Khaldor posted a video in which he talks about the future of RTS, and the general differences between SC2, MOBAs and WC3, most specifically for the viewer.
Key points:
- His opinion about why SC2 isn't as popular as LoL, DotA 2, etc. - The fundamental differences between SC2, MOBAs and WC3 from the viewer's point of view - SC2's struggle with popularity in general - The future of RTS games - His own experience as a shoutcaster on both WC3 and SC2
Overall, I agree with him. I am still a big fan of WC3, and I actually believe that, given the huge success of MOBA games, if WC3 were to be released today, it would be a huge hit (though I am not so hopeful about WC4 as he seems to be, I've developed a bit of a cynical side for Blizzard). Simply because there is so much action going on, mixed with good strategy, that it's just good. SC2 does not lack strategy, quite the contrary, but it does lack that flashy visual highlight that a lot of viewers are looking for.
I don't think such elements will ever be added to SC2, if truth be told, but in any case I think it's good to have a respected shoutcaster like Khaldor discussing it.
***EDIT***
As Khaldor requested in this very thread, here is the link to his second video on the topic:
As well as Khaldor's explanation regarding his points:
"after reading more of the comments I have to highlight again that my main point is not about RTS vs. MOBAs. The comparison comes to mind easily because of the nature of the discussion. But the main point is the micro vs. macro aspect and how to get people EXCITED about what's happening and also why it's easier to be passionated about a game with a strong micro focus."
Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time. There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
On February 15 2014 23:31 Saumure wrote: Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time. There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
Chess isn't exactly a huge spectator sport. The argument is not what is 'better' since that is subjective. But it is true that it would draw in more casual audiences.
On February 15 2014 23:31 Saumure wrote: Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time. There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
Chess isn't exactly a huge spectator sport. The argument is not what is 'better' since that is subjective. But it is true that it would draw in more casual audiences.
I'm pretty sure it is lol. It may just be because it has a several century headstart, but its crazily deep strategy draws in a lot of people.
On February 15 2014 23:31 Saumure wrote: Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time. There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
Chess isn't exactly a huge spectator sport. The argument is not what is 'better' since that is subjective. But it is true that it would draw in more casual audiences.
I'm pretty sure it is lol. It may just be because it has a several century headstart, but its crazily deep strategy draws in a lot of people.
Yes, a lot of people watched the Carlson-anand series. But do you have stadiums of people watching chess live like the big pro sports?
On February 15 2014 23:31 Saumure wrote: Chess does not provide flashy visual stuff. Neither do old movies, yet they are better most of the time. There is no other point you 'developped' to give thoughts on ...
Chess isn't exactly a huge spectator sport. The argument is not what is 'better' since that is subjective. But it is true that it would draw in more casual audiences.
I'm pretty sure it is lol. It may just be because it has a several century headstart, but its crazily deep strategy draws in a lot of people.
Yes, a lot of people watched the Carlson-anand series. But do you have stadiums of people watching chess live like the big pro sports?
I don't doubt your point. I'd just say that a sport can be popular without flashy stuff. Of course the flashier the easier it is to be popular though.
I think he makes good points on the reason as to why the state of the game in eSports is today, with MOBA's being super popular and such. Giving casual gamers something familiar to relate to makes it much easier for them to get interested, and stay interested. So does "flashy visual stuff", or "varied and colourful design", as I like to call it. This can change in a few years though, people may grow tired of always watching or playing "hero-type games".. By the time WC4 rolls around, MOBA's may be on the decline.
On February 15 2014 23:55 Luppy1 wrote: Before talking about attracting new players, maybe he should consider why SC2 is struggling to even retain existing ones.
Can't really agree with this. I've played (the old) Dota a lot (back in the days), still I don't really get what is going on in the MOBA battles. Imo to get excited about MOBAs you have to know all the Heroes and spells involved. Like, when I tried to watch LoL, it was just random stuff and effects going off and people randomly dying, since I had no clue what possibilities were there.
In my opinion the main problem of RTS is that it is mechanically and attententionwise too hard. You have to focus on too many places all over the map and you have to grind out all those mechanical training sessions (which is extremely boring). Compared to how easy it is for a player to always stay focused on one screen and control one hero, it is just annoying to have to switch screen, select a worker, tab through a menu and find a place where you want to put down that supply depot. While all you really want to do is run around with your units and have new armies being made. I think for RTS games this has to become a keyfocus if they want to regain popularity amongst players (viewers will follow, since the viewers are 95% recruted from the playerbase): make macromechanics easier or straight out automate parts of them. I know this is an unpopular thought amongst oldschool RTS elitists, but think about what would be if we had even less automatization. Imagine you had to manually mine with your workers (send them to the minerals; send them back home). Of course the skilllevel would improve greatly, but is this fun and does this lead to growth of playerbase? Even elitists would say that this is too much, yet, we draw the line with arbitrary standards that have been created by games in the 1990s like CnC, Warcraft 1-2 and Broodwar. So I ask, is switching screens away from where the battle happens fun? Is spamming keys to build units in the midth of a fight what you want to focus at? Of course, making parts of the game easier may be problematic for competitive play, yet, there are easy ways to make up for that, by making units more potent. Give all units more standard abilities they can do apart from move+attack. E.g. give infantry the ability to run and crawl, and let tanks overrun smaller units if controlled properly. Three dimensional airbattles where you can avoid missiles with loopings and stuff like that! Skilllevel would increase through unit control and tactical usages of their abilities - which is the amazing thing we really like about playing RTS games, not the qeuing of another SCV or the ability to get supply blocked for only 1:15min in a 20min game.
Speaking about RTS skill videos. SC2 has very few and it's not because it's RTS game but because game is made that way.
Brood war has a ton, i mean a ton of pimp movies (and i don't want to start sc2 vs bw) just want to say that RTS can have those exciting moments where casual crowd can easily identify. Reaver micro and scrabs killing ton of shit, muta micro, mines from voltures, volture micro, lurkers, defilers etc. all those things make some big moments and you can go "woooah" there's not much stuff like that in sc2
On February 16 2014 00:04 Big J wrote: Can't really agree with this. I've played (the old) Dota a lot (back in the days), still I don't really get what is going on in the MOBA battles. Imo to get excited about MOBAs you have to know all the Heroes and spells involved. Like, when I tried to watch LoL, it was just random stuff and effects going off and people randomly dying, since I had no clue what possibilities were there.
In my opinion the main problem of RTS is that it is mechanically and attententionwise too hard. You have to focus on too many places all over the map and you have to grind out all those mechanical training sessions (which is extremely boring). Compared to how easy it is for a player to always stay focused on one screen and control one hero, it is just annoying to have to switch screen, select a worker, tab through a menu and find a place where you want to put down that supply depot. While all you really want to do is run around with your units and have new armies being made. I think for RTS games this has to become a keyfocus if they want to regain popularity amongst players (viewers will follow, since the viewers are 95% recruted from the playerbase): make macromechanics easier or straight out automate parts of them. I know this is an unpopular thought amongst oldschool RTS elitists, but think about what would be if we had even less automatization. Imagine you had to manually mine with your workers (send them to the minerals; send them back home). Of course the skilllevel would improve greatly, but is this fun and does this lead to growth of playerbase? Even elitists would say that this is too much, yet, we draw the line with arbitrary standards that have been created by games in the 1990s like CnC, Warcraft 1-2 and Broodwar. So I ask, is switching screens away from where the battle happens fun? Is spamming keys to build units in the midth of a fight what you want to focus at? Of course, making parts of the game easier may be problematic for competitive play, yet, there are easy ways to make up for that, by making units more potent. Give all units more standard abilities they can do apart from move+attack. E.g. give infantry the ability to run and crawl, and let tanks overrun smaller units if controlled properly. Three dimensional airbattles where you can avoid missiles with loopings and stuff like that! Skilllevel would increase through unit control and tactical usages of their abilities - which is the amazing thing we really like about playing RTS games, not the qeuing of another SCV or the ability to get supply blocked for only 1:15min in a 20min game.
Wow, I would play the fuuuuk out of that automated macro / micro-focused game! And so would everyone I know that's ever played an RTS, I would imagine.
60 year olds who didn't play the game could see finess in SC1 micro situations if given a broad concept of how stuff worked in the game. Silly to hear opinions like this claiming flashiness is needed. Dota is pretty ugly to the non-trained eye, horrible aesthetics, terrible looking characteristics, but yet is one of the largest games because you can sorta(if untrained eye) still see the finess in everything. Starbow already has shown it looks much better in every way compared to SC2 when it comes to just "seeing" skill(opinion of course), and yet this game is "slowed down".
I remember some years ago the concensus was actually the complete opposite, that WC3 was very confusing for a casual viewer to watch while a lot of people without any understanding loved watching BW, because it was said to be easier to relate to and get excited about on the very surface. But I guess that was somewhat unique to BW and not something you can apply to SC2 today one to one.
I'm theorizing here, but I think the reason BW was so "easy to watch",and easy to recognize the beauty in, was because it's so old... The reason 60 year olds could find finesse in it, was because: A) It wasn't "just another video game" which is probably the common consensus among casuals watching a new game today. Don't think it was like that back then. B) sc:bw has a beautiful, simplistic, minimalistic and effective graphics. It was the best they could do at the time, and it turned out to be a classic style. Didn't need flashy graphics to be attention grabbing OT:Nice cignature, LS! Sorta sums up mine pretty well
EPT
