|
On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect.
Agreed. I almost exclusively played ums for the duration of BW. Sc2 arcade wasn't too great so i wound up getting into ladder more so on it which i find way too stressful to play often.
|
On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument.
Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
|
On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business.
|
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it
|
On October 03 2016 12:23 Heyjoray wrote:
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it
They can get in touch with progamers during off-season and even make a TV reality show where DB and DK can talk about game design and such.
But here is the thing though, they want to make an esport and yet they largely ignored progamer's input.
And now most of the BW players left SC2.
|
On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical?
Yeah why pre-install BW instead of other games.
|
On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business.
If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
|
On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
"But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people."
I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter.
Edit: Btw, I have no problem admitting that BW is a better designed game than SC2. That doesn't have much to do with my original point. A high skill-based 1v1 game could succeed back in the BW days, but not anymore.
|
On October 03 2016 12:31 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:23 Heyjoray wrote:
There was no way Starcraft 2 can win in Korea. Nostalgia always wins. If Starcraft 2 would have been more like Brood War, they would have had other reasons to not play it They can get in touch with progamers during off-season and even make a TV reality show where DB and DK can talk about game design and such. But here is the thing though, they want to make an esport and yet they largely ignored progamer's input. And now most of the BW players left SC2.
People always play the nostalgia card whenever the sucessor doesn't achieve the same level of success of the predecessor. Did people consider that WC2 was better than WC3 or that WC1 was better than WC2 for that matter? Funny, I don't remember that. Did people consider that AoE was better than AoE2? I also don't remember that. Why is it that when some people consider a predecessor better it's got to be due to nostalgia? Can't they actually think the other game was better? Is that impossible?
|
On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept?
"Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football? 
|
On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter.
Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then?
|
SC2 needs more personalities like Avilo to promote the game. Lets face it, when Avilo plays, people come in and watch.
|
On October 03 2016 12:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football?
I completely agree that better is subjective. That's exactly what I've been saying. Some people will prefer one game, others will prefer the other. I'm not the one reasoning that when people say they prefer BW it's gotta be due to nostalgia.
As we can see now (with the viewing ratings), Korea has shown that they are not very fond of SC2. They were once very fond of BW. I guess alienating the BW viewer base wasn't such a smart decision after all, right?
|
Blizzard listened? Good one.
Only took 6 years.
I mean, I don't overall disagree with your argument. But blizzard has been using game designers for the past 6 years. Don't blame this on pro players rofl.
I also have no idea what you are talking about with zerg melee units and terran ranged units and being offensive and defensive...
|
On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then?
Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
|
As much as I've played and watched SC2, I felt like SC2 just straight up wasn't fun from a design perspective. Everything felt like balls to the walls excessive one way or the other, and there was no middle ground. I remember having a conversation with my friend during WoL beta and asking why did Immortals straight up just counter Marauders, while Marauders straight up countered Stalkers. I felt like design decisions like that really limited creativity for the players. Beyond the fact that they've constantly messed up execution of WCS, balance patches, relationships in Korea, etc... Blizzard just didn't execute properly on a very good IP and IMO, got lazy in 2010-2012 when SC2 was THE game and probably thought that it was their moves that created that vs how the market was moving.
|
On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it?
AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
|
On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise.
I don't remember BW being pre-installed on most computers, unless you're talking about PC Bang computers then I'm not sure why this is a point at all - PC Bang's have literally all the popular games preinstalled.
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:55 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:47 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:42 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people." I didn't say this. My point is that there's a game being popular, and then there's a game being almost like a national sport. SC1 being pre-installed on all computers made the difference between the former and the latter. Honestly, to put that factor as the main factor is a HUGE STRETCH. How come Internet Explorer isn't the top browser then? It has been actually PUSHED on people since I can remember using Windows products. How do you explain it then? Internet Explorer is not the top browser because it's not good. BW was and is very good. But being very good alone wasn't enough to elevate it to its huge levels of popularity. Being pre-installed gave it exposure and momentum it wouldn't have had otherwise. I still think you are pushing this too much. What do you mean by "being pre-installed" anyway? Do you mean like they bought PCs in stores and they came with only BW pre-installed? Is that it?
Yes.
On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote:
AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
Because of a combination of BW being good and them already being familiar with it since it's pre-installed.
If you don't think a game being automatically on every computer makes a big difference in its popularity, then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
On October 03 2016 12:54 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 03 2016 12:36 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:19 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 12:10 petro1987 wrote:On October 03 2016 12:02 AndAgain wrote:On October 03 2016 11:52 RealityIsKing wrote:On October 03 2016 11:47 AndAgain wrote:
SC2 has not been declining because of game design choices like widow mines of MSC. These are utterly trivial in the grand scheme of thing for the vast majority of the playerbase.
The real reason is that high skill-based (as opposed to luck) 1v1 games can't be popular anymore. Playing these kind of games is too stressful and losing is too painful for the ego. Feeling like you lost because you got outplayed is not fun. The genius of Hearthstone is that there's pretty much no way to tell the difference between getting outplayed and getting unlucky.
You might be thinking "why has BW been popular, then"? Well, that was then and this is now. For whatever reason (I'm guessing technical), team multiplayer games or something like Hearthstone didn't exist back then, at least not with a large player base.
SC2 was very popular in its first couple years because 1) it's a Blizzard game, and that gives it lots of momentum and 2) it was right at the cusp of these other multiplayer genres making it big. Had SC2 come out in 2013, it wouldn't have had such a steep decline because it wouldn't be that popular in the first place. SC2 ignored lots of BW principles which alienated BW Korean fans. That was a big mistake on Blizzard's part. BW was popular because of UMS games, not because of its 1 vs 1 scene. Only after a year or two, people started exploring its 1 vs 1 aspect. Keep in mind that a huge reason for why BW has been popular in Korea is that, in the early 2000s, it came pre-installed on almost all computers. That's another reason why saying that SC2 should've been more like BW is not a good argument. Of all reasons I've heard about BW being popular in Korea, this gotta be the worst. Don't you think it's the other way around? People really liked the game IN THE FIRST PLACE, then the game started being "pre-installed" in almost all computers. Doesn't that sound more logical? What's most logical is that it was somewhat popular to begin with, and then it became super popular because of the pre-installed business. If you just said that the game being easy to acquire helped in the wide acceptance I'd completely agree. But the way you said it, made it feel like the game was a hugh success in Korea only because it was "forced" upon people. Isn't it easy to just accept that the game was quite good and had a favorable context? Have it actually occurred to you that BW might actually be a better game than SC2? Is this a possibility you can actually accept? "Better" is completely subjective. You can analyze the games, how they do specific things like economy, unit interactions and lots and lots of other things. Based on that analysis you surely can make comments on what game is more likely to appeal to certain audiences. But "better" is still no objective truth. There are people who think sc2 is the better game and they will have reasons as well. What is the "better" game, football or american football? I completely agree that better is subjective. That's exactly what I've been saying. Some people will prefer one game, others will prefer the other. I'm not the one reasoning that when people say they prefer BW it's gotta be due to nostalgia. As we can see now (with the viewing ratings), Korea has shown that they are not very fond of SC2. They were once very fond of BW. I guess alienating the BW viewer base wasn't such a smart decision after all, right?
Ok sure i can agree with that! I actually think that games in a franchise should always feel the same even if they wanna change things. It doesn't need to be a 1:1 copy, but when unit names and look are the only ressemblance (a little bit exaggerated) then you have a problem imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
