|
On October 10 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:
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.
Ah cmon, i can tell you about my friend too, who dont give a fk about bw just cause it has old graphics and "weird" controll.
Thats just not representative.
I think i can tell you the biggest problem with sc2, its the laddersystem in itself. You are forced to lose around 50% of the time .And because its a 1vs1 they realize its cause they are bad, there are no teammates to blame, no stats to hunt (lol: yeah i had 12-9-5, i am so gosu, wasnt my fault we lost)
|
On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2013 13:33 Falling wrote: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.
BW ladder was dead.
The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters
Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players.
Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't.
SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001.
|
I still feel that quite a bit of game design can be fixed by better maps. For example why not have small areas of really strong defence buffs in strategic parts of the maps, so that smaller groups of units could defend against deathballs though superior micro? Why not have smaller and more spread-out expansions to force multiple small skirmishes? That is just two proposals. There are countless other potential map features that could revitalise the gameplay and make it much more enjoyable to watch!
I fully agree with the rest of the OP.
|
On October 10 2013 23:35 Alex1Sun wrote:
I still feel that quite a bit of game design can be fixed by better maps. For example why not have small areas of really strong defence buffs in strategic parts of the maps, so that smaller groups of units could defend against deathballs though superior micro? Why not have smaller and more spread-out expansions to force multiple small skirmishes? That is just two proposals. There are countless other potential map features that could revitalise the gameplay and make it much more enjoyable to watch!
I fully agree with the rest of the OP.
The BW ladder used a slower game speed than ICCUP
That is because everyone hated the BW ladder and decided to make their own ladder instead with different rules and different map limitations. They had to hack the code and go beyond the simple map editor at the time which did not allow enough freedom.
Because of that BW grew.
Somehow people are skittish to do play non-blizzard maps on SC2 which is the opposite of what happened in BW
|
On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2013 13:33 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001.
I'd argue that that Bnet 1.0 was doing its job just fine. It was there to facilitate player communication and interaction, it was more a chat function than anything else, and it worked it that capacity.
Not sure what the rest of the point was, that was pretty much exactly what I just said. The lack of emphasis on ladder play in BW was a big strength of the game.
|
On October 10 2013 23:35 Alex1Sun wrote:
I still feel that quite a bit of game design can be fixed by better maps. For example why not have small areas of really strong defence buffs in strategic parts of the maps, so that smaller groups of units could defend against deathballs though superior micro? Why not have smaller and more spread-out expansions to force multiple small skirmishes? That is just two proposals. There are countless other potential map features that could revitalise the gameplay and make it much more enjoyable to watch!
I fully agree with the rest of the OP.
I agree, rigth now that won´t be possible since the flying units make the map "flat" when they give you vision over the high ground, so, besides the ramps (choke points), its impossible to defend a place with "a few units" against deathballs.
We can theorize of how to fix the world... I mean SC2, but games and e-sports needs popularity to survive, it doesn´t matter if a game is good or not, if it´s not popular, it doesn´t matter the changes, the people will keep playing popular games like LOL.
|
Canada11363 Posts
On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2013 13:33 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001.
Blizzard run Battlenet 1.0 was a failure. But take the same UI and in the hands of other people, multiple servers exist to this day that works for laddering, forces you to see people when you go to multiplayer (rather than having chat relegated to a small, optional box in the corner), and very much encouraged the idea of hanging out in chat channels and making games with people you have met there. What made Battlenet 1.0 a failure (although east survived along time on BGH) had more to do with Blizzard control then the actual design. (Map pool, hackers, no-lan latency, a huge delay in making Fastest the official speed, etc, etc.) 1v1 ladder operates much better without Blizzard.
|
On October 10 2013 23:48 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2013 13:33 Falling wrote:
[quote]
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)
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001. Blizzard run Battlenet 1.0 was a failure. But take the same UI and in the hands of other people, multiple servers exist to this day that works for laddering, forces you to see people when you go to multiplayer (rather than having chat relegated to a small, optional box in the corner), and very much encouraged the idea of hanging out in chat channels and making games with people you have met there. What made Battlenet 1.0 a failure (although east survived along time on BGH) had more to do with Blizzard control then the actual design. (Map pool, hackers, no-lan latency, a huge delay in making Fastest the official speed, etc, etc.) 1v1 ladder operates much better without Blizzard.
I don't disagree.
Battlenet 1.0 was a succesful chat room but a failure of system. Majority of its functions were ignored or filled with only 1-2 maps at most.
Melee was just endless iterations of Fastest Map Ever in various sizes.
Battlenet 2.0 fails as a giant chat room but excels MUCH better as map dispersion system.
I never understand the praise for battlenet 1.0 when it needs outside servers and outside websites to work. I do miss it, but it was terrible at doing anything except be a chat room.
Warcraft 3's was MUCH better and is something SC2 really needs to take lessons from.
|
On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:On October 09 2013 13:33 Falling wrote: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.
BW is more fun for the casual because maybe it's a better game, idk. You keep singling out korea but the reason BW was big in korea was because it was the most fun game to play casually. And as far as I saw, sc2 was marketed so heavily as an "esport", it was already doing tournament rounds in the beta. Like, it was unbelievable how badly blizzard wanted to cash in on the esports market. The whole dumbing down was, imo, done in order to widen the number of people who could play competitively to an international scale.
Were you around in 2010ish? Because the lead up to beta and launch of sc2 literally reeked of "esports". It was almost a palpable entity looming over every single pre-ordered box.
|
On October 10 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:48 Falling wrote:On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:On October 09 2013 21:48 Grumbels wrote:
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001. Blizzard run Battlenet 1.0 was a failure. But take the same UI and in the hands of other people, multiple servers exist to this day that works for laddering, forces you to see people when you go to multiplayer (rather than having chat relegated to a small, optional box in the corner), and very much encouraged the idea of hanging out in chat channels and making games with people you have met there. What made Battlenet 1.0 a failure (although east survived along time on BGH) had more to do with Blizzard control then the actual design. (Map pool, hackers, no-lan latency, a huge delay in making Fastest the official speed, etc, etc.) 1v1 ladder operates much better without Blizzard. I don't disagree. Battlenet 1.0 was a succesful chat room but a failure of system. Majority of its functions were ignored or filled with only 1-2 maps at most. Melee was just endless iterations of Fastest Map Ever in various sizes. Battlenet 2.0 fails as a giant chat room but excels MUCH better as map dispersion system. I never understand the praise for battlenet 1.0 when it needs outside servers and outside websites to work. I do miss it, but it was terrible at doing anything except be a chat room. Warcraft 3's was MUCH better and is something SC2 really needs to take lessons from.
Well... WC3 Bnet is basically the same as SC/BW Bnet + Laddermatchquickfind + Tournament function, when people talk about Bnet1.0 they also tend to include WC3?
|
On October 11 2013 00:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:48 Falling wrote:On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001. Blizzard run Battlenet 1.0 was a failure. But take the same UI and in the hands of other people, multiple servers exist to this day that works for laddering, forces you to see people when you go to multiplayer (rather than having chat relegated to a small, optional box in the corner), and very much encouraged the idea of hanging out in chat channels and making games with people you have met there. What made Battlenet 1.0 a failure (although east survived along time on BGH) had more to do with Blizzard control then the actual design. (Map pool, hackers, no-lan latency, a huge delay in making Fastest the official speed, etc, etc.) 1v1 ladder operates much better without Blizzard. I don't disagree. Battlenet 1.0 was a succesful chat room but a failure of system. Majority of its functions were ignored or filled with only 1-2 maps at most. Melee was just endless iterations of Fastest Map Ever in various sizes. Battlenet 2.0 fails as a giant chat room but excels MUCH better as map dispersion system. I never understand the praise for battlenet 1.0 when it needs outside servers and outside websites to work. I do miss it, but it was terrible at doing anything except be a chat room. Warcraft 3's was MUCH better and is something SC2 really needs to take lessons from. Well... WC3 Bnet is basically the same as SC/BW Bnet + Laddermatchquickfind + Tournament function, when people talk about Bnet1.0 they also tend to include WC3?
Colloquially, it's basically everything except Bnet 2.0
|
WC3's BNet was extremely good. It had its flaws, some of which BNet 2.0 corrected. For example, being able to watch a replay and remain online to chat with your friends is pretty awesome... If you have anyone to chat with. I like the function that allows you to watch replays with a friend too.
There are other features that are nice on BNet 2.0, it's not all bad. The ladder system is pretty damn cool. The fact that you can do everything online to keep in touch with your friends while you do stuff is also just good overall. However, the rest of BNet 2.0 killed the social aspect of the interface completely, and so those improvements hardly matter at all. The fact is that, on BNet 2.0, you feel alone.
WC3's BNet's main focus was chat rooms, and it showed. BNet was just very social back then, and while there were a few cases of bad manners on channels, it was still a very positive experience. That plus the tournaments, the clans and everything else... It was just so much better. If you ask me, if Blizzard were to take the nice functions of BNet 2.0 and merge them with the interface of TFT's BNet, we'd have an incredible gaming platform.
|
I think even if SC2 was undisputably the greatest RTS of all time, with amazing Battle.net 2.0 and all the custom games of WC3, it still would have been beaten by Dota 2 and Lol. The average gamer is not interested in RTS games because they are so difficult to even be OK at. Most BW players never touched 1v1, they just stuck around playing stuff like BGH and UMS maps. Now there is an even easier game in the form of the MOBA which still provides the 'strategy' fix of RTS without any difficult mechanics and team mates you can blame for any personal mistakes.
Ultimately the slow decline of SC2 is only tangentially related to the game itself. Its more about how RTS as a genre has almost ceased to exist, due to the fact that easier strategy games (MOBA) appeal to the masses more easily. Once they somehow figure out a way to dumb down the MOBA we will see Dota 2 and Lol die in turn.
|
On October 11 2013 01:11 Clarty wrote:
I think even if SC2 was undisputably the greatest RTS of all time, with amazing Battle.net 2.0 and all the custom games of WC3, it still would have been beaten by Dota 2 and Lol. The average gamer is not interested in RTS games because they are so difficult to even be OK at. Most BW players never touched 1v1, they just stuck around playing stuff like BGH and UMS maps. Now there is an even easier game in the form of the MOBA which still provides the 'strategy' fix of RTS without any difficult mechanics and team mates you can blame for any personal mistakes.
Ultimately the slow decline of SC2 is only tangentially related to the game itself. Its more about how RTS as a genre has almost ceased to exist, due to the fact that easier strategy games (MOBA) appeal to the masses more easily. Once they somehow figure out a way to dumb down the MOBA we will see Dota 2 and Lol die in turn.
Dumb down MOBAs? How is that even possible? I dont think its possible to make lol even easier without destroying the competetive aspect.
I dotn want to say that i cant respect the competetive scene, just saying that there is no more room to dumb it down without making the competition a joke.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 11 2013 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 01:11 Clarty wrote:
I think even if SC2 was undisputably the greatest RTS of all time, with amazing Battle.net 2.0 and all the custom games of WC3, it still would have been beaten by Dota 2 and Lol. The average gamer is not interested in RTS games because they are so difficult to even be OK at. Most BW players never touched 1v1, they just stuck around playing stuff like BGH and UMS maps. Now there is an even easier game in the form of the MOBA which still provides the 'strategy' fix of RTS without any difficult mechanics and team mates you can blame for any personal mistakes.
Ultimately the slow decline of SC2 is only tangentially related to the game itself. Its more about how RTS as a genre has almost ceased to exist, due to the fact that easier strategy games (MOBA) appeal to the masses more easily. Once they somehow figure out a way to dumb down the MOBA we will see Dota 2 and Lol die in turn. Dumb down MOBAs? How is that even possible? I dont think its possible to make lol even easier without destroying the competetive aspect.
It is pretty possible. Compare LoL and Dota.
|
On October 10 2013 23:29 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:23 Velr wrote:
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. Ah cmon, i can tell you about my friend too, who dont give a fk about bw just cause it has old graphics and "weird" controll. Thats just not representative. I think i can tell you the biggest problem with sc2, its the laddersystem in itself. You are forced to lose around 50% of the time .And because its a 1vs1 they realize its cause they are bad, there are no teammates to blame, no stats to hunt (lol: yeah i had 12-9-5, i am so gosu, wasnt my fault we lost)
Well, since it is a 1vs1 game, there is no way of getting around losing 50% of your games and having nobody to blame except yourself. Also skill is something that degrades over time, so reaching a higher rank will not give you a lasting sense of achievement, unlike hitting certain milestones in other games.
The only step I see that blizzard can make is overhauling bnet to make it easier for player to socialize and look for other players to share their experience with in bnet itself (as opposed to a forum like tl). Or maybe it's just me, I swear I looked all over the net to find a German clan for casuals. It just doesn't seem to exist.
|
There is no problem, get over yourself. So what if SC2 or BW never got the chance they really deserved, a *free* game will always win, just be happy we still have a pretty damn good competitive scene.
Besides in 3 or 4 years there will be a new F2P game that will take over, and don't be surprised if at that time SC2:LotV > Dota / LoL / HoN.
One of the things that makes Starcraft standout is the longevity of the series, from 2000-2009 we had ONE fucking game. Broodwar. And in that span we watched countless competitive games rise and fall, or simply move to the next game in the series. Thats why we have Boxer and Flash and Jaedong, and everyone else will have ????... for 2 years, then fade away.
SC2 will be just fine.
|
On October 10 2013 23:35 Alex1Sun wrote:
I still feel that quite a bit of game design can be fixed by better maps. For example why not have small areas of really strong defence buffs in strategic parts of the maps, so that smaller groups of units could defend against deathballs though superior micro? Why not have smaller and more spread-out expansions to force multiple small skirmishes? That is just two proposals. There are countless other potential map features that could revitalise the gameplay and make it much more enjoyable to watch!
I fully agree with the rest of the OP.
There is just no way of adding a defenders advantage for a group of few units while at the same time not also adding a defenders advantage to the deathball --> Even more turtling.
Sc2 is just way too structurally unsound for any easy fix here. All Blizzard can do at the moment is too overbuff harass units, thats really the only way to reward more action and multitasking due to the unsound economy.
|
On October 11 2013 00:36 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2013 23:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:48 Falling wrote:On October 10 2013 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 10 2013 23:13 Squat wrote:On October 10 2013 22:56 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 10 2013 22:38 MikeMM wrote:On October 10 2013 22:23 Incognoto wrote:On October 09 2013 22:55 USvBleakill wrote:On October 09 2013 22:21 Squat wrote:
[quote]
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. BW ladder was dead. The non-UMS maps were all either Lost Temple or Hunters Everyone only played UMS or used a server to look for players. Battlenet 1.0 was a failure at doing its job and had to have out of the game websites and servers to provide what it could't. SC2 went the opposite way, no easy UMS access + convinced everyone to ladder. If majority of BW players were forced to ladder then BW would have died by 2001. Blizzard run Battlenet 1.0 was a failure. But take the same UI and in the hands of other people, multiple servers exist to this day that works for laddering, forces you to see people when you go to multiplayer (rather than having chat relegated to a small, optional box in the corner), and very much encouraged the idea of hanging out in chat channels and making games with people you have met there. What made Battlenet 1.0 a failure (although east survived along time on BGH) had more to do with Blizzard control then the actual design. (Map pool, hackers, no-lan latency, a huge delay in making Fastest the official speed, etc, etc.) 1v1 ladder operates much better without Blizzard. I don't disagree. Battlenet 1.0 was a succesful chat room but a failure of system. Majority of its functions were ignored or filled with only 1-2 maps at most. Melee was just endless iterations of Fastest Map Ever in various sizes. Battlenet 2.0 fails as a giant chat room but excels MUCH better as map dispersion system. I never understand the praise for battlenet 1.0 when it needs outside servers and outside websites to work. I do miss it, but it was terrible at doing anything except be a chat room. Warcraft 3's was MUCH better and is something SC2 really needs to take lessons from. Well... WC3 Bnet is basically the same as SC/BW Bnet + Laddermatchquickfind + Tournament function, when people talk about Bnet1.0 they also tend to include WC3?
Having A.) a working ladder system
and B.) a smoother melee map community
and C.) a lack of dependency on third party websites to play 1v1 games
Are all HUGE leaps forward from BW Battlenet.
BW Battlenet was also massively better than D2 battlenet.
The problem is that people are joining SC2 for "esports" or to be the best. And when you custom, people yell at you for having a low profile making casuals feel bad.
|
On October 11 2013 01:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2013 01:11 Clarty wrote:
I think even if SC2 was undisputably the greatest RTS of all time, with amazing Battle.net 2.0 and all the custom games of WC3, it still would have been beaten by Dota 2 and Lol. The average gamer is not interested in RTS games because they are so difficult to even be OK at. Most BW players never touched 1v1, they just stuck around playing stuff like BGH and UMS maps. Now there is an even easier game in the form of the MOBA which still provides the 'strategy' fix of RTS without any difficult mechanics and team mates you can blame for any personal mistakes.
Ultimately the slow decline of SC2 is only tangentially related to the game itself. Its more about how RTS as a genre has almost ceased to exist, due to the fact that easier strategy games (MOBA) appeal to the masses more easily. Once they somehow figure out a way to dumb down the MOBA we will see Dota 2 and Lol die in turn. Dumb down MOBAs? How is that even possible? I dont think its possible to make lol even easier without destroying the competetive aspect. I dotn want to say that i cant respect the competetive scene, just saying that there is no more room to dumb it down without making the competition a joke.
If the history of WoW for the last 6 years has taught us anything, it's that you can ALWAYS dumb down more. And find people who like it.
Maybe take an ability away from the champions, now you have only one ability and right click. Maybe have the abilities select themselves. There are definitely ways to make to MOBA games even easier. LoL took out last hitting, couriers and denying, huge parts of the DotA skillset and replaced them with nothing. And people apparently loved it.
There is just no way of adding a defenders advantage for a group of few units while at the same time not also adding a defenders advantage to the deathball --> Even more turtling.
Sc2 is just way too structurally unsound for any easy fix here. All Blizzard can do at the moment is too overbuff harass units, thats really the only way to reward more action and multitasking due to the unsound economy.
It comes back to 3 base symmetrical economy and terrible terrible damage, over and over. It's a catch 22, can't make defender's advantage meaningful without making a turtling deathblob completely bizarre. Protoss being especially egregious in this regard and generally just plain shit is a topic of its own, but as long as they game does not adequately reward controlling the map and having a large amount of bases, any significant defender's advantage will just make things worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
