|
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? AFAIK, most Koreans played BW in PC Bangs and PCs there had many "pre-installed" games, right? Why did they choose BW then?
IMO BW was popular in Korea because
1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that
2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play
3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it
4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it
5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space.
|
On October 03 2016 13:05 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Show nested quote +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.
You're presenting a chicken and the egg problem. BW was not on every computer until it became popular. Only until it became popular, could I go to Yongsan and ask for it to be installed on a new computer.
|
On October 03 2016 13:02 Chaggi 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 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.
I first heard this in some Starcraft documentary. From googling, this top comment here says the same thing . https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zky9r/sc2_in_korea/
|
On October 03 2016 13:08 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? IMO BW was popular in Korea because 1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that 2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play 3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it 4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it 5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space.
Well, I can totally agree with that. I just have a hard time believing a game became a national sport because some retailers decide to "pre-install" it in some computers. In fact, you actually even denied that was a common practice.
|
On October 03 2016 13:10 AndAgain wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:02 Chaggi wrote: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:
[quote]
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. I first heard this in some Starcraft documentary. From googling, this top comment here says the same thing . https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/zky9r/sc2_in_korea/
I don't remember that but it's not like I bought mass amount of computers back then either. I know that in PC Bang's, they were preinstalled because every game was basically preinstalled, but you could also request certain games when you got computers built, and BW was essentially a default option.
Source: Am Chinese, went back to China+KR almost every summer during that time period.
On October 03 2016 13:12 petro1987 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:08 Chaggi wrote:On October 03 2016 12:58 petro1987 wrote: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:
[quote]
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? IMO BW was popular in Korea because 1) PC Bang culture was starting to really take off, BW was a good way to cultivate that 2) Easily accessible, and cheap/free so people of all ages could play 3) Robust UMS and other multiplayer system for people who didn't want to play the 1v1 aspect of it 4) Because of 1-3, eSports essentially took off and that got more people interested in it 5) Just as importantly; little competition in the space. Well, I can totally agree with that. I just have a hard time believing a game became a national sport because some retailers decide to "pre-install" it in some computers. In fact, you actually even denied that was a common practice.
Again, it's a chicken and the egg issue. I can't imagine why there was a concentrated effort to push BW to be pre-installed on computers unless the market dictated that. I think the documentary and post that was being referenced was a mix of PC Bang (truth) and personal computers (not really too sure that's the truth)
|
On October 03 2016 00:58 BEARDiaguz wrote:
I think you overestimate how much Pros get to contribute to the general design of Starcraft 2. In the betas for HotS and LotV we got to contribute to design decisions quite a bit (the removal of the warhound and where Blizzard ended up on macro mechanics spring to mind, both fine enough decisions) but aside from that ours aren't the ideas that get implemented. Our job is to try really hard to win games and then tell David Kim what's winning a bit too much. I imagine a lot of what you consider a design flaw is really just something irritating you can overcome through practice and determination, which is kinda the whole point of Starcraft 2.
Shh Iaguz, don't try to use common sense and reason. I've come to realize many people find it hard to fault themselves inside and outside a video games. Instead they decide to blame external circumstances. For instance, in nearly every team game I've lost (LoL, Overwatch etc.) there is always one person that blames their team instead of themselves, and another that blames the heroes chosen.
I don't fault them though. Its very hard to reflect on your actions and make the decision to say "What could I have done in that situation to make the outcome different?" Even I have this problem in life.
The challenge with SC2 is finding out what choices we made lead to our loss. With hundreds of small decisions to make a minute, its no wonder many people would rather blame the game than the player.
|
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design.
|
The nostalgia argument for BW is so bad yet you read it everywhere...
So if Starcraft 3 gets made I guess the foreigner SC2 scene will reject the new game and continue with SC2? That's how nostalgia works right? Or is it only Koreans who are controlled by nostalgia? lol. No I suspect SC2 will stay very very dead.
BW blew up in Korea and is still played today because it's one of the greatest games ever made and gaming STILL hasn't produced a better esport 18 years and counting.
|
I regret the time I spent reading this.
To the OP:
1. Blizzard listened to pro players too much?! You kidding? I can't even begin to phrase how wrong that is. How many times have pros asked for a tank buff? A broodlord nerf?!
2. Your suggested changes are literally a few days work with the editor , go forth and code , you think a mod can't get big ? I got this thing called mobas to show you that started as a mod.
3. Who cares if the game dies as an esport?! Really, are you trying to go pro? As long as I got people to play when I click play I'm fine. Sure, having top players to look up to is cool but I play this game because it is fun for me. BW servers are still up so I don't see blizzard shutting down the sc2 servers anytime soon.
Let me extend on number three, let's say you do care about the game as an esport because you decided for it to be your career, then let me tell you something, your suggestions are super biased , you don't want the game to be 'better' you want it to be more popular, because more viewers means bigger salary and more buisness opportunites.
Making a game more popular might sound like a direct correlation to making it more fun but that is inaccurate. A popular game needs to be more accessible , more fun to watch ( more viewers then players ) have a clearer narrative arc within the game and so on, do these things make it better to play ? A 'better' game? Not aways
|
On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design.
Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation.
Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out.
And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units.
Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran.
Mutalisk stacking?
There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that.
So BW is a fair model.
Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
|
|
|
It doesn't feel like OP is really describing why SC2 has been doing bad in Korea. He does bring up a good discussion about balance and design, but there were a multitude of other factors that have affected SC2's popularity in Korea. Right from its release in Korea it was almost never as popular as BW, and it has been an uphill battle since then to gain any traction there. It needed to explode in popularity soon after release as much as LoL and Overwatch would do later on, but it failed to do so even with Blizzard implementing some excellent additions and changes over the years. I don't think even a miracle in overhauling its core design would cause the game to spike in popularity as much as we would like. It needed to have been popular from the start, and it would still be extremely difficult to grow its popularity in Korea even if it became a better game.
|
On October 03 2016 14:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design. Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation. Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out. And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units. Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran. Mutalisk stacking? There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that. So BW is a fair model. Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
I don't think Slammer is arguing that BW was limited to the technology available. I think he views BW's engine as inferior to SC2, regardless of design intentions, and so it would be difficult to compare them.
As well, he is only trying to compare modern RTS, and we must admit there hasn't been many RTS games that compares or competes with SC2.
|
On October 03 2016 14:38 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 13:51 SlammerIV wrote:
Whenever I see posts like this I have to ask, if Sc2 is such a bad game, give me an example of a well designed RTS game which you would like? Its easy to bash the game designers of sc2 for making a game which you personally dislike but its quite another to actually point to things which make a good rts game. BW is a great game, no question but its design is heavily influenced by the game engine, unit selection limit etc. so I do not thin BW is a fair model for a modern RTS game. Other than that what else do you have? Starbow is a great example of a game which was supposed to fix the issues of sc2 and how popular did it get?
Personally I still enjoy the gameplay of Sc2, so I take issue with the idea that the design of StarCraft2 is the problem, I would point to other things like the fact that the number of people willing to actually get involved in a competitive rts is very small. I do not think any rts released today would be that popular, even if it was the ultimate perfection of competitive rts design. Nobody is saying that SC2 is a bad game but it didn't live up to the expectation. Beside Dragoon AI, 95% of the stuff in BW was carefully thought out. And no back then they had the tech to have unlimited unit selection but they made it limited so that people wouldn't be able to just 1A their army, they have to carefully pick their units. Regarding Reavers's scarab, newsflash: it was actually patched to be like that. BoxeR originally played Protoss but when they nerfed Reavers, he switched to Terran. Mutalisk stacking? There is this concept calling magic box where if you select unit in a box, it will stay in formation. But if you select units that are away from each other, it will clump. Again this was designed like that. So BW is a fair model. Also, WC3 and AoE were pretty fun.
Starbow is also better than SC2 just because of the pathing.
For example here is a random clip from a random game that just shows how pathing should have been done:
http://imgur.com/scCsF0E
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
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.
Exactly these things should be discussed again and questioned. Especially everything vs. bio is a big source of issues for me. Bio basically is too strong against everything without splash and weak against splash. It has in parts been covered with ravager and adept interaction to make it less visible. But exactly therefore these two units are detrimental to the game as well. They don't fix core issues (which remain to exist) but make them less obvious so that in future it gets even harder to get to the roots and therefore I like to use WOL and HOTS examples.
That creates the 5 second fights where even pro players cannot make as much difference in fights as they wished and e.g. as in broodwar where them took sometimes half a minute with alot of options to make different units interact with each other, pulling back and forth and not everything dead within a second.
There are certainly other factors such as 1v1 not as popular as teamplay. But the fact is that SC2 even scares away those people who by nature are affine to that 1v1 competition. SC2 creates frustration, I see that wherever I look. These meta factors therefore cannot be the only reasons but there must exist manual problems as well.
|
I feel the same way you do. Brood war has created a passion in me that starcaft 2 could not replicate and I think it goes back to design. I have been following sc2 and team liquid for about 7 years now. I don't have time to follow any other game but I bought LOTV and not even installed it on my pc . If it weren't so hard to find games in brood war I would play that again. I love the game and the community but I am sad to see it loosing popularity. I hope they find the solution because I think there are a lot of people like me that still love this game and would love to see it continue .
|
I have gone from making LR threads to watching 2.5 games in the last 6 months, from anti-moba to following every single leagues game this Worlds.
Blizzard has done nothing to improve the situation but adding lurker (which they cave in after 6 years) and thats not gonna last for me.
OGN is so wise in picking LoL as the next BW. More fun, (arguably) better developer, better league structures (super important, I lost interest when all leagues including Proleague are forced to use 99% same map pool) and much more.
|
On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
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.
Just about the WoL Immortal thing, because it triggers me every time. Immortal had 5 range at the start, so before fireing at Marauders, they had to get in range of a bunch of Marines, who could melt the shield so afterwards Marauders could take care of them.
Yeah the Immortal countered Marauders when its shields where up, if they were down the interaction changed and Marauders countered Immortals. Saying that limits creativity is admitting not being able to keep up with the game.
And then there were also Sentries with Guardian Shield, who could minimize damage of small attacks. The interactions between t1 and t2 in WoL where amazingly deep.
But then you read on the forums, Forcefields make me micro 2 armies, Immortals and Roaches just spider around when I a-move my 1 army group. I can't a-move into sieged tanks. Thors beat infinity amounts of my 1 group of Mutas.
Under all of these complaints the Baneling slipped through and today everyone is fine doing army spltting like crazy. But using targetfire, never. And if you have to balance a game that was based around using multiple units and targetfireing their strongest target, then you are a little screwed if your playerbase denies the existence of a core rts mechanic.
All in the past though, now the game is based around voidzones.
|
On October 03 2016 20:02 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2016 12:58 Chaggi wrote:
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. Just about the WoL Immortal thing, because it triggers me every time. Immortal had 5 range at the start, so before fireing at Marauders, they had to get in range of a bunch of Marines, who could melt the shield so afterwards Marauders could take care of them. Yeah the Immortal countered Marauders when its shields where up, if they were down the interaction changed and Marauders countered Immortals. Saying that limits creativity is admitting not being able to keep up with the game. And then there were also Sentries with Guardian Shield, who could minimize damage of small attacks. The interactions between t1 and t2 in WoL where amazingly deep. But then you read on the forums, Forcefields make me micro 2 armies, Immortals and Roaches just spider around when I a-move my 1 army group. I can't a-move into sieged tanks. Thors beat infinity amounts of my 1 group of Mutas. Under all of these complaints the Baneling slipped through and today everyone is fine doing army spltting like crazy. But using targetfire, never. And if you have to balance a game that was based around using multiple units and targetfireing their strongest target, then you are a little screwed if your playerbase denies the existence of a core rts mechanic. All in the past though, now the game is based around voidzones.
Oh dude, giving how you tought that WoL interactions were "amazingly deep" you are going to LOVE Brood War!
|
A wall of text, yet nothing of value/fresh/new. You could ve just stated: i think design>balance, and though i don't know shit about designing an RTS, so ill just "summ" it up with some blah blah blah about zerg being defensive race and terran being offensive w/o any clear suggestions nor undestanding what is REALLY wrong with this game.
To me, personally, what's being wrong with SC2 and RTS as a whole is: RTS being RTS, a very COMPLEX gameplay, a design that is no longer accepted by public. In order to make a successful RTS these days, you have to simplify its gameplay to the max. The less units the better, the less mechanics the better. Adding abilities to every unit was one of the biggest mistakes if you ask me. Woah! mobas are popular and they have micro abilities, lets add some to SC! Right? Wrong. Why can't people understand that you can't burden the players with so many tasks. An RTS player already has TONS of things to manage. This is when "Hard" =/= fun or even interest. When you have THAT much stress you just become frustrated and can't maintain focus. Having 6-7 units (not 15+ per race like it is in SC2) is ALREADY enough to show your potential as a player. Especially if each unit has a distinct role (not overlapping with other units). Some simple, CLEAR archetype, like: slow but strong (e.g. a Siege Tank), fast but low DPS (e.g. a vulture/zergling) etc. Not a bazillion of similar designs so that it takes an eternity to understand how all of them interact (welcome casuals!). Beauty is in the simplicity. For some reason devs seem to forget and/or neglect that thinking that you can only highlight your skill by managing 382 microabilities. The greatest games in the world have simple rules: e.g. kicking/throwing a ball into the opponents net. Are players experiencing any troubles showing off their skills? With just a rubber ball? Nope. If u want a more relevant example: CS/LoL/Dota. 5-8 buttons - is all it takes to have 100k watching your personal stream.
tldr. Noone will play RTS in its current state. And yes it requires redesigning from scratch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
