|
On February 03 2016 18:44 EatingBomber wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2016 18:30 Timelog wrote:On February 03 2016 18:02 iamcaustic wrote:we’ve had so much success for the better of the game in the past year compared to previous years That's an... interesting assessment of SC2's trajectory, DK. Maybe hoping people don't remember what the game used to be? You can say what you want, but the general consensus I see around all community platforms is that LotV is definitely better then HotS. Not perfect of course as it is still early in release, but certainly better. Wait for the novelties of the game to wear off, and then say that. I think it is too early to tell whether LotV is an improvement over HotS
I remember when HotS first came out. Initial reactions usually tend to conflate "different" with "better". Another thing to note is that the SC2 community platforms are also significantly less populated these days (let alone the ladder population...). I think that's a more telling trend than what the general consensus is on said platforms. People flock to things they enjoy.
On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
In point of fact, half of the fan base won't be happy with Protoss until practically all of their units, PO, and warp gate are reworked from the ground up, while the other half thinks that Protoss is the only race that actually takes S in this RTS.
What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid?  IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
|
On February 04 2016 04:21 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote:
Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week? So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that. The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
FIXED IT:
Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week?
So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that.
The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle.
NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
|
On February 02 2016 21:25 kasapanos wrote:
I left starcraft 2 for Dota 2 a few years back. I really liked the game for some time and played and watched it a lot back then. The problems came more and more evident later on and I'm going to give my full opinion of them now.
Brood war was an awesome game. It was a game where space control mattered. You could put a few tanks to cover a narrow route to a location to block access. This would be almost impenetrable. What the opponent would have had to do can be something like:
1. Find different route to flank the formation.
2. Attack the formation knowing the weakness (in this case, send air units to attack).
3. If also flanks are covered well you take control of the rest of the map, because the enemy invested a lot to defend that specific location and can't be that strong elsewhere -> take the initiative.
4. try to use some fancy spell to cover your attack moves.
5. force the enemy to move
This resembles chess. There were multiple units (lurker, arbiter, reaver, defiler..) that had really strong location control. But they had evident weaknesses. High manacost, slow, up in the tech tree... So you could rush, flank, drop, avoid, outmacro, outmicro the units but not rush on to them. And oh dear the games in BW... And the maps. They were fun and diverse.
Starcraft 2 on the other hand took a completely different path. Even with 200/200 all the tanks covering one narrow ledge, you can not block the protoss ground forces. As they just demolish you. But...YOU CAN LIFT THE TANK!! Who wants to lift a tank that is supposed to defend? It's the speed of the brain and not (only) the speed of the hands that should differ players. In SC2 Zerg had no way to really control any kind of terrain. It was some kind of weird hit and run game the TvZ. Protoss of course just a-moved always. Gateway was plain useless path to choose apart from rushing as they fell on tech rapidly and even big gate-army got demolished in seconds. Fuck I loved gateway on BW!!! It was the backbone of protoss!! Now it was some weird deathball-colossi-hit-and-run-cannon-defence-weird-mommaship-core-whaaaaatisthis?? I wanted to have the epic gateway-massing fights or sneaky carrier-stomps but not one OP-unit destroying everything.
Hello, are you my sock puppet account? Because these are basically my exact feelings towards SC2. Good explanation and glad to see somebody taking a higher level view of the game and not just another balance gripe.
|
On February 04 2016 04:21 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote:
Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week? So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that. The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx
I think that this ongoing criticism and in general the harsh game design dicussions originate from a community entitlement similar to what we see from sports fanclubs. When it was WoL or even HotS, players either accepted what they were playing or left. But after years and years with the game a lot of us have become very connected to the game and its community. It's not as easy to leave SC2 behind if you don't like the expansion direction or feel like you were never heard after years of cognital investment into this game.
From blizzard's point of view, they created a game and two expansions for it that just built upon the original. I think it was a huge mistake to spread it over 5 years, given that with each year our expectations and our entitlement grew, just to find out that we were getting a rather standard RTS expansion with a few new units and a few design and balance changes.
|
Excellent point BigJ. They hyped this game up as a "trilogy" and said they were surprised by all the fan outrage when they announced the campaigns would be delivered in 3 separate installments, because in their view they were delivering 3x as much game. Guess it didn't turn out that way
|
On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote:What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game.
I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent.
Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE.
The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
|
On February 04 2016 08:32 Big J wrote:
From blizzard's point of view, they created a game and two expansions for it that just built upon the original. I think it was a huge mistake to spread it over 5 years, given that with each year our expectations and our entitlement grew, just to find out that we were getting a rather standard RTS expansion with a few new units and a few design and balance changes.
the game's revenue did not justify the priority level within Blizz to pump out content faster. Is LotV even going to make $60 million USD? Throughout SC2's development history which spanned a decade or more Blizzard always had more than 1 higher priority than SC2.
|
On February 04 2016 05:54 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 04:21 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 03 2016 19:51 ZombieFrog wrote:
Eh I do feel for DK and his team. I'm certain without a doubt that no matter what changes they made, even if they followed all of the communities ideas to the letter (which would be a silly thing to do) people would inevitably bitch endlessly about something in SC2. I've seen it from the beginning and I'm certain it will continue until the end. Constructive criticism is cool and what you should give to game developers, but that is sadly not what people give Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft good laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone effectively? Is it too much to expect the the trashman to actually pick your trash every week? So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and create a great game? They are paid to do that. The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of poor performance. It didn't exist when the game was at its height (sure there was some criticism, but not to the enx FIXED IT:Do you think it is too much to expect politicians to draft laws? Is it too much to expect a doctor to treat someone ? Is it too much to expect the the sanitary worker to collect your trash every week? So why is it too much to expect the design team to just do their job and design a game? They are paid to do that. The tidal wave of criticism the design team faces is a result of a variety of things that I don't know about, but I have my opinions. I didn't notice this level of criticism when the game was at an arbitrary point in its life-cycle. NOTE: took out most of the meaningless qualifiers which essentially render your entire point unproductive.
Let politicians, doctors, trashmen and game designers do a bad job in some cases purposely in order to make a profit against everyone else's interests without even expecting them to do it right, because that would be... unproductive! (???)
|
On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death.
But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
MOBA game design has a decidedly shorter history than RTS game design, yet has been vastly more successful (at least for Riot and League) because they've focused very hard on making the game fun and reducing frustrations. We play games to have fun. Riot's design blogs are amazing. It is a masterclass in game design.
That doesn't mean that Riot doesn't mistakes, but it validates what I am saying when I use other team's designs to compare against the designs of the SC2 team, because it shows that things can be done the correct way and I'm not just picking apart a team for making mistakes, because everyone make mistakes as you mentioned, from doctors to politicians. But some people make more mistakes than others, and should be held accountable.
So I don't believe it is the case that game design lacks history or anything like that. And I don't believe it is the case that Big J pointed out where I'm jaded because SC2 has changed from what happened in WOL.
The game can, and should evolve into a better game (better defined as more fun) over time. What makes games fun?
Start here: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417
SC2 doesn't do those things, and in fact, does completely the opposite in many cases. Anti-fun literally exceeds fun in many SC2 interactions and that makes players upset and they complain about said features. It is really a poorly designed game when looked at from a game design perspective. And I say that as someone who designs games.
The very first thing Zileas lists is "Power without Gameplay", which is literally exactly what Photon Overcharge is. You press 1 key and click on a Pylon and suddenly you are safe, and there is basically no gameplay. It is such a bad design and I don't understand why it is still in the game.
As he says: "The problem with using a "power without gameplay" mechanic is that you tend to have to 'over-buff' the mechanic and create a game balance problem before people appreciate it. " Anyone think Photon Overcharge was overbuffed or creates balance problems?
And that piece was written in 2010, ancient history for League. But the SC2 design team is still try to balancing power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge... I'll let you decide why.
|
On February 04 2016 14:22 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that... But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born.
tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different.
as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier.
the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc...
in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS.
blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman.
Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga.
Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade.
The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
|
On February 04 2016 14:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 14:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that... But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born. tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different. as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier. the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc... in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS. blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga. Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade. The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job.
I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed games last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant.
The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying.
|
On February 04 2016 09:05 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote:What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game. I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent. Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE. The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
That's a huge missunderstanding.
The problem with high skill ceilling is that there's always be MU where it's simpler mechanically for one race, until top masters/GM. It's not about a high skill floor, it's about balance for the best players. It's been like that since WOL.
Playing TvP in WOL? Enjoy microing your ass out while protoss Amoves his 30 zealots 6 archons with +2 defense.
Playing ZvT against mech in WOL? Enjoy empaling 40 roaches on 15 tanks with no micro whatsoever from the mech player.
Starcraft II is a mechanical, and very hard to master game. It's like a musical instrument. Other games (such as Dota of course) make you feel like you're contributing. Because it's not a mechanically demanding game, and because you're playing as a team.
Starcraft II is a personal thing. You have to get better. You're the only one responsible for your victories and losses. You can't blame others, you can only blame yourself, or the game. Some people just can't handle it.
Others don't wanna invest in getting better. Which is fine ! Play 3v3, play arcade, play 1v1 bronze league, it doesn't matter.
The problem isn't that there's a high skill floor, it's that you can easily see how bad you are compared to a professionnal player. There's no MU you "can't" play because of your mechanics, because bronze league TvZ doesn't have a meta.
|
On February 04 2016 14:53 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 14:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 04 2016 14:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that... But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born. tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different. as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier. the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc... in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS. blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga. Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade. The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job. I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and of course I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed game last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant. The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying.
its does not matter how good the next dot eating maze game is. it won't make enough profit to sustain a AAA budget. Pacman alone made $7 Billion. That will never happen again.
it does not matter how great the next text adventure game is. it may attract some loyal followers but ATVI knows it can't sustain a AAA budget.
The RTS genre will continue to exist in the same way teh Pinball Machine, Dot Eating Maze Game and Side Scrolling Space Shooter still exist today.
It does not matter what DK does. the AAA budget RTS is extinct. SC2 is the genre's Swan Song. Consumers tastes had already shifted when WoL hit the shelves.
|
On February 04 2016 14:57 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 14:53 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 04 2016 14:49 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 04 2016 14:22 BronzeKnee wrote:On February 04 2016 04:55 pure.Wasted wrote:
Doctors and politicians have - literally - thousands of years of encyclopedias, expertise, and history to fall back on. They go to school specifically to learn what they will do as professionals. And then they fuck up. All the time.
All I can think about, is how doctors used to treat people with the Black Death. Yeah, fall back on that... But seriously, game design has been around forever, at least as long as medicine and politics, probably longer. The day the bored yet content caveman who just ate and went to the bathroom looked over at the other cavemen who had done the same and threw a rock at him for fun, was the day game design was born. tech based games.. and just plain "games" are totally different. as technology evolves genres die. and new ones arise that were impossible to exist even 5 years earlier. the pinball machine, text adventure, MUD, dot eating maze games, side scrolling space shooter.etc... in 1995 it was not viable for 10 people to play a game together lag free. by 2007 ten people with low lag was was QED. On top of that i can assemble a massive army and play skirmish games on a tablet with thousands of bullets flying everywhere and soldiers dying by the dozens. good bye desktop PC RTS. blaming Blizzard for RTS going down is like blaming Bally-Midway for "failing" with Ms.Pacman. Or claiming Infocom destroyed the Text Adventure with Zork3. Or saying Namco destroyed vertical shooters when they made Galaga. Or blaming 1980 pinball machine designers for letting Space Invaders take over the arcade. The shift in consumer tastes due to improving technology is way way bigger than DK's next LotV patch. It is far out of the scope of his job. I think you're missing the point here. While I disagree with your point (my brother-in-law just bought the brand new Star Trek pinball machine for $7,500, and of course I responded to this same argument in another thread stating that well designed game last forever, hence we have Chess) it is irrelevant. The RTS genre dying is not an excuse for poor game design. Blizzard doesn't need to include power without gameplay mechanics like Photon Overcharge because the genre is dying. its does not matter how good the next dot eating maze game is. it won't make enough profit to sustain a AAA budget. Pacman alone made $7 Billion. That will never happen again. it does not matter how great the next text adventure game is. it may attract some loyal followers but ATVI knows it can't sustain a AAA budget. The RTS genre will continue to exist in the same way teh Pinball Machine, Dot Eating Maze Game and Side Scrolling Space Shooter still exist today. It does not matter what DK does. the AAA budget RTS is extinct. SC2 is the genre's Swan Song. Consumers tastes had already shifted when WoL hit the shelves.
You don't need a triple A budget or a thriving genre to follow basic game design principles, that was my point. So for me, it does matter what David Kim does, because I want to play SC2. I don't really care what other consumers want.
Even if he was working on SC2 for free, I'd still want him to design the game properly.
|
Morhaime . Pierce and Sigaty are on it. If they think DK and DB are doing their jobs that's good enough for me.
Personally, i'm having a blast playing SC2.. but my personal opinion is irrelevant in this discussion.
On February 04 2016 15:07 BronzeKnee wrote:
You don't need a triple A budget or a thriving genre to follow basic game design principles, that was my point.
without a AAA level budget ATVI does not fund SC2's development.
nor will it fund the development of any other RTS game.
u see.. entertainment software is developed by people who are paid with .. ummm .. MONEY.
|
Power without gameplay mechanics are attractive to some people. They just aren't attractive to most people.
SC2 can follow consumer tastes, it just chooses not to. Actually, I think it isn't choosing not to, I think the design team doesn't know it isn't following consumer tastes, yet tries to with skillshots and such. Again, sending us back to a lack of understand of basic game design principles that have powered the success of MOBAs and Counterstrike.
The key is to focus on fun: http://forums.na.leagueoflegends.com/board/showthread.php?t=293417
|
11 to 15 years olds are not playing RTS games. the guys in the 20s who are leaving the genre are not being replaced. that is what is going on at the macro level that makes the RTS genre game development impossible to fund.
i think Morhaime , Sigaty and Pierce know how to hire, develop, and nurture game design talent. and i don't think you do. if DK sucked he'd be long gone.
|
Right... so now I'm facing a fallacious authority argument.
Just become Mother Teresa says something, doesn't mean it is right. And just because the devil says something, doesn't mean it is wrong. It is about what is said, not who says it. You appealing to authority because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself and read up on game design.
You can have fun with games that aren't well designed. Just recognize when you have bad game design features like power without gameplay.
|
On February 04 2016 09:05 Dracover wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2016 05:50 iamcaustic wrote:What about those of us who think both of those positions are valid? IMO Terran and Zerg went the way of abandoning strategy in favour of mechanical macro over their evolution, while Protoss has had a poor design from the start (WoL) but at least continues to retain a connection to the strategic aspect of the game. I picked up Dota 2 the other day after not playing any Dota for like 2 years (peer pressure). Despite never being any good and with 2 years of not playing being even worse I had lots of fun. This what you say there is right on. The game is becoming way too mechanics dependent. Before I get crucified I would like to clarify I'm not against there being a high skill ceiling. What I'm against is that certain match ups are not playable without those. In those Dota games, I realised I found it fun because I was contributing. I wasn't there out farming my opponent, I wasn't making high level mechanical maneuvers. But I bought wards, pulled creeps, DIDN'T DIE. The issue with LOTV is that certain match ups are just not playable without those mechanics (for one side and not the other). A terran cannot win against a parade of roach/ravager or late game ultras without decent tank and bio micro. A protoss cannot break out of a lurker contain or liberators without perfect positioning and engagements. This makes the game feel completely ridiculous who's not GM and I think why there's a lot of criticism on the design team because everyone (from every race and every perspective) has something to complain about.
You're saying sc2 isn't fun because you can't beat a better player because you aren't carried? Have you tried archon mode?
Edit: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that... But you're comparing a team experience to single player. Your experince in dota would have fared quite differently in a different role. Your sc2 experience might also be quite different in another game mode.
|
On February 04 2016 15:18 BronzeKnee wrote:
Right... so now I'm facing a fallacious authority argument.
Just become Mother Teresa says something, doesn't mean it is right. And just because the devil says something, doesn't mean it is wrong. It is about what is said, not who says it. You appealing to authority because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself and read up on game design.
i play games for fun. if i'm feeling like i'm having fun.. that's all i need. i'm not turning the silly-stupid kick ass fun i have into a linear algebra course.
Morhaime, Sigaty and Pierce have a track record. You do not have a track record. Furthermore, i like SC2 and most of the stuff Blizzard makes. Overwatch is great.
Since RnR Racing i've thought Blizzard has made great games. Due to their extensive 20+ year track record and watching how they speak in interviews i'm willing to go with their judgement.
Uncle Mike didn't start with his dad giving him a billion dollars to start a game company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
