Why do you still play StarCraft? - Page 6
Forum Index > SC2 General |
Daimai
Sweden762 Posts
| ||
TelecoM
United States10682 Posts
On January 10 2016 07:36 Aocowns wrote: i like feeling pain and its either playing sc2 or cutting myself lol | ||
Chernobyl
Brazil143 Posts
| ||
Spyridon
United States997 Posts
On January 12 2016 02:15 Nuclease wrote: Basically this. There's something truly sick about the ladder of SC2, which is why it can never be a casual game. Seriously, though, I would play team games like Heroes of the Storm, but I hate team format. There's nothing that frustrates me more in competition than watching my team lose due to some jackass that can't work with a team/doesn't know the game. SC doesn't have that problem, although it can be more personally frustrating, because when you lose, it's all on you. Yeah, I prefer 1v1 games for that same reason. But SC2 doesn't do it for me anymore. Sadly I have not played for the last few weeks, do not plan to unless they change the economic curve from being so fast. It causes so many problems. 12 worker starts fine, minerals running out faster is fine... but the game basically STARTS with you beginning T2/T2.5 units in your initial build... That's retarded. There's so much less strategic decision making, and the economic curve empowers/highlights all of SC2's flaws (hard counters, air unit balance, and harassment has always been too little of an investment in SC2 and it's far worse than ever these days). I don't mind that the game is hard. I don't mind that the ladder design. I can deal with unit imbalanced - If it was strictly unit balance issues, I would put up with it until they fixed things up. But RTS games are built upon the economy, and economic issues cause problems in every single other aspect of the game, from scouting, to harass strength, to balance of to unit strength, to asymmetric macro design - it is ALL suffering right now. The game of SC2 has always been too volatile in these areas, and now it is even more volatile than ever. Yeah I do enjoy the increased action, I still enjoy actual combat and microing in battle with my units vs the enemies. But the strategic portion is SOO lacking now. Strategic gameplay is built entirely on having to invest time (resources) on difficult decisions on the fly, and deal with the repercussions of those decisions (as well as your enemies) and adapt as the game goes on. The less time you have to invest for the desired payload, the less strategic decision making/gameplay you have. So LotV is more in the direction of a micro battle, but considering the importance of macro, it's just a half-measure. LotV is basically half-assed implementation of a "micro battle" style game, combined with half-assed implementations of strategic gameplay. It does not cater to either style, and only caters to people who want micro battles as the result of hyperactive macro mechanics. I don't know when Blizzard decided "strategy = macro". But that's a false statement, and it really sucks that SC is about nothing but mechanics and micro now. I hope it changes, but that last glimmer of hope faded when they decided to rush the game for release. Since there's no RTS competition these days, the only way I could satisfy my 1v1 competitive cravings is to go back to fighting games. Ironically they are much more strategic than SC2 nowdays, since playing a fighting game competitively is basically non-stop mind games. So nowdays I play a mix of fighting games for my 1v1 competitive cravings, and team games with friends. Would love to add an RTS game to my main games again, but my hope for SC2 is basically gone. Blizzard has never been known for great games at vanilla release, but has built a reputation for releasing expansions/patches that turn mediocre games in to great ones. Hearthstone went from a game players didn't take serious at all to the #1-2 game on twitch, D3 had a horrid release but now actually is fun to play and has a huge amount of players login for each new season, WC3 and SC1's expansions completely turned them in to far better games.... Yet SC2 is on it's 3rd release and the problems are worse than ever....? It's seeming more and more true that SC2 is a game that Blizzard simply can not turn around... | ||
neptunusfisk
2286 Posts
The game is simple enough for me to care about understanding the rules, and deep enough to keep me interested. It is such an all-consuming experience to hardcore focus on something for 20 minutes straight, it just fascinates me so much how far removed you get from the outer world while playing. In contrast, when I play CSGO for fun with my friends, it is overall quite chill with some tense moments mixed in. SC2 is such a different beast in terms of concentration, and that's one reason I adore it. | ||
Pugfarmer
70 Posts
On January 12 2016 09:15 Spyridon wrote: Yeah, I prefer 1v1 games for that same reason. But SC2 doesn't do it for me anymore. Sadly I have not played for the last few weeks, do not plan to unless they change the economic curve from being so fast. It causes so many problems. 12 worker starts fine, minerals running out faster is fine... but the game basically STARTS with you beginning T2/T2.5 units in your initial build... That's retarded. There's so much less strategic decision making, and the economic curve empowers/highlights all of SC2's flaws (hard counters, air unit balance, and harassment has always been too little of an investment in SC2 and it's far worse than ever these days). I don't mind that the game is hard. I don't mind that the ladder design. I can deal with unit imbalanced - If it was strictly unit balance issues, I would put up with it until they fixed things up. But RTS games are built upon the economy, and economic issues cause problems in every single other aspect of the game, from scouting, to harass strength, to balance of to unit strength, to asymmetric macro design - it is ALL suffering right now. The game of SC2 has always been too volatile in these areas, and now it is even more volatile than ever. Yeah I do enjoy the increased action, I still enjoy actual combat and microing in battle with my units vs the enemies. But the strategic portion is SOO lacking now. Strategic gameplay is built entirely on having to invest time (resources) on difficult decisions on the fly, and deal with the repercussions of those decisions (as well as your enemies) and adapt as the game goes on. The less time you have to invest for the desired payload, the less strategic decision making/gameplay you have. So LotV is more in the direction of a micro battle, but considering the importance of macro, it's just a half-measure. LotV is basically half-assed implementation of a "micro battle" style game, combined with half-assed implementations of strategic gameplay. It does not cater to either style, and only caters to people who want micro battles as the result of hyperactive macro mechanics. I don't know when Blizzard decided "strategy = macro". But that's a false statement, and it really sucks that SC is about nothing but mechanics and micro now. I hope it changes, but that last glimmer of hope faded when they decided to rush the game for release. Since there's no RTS competition these days, the only way I could satisfy my 1v1 competitive cravings is to go back to fighting games. Ironically they are much more strategic than SC2 nowdays, since playing a fighting game competitively is basically non-stop mind games. So nowdays I play a mix of fighting games for my 1v1 competitive cravings, and team games with friends. Would love to add an RTS game to my main games again, but my hope for SC2 is basically gone. Blizzard has never been known for great games at vanilla release, but has built a reputation for releasing expansions/patches that turn mediocre games in to great ones. Hearthstone went from a game players didn't take serious at all to the #1-2 game on twitch, D3 had a horrid release but now actually is fun to play and has a huge amount of players login for each new season, WC3 and SC1's expansions completely turned them in to far better games.... Yet SC2 is on it's 3rd release and the problems are worse than ever....? It's seeming more and more true that SC2 is a game that Blizzard simply can not turn around... I think you missed the title. | ||
Supter
France382 Posts
It's all about what you want from a game. I find StarCraft to be both physically and emotionally demanding. I have played countless games, and I've had fun on them. LoL, Hearthstone, WoW and such. But not a single one has giving me more than enjoyment : enjoyment and a feeling of improvment. Even if it's only a video game. | ||
| ||