|
On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it.
Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense
On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid.
The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it.
It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
|
On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw.
Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW?
A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
|
On December 01 2016 09:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw. Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW? A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be.
I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is.
I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series.
For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design.
As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft.
Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
|
On December 01 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 09:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw. Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW? A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be. I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values.
SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
|
On December 01 2016 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw. Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW? A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be. I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values. SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
People complain all the time about csgo not being close enough to 1.6 for example. Typically just like the sc2 scene with articles and arguments of what the difference is and why the 1.6 version was better. Valve at least tries to get closer to it from time to time (also i think go is arguably way closer to 1.6 than sc2 is to bw). With dota2 they also tried to be as close as possible to dota. Why? Because the game was actually good and you don't need to change a lot. Competitive smash brothers people will also tell you that melee was the best version of it.
Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics
Nobody is saying (well some are, but that's not the standpoint i argue here) that sc2 should be 1:1 bw. It is about the identity of starcraft which bw has defined. It should feel similar. It doesn't need to be a 1:1 clone to pass that test.
You want to improve on older games, there needs to be changes because without changes there can't be positive evolution. It still should stay true to design philosophies laid out before. If you look at sc2 it breaks some of these, at that point it's relevant to argue if it was a wise decision to change things or not. Does it improve the experience in some ways? Does it worsen other aspects? What is more important in the bigger picture?
Implying that every new title is its own game and thus it's no problem to be different in key areas is absurd imo. Every mario title you will play will feel very similar. For a good reason.
|
i remember when we had appreciation threads trying to gauge what everyone liked about starcraft 2 and the events.
"what do you guys like about starcraft 2? here's my fill:..."
there was once a problem with an oversaturation of premium tournaments, this was in and around the time that MLG boosted sc2 up as its main event game and korean netizens were raving about how they liked it even over GSL as good as a tournament that was back in the day.
i have a lot of memories like that about this game and there were many new competitive esports players who found their start through sc2. once in a while you'll see gaming community members keeping their names with the sc2 tagged on the end. that goes for people in this community as well even though we've moved on to newer games.
i would used to sit down and spill my guts about how passionate i was about this game series, community, and knowledge within. there were so many controversial things, especially because people really cared.
i respect posters like thieving magpie over all these years.
i feel like a lot of skepticism and negativity came up when it wasn't the game that people wanted and needed it to be. it was a really deep and hurtful mark born intrinsically through that disappointment--so much that people came here to have somewhere to voice their negativity. i don't think that's ever bad that it's ever that way. it does show that there are some issues if many different people are voicing the same things over and over from their own conclusions.
i am still proud that people hearing that you're a starcraft hardcore immediately get the idea that you're a gamer who pays attention to detail, and all those sorts of positive characteristics.
in many ways, this game has defined me more than all the time i spent with BW, because as late as i was to trying my hand at competitive BW myself, i felt sc2 was going to be my start as did many others. and it showed. lots of people came out of the woodworks or seemingly from the grave. lots of people showed up, cheered, and it really helped to shape how e-sports is like today.
it was such a big thing that mainstream news was starting to interview people and talk about the underground that was e-sports and how it's actually a living being that was more viable than most would think.
a lot of the figures and personalities i see around gaming are instantly recognizable, because they once worked with starcraft before league eventually caught up.
i think this is the mark we made in gaming. even these posts are things you're likely to think back on once you're older, wiser, or pulling from memory.
|
On December 01 2016 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw. Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW? A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be. I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values. SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics.
Well actually there are plenty of stuff that SC2 have done right:
1. Taking flights/landing transformation
2. Blink teleportation
3. Moving underground
4. Transfusion
5. Lifting units
6. Forcefields
7. Flight boosts
Those are cool concepts that can introduce edge-of-your-seat moments.
But while introducing those concepts, they got rid of reaver/shuttle interaction, defile dark swarm, lurkers (for the first two expos), mutalisk/scourge, vulture harassments, etc.
And they got rid of moving in formation and high ground advantage which would undoubtedly increase more battle actions.
People aren't saying "Oh give us the EXACT same thing!" nor are they saying "No, give us something completely new!"
People were expecting Blizzard to keep the stuff the worked in BW and adding new cool stuff.
This is why BW is still favored by the Koreans vs SC2.
And quite frankly, its a shame that that SC2 couldn't surpass BW.
|
On December 01 2016 11:47 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 10:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 10:18 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 09:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:39 The_Red_Viper wrote:On December 01 2016 07:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 07:09 LSN wrote:
Well I guess everyone involved with SC2, dedicated players, casters, etc. was whitewashing SC2 to a certain extend, including myself.
But at this point, where it has become fairly clear that SC2 does not deliver what most of us hoped, it helps the most to dig for true reasons instead of finding excuses imo. That might not be the case from a business operator's POW however, which I agree on. Then let me speak as someone who doesn't run a business connected with SC2 and whose main concern is that the game becomes more enjoyable.
Questions like why almost every single korean SC2 player that came from SC:BW returned to it sooner or later have a deeper reason than those cosmetic ones. Because BW =/= SC2 Forcing players to play a different game and then seeing those players return to the original game is not weird. If you forced CSGO players to play Gears of War for 6 years, will it be surprising to see them go back to CS even if they are both FPS games? That's a bad example, isn't it? Starcraft 2 is the successor to starcraft broodwar, it would be only natural to be very similar, so similar that the new game would have the same strengths for the most part. The better example therefore would be csgo pros going back to 1.6. (the example is still not that good but better) No, its not. For the same reason SC1 pros did not go back to Warcraft 1 despite SC1 being just Orcs in Space. Different games are different, despite what older players project into it. Ok so games in a series aren't meant to be close in gameplay mechanics and thus "feeling" because they aren't 1:1 the same exact game. Makes sense On December 01 2016 09:03 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 01 2016 08:11 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 08:03 aQuaSC wrote:On December 01 2016 07:58 RealityIsKing wrote:On December 01 2016 07:55 aQuaSC wrote:
Keeping old players is not as important as drawing in new ones, unless you want the game to live forever on nostalgia You can have nostalgia + new aspects. And from the result/data, not keeping old players/fans happy have been a HUGE mistake. There is no way around it. For sure keeping established ones is important, I just personally think that from these two creating grounds for aspiring new players is slightly more important for the longevity of the scene You are selling a product, you want to keep you preexisting customer happy above it all because that's your base. There are no evidence that new players that haven't touched the original won't like keeping battle formations and high ground advantage and there are plenty of new players agree with multiple of articles/posts here at TL.net that prefer longer battles instead of shorter ones. So by getting rid of old mechanics, not only you've ignored your base, the new customers aren't happy with it either. If the goal is longer battles they'd just watch Alpha Centauri. If they just wanted battle formations they'd just watch Age of Empires There are lots of games that do those aspects better than BW and none of them get watched because thinking its about a few primary aspects and not a global shift in what the community wants from its entertainment products is stupid. The point is that if you play a game of a game series you expect similar gameplay. You play the new game because the old game was fun to you. Yes it's technically a new game and it even can do things differently (typically that should mean "better") but it should still feel as the older version of it. If not then there is no reason to not just make a new series out of it. It is arguable if sc2 does a good job at being similar to starcraft bw. Would you say competitive BW feels the same as competitive SC1 even though they're literally the same game with a few unit changes? Do you feel that if KesPa switched to SC1 only and removed BW that the scene would be exactly the same? Or do some people prefer SC1 and others prefer BW? A game more than decade after its flavor brethren should never expected to be the same for the same reason SF1 is not the same as SFV and nobody expects it to be. I actually don't have a good idea how starcraft looked without broodwar. I would still argue that it is fair to say that broodwar is the version people in general talk about when speaking about the original starcraft and thus it's the version which should be defined as the game which defined what starcraft is. I have absolutely no idea about street fighter because i am not into fighting games at all, but from a very ignorant position it looks close enough to me? As i said details can be different, nobody is arguing for a 1:1 experience. It's about core gameplay, the "feeling" (for a lack of a better word atm), the philosophy behind a gaming series. For the same reason csgo isn't all of a sudden run n gun like call of duty and dota2 still values dota design over "modern moba" design. As i sasid, it is arguable if sc2 is close enough to the original starcraft. Ofc there are examples where this wasn't the case at all, i guess wc3 might be a good example (didn't play that game, or wc2 for that matter, either though. But i am fairly sure that the games are extremely different). So yeah there is absolutely more to it, but i think it isn't that absurd to say that games in a series should usually have the same core design values. SC2 is literally the ONLY scene I know where people complain that the new game is fucking new. Anyone who plays fighting games will tell you that there is epochs of difference between each fighting game from how things move to how pixels interact. Slapping a 2 or a II or V or whatever to denote a new version of a series tells players it is a new series and not just BW with different graphics. Well actually there are plenty of stuff that SC2 have done right:1. Taking flights/landing transformation 2. Blink teleportation 3. Moving underground 4. Transfusion 5. Lifting units 6. Forcefields 7. Flight boosts Those are cool concepts that can introduce edge-of-your-seat moments. But while introducing those concepts, they got rid of reaver/shuttle interaction, defile dark swarm, lurkers (for the first two expos), mutalisk/scourge, vulture harassments, etc. And they got rid of moving in formation and high ground advantage which would undoubtedly increase more battle actions. People aren't saying "Oh give us the EXACT same thing!" nor are they saying "No, give us something completely new!" People were expecting Blizzard to keep the stuff the worked in BW and adding new cool stuff. This is why BW is still favored by the Koreans vs SC2. And quite frankly, its a shame that that SC2 couldn't surpass BW.
I consider that it is too broad of an statement for you to make.
Viking Transformation, Blink, ForceFields & Flight Boost, all of them heavily constrain map design and metagame development inside said design space. Such mechanics even when interesting from a player perspective are really, really harmful to Map Design & Metagame Development/Balance inside Mapmaking. Saying that these gameplay mechanics "are right on the current itteration" is not a statement I feel is representative of the actual reality on the ground regarding Competitive SC2 Level & Game Design.
|
There is nothing that annoys me more than people saying "Blizzard should change GAMEPLAY and do this or that. Imbalanced races, etc etc". I can't deal with that amount of idiocy. Are you serious right now? LoL in 2011 was already bigger than any esport or game in history (including BW at its PEAK and SC2 was at its peak in 2011), and has continued to grow. CS:GO, Dota, etc etc all have too. And you think that's because of forcefields or a-move zerg?? How can you not see what those games have in common?
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends. It is like tennis vs football or basketball - it simply isn't comparable. The top 2-3 tennis players get all the $$ and sponsorships while the rest struggle, but you can pick an MLB or NBA player at random and theyll probably bank 10 million easy.
On the flip side, LoL is fun and social. The learning curve is super low and Riot has physically supported its players. The game is still imbalanced as fuck and players qq all the time. The game ITSELF is the prime source of what determines popularity and appeal, not its rules. Tennis won't have baseball viewership if you say "Ok new rule, alternate serves every point". SC2 as long as it is a 1v1 game, will never be able to compete with League or DotA. Blizzard knows this too and released Heroes of the Storm.
I genuinely can't believe this game has been a steady decline for 5+ years and people are STILL THINKING ITS IMBALANCE GAMEPLAY from Idra and Destiny blaming gameplay 4 years ago to morons in this forum now. Poor David Kim. With fans like this maybe this is what SC2 deserves.
|
Luxon we already discussed that plenty of times. Most already agree that a contributing factor is the difficulty in SC2 combined with the large number of team games with lower barrier to entry (cost and mastery).
A few do believe that game design is a factor, which it might be, but its difficult to quantify and qualify all the factors involved that push SC2 into decline.
|
On December 01 2016 16:02 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:
Luxon we already discussed that plenty of times. Most already agree that a contributing factor is the difficulty in SC2 combined with the large number of team games with lower barrier to entry (cost and mastery).
A few do believe that game design is a factor, which it might be, but its difficult to quantify and qualify all the factors involved that push SC2 into decline.
All these posts I've read for the last 5 years and this thread included are all talking gameplay not its inherent design (being 1v1). Literally the posts before mine are all talking about units or maps or any other irrelevant thing. Those are valid things to discuss among active players, but its completely irrelevant to the decline. No one ever left the game because of a unit. Multiplayer collaboration games are just more fun than 1v1 games. There's nothing to it. Going back to my analogy, thats like arguing over rules of tennis for making it "less enjoyable" than american football or soccer.
|
On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote:
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends.
people are getting their "big army fights" addiction fix by playing Clash of Clans and Mobile Strike. those options did not exist a few years ago becaus the technology was not there. improved tech has given general consumers so many more choices to get what SC offered in 1999 when chained to a desktop sitting in front of a CRT.
|
Oh I'm not arguing with you, and I do agree 1v1 are inherently less enjoyable than team games. Just the social aspect alone pushes team games into popularity, while SC2 on the 1v1 ladder feels like a barren wasteland with two people that refuse to speak to each other and can't see each other play a game of chess together.
But without any quantifiable data, we can only make assumptions based on our anecdotal experience.
When I spoke to many friends that bought SC2 WoL, I asked them why they stopped and nearly all of them said its too hard to play. They would rather play a team game with an easier learning curve.
The pinnacle of SC2 is the skill involved in a 1v1 game, but marketing it as such would probably turn off many gamers. Its a conundrum.
|
Right, but then we should acknowledge and accept that, and not mourn it and question our existence as if our world's gone to hell. It might have been overhyped in the beginning because of a lack of other options/games, but once those came out, those players were bound to leave. And if SC2 is meant to be an esport where people play part-time in weekend tournaments then so be it. I played volleyball semi-professionally and I always was bummed that some more talented athletes went to play basketball. But that's just how it is. I'm not gonna dissect the rules of one sport and compare it to a totally different one to analyze why it's less popular.
|
On December 01 2016 16:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2016 15:55 luxon wrote:
SC has died because it is a 1v1 game with a high learning curve which couldnt court casual gamers in part because of Blizzard's pay-to-play and in part because 1v1 games are just less appealing to play with friends.
people are getting their "big army fights" addiction fix by playing Clash of Clans and Mobile Strike. those options did not exist a few years ago becaus the technology was not there. improved tech has given general consumers so many more choices to get what SC offered in 1999 when chained to a desktop sitting in front of a CRT.
Just as a curious note, I've been looking for a skill intense 1 on 1 for years now. I absolutely want to play something where I feel overwhelmed by required skill and all that.
And I still end up playing more Clash Roayle than SC2. Too often SC2 just felt like a static excercise in not making mistakes and perfecting repetetive mechanical actions rather than two players trying to push each others' skills to the limit.
|
On December 01 2016 07:09 SwiftRH wrote:
i thought firecake was the one that killed sc2 by going 2 hr swarmhost games. IRONY!
Thing people forget is that Swarm Hosts plagued the ladder just as much as tournaments, especially in the EU scene. If anything FireCake showed David Kim the light 
|
SC2 failed because it was simply a cash grab. The single player storyline was a bloated mess without any soul going into 90% of the characters. All that mattered was having lots of missions to justify customers paying $100+ for all the expansions. Tournaments for several years weren't free to watch so the community never grew from sharing. And finally, I think the poor balancing and boring unit design left the hardcore fans passionless and susceptible to switching to MOBAs.
Fortunately, Broodwar is starting to make a come back.
|
For me the vanilla SC2 and the WoL campaign was most fun. Yesterday I played some WoL ladder 1-1-1ing it ans slay some 30 apm Bronze Nerds.
What should i tell you ? Even when I hit Diamond players the game felt good. I played vs Protoss, checking the chrono spending, checked Pylon counts...and it was pretty chill. I had time to prepare for the fourgate, I had not to gamble because it could have been an oracle, Voidray or prism build...
´My drops were better, because no overcharge, on the other hand, no boost. So it actually mattered that I attacked from 2 sides at once.
TL;DR
To all those who misunderstood Firecakes main point, that the playerbase is the viewerbase, and that no announced Tournaments hurt the PRO scene alone...get some love back for sc2 and play WoL
|
There were a lot of cool things about SC2, WoL especially. But there were way too many bad changes. Nerfing zealots and buffing marines. Removing lurkers, firebats, and reavers turned out to be bad calls, as evidenced by hellbats, disruptors, and the return of lurkers. Valkyries were removed, necessitating the introduction of liberators when they discovered terran actually needed those valkyries.
Ravens were never as useful as science vessels, hunter-seeker missile has always been a useless and bad irradiate replacement while zerg somehow got the real irradiate with parasitic bomb. And parasitic bomb wouldn't have been needed if they didn't remove plague.
The mothership is just a shitty, one-off arbiter that no one builds. It was protoss' only paltry, inadequate defense against brood lord infestor. Imagine if protoss still had real arbiters. Do you think brood lord infestor would have been the problem it was?
Etc. etc. Look at the tangled mess that was created by deviating too far from Brood War. Meanwhile Counter-Strike is top tier because they decided not to piss off their fanbase and turn the game into CoD or otherwise try to "modernize" it. SC2 really ought to have been titled Starcraft: The Phantom Menace.
|
I prefer 1v1 games but to me, there are no good out there. So I play teamgames instead right now, still waiting for a 1v1 game that is great.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
