|
Keep "my game is better than yours"-slapfights out of this. If the discussion devolves into simple bashing, this thread will be closed. |
On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant.
It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true)
Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar.
So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably)
|
What is an RTS game anyway for that matter?
|
On June 04 2014 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant. It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true) Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar. So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably)
StarBow didn't fail, Tasteless and Artosis have been playing StarBow more than SC2. Its that Blizzard doesn't give it support and I could imagine that Tasteless and Artosis don't want to badmouth SC2 in favor of StarBow because of their contract's obligations.
In the future, when Blizzard stopped their "10 years esport experiment" with SC2, I can almost be certain that with the current patching decision and unit's design, people will look for alternative mods to challenge themselves and StarBow will be right there waiting for them.
Plus many pros have already complimented on StarBow's strong point and it is they appreciate StarBow's micro potentials. So a game funded on BW principle will thrive as long as Blizzard puts in the spotlight.
|
"RTS is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. There is a focus on strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration. In contrast to turn-based strategy, RTS forces the player to make decisions in real time."
|
On June 04 2014 03:19 urboss wrote:
"RTS is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. There is a focus on strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration. In contrast to turn-based strategy, RTS forces the player to make decisions in real time."
This could mean any FPS game that takes on skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory, same with LoL/DotA2 as RTS games.
I like to define SC as Military Simulations games.
It resonate better with non video game players.
|
On June 04 2014 03:12 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant. It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true) Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar. So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably) StarBow didn't fail, Tasteless and Artosis have been playing StarBow more than SC2. Its that Blizzard doesn't give it support and I could imagine that Tasteless and Artosis don't want to badmouth SC2 in favor of StarBow because of their contract's obligations. In the future, when Blizzard stopped their "10 years esport experiment" with SC2, I can almost be certain that with the current patching decision and unit's design, people will look for alternative mods to challenge themselves and StarBow will be right there waiting for them. Plus many pros have already complimented on StarBow's strong point and it is they appreciate StarBow's micro potentials. So a game funded on BW principle will thrive as long as Blizzard puts in the spotlight.
I think your reasoning why starbow will succeed in the end is nothing more than wishful thinking tbh.
Sure, for the more "hardcore" rts players it is worth a look and fun to play, but that doesn't mean that the more "casual" audience cares at all.
Let's be real for a moment, when somebody with no real knowledge watches sc2 and then starbow, he will see basically the same thing (even though you think one is vastly superior, which is not important for my argument though).
He sees armies fighting against each other and it is hard to grasp for him who is playing better till he knows the end result of the game.
That is the biggest strength of mobas imo, you have a lot of indicators of the "skill" of these players, you see kills, cs, a lot of teamfights with obvious outcomes , etc
I mean in the end it comes down to what someone expects from the next "big rts", i just don't see it happening with the basic stuff a lot of people on TL love.
|
On June 04 2014 03:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 03:12 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant. It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true) Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar. So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably) StarBow didn't fail, Tasteless and Artosis have been playing StarBow more than SC2. Its that Blizzard doesn't give it support and I could imagine that Tasteless and Artosis don't want to badmouth SC2 in favor of StarBow because of their contract's obligations. In the future, when Blizzard stopped their "10 years esport experiment" with SC2, I can almost be certain that with the current patching decision and unit's design, people will look for alternative mods to challenge themselves and StarBow will be right there waiting for them. Plus many pros have already complimented on StarBow's strong point and it is they appreciate StarBow's micro potentials. So a game funded on BW principle will thrive as long as Blizzard puts in the spotlight. I think your reasoning why starbow will succeed in the end is nothing more than wishful thinking tbh. Sure, for the more "hardcore" rts players it is worth a look and fun to play, but that doesn't mean that the more "casual" audience cares at all. Let's be real for a moment, when somebody with no real knowledge watches sc2 and then starbow, he will see basically the same thing (even though you think one is vastly superior, which is not important for my argument though). He sees armies fighting against each other and it is hard to grasp for him who is playing better till he knows the end result of the game. That is the biggest strength of mobas imo, you have a lot of indicators of the "skill" of these players, you see kills, cs, a lot of teamfights with obvious outcomes , etc I mean in the end it comes down to what someone expects from the next "big rts", i just don't see it happening with the basic stuff a lot of people on TL love.
They'll see more drawn out battles, more activities around the map, more skirmishes, more harassment. Just plain more actions all around. And I could argue the same about BW, why did it thrive despite being a hard game to play? Because the game had high microability units that people can just make and "specialize" with it because it is challenging to play and challenges = enjoyment of achievement = fun.
|
United Kingdom20275 Posts
That is the biggest strength of mobas imo, you have a lot of indicators of the "skill" of these players, you see kills, cs, a lot of teamfights with obvious outcomes , etc
And yet only a few percent of the viewerbase can truly appreciate it because the games are very simple at their core and in my experience, most players are far to arrogant to realize the detail that they are missing buried in that simplicity
That was one of the good points of starcraft IMO, there was a lot less "i could do that" when watching high levels of skill among the playerbase, because people at least face mechanical checks and don't get the impression that they are anywhere near as good as the players that are better at the game than they are
|
On June 04 2014 03:24 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 03:19 urboss wrote:
"RTS is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory. There is a focus on strategic, tactical, and sometimes logistical challenges. Many games also offer economic challenges and exploration. In contrast to turn-based strategy, RTS forces the player to make decisions in real time."
This could mean any FPS game that takes on skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory, same with LoL/DotA2 as RTS games. I like to define SC as Military Simulations games. It resonate better with non video game players.
That is a good observation.
I think that a game like counter strike does partly belong to the RTS genre, even though a big part of it is twitch-based.
A game like Smite shows that there are options to link FPS and RTS.
|
On June 04 2014 03:45 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 03:41 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 03:12 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:32 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:20 Xiphos wrote:On June 04 2014 02:08 The_Red_Viper wrote:On June 04 2014 02:03 Xiphos wrote:On June 03 2014 22:54 urboss wrote:On May 23 2014 06:48 jeeeeohn wrote:
I think you just want Warcraft 3. Yeah Warcraft 3 with even more simplified economy/buildings. No we just want the high microability potential of BW with interesting lore behind it. That's all really, not that difficult to implement if you are thinking of designing a sequel. That isn't the point of this thread at all though. It is what the players and the audience want in a RTS game so this is absolutely relevant. It is what you want in a RTS game aka it is what teamliquid wants in a rts game (and even that is not 100% true) Truth is that the mass audience doesn't see any difference between BW and sc2, if anything they say it is too similar. So no, a BW2 wouldn't be the next big thing (this is also a reason why starbow fails so miserably) StarBow didn't fail, Tasteless and Artosis have been playing StarBow more than SC2. Its that Blizzard doesn't give it support and I could imagine that Tasteless and Artosis don't want to badmouth SC2 in favor of StarBow because of their contract's obligations. In the future, when Blizzard stopped their "10 years esport experiment" with SC2, I can almost be certain that with the current patching decision and unit's design, people will look for alternative mods to challenge themselves and StarBow will be right there waiting for them. Plus many pros have already complimented on StarBow's strong point and it is they appreciate StarBow's micro potentials. So a game funded on BW principle will thrive as long as Blizzard puts in the spotlight. I think your reasoning why starbow will succeed in the end is nothing more than wishful thinking tbh. Sure, for the more "hardcore" rts players it is worth a look and fun to play, but that doesn't mean that the more "casual" audience cares at all. Let's be real for a moment, when somebody with no real knowledge watches sc2 and then starbow, he will see basically the same thing (even though you think one is vastly superior, which is not important for my argument though). He sees armies fighting against each other and it is hard to grasp for him who is playing better till he knows the end result of the game. That is the biggest strength of mobas imo, you have a lot of indicators of the "skill" of these players, you see kills, cs, a lot of teamfights with obvious outcomes , etc I mean in the end it comes down to what someone expects from the next "big rts", i just don't see it happening with the basic stuff a lot of people on TL love. They'll see more drawn out battles, more activities around the map, more skirmishes, more harassment. Just plain more actions all around. And I could argue the same about BW, why did it thrive despite being a hard game to play? Because the game had high microability units that people can just make and "specialize" with it because it is challenging to play and challenges = enjoyment of achievement = fun.
Those are all things that happen in all RTS games. Age of ____ games had very long drawn out battles, mostly because the units moved and attacked slowly so a lot of time passed for battles to finish. Harassment happened, skirmishes happened. What you're talking about is the quality of the skirmishes and the qualitative aspects of the system. Something that a new person to the scene doesn't really know about, and cares even less about.
Let me put it this way. Artosis and Tasteless like Starbow, they also liked BW, and yet CS and Halo were much much bigger in the US than BW despite the fact that Artosis and Tasteless enjoyed BW. Asking hardcore fans of a genre if they like one version better than another is useless in a thread discussing ways to increase the player base. The question is not whether Artosis or Tasteless, players who have played RTS games all their lives and are always willing to try more RTS games, can be convinced to play Starbow or SC3 or whatever. The question is "how do you get players who don't really care about RTS games to start caring about RTS games." Which is what The_Red_Viper is talking about.
A new viewer watching a Starbow final for the first time doesn't know that "battles are longer" because he doesn't really have a frame of reference. Multiprong harass is not sexy to watch because you have to wait to be told by the caster that its happening because a casual viewer isn't watching the minimap so all he sees is 8 marines shooting drones and he is confused why people are excited. Once he is TOLD that multiprong harass is good, then he can start cheering for it. But he doesn't do it because it looks exciting, he does so because the Casters told him that multiprong is good and casual player likes cheering for good things. So it doesn't matter that an SC2 fight lasts X minutes while a Starbow fight lasts X+Y minutes--how does the casual know which one is normal.
To him, its just ranged and melee units fighting other ranged and melee units. In a MOBA things are easier to translate. Character Y is player X, what happens to Y is happening to X. Casual player sees a hero smacking minions, he doesn't need to know about gold or last hitting, all he sees is Character Y killing monsters, casual player groks that since he plays some kind of RPG/Shooter/Fighting Game/Side Scroller and he knows that killing monsters is good. He doesn't need to know about jungling or ganking since the jungler is killing monsters or players (good) while ganking is killing opponents (good). A casual player looks at the screen in front of him, so it doesn't matter to him if units are tightly packed or spread out, he just wants to know who wins the battle.
Once the casual player is interested, he starts playing the game. If he enjoys playing the game, then he reads up on it, listens to the casting more, and slowly learns *why* some things are good and other things not so good. But that understanding comes *after* the player gets interested. In which case, do you want a game that scares casuals or attracts casuals?
|
Northern Ireland23765 Posts
MOBAs are a nightmare to watch as someone who is unfamiliar to them, I don't know how common that viewpoint is mind
|
On June 04 2014 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:
MOBAs are a nightmare to watch as someone who is unfamiliar to them, I don't know how common that viewpoint is mind
That summarizes my first time watching any new e-sport game, in particular Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Injustice (I feel that you really need to be familiar with the mechanics of Injustice to enjoy watching it)
|
On June 04 2014 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:
MOBAs are a nightmare to watch as someone who is unfamiliar to them, I don't know how common that viewpoint is mind
This is true for any RTS as well. Good commentators are key. I had no idea what was going on when watching BW for the first time a few years ago on a livestream from Blizzcon. But with Tastosis there to walk me through it, it was both easy to understand what was going on and really fun. Thats what got me hooked
|
On June 04 2014 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:
MOBAs are a nightmare to watch as someone who is unfamiliar to them, I don't know how common that viewpoint is mind
Yeah MOBAs is just flashes of spells going around. ALL video games need good commentary.
But first, you need to draw a player base in order for the game to explode into mainstream.
|
On June 04 2014 04:42 WindWolf wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 04:38 Wombat_NI wrote:
MOBAs are a nightmare to watch as someone who is unfamiliar to them, I don't know how common that viewpoint is mind That summarizes my first time watching any new e-sport game, in particular Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 and Injustice (I feel that you really need to be familiar with the mechanics of Injustice to enjoy watching it)
It took me a month to realize that the injustice tournaments was not being played by grandmothers. The presentation is just so stilted and blocky. But I get it a lot more now.
UMC3, while having far more explosive turnabouts, lengthier combo chains, more skill intensive juggles, requires faster hands, etc... than Street Fighter IV, still looks like a jumbled mess the first time out watching. Street Fighter IV, although not the best fighting game by a long shot, looks for a middle ground between the two it being slower than UMC3 but being smoother and quicker than Injustice.
Now imagine watching an RTS.
You stare at workers mining for about 3 minutes, then you stare at workers running around a black map for another 4 minutes, then suddenly something happens but your attention was already lost 5 minutes into the game. When the action does happen the screen only captures a tiny portion of it and you spend time having to be told by casters that your player is winning/losing by that point you'd rather the RTS was just a radio show since its not like the screen tells you anything.
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players)
|
On June 04 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players)
and they were playing bw
|
On June 04 2014 04:52 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players) and they were playing bw
Yeah. TvT in broodwar was amazing to watch for first time viewers. An hour long game where nothing happens.
|
On June 04 2014 04:52 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players) and they were playing bw
I wasn't enjoying BW as much in 2010 (although I loved the shit out of it around 2007-2008) but watching BW was never as fun for me as reading all those battle reports in 2001-2002.
|
On June 04 2014 04:52 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 04:52 Mindcrime wrote:On June 04 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players) and they were playing bw Yeah. TvT in broodwar was amazing to watch for first time viewers. An hour long game where nothing happens.
You obviously did not watch BW TvT
It was BW ZvZ that was terrible during early BW. Nothing but lings and scourge.
|
On June 04 2014 04:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2014 04:52 Excludos wrote:On June 04 2014 04:52 Mindcrime wrote:On June 04 2014 04:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It was better in 2010 when maps were smaller and action started immediately (although it was a worse experience for players) and they were playing bw Yeah. TvT in broodwar was amazing to watch for first time viewers. An hour long game where nothing happens. You obviously did not watch BW TvT It was BW ZvZ that was terrible during early BW. Nothing but lings and scourge.
Of course I didn't watch it, I only pretend to so I can look cool on the Internet while talking about shit I know nothing about..
TvT in BW was exciting..WHEN you knew what was going on. As a first time viewer all you're really seeing is two people not engaging each other for an hour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
