|
Croatia9530 Posts
As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile.
Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part):
Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them.
|
On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Show nested quote +Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them.
But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed.
|
On December 30 2016 23:06 Freezard wrote:
Curious why the author says that BW feels easier to play than SC2. Makes no sense to me. Also remember when you could build Barracks before Supply Depot in SC2 beta? Well you can still do that in BW, I hate how they limited the strategy in such ways in SC2. I think the game was actually at its best during beta.
No, it wasn't I guess you don't remember mass reaper rushes or how bad WoL was at the start.
I think he meant that every individual action is simpler in BW, where as in SC2 there are a select few actions that are considerably more game swinging/important, I would agree that it is a very strange way of putting it
|
Croatia9530 Posts
On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed.
That would be pretty ironic if true, yes.
|
On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed.
I think that if SC2 launched with Co-op and micro transactions (a LoL like model) people would have stuck around for longer
|
South Korea2106 Posts
On December 31 2016 00:03 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 23:16 ZiggyPG wrote:
The ease with which micro and macro can be executed in SC2 would make it difficult for future games (e.g. SC3, bound to happen sometime in the future) to switch back to the previous model used in SC1. Though it would change the gameplay drastically, I find it hard to believe rudimentary solutions such as limiting the number of units in a control group or removing multi selection of buildings would appeal to a modern gamer. And despite the competitive aspects of such solutions one must not forget a professional scene has no right to exist without a casual playerbase. I dont think intentionally dumbing down the interface is a good way to go. SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc) But there are many things they could change. The soft-cap on bases mentioned in the article (any many articles before) can easily be improved in various ways, just look at the different SC2 mods that are already out there. The pathfinding can be changed to favor more open formations instead of those tight circles with all units huddling together. A bigger highground advantage and more area-of-effect spells with long durations would make the terrain and movement more important during engagements. There are probably a dozen other ideas that could be tried to improve the game but blizzard isnt willing to do it. Maybe they are scared, maybe they already gave up, maybe its pride or maybe they actually like the game the way it is, but I refuse to believe the game could not have been much better without making the interface intentionally horrible.
I know certain features were due to the software which, though limiting, was standard during the times of Brood War. That's why I'd like to emphasize the fact it would feel rudimentary to implement similar solutions on purpose in future games. Changing the pathing of units also sounds like a forced way of fixing things. As the author of the article stated in the opening paragraph he feels there is no need to clearly choose the better game here. The question is; which model appeals to the modern gamer. Making the game more mechanically challenging would certainly make high end competition more predictable, whereas the casual playerbase could struggle due to the difficulties posed by the game itself. Contemporary players prefer user-friendly solutions. I'm, of course, basing my belief purely on the esports titles that currently reign supreme.
|
On December 30 2016 20:55 Liquid`Ret wrote:
Just the other day I after playing a SC2 game I was thinking of how much I miss just managing my bases/macro everywhere and being occupied with that almost entirely, and finding it very fun to keep busy with.
When I played SC:BW I would focus almost entirely on macro and getting my economy near flawless as possible, and then as a result of that I could just awkwardly control my units into a win, and it was very satisfying/fun to me.
The actual fighting/micro was a lot less appealing to me than the base management/macro aspects, and even in Sc2, I've felt that way. Just that sc2 offered a lot less in that department than sc;bw did. There's creep spread and injects, but after years it became so boring, BW had so much more to offer in that regard....
C&C players regard this stuff as boring in-base "housekeeping chores". its C&C people's primary complaint about Starcraft and the reason they prefer C&C.
C&C players primary sense of enjoyment comes from intricate micro moves during intense army battles. C&C has very little in base decision making. Its interesting the # of ex-C&C development staff that ended up working on SC2 and the direction SC2 went.
|
SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc)
People keep spouting this here and on reddit and it is factually not true. There are actual printed interviews from the 90s you can find in which the developers clearly point out some of these are conscious, deliberate design decisions.
That only by accident did they create a game so incredibly great, is a different matter entirely.
|
On December 31 2016 00:15 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed. That would be pretty ironic if true, yes.
It is indeed both true and ironic, keep in mind Battle.net 0.2 for 2 years (?) lacked many of the social features and easy custom map lobbies that BW and WC3 have always had.
|
Good article - though the title was a bit clickbaity. It's a different one on the page - did the author change it?
And +1 to Ret's post. I have the most fun macroing. But ultimately I want a choice here: "be a macro oriented player, or a micro oriented one". SC2's macro is so easy though that there's pretty much no choice. The only way to truly "outmacro" someone is by killing a lot of stuff via micro.
|
Croatia9530 Posts
On December 31 2016 00:32 KeksX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed. Koreans are/were also complaining about the game being too hard. Not for casuals, but coaches etc complained about it. Honestly it's impossible to tell what exactly caused the downfall.
I think when pro players and coaches, and indeed the author of this article, say hard, they don't necessarily mean that it was physically hard to perform some actions. It is without doubt that BW is harder in this sense. What they mean by hard, is that the game felt more like playing on the razer's edge, one wrong move/decision and the game can swing irreversibly. MOBA games, at least Dota 2 with which I'm familiar with, are pretty similar in this sense. Team fights can be *very* hectic. One small mistake, for example not activating your magic immunity item on time, can lose your team the fight, and eventually the game. Dota 2 has quite elaborate comeback mechanics though, which lessen the impact of these moments in the game, but I'm not sure if SC2 has anything like that.
|
To be fair, can you actually even imagine a worthy successor to BW?
It's a dream we'll never see
|
Croatia9530 Posts
On December 31 2016 00:57 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
To be fair, can you actually even imagine a worthy successor to BW?
It's a dream we'll never see
A fair point.
|
On December 31 2016 00:03 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 23:16 ZiggyPG wrote:
The ease with which micro and macro can be executed in SC2 would make it difficult for future games (e.g. SC3, bound to happen sometime in the future) to switch back to the previous model used in SC1. Though it would change the gameplay drastically, I find it hard to believe rudimentary solutions such as limiting the number of units in a control group or removing multi selection of buildings would appeal to a modern gamer. And despite the competitive aspects of such solutions one must not forget a professional scene has no right to exist without a casual playerbase. I dont think intentionally dumbing down the interface is a good way to go. SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc)
Not entirely true, 12 unit selection limit was intentional, for example. They even considered keeping some kind of a limit in sc2 in tge early stages of development.
|
On December 31 2016 00:15 2Pacalypse- wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed. That would be pretty ironic if true, yes.
SC2 has the same issue Fighting games ( and especially Capcom ) have for the last decade :
- Developpers want to dumb down the games to appeal to more casual players
The issue with this idea :
- You can NEVER dumb down games that hard enough for casual to get good and have fun in them because the fun part is how hard the games are to get good at.
- You make the pros and hardcore fan unhappy because devs are not cattering to them anymore, or even worst going against their advices.
In the end, you get a game that was designed with casuals in mind that has no casual fanbase, with unhappy hardcore players that only play by feeling of obligation.
|
On December 31 2016 00:13 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them. But wasnt it exactly the opposite that "killed" SC2 in the end? Casual players didnt enjoy the game and no fresh blood (or too little) came into the game. The pros we have today are mostly okay with the state of the game while all the scrubs are disappointed.
Looking back now, it's ridiculous actually what have they done to the game. They removed all mechanics that could "annoy players" and scare novices. Then they realized that the game became pretty dull and what did they do next? They made the game more intensive, added new ultimate units, like adepts and liberators which are really hard to deal with even for pro players. The game is not dull anymore, but I can not imagine how much time would it take for new players to figure the game out. And for me personally playing SCII is like hardworking. I still kinda enjoy the game, but it drains me off.
|
On December 31 2016 00:23 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc) People keep spouting this here and on reddit and it is factually not true. There are actual printed interviews from the 90s you can find in which the developers clearly point out some of these are conscious, deliberate design decisions. That only by accident did they create a game so incredibly great, is a different matter entirely.
This is true, apparently the 12 unit selection was intentional, I remember reading that they had the capacity to have it higher, but ultimately decided against it.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On December 31 2016 00:10 2Pacalypse- wrote:As someone who didn't follow SC2 beta at all, can anyone explain to me why that quote in the article from Dustin Browder didn't make everyone skeptical about SC2? At least pro/top players. It's fairly obvious, from that quote alone, that the focus of the SC2 designers was to make the game appealable to the new/casual players. And I think it's pretty obvious that trying to balance the game for the professionals that was designed with that kind of a mindset is pretty futile. Here's the quote in question (bolded the most important part): Show nested quote +Oh dear, we are thinking about how to modify the geysers since forever. We want you to have to manage your economy more. And the geysers would be a perfect start point, since they were quite unspectacular in the past: You sent three workers there, and that’s it. So we decided to change the mechanic, which hasn’t succeeded thus far. It was extremely hard to balance the new system. Had we decided to regulate the gas supply necessarily by hand, to collect the regular amount of resources, we would have severerly disadvantaged the newer players, since they couldn’t afford expensive units like Battle Cruisers and Templar. But just these units have the most appeal to casual players. Therefore, we would have to modify the mechanic in that way, that you still earn enough gas if you leave the geysers to themselves. But then, Micro experts would collect by far more resources and would produce only very mighty units like Carriers and Archons. That would also be unfair. In addition, the constant geyser-checking would become annoying very quickly. We want to reward the players, not annoy them.
People were skeptical and many people on TL were very openly critical about how ridiculous those ideas were and what it meant for their design. That was the entire basis of the SC2Promod joke.
|
On December 31 2016 01:22 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 31 2016 00:23 207aicila wrote:SC:BW didnt have such a bad interface because they thought it was a good idea but because they just couldnt make it any better back then. (for any reason: time, money, skill, processing power, etc) People keep spouting this here and on reddit and it is factually not true. There are actual printed interviews from the 90s you can find in which the developers clearly point out some of these are conscious, deliberate design decisions. That only by accident did they create a game so incredibly great, is a different matter entirely. This is true, apparently the 12 unit selection was intentional, I remember reading that they had the capacity to have it higher, but ultimately decided against it.
StarCraft 64 has a unit selection cap of 18 instead of 12, I'm prettty sure that the N64 was less powerful than computers of the day. There was a lot of things that were added into StarCraft 64 actually, like auto-mining. I imagine a lot of these changes were just because the N64 is many times over more difficult to control than using a KB/mouse.
|
Canada8989 Posts
The title is a bit of a click bait but nice article. But I would like to challenge your idea of classic games giving satisfaction accros a big number of small easy action and modern games having less but harder action. With the result that classic games feels easier and modern games feels harder.
I think this is more a way to explain your own feelling of facility with classic games that you devellop across the time.
I will try to remember how I felt about more classic and more modern rts before playinh sc2 since I put thousand of hours in it. First thing is that I was always bad at these games and mostly played single player so maybe it would have change if it would have become good. But if I compare AoE II to AoE III is to the opposite with the 3rth beeing a lot more rewarding and feeling easier.
I don't think the task in classic games were easy at all, they had a simple goal yes but to me they always felt like hard to accomplish for exemple rebuilding farm or sending my army from point A to point B in AoE II seemed super hard to me and the fact that it was a simple task only made me feel like the game was harder or that I was super bad. A big number of easy task dosen't always mean more opportunity for satisfaction, it also mean more opportunity for faillure. AoE II or scbw still feel to me when I played them like an endless series of faillure, even when I winbI still feel like I have failled the game.
On the opposite when I played modern games like AoE III the task may have been harder but I would feel like if I didin't do them right (lets say I my canon were not well position in my army and they didn't shoot for half the battle) then it didin't felt like the game was hard it only felt like I did a mistake that I could solve oppose to building farm in AoE II that I had no way to solve.
That would usually mean that in classic games I would only reduce my attention to a minimal number of task, playing with only 1 or 2 units at the time and almost only in single player because doing anything else felt frustating and impossible. But for more modern rts lets say AoE III Rise of legend or sc2 I would play the whole game because I felt like it was possible and even if I felt at the harder task of these games it would not bother me nearly as much since I would be able to see my mistake.
Just my take on it.
Apart from that great article.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
