|
On February 29 2016 03:27 Latham wrote:
I personally had the most fun playing: Warcraft 3 (high HP units, very micro friendly), Armies of Exigo (excellent balance between micro/macro) Company of Heroes 1 (Like warhammer 40K, node control, squads of unique units, a bit of RNG in damage) and a fair bit of Red Alert 3 (pretty decent micro/macro balance) + Command and Conquer 3 (Tier 1 tank spam wars)
my favs are: RA3, SC2/WoL/Hots/LotV, CoH1, and SC1/Brood War.
i could never get into Warcraft for the very scientific reason that Jeremy/Jared Cale brings up in his Pure Pwnage web series. "dragons, magic, and bows and arrows? LOL are you serious? i can take all that out with 1 Mirage Tank". i'm sure WC2 and WC3 are very well made though.
|
On February 29 2016 01:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote:
Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see. this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special.. i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy. hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry. did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices. stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision. What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ? Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:27 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote:
Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game. to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space. Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996. its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre. Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry.
1996 is a loooong time ago and after 2003 ish almost everybody could do it....
|
On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity.
Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
|
On February 29 2016 03:59 sabas123 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 01:36 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote:
Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre has everything to do with it. improving tech made RTS possible and years later improving tech gave consumers more choices so they could move onto to something they liked more than RTS. Lots of badly flawed RTS games flourished in the late 90s because the buzz of watching 100 units kill 100 units with 1000s of bullets flying every where was just awesome to see. this decline due to tech improvements has happened to dozens of different genres ,... RTS is nothing special.. i can list 10+ genres this has already happened to .. but i'm too lazy. hell, improving Tech took out the entire North American Arcade Industry which consisted of many genres.. all at once.. just gone ... a nuclear holocaust of an industry. did arcade games suddenly get bad in 2005? like every arcade game? No, improving technology gave consumers more choices. stop believing the myth that game quality is the #1 prime factor in determining a purchasing decision. What makes you think the RTS genre should live forever when every other genre dies ? On February 29 2016 01:27 lestye wrote:On February 29 2016 01:19 saddaromma wrote:
Stop bringing "rts is dead" excuse whenever people talk about SC2's unpopularity. Genre has nothing to do with it.
Look at hearthstone! Online cards were never popular but the game is huge right now.
SC2's dev team (especially multiplayer) failed to make a good game. Thats about it. Genre is a huge part of it. There's a reason why Dota outgrew Warcraft 3 in popularity. Social accessible team based games were more fun than stressful micro games. It's not that Warcraft 3 was not a good game. to add to your point. improving technology made this possible. 5v5 games were just not possible in 1996 any place in Canada except MAYBE within the epicenter of Toronto and Montreal. Very few teenagers and young adults have residence in these areas. Its all commercial space. Now you can play a 5v5 game in 1000X as many places in Canada as compared to 1996. its all about improving tech giving rise to one genre while "choicing out of the market" another genre. Technology will keep improving ... consumers will continue to get more choices and the MOBA will be choiced out of the market by the same process that has killed every other genre in the history of the video game industry. 1996 is a loooong time ago and after 2003 ish almost everybody could do it....
"almost everybody could do it" : you can't make a world wide generalization like this.... i'd say for non-urbanized Ontario and non-urbanized Quebec it was 2005. I can't speak for the rest of the world though.
This tech advancement made it possible for a MOBA to exist. A MOBA could not exist in 1996. First it must be technically possible. Then, someone must make a game to exploit the new technology. When did DOTA1 come out?
The fact that the RTS genre has hung on so long is a tribute to Blizzard and Relic. Isn't it interesting that David Kim worked for both guys. 
|
My fav RTS :
1. obviously Starcraft/Brood War
2. omg that's tough, Warcraft 3
3. Age of Empires 2. Ok not so tough.
others : had lots of fun with Red Alert (1), Tiberian Sun, Dark Reign, War Wind, Age of Empires, Homeworld&Cataclysm, Warcraft 2, Total Annihilation, Empire Earth. It's really really fun to play one of these against somebody else too not just single player, they kind of teach their own things but I think the previous 3 have a lot more depth in the long run for multiplayer
(War Wind seems pretty unknown, this game has really really good music, graphics, universe and story, solo campaign bit hard puzzle-like but fun to play + some cinematics, very cool editor, and so you can make and play all sorts of custom games. clunky controls and weird (long) development of games so that it's definitely not the best in multiplayer... definitely not competitive.. but man I loved this game in single player or fun games. 4 races very unique and surprising O_O there are all sorts of hostile or neutral animals on the maps, stronger weaker etc)
|
On February 29 2016 02:49 B-royal wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 00:15 lestye wrote:
I don't know why people think WC4 is the answer to everyone's problems. Casuals HATE HATE HATE micro, they only liked WC3 for the fantasy setting + custom maps. WC3 failed to surpass Starcraft 1's success, I don't see why it'd be any different w/ WC4.
That's why casuals LOVE Clash of Clans and all that other mobile stuff, they're not intersted in balancing micro and macro, strategy, builds, min maxing, they just want to make a big army and watch it fight in glorious combat. Insert obligatory "are you kidding me"? Casuals LOVE micro. They HATE macro. Do you think placing buildings, making workers is the most appealing aspect of starcraft for casuals? Why do you think MOBAs are so popular? Because of their enthralling macro? It's because controlling single units, microing them to their full effectiveness combined with cool spells is tons of fun.
Microing 1 unit is way different more than 1.
Absolutely not. Look in any casual thread. What do they call Starcraft/Warcraft? Clickfests. Thats what they see the game as. Click click click and not real strategy.
Also look how many people who REFUSE/incapable of playing Meepo/Chen/Enchantress in Dota. Thats because micro is too much for a lot of people.
If you look at RTS threads made by casuals, they'll say something along the lines of "I want a strategy game thats more about strategy and less about clicking/being fast, like Starcraft which is all apm" or something dumb like that.
|
On February 29 2016 05:13 lestye wrote:
If you look at RTS threads made by casuals, they'll say something along the lines of "I want a strategy game thats more about strategy and less about clicking/being fast, like Starcraft which is all apm" or something dumb like that.
One time a friend @university said this to me about Starcraft arguing his turn-based phone-strategy game had more strategy to it. I proceeded to challenge and beat him at that game with 10x less experience.
It's true that Starcraft (1 & 2) takes a lot of clicks, and I understand that some people don't want to have to deal with that. However, games that take a lot less clicks aren't necessarily quite as deep in decision making either, and may involve a lot less skill overall. The thing is, in a RTS with many elements, if you want the game to be neither too simple nor too slow, you can expect people will have to click a lot and really fast, but that's not all they do haha.
|
I really think Blizzard is the best studio making RTS after the golden age, the sequels of AoE2, C&C, etc, didnt live the expectations, and in terms of making a video game Blizzard made a good job with SC2, but they failed miserably captivating the essence that made those original RTS games so good, Blizz had half of its market in Korea and they blew it up with this game, SC2 never was relevant in Korea and never will, the "come back" of BW is just natural, because people who like RTS in Korea just stay playing it and the pro scene in Korea for SC2 is not strong at all if you take away Blizz support. The future of SC2 will be in a few years like AoE2 right now, an old game, played by a good but not big community, and with tournaments sponsored by people who grew old and have some money to spare in their lovely game. I really think that one of the factors of RTS declined popularity is that the new RTS never achieved the "magic" which the old ones had, the studios just focused too much in grapichs and easier gameplay, when indeed you can play any RTS in a relax and easy way if you want.
|
I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now.
|
On February 29 2016 06:10 lestye wrote:
I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now.
In Korea never was relevant, and how could it be if BW was, is and will be much bigger, in the rest of the world is the only new RTS played, and of course is the most popular. It is not a dead game,you have sponsored tournaments, Blizz commitment and everything else, but the decline is a fact.
|
I think the main issue is that RTS used to be games that could easily be played together with friends and LAN parties / internet cafes were a big part of that. Mostly everyone was pretty bad at RTS games and the ones that could actually play had a fun time winning 1v3 or games.
The time BW was most popular in EU/US wasn't the time that Korean broadcasts had a big impact. I remember the first time I played SC (not BW) multiplayer back in the 90s. It was fun because you could figure out new tricks and the games weren't as serious.
Today RTS games are very difficult to play on a decent level, it's difficult to play with other people that like the game. The skill difference is just too big. That has happened in most games, but it's way easier to have fun as a scrub in CS in LoL than in SC:2.
I love the game, I enjoy watching it but I would never play multiplayer because the time I needed to invest to even remotely compete is way too high. This is positive in the sense that the game has an unreachable skill ceiling but on the other hand also means that for most people the learning curve is too steep. If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back.
Archon mode didn't solve that either and instead of 4v4 people are just going to play a moba.
I think SC2 needs to embrace that and instead of trying to make the game more accessible to new players the game should focus on being the hardest but the best game there is. Let plebs like me watch the game and the pros play it.
|
We know from experience that blizzard leaves a skeleton crew behind after starcraft game or expansion releases. However, they mostly abandon the games/expansions after release until the next release.
Therefore, we should expect what we've had: nothing substantial besides balance tweaks and some esports money.
Luckily, Day9's game will be in beta next week...
|
On February 29 2016 06:23 palexhur wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:10 lestye wrote:
I think you guys drank too much of the dead gaem kool-aid really dismissing SC2's success and what SC2 does right.
No, its not as popular as League but nothing is. SC2 is still one of only 2 esports that people are still get sponsored in Korea with, so calling it "never relevant" is way overblowing it.. It's still the most popular RTS in the world and the one being most played right now. In Korea never was relevant, and how could it be if BW was, is and will be much bigger, in the rest of the world is the only new RTS played, and of course is the most popular. It is not a dead game,you have sponsored tournaments, Blizz commitment and everything else, but the decline is a fact.
"never relevant" when its one of 2 esports that people get sponsored to play professionally. That's hardly non-relevant. Dota 2 in Korea was never relevant. Those words dont describe SC2.
On February 29 2016 06:37 HewTheTitan wrote:
We know from experience that blizzard leaves a skeleton crew behind after starcraft game or expansion releases. However, they mostly abandon the games/expansions after release until the next release.
Therefore, we should expect what we've had: nothing substantial besides balance tweaks and some esports money.
Luckily, Day9's game will be in beta next week...
Except, the Executive Producer says there is no new game or expansion to go onto. That's why the whole Blizzcon panel on what's next for Starcraft. That's why they're selling co-op commanders and map packs and promised us new feature
|
If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back.
That's not true. We tell them to stop thinking so much and just practice mechanics for 2-5 years while copying some pro build until they're diamond. We try to encourage them not to quit before the grind pays off.
Then they can tweak things a bit, though they still can't do the strats they have in their heads because of mechanics still...
Somewhere in low masters you can start to play the 'actual' game, a bit.
edit: for example, to teach my friend to play I make 100% non-blink stalkers and just attack a lot with low bases. He still only wins half or less, then quit the game when his neat nuke rushes didn't work. He bought into a strategy game and got a mechanics game 
|
On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported....
|
On February 29 2016 06:42 Ve5pa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported....
SC2's arrival killed bw in korea. It is coming back, hopefully will return with a vengeance, but it did die for a while.
|
On February 29 2016 06:48 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 06:42 Ve5pa wrote:On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. Diablo 2 servers and SC BW servers still supported.... SC2's arrival killed bw in korea. It is coming back, hopefully will return with a vengeance, but it did die for a while.
A fella who goes by the name of God seemed to smash out some pretty sick viewer numbers for Brood War this afternoon.
70k 2 weekends in a row might be the start of a revival.
So tempted to insert a viewbot joke but.... resist....
|
On February 29 2016 06:41 HewTheTitan wrote:Show nested quote + If you come to TL and look at the threads to learn what it takes to play the game you find things that will tell 95% of the interested players to give up right away and never come back. That's not true. We tell them to stop thinking so much and just practice mechanics for 2-5 years while copying some pro build until they're diamond. We try to encourage them not to quit before the grind pays off. Then they can tweak things a bit, though they still can't do the strats they have in their heads because of mechanics still... Somewhere in low masters you can start to play the 'actual' game, a bit. edit: for example, to teach my friend to play I make 100% non-blink stalkers and just attack a lot with low bases. He still only wins half or less, then quit the game when his neat nuke rushes didn't work. He bought into a strategy game and got a mechanics game
It's RTS, not TBS, for a reason. If he wants to experiment with wacky ideas without having to git gud, he can play Heroes of Might and Magic, XCOM, or maybe a CCG like Hearthstone.
|
On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence.
I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care.
Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
|
On February 29 2016 07:06 Spyridon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 29 2016 04:05 Jealous wrote:On February 29 2016 02:38 Ve5pa wrote:
And please don't forget if their's one thing Blizzard is very good at, it is supporting it's games waaaaay after they have dwindled in popularity. Until they try to release a sequel or a competitor to their own game, then they will try to kill the game that is standing in the way ^^; WC4 would be SC2's death sentence. I liked both BW and WC3 much more than SC2. So I wouldn't care. Which pains me to say that, because I looked fwd to SC2 so much for years
Still wouldn't be fair to SC2 community though.
Besides, if Blizzard made a new WC4, would it have any chance to be really good and free of terrible terrible choices made for broadened marketing? And the newer Blizz designer-spokesman going "yeah it's about time let's play some Warcraft it's a great moment in Warcraft history" T_T
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
