboot, according to Johnny Wilson, then Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, the largest-distribution gaming magazine of that time, there were over eighty (80!!) RTS games in development. With so many competitors on our heels, including Westwood Studios, the company that originated the modern RTS play-style, we needed to make something that kicked ass.
Emphasis mine. I somehow doubt there are that many rts games in development now though there are a couple big ones that get released.
We're looking at it from the perspective of how competition affected Brood War, but in general you can see that with more games and more competition there will be increased risk taking and more variance in game quality. One of the game that ended up being great was Brood War, it's not necessary luck because in retrospect we can see what decisions were made to cause the desirable gameplay, but let's also not pretend like the developers had perfect foresight. (survivor bias)
Starcraft 2 on the other hand only had Supreme Commander II as competition? And they were guaranteed an audience because of Blizzard's brand value. Of course they would only consolidate and focus on getting a solid, well-produced game. Why should they take risks?
On October 09 2013 20:02 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:
On October 09 2013 13:14 Kheve wrote:
On October 09 2013 03:57 Ctone23 wrote:
Seriously though, there is entirely too much whining going on. It's downright depressing coming onto TL and reading through this. I mean, what did you guys expect, for SC2 to beat out the likes of the NFL, EPL, MLB?
Sitting around and bashing SC2 because so-and-so game is getting more viewers, or some nostalgic "BW is the best ever" approach (seriously what other games were out when BW was out that could compete?), just isn't healthy for the scene, and quite frankly shows that e-sports has a lot of growing up to do.
What other games were out?!?!??!?! OMG EVERY single game that died out thats what. And why did they die out? coz of BW. Did other developers jes shut their doors and say gg BW > ALL ofc not. They tried they failed thats all.
Command and conquer #1 before SC. Many sequels too with existing fanbase but all lost to an older game. Age of Empire another great of its time, all its sequel failed due to BW. Total anihilation touted as the greatest innovation in the rts genre died also when compared to BW. Countless of other big budget rts came and die. Oh yes how could i forget DUNE the grandfather of rts. Its not that BW had no competition, nearly all competition pales in comparison to BW.
This must be one of the stupiest comments that I have ever readed. How then you explain that aoe2 is highest rated rts game of all time? You call that fail? aoe3 is rated great also. aoe2 is also the most pirated game ever.
You are living in your own fantasy world where broodwar rules them all. And I dont wanna be dick but broodwar was pretty much dead outside of korea already in 2005. (By amounth of players)
Well, you are oblivious troll so I shouldnt answer to you.
Age of Empires II is still played at my university while Blizzard RTS games are forgotten. I think that they have an image as being a niche activity that's not necessarily respectable. I don't know if it's because of the difficulty, the cartoon graphics or the people proselyting about the coming of e-sports being seen as cultists, but among an audience of university students it hasn't aged very well.
AOE 2 is a very fundamentally sound game that has aged remarkably well. It's easier to play than BW mechanically and it's quite a bit more forgiving for small errors. It also simulates the strategy part of RTS very well.
I used to play it a ton back in the day, got fairly decent. It's definitely one of the all time best RTS games, probably the best for casual play, it's easy to pick up and play, and feels grandiose and epic. It never had the depth or razor edge balance of BW, some civs are clearly broken towards both ends of the spectrum, but that is typically not very important for a bunch of students getting together to play just for fun.
Edit: It just struck me, Koreans were borderline broken in AOE2, meaning they are OP in RTS games both in and out of the game. Nerf pls.
I played AOE2 a lot and i have with it kind of the same feeling as with WC3 or Unreal Tournament. Yes they are multiplayer games but they aren´t made on the purpose of being "esports". It looks like its just made to make as much fun as possible instead of forcing it.
Just like Brood War. Unlike SC2.
Guys I think we're on to something here.
Clearly on something. While creating SC2 developers wanted the game to be as different from BW as possible and they wanted underline diversity of each race (asymmetrical design, mules, injects, chrono boosts, warpgates, swarmy zerg, different pathing and different controls). Certainly with these self imposed restriction the game turned to be not as fun as it would have been without them.
BW isnt more fun to play for the typical "casual" either. I mean why would it be? Its harder and not as "fluent" as sc2. I agree that it is more fun for people who are decent but thats not the point here i guess. If BW HD would have been released, with only updated graphics, nobody would play it, except MAYBE koreans. I srsly think its so stupid to generalize the "fun" aspect so hard like u guys do. WC3 for example was the most unfun rts game i have ever played (for me ofc..). Sc2 wasnt created for only esports either, thats so unbelievable stupid to say, if that would be true it wouldnt have unlimited unit selection, smartcast, automine, etcpp. It was created with the hindsight that there was an esportscene for BW.
Why on earth is Brood War still doing so well in PC bangs in Korea?
Let's ask anyone on these forums who played Brood War whether or not it was a very fun game.
Maybe you tried Brood War and got turned off by the graphics and how hard the game is to play or something. That doesn't apply to everyone, far from it.
Brood War was very fun to play and represented hours upon hours of in-depth game play (which is what most gamers look for in a game). Pretty the entirety of what makes SC2 a subtle game is having very precise knowledge of very precise timings.
SC2 itself is a pretty average RTS, if even. Brood War was WAY better and AoC as well. Both games are still played todaY.
Cause it was big in korea and they play custom games? I dont even talk about korea necessarily, i talk about the generel gamer. We are here on a starcraft forum, ofc u see things like that here, cmon teamliquid isnt exactly the place to look for casual gamers.. I dont even say that i dont have fun playing broodwar, dont put words into my mouth. I just say Bw (1vs1) isnt more fun than sc2 for the typical casual. And no, in-depth game play isnt anything what most agmers look for, u clearly live in a dreamworld if you think that's true. They look for fast success, not more not less (thats why every genre there is gets watered down today).
On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote: BW was like a fun, after school activity where you could just relax and dick around, play whatever, with lots of smacktalk and social gameplay. In SC2 it feels like you are told to play 1v1 ladder or go fuck yourself, more or less. It's very off-putting. This idea that BW was hostile to casual players because of a more demanding interface is not quite accurate.
Well yeah custom games were much easier to have fun with in both BW and WC3, but he clearly speaks about the actual gameplay (1vs1) and i just cant agree there. I have to say that today the arcade function of sc2 isnt THAT bad either, it was just too late and most important there is no lan, so you would have to buy the game for playing custom games, nobody does that^^
Well... I have seen some dudes i know somehow do lanparties in their garage playing SC/BW (i was quite surprised and quickly showed them my mad, for several years sleeping, skills and won 1v3 :p). Now, they don't do this with SC2, they played it for like a week and now it's gone again. SC/BW? They still start it up from time to time. These are guys that never played SC/BW when it was "fresh/new"... They, for some reason, just have more fun with it (and they play "normal" 1on1's, not BGH or custom maps).
Casual friendlyness has nothing to do with how complex a game is... WoW, Lol and Dota are all very complex if you actually want to playthem good... But you can also just "play" and have fun with them... Thats for some reason just not working for SC2.
I didn't play more than ~10 games of SC/BW in the last 5 years...
But if i watch an old SC/BW Vod, run across some stream (i don't follow it atm) or just read about it I get this urge to play it again.. I also get this feeling when i see WC3 (and i really didn't like TfT all that much). I also get this when i see Total Annihilation... Or D2... Or Baldurs Gate 2... Even WoW...
EPT
