|
On October 06 2016 19:30 Highways wrote:I agree that design is what killed SC2. Rather than fixing up the fundamentals of the game, David Kim only cares about little stats here and there to achieve balance. LotV should have been a major revamp of the whole game, but they went for the safe easy route. Issues are: - Lack of micro (see the famous TL article Depth of micro) This was published in 2013 and Blizzard has done nothing. - Warp gates. Gives no defenders advantage and encourages Protoss all-ins. - One 2 second battle decides the game, units have way too much DPS. - Too many attack move units that do massive damage (protoss collosus deathballs, banelings etc...) Seriously LotV should've fixed up fundamental flaws, but they went for the increase bunker build time by 5 seconds route. At least Co-Op is massive and fun in SC2, that will be the main mode people play now.
i agree on the lack of micro, but i disagree on the rest...
warp gates are fine now etc. i can read a frustated terran player between the lines 
|
The reason is simple - It just isn't a very fun game. It was OK for about 3 months but I stopped playing it after 3 months. This is after playing SCBW for years - why? It's just so much more fun.
This game would have been many times more successful if they just made it SCBW 2.0 with upgraded graphics and mechanics. It had all the interesting strategies and unit interactions in place. SC2 is just blob vs blob with lots of clunky, unfun and boring units with either forced or nonexistent interactions, with every unit having a specified use with almost no room for creativity. The damage and armor type system also functions very poorly and there are comparatively very few scenarios where micro and strategy can overcome numbers.
Blizzard can reap what they sow. They lost out on tons of profits by failing to copy SCBW with this game.
|
On October 07 2016 17:15 Shikyo wrote:They lost out on tons of profits by failing to copy SCBW with this game.
Relative to ATVI's top franchises no RTS game ever made much money at all. Its foolhardy to expect that after the genre exists for 15+ years it would all of a sudden start making WoW or CoD type money. SC2 profits were in line with expectations and allocated resources. This is why ATVI bragged about its sales levels after every SC2 release. When ATVI's product fails to meet expectations and allocated resources they remain dead silent.. like they did for Destiny or the latest Guitar Hero disaster.
ATVI properly prioritized their resources. Their top guys never did work on SC2. Pardo was pulled off of it.
RTS fans thinking they deserve more and better resources than ATVI and Blizzard allocated to the project are flat out wrong. ATVI is in the business of making Billions not Millions.
I realize Blizzard's top guys never did work on the game. Blizzard is so good even their "B" team is miles better at making an RTS game than any one else. As a result, i'm 100% satisfied with SC2 and the time i've spent playing it over 6 years.
|
I realize Blizzard's top guys never did work on the game. Blizzard is so good even their "B" team is miles better at making an RTS game than any one else. As a result, i'm 100% satisfied with SC2 and the time i've spent playing it over 6 years. It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful.
|
I'd like to contribute here.
First I have a half baked thumbnail of what I see happening. I'll explain it poorly and find a scapegoat, that'll ruffle the feathers of those fat cats up in Washington. Astonished yet? Now I'll take these ingredients, attach them together with some common-or-garden logic - you can't argue with logic - and hey presto. You follow?
No?
Well we need an example, I'll take any example, almost totally at random, could be anything.
MY IDEA, UNIT, MY IDEA, IMBALANCE, MY IDEA.
-no! no! no! I'm totally wrong.
They do it for the money you naive fools! It's their property. That's how it works, you should shut up and love it or vote with your pockets. That's how growed up did behave.
-I like your style, but I miss the point entirely.
RTS is old, the new thing now is fighting pandas. You can't change that, you're asking for the moon and we're on Mars baby.
-Almost right young 'un
I'm here to imply that I'm a professional, my credentials are unquestionable, I've lost more in chump change than you'll earn in a life time, I was playing video games before the beginning of time (1994) and I was top masters before I could properly wipe my ass. Here are the facts: Their top men are busy, and I'm not talking RTS guys, I'm talking REAL TOP MEN.
+ Show Spoiler +
So that was fun. It's been fun. I've enjoyed reading the thread.
Now I'm going to slam my junk in that drawer in the kitchen where the dead batteries go.
|
On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful.
Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good.
The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
|
That ship sailed away long time ago. SC2 in Korea is a lost cause.
Actually I don't know what is that obsession with Korea. The game didnt really became big in Korea... Big deal. CS:GO and DOTA are not big in Korea. Do Valve care ? Nope, it's one country.
I think that Blizzard spent too much resources to promote the game in South Korea instead of marketing it to the western market AND China as the next natural step from WC3.
As for the game itself. It's still fun, I still play it... It's the best(and the only) RTS at the moment. Too bad that this genre will die with it, though.
|
On October 08 2016 02:03 Dapper_Cad wrote:I'd like to contribute here. First I have a half baked thumbnail of what I see happening. I'll explain it poorly and find a scapegoat, that'll ruffle the feathers of those fat cats up in Washington. Astonished yet? Now I'll take these ingredients, attach them together with some common-or-garden logic - you can't argue with logic - and hey presto. You follow? No? Well we need an example, I'll take any example, almost totally at random, could be anything. MY IDEA, UNIT, MY IDEA, IMBALANCE, MY IDEA. -no! no! no! I'm totally wrong. They do it for the money you naive fools! It's their property. That's how it works, you should shut up and love it or vote with your pockets. That's how growed up did behave. -I like your style, but I miss the point entirely. RTS is old, the new thing now is fighting pandas. You can't change that, you're asking for the moon and we're on Mars baby. -Almost right young 'un I'm here to imply that I'm a professional, my credentials are unquestionable, I've lost more in chump change than you'll earn in a life time, I was playing video games before the beginning of time (1994) and I was top masters before I could properly wipe my ass. Here are the facts: Their top men are busy, and I'm not talking RTS guys, I'm talking REAL TOP MEN. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yoy4_h7Pb3M So that was fun. It's been fun. I've enjoyed reading the thread. Now I'm going to slam my junk in that drawer in the kitchen where the dead batteries go.
I'm actually thinking of calling it "the nut cracker" because those batteries really are useless and I only use it for one other thing... and as much as I might wish I didn't, I keep coming back and mutilating my genitals in it.
On October 08 2016 02:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful. Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
Agreed on Rob Pardo. Though you'd have thought that in a community dedicated to a game he designed - every member of which is convinced they understand the intricacies of game design and the challenges of creative work in a large team trying to hit deadline within a corporate structure servicing a player base of millions - that an in depth interview with Rob Pardo would have got more traction.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/475404-designer-notes-podcast-interview-with-rob-pardo
|
i posted that interview when it originally occurred and it got a bit more traction. what i took away from it is that when the Dota1 MOD on WC3 was exploding so was WoW and they only had enough bandwidth in their development pipeline to service 1 big thing. So they went with the thing with a $15 USD monthly fee.
|
Unfortunately I also have to shift a bit of the blame at TL or some of their moderators.
Posts like this, critizising the game in that way were just shut down and any mention of the player population in decline and saying things like the game "is dead or would be dead soon",
I think we would have needed this discussion earlier, before even the frist expansion came out.
The question is what type of game do we want?
A game played by a large player base, a player base that watches streams or produce content themselves, e-sports, teams and tournaments with lots of money on the line?
Or do we want a game kept alive by a loyal but very small fan base that love it, but never gets any attention by anyone else.
Do we want a place in the sportlighe or do we want a place in the niche?
If we root for the latter nothing needs to change because the loyal core will always remain loyal no matter what.
If we aim at a place for the game in the spotlight, the game itself needs a big player base to stand on, so the game must appeal to the casual. The casual must love the game, the game has to be ballanced mainly for casual play and unit and game design have to aim at the casual.
BUT nearly every discussion, was led by elitists, game ballancing and ballancing discussions seemed to only be aimed at the pro levels and even forum discussions were shut down seemingly because casuals didn't seem to have a say.
SC2 at the start had a huge player base for a strategy game, even in multiplayer but they all left and just bought the expansions for the storyline ( <3 ) which they played through and never touched the game again.
There is no real replay value in the campaingn (as opposed to other strat games like total war) and most people where just shattered by their multiplayer experience.
The casual had to do tasks and tasks to prevent, dark templar rushes or this to prevent marine rushes, drops in the mineral line, doomballs, also cannons and other chesy strats, or it what be that one mistake or that one fight that would decide everything in a split second of looking somewhere else.
Most casuals simply got scared away by that over time and although starcraft was supposed to be a "strategy" game for casuals it is just a mechanic excerices nothing else.
For a casual it was only who can pump put more units or who can execute a harassment better or get a timing better and there were/are no strategial thoughts to it on the lower levels of play.
WC3 for example back in the day was far more enjoyable to play for me at the casual level. (Although there where some cheesy strats there too for casuals, they where harder to pull off and normally you wouldn't loose games as fast as you can in SC2)
If I would make an overall suggestion on how to improove the gameplay and design to make the game more enjoyable for casuals and therfore get it a place in the spotlight and esports, I would suggest, just looking at what WC3 did right.
|
Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. He's only a designer by name, in reality he's more of a balance director.
All I ever see from him are balance tweaks and PR. The only "design" changes that I remember was half patch economy change and "Suicide" Disruptor->"Reavery" Disruptor changes in the beta.
DK is not good, he is average at best. I can count at least 10-15 people (amateurs) on this very forum that post very insightful and logical arguments or simply present a good understanding of what design actually is and how it is achieved, some people took it upon themselves to fix the game with mods, and while some of them are drastically different from each other, they seem to focus in the same areas or at least try to fix the same units. To me it confirms that they have identified real problems with the game that could be easily fixed by such a "good designer", but DK just seems oblivious.
Just because he (DK) is experienced, doesn't mean he is good, and it also doesn't mean that you need any game design degree or studies to know what is wrong with the game, while all you need to be a designer is simply common sense and ability to predict how one change affects other changes. A designers job is to know what you want and try to get out there and do it, while DK has no direction at all. Months of test balance maps, dozens of changes tested but nothing coming out of it. There is no solid theme for any race at the moment.
The Arcade does not generate revenue. That's not the point I was making. Blizzard do not need to put money into the Arcade or work with the community bringing the already popular games to the spotlight. What Arcade needed on WoL launch was complete overhaul.
What BW and WC3 done right:
- named games instead of being seeded automatically by the system. Automatic seed brings all problems described in this post: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/sc2-maps/509980-where-are-the-custom-games-players#6
and probably some more as well.
- more interaction between players (small, cosy, almost private chat channels) on the chat instead of the constant poo spam.
- easy way to chill after a stressfull game (instead of changing 4+ menus and wait 15 seconds of buffering, you just have a look at open games and see 2v2s, BGHs and UMS games) or an incentive to finally try out the "real man mode" of 1v1 as all games are grouped into one window.
- pregame lobbies. Not only you could have a little chat with your opponent and exchange pleasantries (in SC2 you hardly even have the time to type glhf ^^), but seeing your opponent's name in the lobby actually helped you remember his name. In SC2, I can hardly remember other guys nickname 5 seconds after the game starts. In SC1, somehow I remember other players and can even make friends with them (socialize in a 1v1 game? Heresy!), because not only their game lobbies are named in unique fashion, you get to see creators name before you even join it.
- while SC2 editor is more powerful and allows much more degree of control, it is very complicated and it can take you days/weeks of testing just to figure out a change to a simple mechanic. Not to mention the enormous amount of bugs of the editor and conflicts between multiple game modes that take hours/days to clean up, or sometimes very ugly work-arounds. In comparison, SC1 and WC3 editors were childs play.
Arcade is important because in most RTS games the Arcade is the main mode for casual players, not the 1v1. Casual player can play a couple of 1v1 games in a week, but then he will want something less frustrating, and UMS were best for that reason. With active and accessible UMS, people don't need to look for less frustrating games outside of SC2.
For example, any time I experienced any type of ladder anxiety or just simple annoyance after losing a couple of games in a row on a bad day, I could just decide to play an UMS while already browsing 1v1 games. The point is, I didn't get frustrated beyond belief because I could always relax playing 2v2 or Zergling Defence map, without changing any menus. If I had to change this many menus, I might have just exit the game and play something else.
The UMS and lobby system is what kept me playing BW, and kept my interest high and frustration level low.
Both in BW and WC3, main portion of users played UMS games or easy game modes like Fastest of BGH. It is also stated, that Co-Op has more users then 1v1, which further proves the point.
If we had a decent Arcade system and Blizzard didn't try to modernize the looks at the cost of practicality, the game's main story was coherent and engaging, the game could have had a lot larger playerbase despite all the balance whining.
|
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements.
|
On October 08 2016 07:04 -NegativeZero- wrote:
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements.
I somewhat agree with what you pointed out, but I guess the problem seems to be KEEP people playing the game. Yes, if it's free more people will try the game, but will they stay? Given how few players have actually stuck with SC2, I'm not really sure about that.
I do think though that Blizzard should have taken the Dota 2 route. Use an awesome multiplayer game (BW) and put in a new engine, doing some small tweaks here and there (eg, MBS, automine) and just monetize it, with campaigns, skins, voice announcers, the whole deal. They could have made a way cheaper game (no need to design a whole new game) and also charge very little (or even make it free in multiplayer and charge only the campaigns/skins/etc.).
|
On October 08 2016 07:12 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 07:04 -NegativeZero- wrote:
ok guys, here's how you increase sc2's popularity:
MAKE IT FREE
seriously, this is one of the biggest and most easily resolved differences between starcraft and a lot of its competitors. sc2 has a steep barrier of entry due to the $40 up front cost ($60 previously), plus it has a reputation as very hard to pick up. so people who are just getting into competitive games are discouraged from trying it out, and will pick something free like dota, or at least significantly cheaper like counterstrike. your average player doesn't care nearly as much about the fine points of game design or balance nearly as much as TL forum posters (especially the long term BW veterans), but they do care about money. so make the multiplayer completely free to compete with these, and sell the campaigns separately in-game, like the nova missions already are.
with the microtransaction stuff that's being previewed, i have a feeling this might be happening sometime soon - hoping for something good in blizzcon announcements. I somewhat agree with what you pointed out, but I guess the problem seems to be KEEP people playing the game. Yes, if it's free more people will try the game, but will they stay? Given how few players have actually stuck with SC2, I'm not really sure about that. I do think though that Blizzard should have taken the Dota 2 route. Use an awesome multiplayer game (BW) and put in a new engine, doing some small tweaks here and there (eg, MBS, automine) and just monetize it, with campaigns, skins, voice announcers, the whole deal. They could have made a way cheaper game (no need to design a whole new game) and also charge very little (or even make it free in multiplayer and charge only the campaigns/skins/etc.).
part of this is just the nature of the 1v1 gameplay, combined with (again) the pricing model. if someone buys starcraft and plays it, and they also try dota and play it, but their friends don't want to spend the money on starcraft, then they're probably going to stick with dota. i've heard and seen many cases of people who play team based games and complain about them just as much as the good old TL balance whiners, but they keep playing because their friends also play.
|
On October 08 2016 02:09 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2016 00:51 Nazara wrote:It's not about who makes better cinematics or unit models. Personally I don't care about graphics in an rts, all I want is clear and descriptive style, and I always found 2D and simple models/effects of WC3 better then most modern rts games for that specific reason.
Rts games are primarily played in single player. You need to feel like an actual commander, and in Sc2, you're not. You just hear Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis mumbling to themselves like some crazed hermits, and you as a player just do their work for them with no recognition. I loved the way you were addressed to in BW and earlier C&C games, or even Homeworld for that matter. In Sc2, you are Raynor/Kerrigan/Artanis and unfortunately, they aren't likable or well written.
The games story also sucks. Plain and simple. If story is ridiculously bad and you can't relate to anything, you're not gonna finish the story or simply won't be engaged with the game.
Most if not all old school rts games were made with single player in mind and multiplayer only as an afterthought.
Arcade is bullshit even now after 6 years. No custom named lobbies. Something that can only be called a ridiculous excuse instead of chat channels. The game sucks because social aspect isn't there. Instead of an overview of dozens of open games and ums you have simply "play" button. You can't even say glhf before the game starts. The whole experience is extremely unwelcoming and depressing.
Single player campaigns also don't teach players how to play the game. Where are the missions where someone is explaining the concept of economy? Tutorial isn't really fleshed out for that.
Also, 3 campaigns split 6 years apart? What if I was 12 years old or younger, and wanted to learn to play Zerg, back when WoL came out, but was scared to play multiplayer? What if I got HotS but wanted to learn to play Protoss or Terran?
Forget the multiplayer. No new blood will ever play it if single player sucks balls. Not many people will stay when you can play 100s of games and barerly speak to anyone.
This is where the game lacks.
It doesn't matter how well you choose your team or how much you gonna spend on an rts, if you make it antisocial, unwelcoming and unhelpful. Rob Pardo is a better game designer than David Kim. That said, Rob Pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody. DK is still really good. The Arcade does not generate revenue. That said, i played and enjoyed Zealot Hockey and the community around the game for a good 6 months between NHL '94 Seasons. The community rivals NHL '94 and i'm pretty impressed. The tools Blizzard handed the Zealot Hockey guys to contribute to their success are solid. I'm happy with the Arcade.
If rob pardo is a better game designer than just about everybody, then it makes perfect sense in my brain that there are only bad RTS games in this world excpept broodwar.
He was a designer of SC2 if i know correct, sc2 is a crap RTS game.
Broodwar is the only acceptable one yet he wasnt a designer of that game. But he made zealot hockey, oh wow proof right there that he really knows how to design games.. Oh wait never heard of that one but it must be a truly remarkable good game atleast if you enjoyed it more than nhl 94.
|
he was pulled off SC2 very early on because he had bigger fish to fry as Creative Director. its in the 4 hour interview posted here earlier.
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,12797/
the guy has been a big part of some great games. In general, Blizzard game designers are at minimum good and sometimes great.
Has Pardo been replaced in his position at Blizzard?
|
What does "good design" even mean. Design needs a goal, i guess in the case of games it should be "fun". How do we actually meassure that though? The number of people playing the game? There are a lot of factors which are important for that, simply saying Game A has more players therefore it is the "better" (designed) game is flawed imo.
Tasks you have to do in rts games aren't fun for most people. It's fun for some though. I don't think you can make an rts game which is very close to starcraft like rts games and be really successful (lol, dota2, csgo) at the same time if we only look at multiplayer numbers (i feel that is the main topic here, no?)
The general trend in gaming (and other forms of entertainment) seems to be that the easier it is to get into something, the less effort you have to put in, the more successful it is.
Decide for yourself it that means it is "well designed" (i guess if we look at it the most basic way the success proves it is)
|
On October 08 2016 03:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
i posted that interview when it originally occurred and it got a bit more traction. what i took away from it is that when the Dota1 MOD on WC3 was exploding so was WoW and they only had enough bandwidth in their development pipeline to service 1 big thing. So they went with the thing with a $15 USD monthly fee.
Ohhh... nice, I posted in that one, was sure I posted something in a thread about the interview but couldn't find it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/473471-4-hours-of-pardo-discussing-blizzard-game-design
It is a bit of a longer thread but I mean jesus... with the way TL rehashes the same half dozen talking points on balance and design for 10-20 pages every 3-6 months you'd think a key player in Blizzard design speaking for 4 hours on those subjects fresh after leaving the company would warrant more than a page and a half.
But balance and design isn't what this is about really is it? It's a contest between young men trying to show who has the biggest hardest brain. And I sympathise, I really do. My brain is an enormous throbbing stainless steel organ and I need people to know about it but... you can only read people comparing units, races and scapegoats so many times with nothing being built (shout out to starbow though, and those 6m1g peeps and others) no real analysis being done (again, there are exceptions) before you start to get a bit cynical.
And yea, that analysis seems about right. I'd go further and say that what happened - that their open approach to map making resulted in their engine being used to invent a genre which took over esports but they didn't see a penny - made them too careful with what they let people do with the editor, thereby hurting the casual UMS part of the game. Although it might just have been the difference in the company that was making the game 10 years later. I mean its not unexpected that a larger organisation, beholden to shareholders would create something more homogeneous and risk free than a small team of dedicated enthusiasts right?
|
With posts like this it's has been more than 3 years since something constructive and original came to the spot... post are these are just opportunity for little rant from the same nicknames all over again. It's getting boring tbh
|
On October 08 2016 09:48 PharaphobiaSC wrote:
With posts like this it's has been more than 3 years since something constructive and original came to the spot... post are these are just opportunity for little rant from the same nicknames all over again. It's getting boring tbh How do you expect anything original when same problems from 3 years ago are still there to be addressed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
