EPTKhaldor's thoughts about the future of RTS - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:36 Faust852 wrote: WC3 was logically more successful because it came after BW, with fancy graphics and at a period where video games were more popular. That was not the reason. One of the biggest reasons was how the internet infrastructure improved in the years before WarCraft3 was released. That's something people tend to forget completely. BW didn't create an Esports infrastructe in Europe, we did that with WarCraft 3. Creating regular tournaments, big leagues and regular broadcasts that became more and more popular over time. Back then it was also all audio. There was no bandwith etc. for videostreams a the beginning of WarCraft3. That came a few years later and had it's breakthrough then with StarCraft 2. | ||
|
ssxsilver
United States4409 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:35 Khaldor wrote: That this plays a role goes without saying. But it's not as big a factor as people make it out to be. If you would make SC2 free to play today it would change very little. It would definitely have an impact, but not by as much as people seem to think. I've also talked about this in the video (which you have obviously not watched). I ignored that argument the same way I didn't talk further about the team vs. solo argument since I wanted to add another one that has not really been discussed a lot so far. That's the entire point of the video, adding something new to the discussion and making people aware of it. Didn't call it food for thought for nothing It would have made a huge impact had the game been released F2P. Look at HoN. It was billed as the Dota sequel (supposedly with Icefrog helping behind the scenes). There was like a 1 year window prior to Dota 2's announcement for HoN to establish a large player base or retain it's 3 million beta account users. They went with the pay model while LoL went with the free model and the rest is history. | ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
It might have been different if the game would have been released as a F2P game but I honestly doubt that even then we would have the number MOBAs currently generate. Be it as it may: those points are completely besides what the video is about and this discussion should be about. Those points have been discussed over and over again, the video I recorded was to add something new. I think it plays an important role, people are of course free to disagree but I think it's a point that has to be mentioned/talked about. | ||
|
padiseal2
Austria721 Posts
| ||
|
Malphite
United States186 Posts
Why?? because my friends play it. They don't play sc 2 because it's too damn hard. Plain and simple One example, i was a masters player in 1v1,2v2,3v3,4v4 in WOL. i was diamond in HOTS 1v1 because I didn't play much. I have been playing BW since 99 rush protoss carrier days, LT 1v1 bgh days.... I tried getting my friends to play. We went to 2v2. 5 games we played, all zerg ling rushes and other early rushes. The game is way too hard for the casuals to play. People play COD because it's so easy to get kills even if you suck. I love SC2 to death, but it's just too hard for the casuals. I feel like people reminisce on BW and how it was the biggest esports title. That was because there were no League or dota back then. | ||
|
Prince_Stranger
Kazakhstan762 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:35 Khaldor wrote: That this plays a role goes without saying. But it's not as big a factor as people make it out to be. If you would make SC2 free to play today it would change very little. It would definitely have an impact, but not by as much as people seem to think. I've also talked about this in the video (which you have obviously not watched). I ignored that argument the same way I didn't talk further about the team vs. solo argument since I wanted to add another one that has not really been discussed a lot so far. That's the entire point of the video, adding something new to the discussion and making people aware of it. Didn't call it food for thought for nothing Sorry was commenting while watching. Heroes + StarCraft = WarCraft. It is better to not add heroes to StarCraft and have WC4 and SC3 - 2 different games instead of 2 almost equavalent. I think you are wrong about SC2 free to play today would change very little. I agree the fact that people don't understand game. Anyone can play game or you have to make some operations before getting the game. More people understand the game. I think this is huge difference. Jaedong stream watching 2K and some random LoLer watching 30K persons. Another disadvantage SC2 is non-stop pathches - game changers. Yeah MOBA game has it too. In my opinion it is disadvantage of competitive LoL and Dota2 too. Just my 5 cents. | ||
|
Patate
Canada441 Posts
As for why developpers don't make RTS games.. mostly because this generation (starting with ps3 and xb360 in 2006) has been very poor in terms of originality and effort. There were so many FPS games, all built onto the same graphics engine. RTS on the other hand are very difficult to program, which is why the genre has been left for dead in the past years. | ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:52 Prince_Stranger wrote: Sorry was commenting while watching. Heroes + StarCraft = WarCraft. It is better to not add heroes to StarCraft and have WC4 and SC3 - 2 different games instead of 2 almost equavalent. I think you are wrong about SC2 free to play today would change very little. I agree the fact that people don't understand game. Anyone can play game or you have to make some operations before getting the game. More people understand the game. I think this is huge difference. Jaedong stream watching 2K and some random LoLer watching 30K persons. Another disadvantage SC2 is non-stop pathches - game changers. Yeah MOBA game has it too. In my opinion it is disadvantage of competitive LoL and Dota2 too. Just my 5 cents. Don't get me wrong, I think it would change something. I just don't think it would suddenly solve everything. Should have made this a bit more clear in my post. It would, as I already said: definitely have an impact on the scene and with the release of LotV maybe even cause a second/third wind. But I still think that it would not suddenly put us on par with the MOBA scene. The F2P aspect is only one part of the problem, an important one for sure, but there's more depth to it. | ||
|
padiseal2
Austria721 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:52 Prince_Stranger wrote: Sorry was commenting while watching. Heroes + StarCraft = WarCraft. It is better to not add heroes to StarCraft and have WC4 and SC3 - 2 different games instead of 2 almost equavalent. I think you are wrong about SC2 free to play today would change very little. I agree the fact that people don't understand game. Anyone can play game or you have to make some operations before getting the game. More people understand the game. I think this is huge difference. Jaedong stream watching 2K and some random LoLer watching 30K persons. Another disadvantage SC2 is non-stop pathches - game changers. Yeah MOBA game has it too. In my opinion it is disadvantage of competitive LoL and Dota2 too. Just my 5 cents. The player stream viewer count is an entirely different issue. In my opinion league player streams attract way more viewers not only because the player base is bigger but because it's possible to interact a lot more with the viewers. Commentary during sc2 Games is basically non-existant, because the Games are much more mechanically demanding(personal opinion) while it is essential for every league stream. Aside from that Western league players are as of now still way more relevant in the lol scene than in sc2, what increases the difficulty in providing an entertaining sc2 stream | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:39 Khaldor wrote: That was not the reason. One of the biggest reasons was how the internet infrastructure improved in the years before WarCraft3 was released. That's something people tend to forget completely. BW didn't create an Esports infrastructe in Europe, we did that with WarCraft 3. Creating regular tournaments, big leagues and regular broadcasts that became more and more popular over time. Back then it was also all audio. There was no bandwith etc. for videostreams a the beginning of WarCraft3. That came a few years later and had it's breakthrough then with StarCraft 2. And how the fact that it came later didn't help ? Blizzard made a name or itself, internet became more popular, and videogame where exploding at the time. It could have been WC3 in 1998 and BW in 2002, i'm pretty sure we would have see the same patern. It's more due to the context of each game more than the game in itself. | ||
|
ssxsilver
United States4409 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:47 Khaldor wrote: You are assuming HoN would have been superior to LOL if both of them were F2P which you obviously can't know. I'm just saying that I do not think that if you make SC2 F2P that it would suddenly solve everything and the game would boom and gain a massive followership. It might have been different if the game would have been released as a F2P game but I honestly doubt that even then we would have the number MOBAs currently generate. Be it as it may: those points are completely besides what the video is about and this discussion should be about. Those points have been discussed over and over again, the video I recorded was to add something new. I think it plays an important role, people are of course free to disagree but I think it's a point that has to be mentioned/talked about. I'm not suggesting either is superior. I'm just saying it's (the impact of F2P) not a marginal factor considering how the 3 MOBAs turned out (I participated in all 3 betas mind you). The active userbase of HoN's beta was actually on par with LoL's, but fell off the cliff once the game went "live" and then practically doubled once they switched to "f2p." In any case, I put in my response to your videos a few posts back. Some agreements, some disagreements. Much sadness for SC2. | ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
On February 16 2014 19:00 Faust852 wrote: And how the fact that it came later didn't help ? Blizzard made a name or itself, internet became more popular, and videogame where exploding at the time. It could have been WC3 in 1998 and BW in 2002, i'm pretty sure we would have see the same patern. It's more due to the context of each game more than the game in itself. The way you wrote your initial post I assumed you were saying that the reason why WC3 was more successful was because BW pathed the way. Which is not really true as we weren't really able to build an infrastructure for esports in Europe just yet. If you are referring to WarCraft3 having the better standing because of the improvements in technology etc. you are of course correct. That helped tremendously and gave us the chance to start building esports in the first place. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I just answered one on the page before where someone referred to the success BW had in Korea (which is imho a silly argument for reasons mentioned). So I automatically assumed you were going in the same direction with your comment. | ||
|
bhfberserk
Canada390 Posts
The biggest problem in SC2 is still, "Turtle 3 bases, massing up a big army then A-move across the map." This is still the most efficient way to play the game, and most pro-gamers tend to use this method to win. People cannot appreciate other strategic choice because we see this format far too often. | ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
On February 16 2014 19:01 ssxsilver wrote: I'm not suggesting either is superior. I'm just saying it's (the impact of F2P) not a marginal factor considering how the 3 MOBAs turned out (I participated in all 3 betas mind you). The active userbase of HoN's beta was actually on par with LoL's, but fell off the cliff once the game went "live" and then practically doubled once they switched to "f2p." In any case, I put in my response to your videos a few posts back. Some agreements, some disagreements. Much sadness for SC2. You also have to take into consideration though that HoN, LOL and DotA are all MOBAs. StarCraft2 is a completely different genre. Therefore the matter is much more complex than isolating a single reason for the success or lack of success compared to other games. And I think that the argument that I made in the video is one of these additional reasons. | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On February 16 2014 19:04 Khaldor wrote: The way you wrote your initial post I assumed you were saying that the reason why WC3 was more successful was because BW pathed the way. Which is not really true as we weren't really able to build an infrastructure for esports in Europe just yet. If you are referring to WarCraft3 having the better standing because of the improvements in technology etc. you are of course correct. That helped tremendously and gave us the chance to start building esports in the first place. Sorry if I misunderstood your comment. I just answered one on the page before where someone referred to the success BW had in Korea (which is imho a silly argument for reasons mentioned). So I automatically assumed you were going in the same direction with your comment. Yep there was a misunderstanding then, i totaly agree with you. BW was really a niche game back in the day in the West. | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
Clarity of the graphics is definitely a huge deal for neophytes, both players and spectators, but that's basically it. All this obsession about 'heros' is non-sense to me. LoL is a slow game, with very obscure and confusing animations. You wouldn't get excited by LoL/HoN if you don't know the heros well, in other words, if you didn't play the game. The significant difference is that these games are easier to play than games from the RTS genre, thus more appealing to a wider audience. It takes far less skill and less personal investment to become decent at LoL or HoN. TLDR : what matters for neophytes 1/. clear graphics 2/. noobie friendly interface no "heroes", as if they were a concept in themselves... | ||
|
Prince_Stranger
Kazakhstan762 Posts
On February 16 2014 18:56 Khaldor wrote: Don't get me wrong, I think it would change something. I just don't think it would suddenly solve everything. Should have made this a bit more clear in my post. It would, as I already said: definitely have an impact on the scene and with the release of LotV maybe even cause a second/third wind. But I still think that it would not suddenly put us on par with the MOBA scene. The F2P aspect is only one part of the problem, an important one for sure, but there's more depth to it. Agree with important one for sure. On February 16 2014 18:51 Malphite wrote: Ok I'm the biggest SC 2 fanboy in the world. I still watch all the major events including GSL. I play league of legends. Why?? because my friends play it. They don't play sc 2 because it's too damn hard. Plain and simple One example, i was a masters player in 1v1,2v2,3v3,4v4 in WOL. i was diamond in HOTS 1v1 because I didn't play much. I have been playing BW since 99 rush protoss carrier days, LT 1v1 bgh days.... I tried getting my friends to play. We went to 2v2. 5 games we played, all zerg ling rushes and other early rushes. The game is way too hard for the casuals to play. People play COD because it's so easy to get kills even if you suck. I love SC2 to death, but it's just too hard for the casuals. I feel like people reminisce on BW and how it was the biggest esports title. That was because there were no League or dota back then. However, there was Dota when BW was still popular. I always liked BW sport game for it looked similar to chess with skill require factor. Yes, it is harder to play BW/SC2 but it motivates to play it. In Korea BW succes mentality is great and I think it could be repeated in another country, at least hoped for it. | ||
|
Moonsalt
267 Posts
| ||
|
Khaldor
Germany861 Posts
On February 16 2014 19:08 SiroKO wrote: TLDR : what matters for neophytes 1/. clear graphics 2/. noobie friendly interface no "heroes", as if they were a concept in themselves... The concept is not heroes, the concept is Micro vs. Macro. With a hero-based game Micro will be the dominating factor. To make a player micro intensively you must make the individual unit important enough for him to be willing to spend the time to do it. The more valuable the unit the more willing he is. A hero unit puts that principle to an extreme, that's why I used it in all the examples. | ||
| ||
