On March 25 2014 06:20 superpanda27 wrote: In the case of CoH2, it's not uncommon for PC games to go on sale a few months after. It had a strong showing selling pretty good number, but usually after the first month game sales drop off considerably.
unfortunately, the CoH2 sales total of 380,000 in 5 days does not withstand even superficial scrutiny. it was pulled off of some chart with no legend to interpret the units.
you say in ur comment it sells for the 1st month. well after the magical 5 days of 380,000 how many more sales do you think occurred?
if it were true then CoH2 would be somewhere in the same ball park as Rome2 in terms of users online during the initial release months. CoH2 #s in the first few months are 1/10 of Rome2's #s in its first few months.. making 380,000 in 5 days way off.
Rome2:Total War's sales #s are legit though. They pass the smell test with # of players online. The 800,000 in the first 28 days jives nicely with the # of users online and the amount of online activity.
we are about to find out shortly what Relic has planned for "the future of CoH"
If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Were they ever "in" to begin with? I don't think so.
RTS will appeal to fewer people just like quality indi films will appeal to fewer people then Transformers do, NFS will sell better then a proper race sim and so on. There is nothing wrong with the genre and expecting it to have the same sales as CoD 27 is just silly.
On March 17 2014 11:07 Dradugun wrote: In your URL taht you posted, the article right below that one, besides having "For Struggling PC Market, It's PC Gamers To The Rescue" as a title, straight up finished with
As always, a friendly reminder that PC gaming isn’t dead, and is nowhere near dying.
It does talk about high-end parts and how people are buying them beyond expectation and contrary to the declining PC sales. As much as we (PC gamers) think that a PC is meant for gaming, most PCs sold aren't for gaming.
This isn't the first time Blizzard has looked or even actively developed for consoles. Starcraft: Ghost came before D3, heck one of Blizzards first games developed was for the SNES. So it isn't out of the ordinary for them to have console games.
And I can't be the only one that thinks that Hearthstone would be 100% better on a tablet (mostly the reason why I don't play it now).
EDIT to keep it in a single post:
the big hitters have left because the profit is not there.
Who are the big hitters?
EA - CnC
Microsoft - Age of Series
Blizzard - Prob not investing much into the scene as before.
IMO both the CnC and the AOE series have gone to shit with their latest iterations.
-Blizz is supporting its RTS more then ever, there's no question about that. -The Total War is in full swing with many games over the last few years. -The Homeworld series is getting a new entry,Shipbreakers, as well as remastering of the originals. I've no doubt we will see more Homeworld in the future -Sins of a solar empire was game of the year not to long ago and had a new expansion just a couple of years ago. -Relic is consistantly puting out RTS games
There aren't as many RTS games as FPSs of course, but there are plenty.
Also, as far as i know, CnC was canceled because it got very bad feedback from fans. EA doesn't have a new cnc not because "it can't make profit" but because the game was shit so they cut their loses. They'll be back for sure.
Blizzard is the only studio making "AAA" level RTS games. and they have produced exactly 1 game and 1 expansion in the past 11 years. There excuse always is that they have the team doing other stuff.. before it was WoW and now, Team1 is working on a moba.
It took them if i remember correctly about 7 years to develop WoL, engine and all. We are not talking about a reskin of a previous product like you see in the yearly iterations of games we are "blessed" with nowdays.
It's similar with Diablo, and their next MMO. How long have they been working on Titan for? And it's supposed to be still a loooog way away. This is just how Blizzard does things.
Total War is in rough shape...it had an initial high sales total due to outright lying during the promotion of Rome2. Which led to a major backlash. "Angry Joe" has a pretty good view of Rome2 on youtube. Its not a "AAA" game.
Total War is a series, not one game. It had 4 games over the last 4 years or so with expansions (to much if you ask me). I'll say they see some incentive to keep developing these games, don't you? What do you understand by AAA title?
As far as Rome 2 goes, it was released broken/ unfinished as many games do nowdays (Battlefield4, Batman Origins, etc) due to publisher greed. Has nothing to do with genre, obviously.
Homeworld:Shipbreakers has zero promotional budget indicating its not a "AAA" game. Gearbox has a very sketchy reputation when they farm out development.
But that surly means it doesn't NEED to hore itself on every street corner to get atention. If you like RTS, and there are many that do, you will know of this little title. We've seen "game of the year" titles in the last few years that were not you definition of "AAA". Journey, The Walking Dead and a few years back Sins of a solar empire.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
Maybe you are not familiar with Steam, but that is how it works.
no one in management can convince the guys who pay the bills to spend "AAA" money with these kinds of numbers.
I've given you lots of titles that have come out in the last few years. If they are not "AAA" enough for you, then when were RTS games EVER "AAA"?
don't expect Warcraft4 or Starcraft3 any time soon. the C&C franchise is done.
PM me the Romanian lottery numbers for next week please.
RTS games, "hardcore" PC gaming in general TBF, are not like CoD or AC or any other franchise that brings a new product every 12-18 months. Never have been never will be, thank Beliar!
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
We can say that mobas are a subgenre though. SC2 is as hardcore base building as you can get and it's still very popular. There's room for both i think.
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
We can say that mobas are a subgenre though. SC2 is as hardcore base building as you can get and it's still very popular. There's room for both i think.
Real time strategy games range from simulations to action games, but I honestly don't think that dungeon keeper and settlers have much in common with dota. I think they're too far apart to really consider them different subgenres of the same overall genre. And it's almost more like starcraft is a mix of mobas and sim games, which is ridiculous from a historical perspective, but is easily something you'd consider from a modern perspective.
It's odd that it stopped being popular, since rts games were some of the most successful titles 15 years ago. You'd think that people would want to play war simulations, where you control armies and manage resources and industry, but it's like the whole genre collapsed.
a few months after CoH2 comes out it goes on sale for $20? Relic introduces DLC and the Steam #s remain flat.
Maybe you are not familiar with Steam, but that is how it works.
let me make a contrast to be clear:
when Blizzard introduced their expansion to their RTS then activity around the game inceases due to excitement over the new features and units. Relic introduces new content for CoH2 and the player base continues to decline. Bad sign.
don't expect Warcraft4 or Starcraft3 any time soon. the C&C franchise is done.
PM me the Romanian lottery numbers for next week please.
RTS games, "hardcore" PC gaming in general TBF, are not like CoD or AC or any other franchise that brings a new product every 12-18 months. Never have been never will be, thank Beliar!
the last C&C RTS was RA3 and was released in October 2008. 6 years ago. it does not matter what EA says with promises, and so far they've promised nothing, nothing new is coming from them, not even a studio to make a game and the fan base is now ZERO this discussion point is now Reductio Ad Absurdem
Blizzard's own behaviour since 2004 tells you where the RTS genre is headed. They've got bigger fish to fry. WoW is clearly their #1 money maker. D3 is making way more cash than SC2. Blizzard has moved "Team 1" , a team that has been working on RTS games since 1995 onto a MOBA.
CoH2 is not a "AAA" game because of its online issues, try playing it.
Rome2 is a mess. they thoroughly fucked the fan-base.
I'm happy with Blizzard's support of the RTS genre. I do not blame them for moving resources away from the genre to areas that make way more cash in the MMO and MOBA genres.
But, the rts genre ain't any where near what it was during its heyday from 1996 to 2006.
On March 25 2014 22:05 lamprey1 wrote: let me make a contrast to be clear:
when Blizzard introduced their expansion to their RTS then activity around the game inceases due to excitement over the new features and units. Relic introduces new content for CoH2 and the player base continues to decline. Bad sign.
All games have lower "activity" after a while, expansion or not. Blizzard and SC2 as a competitive game are a special case.
the faster u discount ur game the harder it becomes to sell a full priced product. all Steam games decline in price at different speeds. some games have more staying power.
Most sales i think happen in the first month, so making discounts after that is very normal. Again, Blizzard is a special case, for better or worse, they keep the prices up for a long time.
CoH2's price fell faster than a Led Zeppelin.
Led Zeppelin has been active for a long time though. Zeppelins, air ships in general, have an undeserved bad reputation to. + Show Spoiler +
A healthy game? Dota 2 is a phenomenon, along with LOL. You can't compare a 60$ release with a free to play competitive game if you want to make a point. You want to make a point, right?
"the way steam works": the faster the game falls in price the harder it becomes to sell a sequel at full price.. everyone just waits for a steam sale.
You mean expansion? Otherwise sequels are always full price. EDIT: i misread i think. Most games rely on hype to sell, that's why marketing plays such a big role, why there are embargo on reviews, bonuses for preorders etc. If you want to be efficient about it, you will always wait a bit for a steam sale, but then the hype might be gone and your friends are playing without out lol
Point is, gamers are not rationale creatures. If you want your game to sell, you invest HUGELY in marketing and get sales in the first month or so. After that, it will always fall in price.
so you're predicting EA makes another RTS game ? what studio is making it? EALA and Victory Games are long gone. the last C&C RTS was RA3 and was released in October 2008. 6 years ago. it does not matter what EA says with promises, and so far they've promised nothing, nothing new is coming from them this discussion point is now Reductio Ad Absurdem.
We've already talked about this. CnC was canceled not to long ago because it was subpar. Clearly EA thought a RTS would be a good thing for them. I think they'l resurrect it yes. With what dev. i don't know.
Blizzard's own behaviour since 2004 tells you where the RTS genre is headed. They've got bigger fish to fry.
I think SC2 was in development in 2004, so what behavior are you talking about?
WoW is clearly their #1 money maker.
Nr. 1 in gaming you mean. All in all, i think it's the most profitable piece of entertainment ever. Is this a sign that RTS is doing bad?
D3 is making way more cash than SC2.
And it is like 3ed best selling PC title ever.
Blizzard has moved "Team 1" , a team that has been working on RTS games since 1995 onto a MOBA.
MOBA is an RTS derivative, so it's not like they are doing shooters now. Besides, LOTV is supposed to be under development so someone is working on it. I'm actually happy Team 1 and Dustin took a break from SC2
CoH2 is not a "AAA" game because of its online issues, try playing it.
What is a "AAA" title?
Rome2 is a mess. they thoroughly fucked the fan-base. + Show Spoiler +
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8
We've also already talked about this. The game was broken on release. What does this have to do with anything? If anything, the outrage that Rome 2 produced is proof of there being lots of RTS fans that are pissed of when subpar and dumbed down products are released. Good sign IMO.
I'm happy with Blizzard's support of the RTS genre. I do not blame them for moving resources away from the genre to areas that make way more cash in the MMO and MOBA genres.
While SC2 is in development you say they are moving away?
This also ties in to your notion that PC gaming is dying. Blizz. is working on SC2, a MOBA, WoW, Heartstone and a new MMO. But it's their Diablo console port that is making you feel PC gaming is dying? Come on!
But, the rts genre ain't any where near what it was during its heyday from 1996 to 2006.
Ah, that might be something worth discussing. Not AS popular in the casual market, maaaybe. But dying? We have world wide esports around RTS and RTS inspired games FFS, something that was unheard of outside of Korea.
It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
You mean like CoH2, aoe3, ra3 and the scrapped c&c? Sc2 is the few that did the sequel right
On March 25 2014 16:54 Big J wrote: If you read the comments about "why RTS games aren't on top" in forums/discussions that aren't about Starcraft you'll read a recurring theme: Too complex Catering too much to the hardcore fans Too much basebuilding
If you want those players back, you have to introduce mechanics that let them play how they want without learning "how to macro" first.
Developers did that: mobas and tactics games. Personally I don't see the point in the rts genre if it doesn't have basebuilding, clueless new players be damned.
yeah, that's true. After a certain point it's not an RTS game anymore. Still, we hardly ask the question where to put the frontier. To give examples:
In CnC you (usually) have Energy-requirements which can be satisfied by extra power-plants. In Starcraft you have Supply-requirements that you have to satisfy by adding extra buildings/overlords.
In both of those games the optimized behaviour to those challenges is to just regularily add those buildings shortly before you hit the limit. In my eyes, it's a repetetive task that you have to learn, but that hardly offers "fun" to the gameplay. Disregarding those buildings other functions (like walling, pylon radius, overlord scouting) the supply component in Starcraft could be almost entirely replaced by just adding extra costs/supply to the units. Meanwhile, "adding probes and pylons" is the one big challenge you have to overcome as a new player, before you can actually start playing the game. I can see that someone that does not want to dedicate time to learning the game, or doesn't know yet whether he likes the game is easily repelled by this. And it's similar in case of "adding more structures when you get more income". Or "always being on top of queuing units on time - that is not too soon and not too late". To go back to the "where to put the frontier" discussion, I'd like to ask the question, are those "extra" limitations necessary. They feel a lot like an atmospheric idea of "let's simulate a real world war... so we need supplies and our buildings only work when they get run with power" included for people who play that game with a lot of imagination in the single player. But not like something that you want to put into a competitive PC game played in multiplayer battles.
Like, I think a lot of people that these days only play Desert Strike would be very willing to go through strategical and microbased challenges of the normal game. What they don't want to do is grind base/army-building mechanics for hours, because if they don't all the strategy and micro in the world will still not overcome those situations in which their opponent has 20extra units. And that's why DS is and has been the most popular map in the Arcade. That's why in BW most people were playing BGH instead of the normal game. The underlying "repetitive, boring tasks" of the normal game got diminished a lot there. You build a base, and then you send (and control) units. But you don't go through lengthy BOs and keep on sqeezing OLs in between. You just build 20 of them and then your job is done. And you build 10hatcheries at once and then your job is done.
Another factor is also early game aggression/cheese. Yes, for a viewer it is nice to have all the variety in the game. And watching SC2 develop from 2010's age of 4gates into what we have now was amazing. But it was equally repelling for players of that time to go on the ladder, and all they ever got to was "can I defend this early rush this time or not". To be accurate: There is nothing wrong with early aggression, there is rather a lot of things right with it and we want people to interact as soon as possible. But as a player - especially a new one - you don't want to get killed by it. You don't want to get canonrushed 3times, then go on a forum, look up a strategy guide that says "pull drones" which you then do and still lose to it. Because that's already 4invested games into "I started the game, then I died". Those people won't be playing this game anymore. So that's one thing I want to add to what I originally said: Imo, RTS games must learn (e.g from the successful example of towers preventing rushes in MOBAs or Desert Strike but maybe also by using other tools, like weakening the "defensive overreaction" principles - RTS would offer so many possibilities for that) to use built-in layers of early kill-protection. At best, that kill-protection gets weaker with increasing skill levels, so rushes become more potent at the higher levels. But it shouldn't be likely for a silver player to kill someone in silver with a roach rush.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc. EDIT: i never played ladder either, just with friends on LAN. Imagine if it had a built in ladder of the level SC2 does or half the support.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
On March 25 2014 23:57 Sapphire.lux wrote: We've already talked about this. CnC was canceled not to long ago because it was subpar. Clearly EA thought a RTS would be a good thing for them. I think they'l resurrect it yes. With what dev. i don't know.
C&C was cancelled 5 months ago. twist that into "not too long ago" if you like.
EA has no track record of making a good RTS games. Gens2 was their best and that was right after they bought WW. there is no studio... every employee at Victory Games is gone. EALA is gone.
so you have a publisher with no track record publishing a multiplayer RTS leading a non-existent studio to make a sequel for a fan base that is about 1/1000 of its former self.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
It reminds me of my days as a Genesis fan where I viewed the popularity of their sell-out phase in the 80's and 90's when helmed by Phil Collins as a cosmic injustice and I constantly tried to get people to listen to their 70's work. Now I know better: most people have bad taste and will never enjoy the music I like, so there's no point in trying to convert them.
And it will be the same with real time strategy: some people are too intimidated by the simple concept of needing more production as you acquire more resources, or by having to construct more supply depots if their army size increases. Or by having to select twelve units instead of an infinite number, for that matter. You don't try to tell them that design wise it's superior, you just leave them to enjoy their mobas and inferior sequels. Because the value of something depends only on if you like it yourself, not on overall popularity.
(sorry for the misanthropy, but the inability of most people to understand basic things makes me think there is no god)
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
Objectively speaking, it depends on whether or not SC2 have any "evolution" factors involved as BW.
In BW, everything was evolving organically w/ one strategy dominating and another one to conquer to current meta.
In that aspect, Blizzard royally messed up SC2's game flow by actively getting involved in solving problems for the players and thus renders pretty much all games futile and useless to play and watch as all balances are purely based upon Blizzard's decision making.
In terms of monetary support, it is known that Blizzard have sponsored the majority of SC2 tournaments. I believe that they helped SC2 to get off from their feet on GOM TV by giving sponsorship and direct support to GOM. Basing on such basis, the sequel's industry would most definitely be smaller than what it currently is because more money = more incentive to play better = higher quality of games = more viewership = more exposure = even more money. This is the "magical loop" of esport.
However since BW was constructed w/ grassroot support and organically and especially in an era where electronic sport was even less respected and rifed w/ skepticism. In an industrial perspective, BW's emergence into the scene is more superior than SC2's parental market penetration.
I must admit though that SC2's initial programmer have done an outstanding job in coding their editor system and 3D modeling and also improving unit's intelligence. Those parts were definitely superior to BW's. Then again a game that took less to develop and was build in a time of PC gaming inception.
On March 26 2014 00:43 Plansix wrote: It gets a lot easier to defend SC2 when you put it side by side with the other RTS games out there and the level of support they get. Whatever flaws SC2 has, they are minor compaired to how busted other RTS games. From balance, to shitty match making or flat out broken net code, other RTS games have always done me wrong in some way.
Why should you compare SC2 to other RTS franchises? SC2 had a prequel, and compared to that prequel, SC2 plays like shit. It's not unreasonable to expect a sequel to be better or as good as it's prequel.
Did I play BW multiplayer on any competitive level? No. Did I play it on ladder? No. Did it have a built in ladder with match making that I could play? Nope. Am I ever going to take the time tiger over it's amazing learning curve? Never.
The history of BW is nice to hear about, but the game means nothing to me beyond that. The BW hipsters who come out and tell me how much better their favorite game was only serve to make me ignore them. And the people who think that SC2 would have been more successful if it was more like BW, ie harder to play, are just crazy. It's like people who think if they just make an pretty version of Quake in 2014, it will become the new competitive FPS. Those people are nuts too.
Why? If you never gave BW the time and are not willing to do so ever, why not just accept that you don't know instead of calling them "hipsters" crazy? Keep in mind that that game survived with very little if any Blizzard support. Try SC2 WoL without 8327847 balance paches and expansions and i really think the game would have been dead a long time ago. Hell, a few months without Blizzard intervention and the game gets crazy stale due to how many limitations there are in strategy, map design, micro opportunities etc.
How do I dismiss them as hipsters? The same way that is dismiss people who tell me that a album I like "isn't as good as their old stuff. They were way better before they sold out and lost their passion." You don't argue with that, you just tell them to go away. They don't want to have a debate, they just want to shit on your music and make themselves feel awesome about their "more refined" musical tastes.
People who come out of the wood work to tell out how the older thing they liked is "objectively" better than the new thing you like and just obnoxious. I don't care if it is music, film or video games, it all sucks. We can never compaire SC2 to its contemparies because some hipster will come running and say " you can't compare it to modern games, only the 15 year old orginional, which was perfect. You can't argue with perfection."
It reminds me of my days as a Genesis fan where I viewed the popularity of their sell-out phase in the 80's and 90's when helmed by Phil Collins as a cosmic injustice and I constantly tried to get people to listen to their 70's work. Now I know better: most people have bad taste and will never enjoy the music I like, so there's no point in trying to convert them.
And it will be the same with real time strategy: some people are too intimidated by the simple concept of needing more production as you acquire more resources, or by having to construct more supply depots if their army size increases. Or by having to select twelve units instead of an infinite number, for that matter. You don't try to tell them that design wise it's superior, you just leave them to enjoy their mobas and inferior sequels. Because the value of something depends only on if you like it yourself, not on overall popularity.
(sorry for the misanthropy, but the inability of most people to understand basic things makes me think there is no god)
Yeah i agree with this. Games, music, film whatever, it's not about old vs new, it's about quality.
If you listen to Biber and can't wait for the next Transformers film to come out, then you have shit tastes, simple as that. There were shit films and music in the past to.
I've gone through different phases with my music tastes. From my youth and early teens with boybands, to my mid and late teens with rap and now in my 20s with rock, and by learning instruments i've started to understand and appreciate more and more classical music. There is a clear evolution there that took time but also an open mind. Its a similar case with films and even games.
On March 26 2014 02:33 Xiphos wrote:
I must admit though that SC2's initial programmer have done an outstanding job in coding their editor system and 3D modeling and also improving unit's intelligence. Those parts were definitely superior to BW's. Then again a game that took less to develop and was build in a time of PC gaming inception.
The programmers Blizzard has are second to none IMO. The engine is just alien good, unreal. The art guys are also very good IMO. If they did half as good with game design, D3 and SC2 would have been miles better.
EPT
