On October 11 2013 02:09 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Chess is the most dumbed down game. Simple unit movements, no APM required, no resources to gather.
Still is complex to play.
No matter how simplified a system competition still breeds from it. Bolt is no less an athlete than Nadal just because running has less mechanics than tennis.
Pretty sure that makes 0.1 sense. Checkers.
Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
On October 11 2013 01:53 Squat wrote: [quote] If the history of WoW for the kast 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 lasthitting in lol^^ Well yeah there are ways to make it easier, but i dotn think that that would be enjoybale by anyone :D LoL pretty much is the easiest game possible for being still competitive i think. The only thing i could see would be removing the fog of war, and maybe an even easier statssystem for champs (attack/defense, thats it) Well lets see what blizzard dota will do, maybe it will be exactly that ^^
Chess is the most dumbed down game. Simple unit movements, no APM required, no resources to gather.
Still is complex to play.
No matter how simplified a system competition still breeds from it. Bolt is no less an athlete than Nadal just because running has less mechanics than tennis.
Pretty sure that makes 0.1 sense. Checkers.
Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
arsenal extended power, has much more variables than RA, RA is a bad exampla here
On October 11 2013 02:01 The_Red_Viper wrote: [quote]
There is lasthitting in lol^^ Well yeah there are ways to make it easier, but i dotn think that that would be enjoybale by anyone :D LoL pretty much is the easiest game possible for being still competitive i think. The only thing i could see would be removing the fog of war, and maybe an even easier statssystem for champs (attack/defense, thats it) Well lets see what blizzard dota will do, maybe it will be exactly that ^^
Chess is the most dumbed down game. Simple unit movements, no APM required, no resources to gather.
Still is complex to play.
No matter how simplified a system competition still breeds from it. Bolt is no less an athlete than Nadal just because running has less mechanics than tennis.
Pretty sure that makes 0.1 sense. Checkers.
Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
arsenal extended power, has much more variables than RA, RA is a bad exampla here
Fine, Arsenal Extended Power then. The specificity of the example is not the point I'm trying to make. Games are just different and should be judged according to their strengths and not their comparative styles.
As far as I see it, the 'casuals' are naturally drifting out anyway.
Meanwhile, features implemented in a vain attempt to appease them lessen the aspects of the game that 'hardcore' players, enjoy, and thus they have started to drift out a bit much.
Most of the frustration with SC2 (to me) comes from things like deathballs, terrible, terrible damage and the things that were put in because Browder and the dev team said casuals would find them cool.
I mean it's no skin off my back, if I don't find the game fun, don't play I guess. It's frustrating because so much of the game is fixable, but it required some of the sacred cows such as warpgate/forcefield etc etc to have been re-evaluated, the clumping looked at etc.
I don't know, I think Blizzard blew it big time with the disastrous release debacle, I think SC2 could be a great casual game with some(ok quite a lot) of changes. Or at least could have been. The casual base is the key to a long term self-sustained Esport, but that ship has probably sailed since a few years back now. And now with LoL as the competition, eh I'm not optimistic. The only way now is for Blizzard to keep it afloat with their own money(with the added problem of strangling other leagues and tournaments), and I have no idea how long they'll consider that worthwhile.
I agree that the game is fixable, but in the sense of some fairly serious changes being required. As in basically being willing to turn the game inside out and examine some core aspects very critically. I doubt the SC2 team has the motivation, drive or even clout to get to do that at this point.
If Blizzard are unwilling or unable to reconsider core design and overall functionality in a serious way, we are basically fucked altogether, the game will fizzle out due to a myriad of individually minor irritations, but together amounting to a product that is simply not fun. I just wish they would either shit or get off the pot, either roll up the sleeves and start looking at some very hard design decisions that may require A LOT of work, not to mention ruffle a lot of feathers, or just say fuck it and dump WCS and walk away. Right now, it's basically just throwing money at the problems, hoping they will go away.
What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people!
On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote: What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people!
I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people!
On October 11 2013 02:18 Velouria wrote: [quote] Pretty sure that makes 0.1 sense. Checkers.
Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
On October 11 2013 02:25 Xenocide_Knight wrote: [quote] Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well to each person its own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch..
On October 11 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch..
But thats personal bias. All the things I'm showing not only have scenes, but their own versions on "bonjwas" and top level players that everyone knows. No SC2 figure has yet to match the type of Domination Kai Budd used to have on the Magic the Gathering Scene despite writing and posting MANY articles on not just how he plays but on how to beat his plays as well. Didn't matter that he would tell the world how to stop him, he'd still top 8 every Grand Prix he went to.
Same types of players in chess, in go, in poker, etc...
Many things are popular despite being easy.
I can never run as fast as Bolt, but watching him run isn't interesting to me personally. But many others love him.
On October 11 2013 02:25 Xenocide_Knight wrote: [quote] Map too large, pieces moving is too complex (especially in diagonals), and casuals don't want to invest time/money into acquiring otherwise useless game pieces. TicTacToe only pls
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch.
.
Well that's all fine and dandy for you.
Here we have a pretty good example of the failings in these arguments.
Party A: I like watching chess for strategy and decision making Party B: It is too easy to execute a chess move, I think it's boring
Clearly two completely different opinions. From here, you guys can talk in circles trying to convince the other that your opinion is better.. but do you really think that is going to happen on this TL forum?
Some people like SC2, some people like MOBA. Obviously one is generally more popular than the other (see viewer/player numbers), but does that mean one is "better" than the other? It's like a ping pong enthusiast and a soccer hoodlum arguing about which sport it better.
On October 11 2013 02:36 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Too many variables, instead play Go. Only one type of piece and no set game board. Pure freeform play.
I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch..
Ofc a 3v1 gank does not require epic execution, but a 5v5 teamfight requires massive execution skills (at a pro level of play). I don't know if you follow the dota scene but there's a reason why the pro players base has barely changed in the past years, there's just a few people who can reach the 'pro level' of execution. Thats why teams like Navi can dominate the scene for years, it's hard to get there, it's not just about knowledge.
On October 11 2013 03:18 Squat wrote: [quote] I roll rock paper scissors, though sometimes it's hard to keep track of what beats what. Then I just punch my opponent in the face screaming "FIST!" and subsequently declare victory.
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch..
But thats personal bias. All the things I'm showing not only have scenes, but their own versions on "bonjwas" and top level players that everyone knows. No SC2 figure has yet to match the type of Domination Kai Budd used to have on the Magic the Gathering Scene despite writing and posting MANY articles on not just how he plays but on how to beat his plays as well. Didn't matter that he would tell the world how to stop him, he'd still top 8 every Grand Prix he went to.
Same types of players in chess, in go, in poker, etc...
Many things are popular despite being easy.
I can never run as fast as Bolt, but watching him run isn't interesting to me personally. But many others love him.
i dont talk about domination in a scene, i talk about things i couldnt pull off in terms of execution. that are two different things. Ofc u can appreciate the "skill" of all these topplayers in the different games, but its just not exciting to watch. And picking bolt as an example is maybe not the best, is it? What about Messi, Nadal, etc?
On October 11 2013 09:07 bombsauce wrote: Well that's all fine and dandy for you.
Here we have a pretty good example of the failings in these arguments.
Party A: I like watching chess for strategy and decision making Party B: It is too easy to execute a chess move, I think it's boring
Clearly two completely different opinions. From here, you guys can talk in circles trying to convince the other that your opinion is better.. but do you really think that is going to happen on this TL forum?
Some people like SC2, some people like MOBA. Obviously one is generally more popular than the other (see viewer/player numbers), but does that mean one is "better" than the other? It's like a ping pong enthusiast and a soccer hoodlum arguing about which sport it better.
It's only going to lead to butthurt
I dont say the one is clearly better and that it "shouldnt be allowed" to appreciate that strategy aspect. I just dont think that a game without any execution can be really exciting TO WATCH. I mean there is literally no difference between watching a chessgame live or reading about it. I think that tells you that it doesnt make a good watchable "sport". The same isnt true for any "real" sports. As i said, i maybe can appreciate the skilllevel the players are on, but its just not enjoyable to watch, cause there is no execution part.
On October 11 2013 09:11 Xialos wrote: Ofc a 3v1 gank does not require epic execution, but a 5v5 teamfight requires massive execution skills (at a pro level of play). I don't know if you follow the dota scene but there's a reason why the pro players base has barely changed in the past years, there's just a few people who can reach the 'pro level' of execution. Thats why teams like Navi can dominate the scene for years, it's hard to get there, it's not just about knowledge.
I have to admit that i dont know much about dota, but generel in mobas: I am not so sure about that either. All you have to do (as one person) in a teamfight is to use like 4 spells and some kiting. I feel its much mor about knowledge there aswell (when can you fight, what to focus, when to disengage) I can see that there is teamwork needed to pull it off, but that comes down to experiance i think. I know this all sounds like bashing, i dont mean it that way, but its just not impressive for me when there is literally only one thing to micro. Just one question: Were there any rosterchanges in the dominant teams in dota2?
On October 11 2013 09:07 bombsauce wrote: Well that's all fine and dandy for you.
Here we have a pretty good example of the failings in these arguments.
Party A: I like watching chess for strategy and decision making Party B: It is too easy to execute a chess move, I think it's boring
Clearly two completely different opinions. From here, you guys can talk in circles trying to convince the other that your opinion is better.. but do you really think that is going to happen on this TL forum?
Some people like SC2, some people like MOBA. Obviously one is generally more popular than the other (see viewer/player numbers), but does that mean one is "better" than the other? It's like a ping pong enthusiast and a soccer hoodlum arguing about which sport it better.
It's only going to lead to butthurt
I dont say the one is clearly better and that it "shouldnt be allowed" to appreciate that strategy aspect. I just dont think that a game without any execution can be really exciting TO WATCH. I mean there is literally no difference between watching a chessgame live or reading about it. I think that tells you that it doesnt make a good watchable "sport". The same isnt true for any "real" sports. As i said, i maybe can appreciate the skilllevel the players are on, but its just not enjoyable to watch, cause there is no execution part.
I like how you put it: (I don't say it) "shouldn't be allowed" in quotes. I never accused you of saying that making it seem like some serious projecting from you.
Regardless, you'll be damned if you let someone with a different opinion just have that opinion without you telling them it's crap or making absolute truth-statements.
I think it's pretty funny that you keep bringing up Messi as some quintessential example of finesse and execution and a reason action packed sports are better than timed moves like chess. (although I agree he is pretty incredible)
Plenty of people (admittedly mostly in the U.S.) will tell you soccer is a bullshit sport that is extremely boring to watch, and they couldn't care less about seeing some fairies dancing around the field and faking penalties and they'll just read about the world cup results in the paper. "Gimme a beer and some American Football and now you got a sport everyone loves to watch (hue hue)"
On October 11 2013 03:24 Thieving Magpie wrote: [quote]
Go has only one type of piece and one type of move. Rock Papers Scissors needs 3 different pieces with variant results depending on piece interaction and hand speed dynamics. Also as too many variants such as lizard spock and hand grenade. Go much simpler. One type of piece one type of move no rules restrictions on where you can move, just pure strategy.
I wonder if there is a way dumb Go down too btw. It seems pretty challenging to do that.
Trying to play the game of "such and such is dumbed down" is ridiculous because there is almost always a more dumbed down game out there that is just as strategically complex.
The simplicity of controls does not correlate with its strategic complexity.
Go is complex despite its simplicity much like Red Alert is simple despite its MANY MANY variables and Nukes. Trying to scapegoat one aspect of a subject to "prove" objective "betterness" is just a bizarre internet habit.
It's much more about the impact of the variables than the quantity of them. In the RA example, the majority of variables don't actually matter because the most important one, who can make the most tanks, completely overshadows all the others.
In BW there was a beautiful symmetry of variables, where micro, high ground, unit control, clutch spellcasting, economy and macro formed a symphony of awesome where one never overshadowed the others. I have no idea if that's possible to replicate without just porting the game, but I think this is one of the things that just feel wrong about SC2. A massive army of units with terrible terrible damage reduce many other variables to insignificance, leading to a feeling of shallowness to the gameplay. A crushing loss of your maxed late game army typically means a lost game, regardless of economy or number of bases. Midgame TvZ is so exciting precisely because there is no mega doom army to suspend the other variables in the game, you have to stay on top of multiple aspects at once, and it creates very exciting games.
I love BW and I think its one of the best games every created by Gods, not man,GODS!
But my argument was mostly stemming as a response to this constant attack on MOBAs. Im not a big fan of them, but saying they are worse games because they're mechanically easier than BW/SC2/Street Fighter IV is a ridiculous stance to take.
Well maybe not worse games, but easier. strategy alone is just not that interesting and compelling. real sports is so cool cause there is a difficulty in execution and in pretty much every sports i can think of thats the most important part. Yeah there is strategy too, but it matters WHO is playing it. If a game gets too dumbed down in controlls you only have the strategy left and thats just not what sports should be in my opinion. I am not even saying that thats the case in the current mobas (you could argue) but if you make them even easier...
But even then.
It doesn't take mechanical skill to play chess, go, poker, magic the gathering, etc...
But despite taking less APM they are still both fun to play and highly complex and fun to watch.
I am not only talking about apm, i mean fps games dont require apm, its just execution. If i think i can execute just aswell, its not that entertaining.. My personal problem with mobas is that most of the time it doesnt look impressive to me, i get the feeling that its most about knowledge, not so much execution. For example: i dont think an early 2/3 vs1 man gank is impressive at all. They do it (and maybe the knowledge WHEN to do it takes skill), but the actual gank is pretty meh cause its just not that hard to execute most of the time. A game that is defined purely on knowledge and decisionmaking is just not that exciting. If i take real sports here: if i watch messi i see things that i just cant do and that feels great to watch, same goes for any sport i can think of. That same aspect applies to rts games (yes even sc2), but to mobas? Well each person his own, but mobas lack that executionpart in my opinion.
And no i dont think that any game you mentioned there is fun to watch..
But thats personal bias. All the things I'm showing not only have scenes, but their own versions on "bonjwas" and top level players that everyone knows. No SC2 figure has yet to match the type of Domination Kai Budd used to have on the Magic the Gathering Scene despite writing and posting MANY articles on not just how he plays but on how to beat his plays as well. Didn't matter that he would tell the world how to stop him, he'd still top 8 every Grand Prix he went to.
Same types of players in chess, in go, in poker, etc...
Many things are popular despite being easy.
I can never run as fast as Bolt, but watching him run isn't interesting to me personally. But many others love him.
i dont talk about domination in a scene, i talk about things i couldnt pull off in terms of execution. that are two different things. Ofc u can appreciate the "skill" of all these topplayers in the different games, but its just not exciting to watch. And picking bolt as an example is maybe not the best, is it? What about Messi, Nadal, etc?
On October 11 2013 09:07 bombsauce wrote: Well that's all fine and dandy for you.
Here we have a pretty good example of the failings in these arguments.
Party A: I like watching chess for strategy and decision making Party B: It is too easy to execute a chess move, I think it's boring
Clearly two completely different opinions. From here, you guys can talk in circles trying to convince the other that your opinion is better.. but do you really think that is going to happen on this TL forum?
Some people like SC2, some people like MOBA. Obviously one is generally more popular than the other (see viewer/player numbers), but does that mean one is "better" than the other? It's like a ping pong enthusiast and a soccer hoodlum arguing about which sport it better.
It's only going to lead to butthurt
I dont say the one is clearly better and that it "shouldnt be allowed" to appreciate that strategy aspect. I just dont think that a game without any execution can be really exciting TO WATCH. I mean there is literally no difference between watching a chessgame live or reading about it. I think that tells you that it doesnt make a good watchable "sport". The same isnt true for any "real" sports. As i said, i maybe can appreciate the skilllevel the players are on, but its just not enjoyable to watch, cause there is no execution part.
On October 11 2013 09:11 Xialos wrote: Ofc a 3v1 gank does not require epic execution, but a 5v5 teamfight requires massive execution skills (at a pro level of play). I don't know if you follow the dota scene but there's a reason why the pro players base has barely changed in the past years, there's just a few people who can reach the 'pro level' of execution. Thats why teams like Navi can dominate the scene for years, it's hard to get there, it's not just about knowledge.
I have to admit that i dont know much about dota, but generel in mobas: I am not so sure about that either. All you have to do (as one person) in a teamfight is to use like 4 spells and some kiting. I feel its much mor about knowledge there aswell (when can you fight, what to focus, when to disengage) I can see that there is teamwork needed to pull it off, but that comes down to experiance i think. I know this all sounds like bashing, i dont mean it that way, but its just not impressive for me when there is literally only one thing to micro. Just one question: Were there any rosterchanges in the dominant teams in dota2?
There's roster changes everyday lol. But it's always the same players (that's why i'm saying it's hard to reach the A level of execution). I don't know why you give so much importance to micro lol, there's much more impressive things. I'm master in sc2 and I play dota for years, so I can tell you that there's a lot of execution skillz in dota.
A few things have diminished my interest in viewing and playing SC2. The seemingly complete dominance of Koreans in even WCS AM (which implies that it's limited to players in/from the Americas) as well as the lack of strategy variety in the various match ups means I barely tune in to SC2 these days after three years of watching it.
PvT looks much the same as it did three years ago, ZvT has gotten progressively less exciting since the HotS release, and ZvP is a snoozefest. PvP still comes across as a coin flip, TvT can have some exciting positional matches, and ZvZ at least got away from the early HotS muta wars. The game just doesn't seem to be very flexible and stagnates quickly; I'd rather watch CS:GO where a single player experiencing phenomenal execution can flip a round on its head and turn the tide of the overall match and where new tricks are being discovered (new tricks and techniques are still occasionally popping up in 1.6 which is over a decade old), or DotA 2 where the matches have much more of a chance of being down to the wire. SC2 it always seems like the game is over far in advance of gg.
EGSuppy said once on his stream that it is much harder to become known than before, with the WCS system. It's hard to become a big name when you have to compete in WCS against so many Koreans. Most of the time, upcoming pros will be stuck in Challenger for a long time, and not be known at all.
On October 11 2013 07:55 thepuppyassassin wrote: What made Brood War so great is it's ability to generate lasting stars. When people think of Brood War they think about the faces of Brood War and the dynasties those faces created. Boxer, Iloveoov, Savior, Flash etc.. Three years and we still haven't had a Bonjwa. The question we have to consider is whether or not SC2's inability to generate a Bonjwa comes from the volatility of the game, an aspect of game design, like deathballs, that allows lesser skilled players to more frequently topple players at the top. Or is it related to non-gameplay elements like the availability of build orders and player POVs from replays. Or is it related to reasons outside the game itself, such as streamlined team organization and practice that diminished the importance of raw talent. Even towards Brood Wars end there were a select few at the top rather than just a single individual. The answer is probably a little bit of all these elements. Whatever it is, it stinks and I don't like it. Get it together Blizzard.
Also I'm wondering why people still play Brood War. From what I understand we already have a pretty decent port of the game in SC2:BW. Let's start seeing some tourneys in this format people!
I have seen this point rebuked time and time again on these forums with actual statistics. No, I am not going to compile them here, because this topic has already been beaten more than any dead horse in existence, but I wish people would at least stop bringing up this blatantly fallacious point.
tl/dr MVP
ts/bh/dr/atu too short, blatantly hyperbolic, did read, almost threw up.
EPT
